Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 6416Of fAYEr, 1- 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6416 File Number: 2020-1136 ANX 2020-0001(3435 E. ZION RD.BURGE): IIIIIII IIIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII I II IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII Doc ID: 019792830004 Type: REL Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 03/29/2021 at 10:19:55 AM Fee Amt: $30.00 Pape 1 of 4 Washington County, AR Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk File2021-00011465 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION PETITION OF PATRICIA LYNNE SEVERINO, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT EUGENE BURGE IRREVOCABLE TRUST, AND ANNEX 59.00 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 3435 EAST ZION ROAD WHEREAS, Patricia Lynne Severino, as Trustee of the Robert Eugene Burge Irrevocable Trust, has properly secured the Washington County Judge's authorization to annex 59.00 acres located at 3435 East Zion Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby confirms the annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property described in Exhibits A and Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby zones the newly annexed property R-A, Residential Agricultural. Section 3: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official map and zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to recognize this annexation. Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby assigns this 59.00 acres to Ward Three of the City of Fayetteville. PASSED and APPROVED on 3/2/2021 Page 1 Printed on 312121 Ordinance. 6416 File Number: 2020-1136 Attest: � li'�Q/Ulm Ka a Pa t n, City Clerk Treasure ��ttttt�rtrrr�� =v' YETT EVILU ; — '�9 • 'QKAN.� . J ��. Page 2 Printed on 8/M ANX-2020-000001 Close Up View z 9�F+0 IS, DR-W a J RS[ 0 W O P-1 O W R-O IZION RD R_ \ Legend Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint BURGE ANX-2020-000001 EXHIBIT z :J '--- O W W W W ' a. J O W U ---------J v V_ O -------------0- Subject Property Feet 0 180 360 720 1,080 1 inch = 500 feet Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office Neighborhood Services - Gen. 1,440 P-1 ANX-2020-000001 EXHIBIT 'B' SURVEY DESCRIPTION: THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY- NINE (29) WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S87029'54"E A DISTANCE OF 570.00 FEET TO A FOUND 1 INCH PIPE; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, NO2°17'19"E A DISTANCE OF 894.88 FEET; THENCE N31°17"12"E A DISTANCE OF 61.88 FEET; THENCE N02017'19"E A DISTANCE OF 30.12 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.86 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE OF S33054'56"E - 30.71 FEET; THENCE S70°07'11"E A DISTANCE OF 2.84 FEET; THENCE N62013'43"E A DISTANCE OF 193.73 FEET; THENCE N27°46'17"W A DISTANCE OF 7.88 FEET; THENCE N02013'43"E A DISTANCE OF 216.09 FEET; THENCE S87°36'11"E A DISTANCE OF 292.00 FEET; THENCE S02°13'43"W A DISTANCE OF 136.99 FEET; THENCE S27046'17"E A DISTANCE OF 193.19 FEET; THENCE S87046'17"E A DISTANCE OF 148.40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S02013'43"W A DISTANCE OF 971.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S02023'57"W A DISTANCE OF 1316.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND MONUMENT "ALAN REID"; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, N87030'23"W A DISTANCE OF 1320.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR IN CONCRETE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, NO2°17'05"E A DISTANCE OF 1316.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 59.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 03/29/2021 10:19:55 AM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2021-00011465 Kyle Sylvester - Circuit Clerk b y,— cr4 �a 7RKANS�b Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston Arkansas Secretary of State, 500 Woodlane A-,e, Little Rock, AR 72201-109.1 Municipal Boundary Change Checklist Act 655 of 2017 and A.C.A. §14-40-103 County: Washington City Ordinance/Resolution No:6416 City/Town: Fayetteville Date approved: March 2, 2021 County Court Case No:2020-013 Date Order Filed: July 13, 2020 Type: Annexation by Petition Majority of Landowners A.C.A. 14-40-602 Date Change Effective: April 2, 2021 Set by: ()Municipal Ordinance () Emergency Clause Ocourt Default (Required by Act 655 of 2017) For Circuit Court Challenge: Date Order Filed: ()Upheld() Overturned() Other (attach explanation Please indicate which ward(s) the territory will be assigned to: Ward 1 (See A.C.A § 14-40-203) Initiating party: OAII Landowners p Majority Landowners Municipal Governing Body ()State ()Other Supporting Documentation attached (check all that apply): �✓ File marked copy of City Ordinance/Resolution (required) �✓ File marked copy of County Court Order or certified annexation election results (required except forA.('.A. §14-40-501) ❑✓ Copy of Arkansas GIS approved printed map and certification letter (required) ❑✓ Proof of Publication for all Legal Notices (include Hearing, Election, and City Ordinance/Resolution notices) ❑ File marked copy of Petition Part (if applicable) File marked copy of Complaint and final Circuit Court Order (Court Challenge only) Municipal Contact: Name: Kara Paxton Street Address: 113 W. Mountain St. Title: City Clerk City: Fayetteville St:AR zip code: 72701 Complete one form per ordinance/resolution, attach it as a cover page to the supporting document set and submit to the County Clerk's Office within 45 days of the Effective Date as required by Act 655 of 2017 County Off' ' I: n ,,(� ',, I' ` Signat1u�re: Title: ( 11(.]t (� Q�Ql,✓�(il C" Date: , Pursuant to Act 655 of 2017, County Officials must submit a file -marked copy of municipal boundary change documents within 30 days of receipt to: Arkansas Secretary of State, Attn: Municipal Boundary Filing, 500 Woodlone Ave Suite 256, Little Rock, AR 72201-1094 Office of the Arkansas Secretary of State use only Received by: Rev.2/2019 DocuSign Envelope ID AB5148BF-BB6C-4rtK-B6D9-F7A39C98AC53 C: i'rn • tTl tb IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKAAAS IN THE MATTER OF ANNEXING TO THE CITY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, CERTAIN TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS CC NO.2020-013 TO SAID CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ORDER CONCERNING ANNEXATION On this regular day of a regular term of the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas, there is presented to the Court by Patricia Lynne Severino, as Trustee of the Robert Eugene Burge Irrevocable Trusted, dated December 20, 2012, the petition of the real estate owner desiring the annexation of territory to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, more particularly described therein. The court has received the verification of the county assessor and county clerk required by A.C.A § 14-40-609. This Court being fully advised of the facts and the law does hereby find as follows: 1. The Court finds that the petition and verifications are complete and accurate. 2. The Court further finds that no enclaves will be created by the annexation. 3. The Court finds that the petition contains a schedule of services. 4. The Court finds that the territory consists of lands that: a.. whether platted or not, are held to be sold as suburban property; b. represent the actual growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary; and C. are needed for proper municipal purposes such as the extension of need police regulations. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB5148BF-BB6C-4F94B6D9-F7A39C98AC53 Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that the petition and this Order be delivered to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. W19M757444F _. JOSEPH K. WOOD, COUNTY JUDGE DATED: Jul 10, 2020 1 3:30 PM CDT OocuSarAd br. C ABF7527C0F3M5C... LFAF t OFFICE /// June 17, 2020 Mr. Will A. Kellstrom Watkins, Boyer, Gray & Curry, PLLC 1106 W. Poplar Rogers, AR 72756 RE: City of Fayetteville Annexation Coordination Requirement Mr. Kellstrom, Department of Transformation and Shared Services Governor Asa Hutchinson Secretary Amy Fecher Director Shelby Johnson Thank you for coordinating with our office as you seek to annex property into the City of Fayetteville, AR described as the "Burge Annex" and located in Section 19, Township 17 North, Range 29 West. This letter represents confirmation that you have properly coordinated with our office (Arkansas GIS Office) as specified in § 14-40-101 (Act 914 of 2015) of the 9011' General Assembly. Our office will wait completion of any additional steps necessary for the proposed boundary change, which normally comes from the Arkansas Secretary of State Elections Division after any appropriate filing by your County Clerk. Thank you, Jennifer Wheeler, GIS Analyst Attachments: GIS Office Map of Proposed Annexation Legal Description Secretary of State Municipal Change Checklist H: \City_Annexations\Cities\Fayetteville\20200617\Doc\20200617_Fayetteville_Annexaticn_CocrdinaUon_Letter.dccx ARKANSAS GIS OFFICE 1 Capitol Mall, Suite 6D • Little Rock, AR 72201 • 501.682.2767 gis.arkansas.gov • transform.ar.gov Alley 439b,, Fronfie, Ely", 4 rgay ide s Fl� Catnlfcj� i� � m . J o � 0 Zion 'Long j --.I---I Proposed "Burge" Annex: City of Fayetteville June 2020 c �rOne a J 11 CURRENT CITY LIMITS I i U 1 :4 (^ V,3leris 2 S 17417N=R29YV — f S20JVWR29W ' City: Fayetteville Mayor: Lioneld Jordan Arkansas Code 14-40-101 Before an entity undertakes an annexation, consolidation, or detachment proceeding under this chapter, the entity shall coordinate with the Arkansas Geographic Information Systems Office for preparation of legal descriptions and digital mapping for the relevant annexation, consolidation, and detachment areas The map contained herein, is evidence. the entity has mel requirements of Act 914 of 2015 ,� Viopo'<C N�rav Mvvr NnaJ E.wviS Gr l..� wroo�n. rnr 0 0.03006 0.12 Miles ARKANSAS GIS OFFICE VI �('nY_! neeal,o��s\(;ina-,1ruY=\.vn i�^�'LliY;11 SURVEY DESCRIPTION: THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY- NINE (29) WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S87°29'54"E A DISTANCE OF 570.00 FEET TO A FOUND 1 INCH PIPE; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, NO2°17'19"E A DISTANCE OF 894.88 FEET; THENCE N31 °17"12"E A DISTANCE OF 61.88 FEET; THENCE NO2°17'19"E A DISTANCE OF 30.12 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.86 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE OF S33°54'56"E - 30.71 FEET; THENCE S70°07'11"E A DISTANCE OF 2.84 FEET; THENCE N62°13'43"E A DISTANCE OF 193.73 FEET; THENCE N27°46'17"W A DISTANCE OF 7.88 FEET; THENCE N02013'43"E A DISTANCE OF 216.09 FEET; THENCE S87°36'11"E A DISTANCE OF 292.00 FEET; THENCE S02°13'43"W A DISTANCE OF 136.99 FEET; THENCE S27°46'17"E A DISTANCE OF 193.19 FEET; THENCE S87046'17"E A DISTANCE OF 148.40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 OF THE NE 114; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S02013'43"W A DISTANCE OF 971.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S02023'57"W A DISTANCE OF 1316.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND MONUMENT "ALAN REID"; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, N87030'23"W A DISTANCE OF 1320.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 112 INCH REBAR IN CONCRETE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW 114 OF THE SE 1/4, NO2°17'05"E A DISTANCE OF 1316.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 59.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. WRITTEN NOTIFICATION The applicant Patricia Severing proposes an ANNEXATION into the city of Fayetteville of the property located at: Layman Description: 3435 E. Zion Rd., Washington County, Arkansas. Building/land use: N/A Zoning: N/A Size of Property: 59 Acres Density/Intensity: N/A A meeting will be held at the Fayetteville Planning Commission at 5:30 P.M. on August 24, 2020 at 113 West Mountain Street, City Administration Building, Rm. 219, Fayetteville, AR 72701 for ANNEXATION of the property mentioned above and attached legal. Planning Commission; 5:30 PM; August 24, 2020 Property Owner: Name: Patricia Severino Phone #: C/O (479) 636-2168 Attorney for the applicant: Name: Will Kellstrom Phone #: (479) 636-2168 Review Location, Meeting Details, & Public Comment: The project information is available for public review from the City of Fayetteville Planning Division. Additionally public comment can be made and meeting information can be requested at planningkfayetteville-ar.gov or 479.575.8267. Also, Will Kellstrom, attorney for the applicant, at 479-636-2168. WRITTEN NOTIFICATION The applicant Patricia Severino proposes the REZONING of certain property in Fayetteville of at the following location: Layman Description: 3435 E. Zion Rd., Washington County, Arkansas. Building/land use: Residential Zoning: A combination RI-U, R-A and NC Size of Property: 59 Acres Density/Intensity: TBD A meeting will be held at the Fayetteville Planning Commission at 5:30 P.M. on August 24, 2020 at 113 West Mountain Street, City Administration Building, Rm. 219, Fayetteville, AR 72701 for the REZONING of the property abovementioned property as described in the attached legal description. Planning Commission; 5:30 PM; August 24, 2020 Property Owner: Name: Patricia Severino Phone #: C/O (479) 636-2168 Attorney for the applicant: Name: Will Kellstrom Phone #: (479) 636-2168 Review Location, Meeting Details, & Public Comment: The project information is available for public review from the City of Fayetteville Planning Division. Additionally public comment can be made and meeting information can be requested at planning�a fayetteville-ar.gov or 479.575.8267. Also, Will Kellstrom, attorney for the applicant, at 479-636-2168. SURVEY DESCRIPTION: THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY- NINE (29) WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S87029'54"E A DISTANCE OF 570.00 FEET TO A FOUND 1 INCH PIPE; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, NO2°17'19"E A DISTANCE OF 894.88 FEET; THENCE N31°17"12"E A DISTANCE OF 61.88 FEET; THENCE N02017'19"E A DISTANCE OF 30.12 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.86 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE OF S33054'56"E - 30.71 FEET; THENCE S70°07'11"E A DISTANCE OF 2.84 FEET; THENCE N62°13'43"E A DISTANCE OF 193.73 FEET; THENCE N27°46'17"W A DISTANCE OF 7.88 FEET; THENCE N02013'43"E A DISTANCE OF 216.09 FEET; THENCE S87°36'11"E A DISTANCE OF 292.00 FEET; THENCE S02013'43"W A DISTANCE OF 136.99 FEET; THENCE S27046'17"E A DISTANCE OF 193.19 FEET; THENCE S87°46'17"E A DISTANCE OF 148.40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S02013'43"W A DISTANCE OF 971.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S02023'57"W A DISTANCE OF 1316.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND MONUMENT "ALAN REID"; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, N87°30'23"W A DISTANCE OF 1320.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR IN CONCRETE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, N02017'05"E A DISTANCE OF 1316.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 59.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the attached Written Notice was placed in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid this < '-`—"day of t(-( tt , 20_�C and addressed as follows. '".—S e e A440tc� L-f k, Printed nam6 of person completing mailing Signature City File No./Name: RIVX <D 0--ac - o Fj L, P-,ZAj-. CE6-C"CC0v A 1=lNi/80102 Ism.sav / inkiprinter labOe Matthew & Annette King Family Amy Grace Bradley Bilal Naeem Trust 3417 E. Waterstone Dr. 3418 E. Waterstone Dr. 3395 E. Waterstone Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72764 Fayetteville, AR 72764 Fayetteville, AR 72764 Youth Bridge Properties, Inc. Kevin Boote City of Fayetteville 2153 E. Joyce Blvd., Ste 201 4675 Copper Creek Dr. 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Springdale, AR 72764 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Arthur & Betty Clark Revocable Raheen Land & Cattle, LLLP Jon & Sonda Vinson Trust P.O. Box 4245 4005 N. Old Wire Rd. 3701 E. Zion Rd. Fayetteville, AR 72702 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Fayetteville, AR 72764 Hometown Development, LTD. TCB Ventures, LLC Arkansas Electric Coop Corp. 2500 N. Oakland Zion Rd. 3452 E. Joyce Blvd. P.O. Box 194208 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Little Rock, AR 72219-4208 Larry & Barbara Center Benny & Susan Mayes Linda Ferguson Amanda Houston 3266 E. Valerie Dr. 3258 E. Valerie Dr. 4146 N. Valerie Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Fayetteville, AR 72703 ECT Farmland, LLLP Brian Dieterle Victor & Martha Robles 339 N. Washington Ave. P.O. Box 1110 3281 E. Zion Rd. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Hollister, MO 65673 Fayetteville, AR 72764 Verne & Emma Graves Nicholas & Kimberly Anthony Joseph & Kellie Robertson 3293 E. Zion Rd. 3301 E. Zion Rd. 3397 E. Zion Rd. Springdale, AR 72764 Springdale, AR 72764 Fayetteville, AR 72704 Nicholas Booth & Jessica Farmer Janice Chapman 3400 E. Zion Rd. 3462 E. Zion Rd. Springdale, AR 72764 Springdale, AR 72764 ® Advance Title, LLC 624 W Walnut Rogers, AR 72756 Phone 479 631 8274 Fax 479 631 8279 Surrounding Property Owners Search We hereby certify that we have searched the Washington County Assessor records of Washington County, Arkansas on 7-20-2020, and the following is a list of all owners of record along with the County parcel information, located within a 200 foot radius adjacent to the following: Parcel #: 001-15182-000 Ownership: BURGE, ROBERT EUGENE IRREVOCABLE TRUST 2490 N AZALEA TER FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 3435 E ZION (WC 92) RD Legal: 19-17-29 AcholninE properties Parcel #: 765-22485-000 Ownership: KING FAMILY TRUST MATTHEW J & G ANNETTE KING 3395 E WATERSTONE DR / FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3395 E WATERSTONE DR / Block/Lot N/A / 050 COPPER CREEK S/D Legal: Parcel #: 765-22486-000 Ownership: BRADLEY, AMY GRACE 3417 E WATERSTONE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 7276J{ i Property Address: 3417 E WATERSTONE DR Legal: I Block/Lot: N/A / 051 COPPER CREEK S/D Parcel #: 765-22487-000 Ownership: NAEEM, BILAL 3418 E WATERSTONE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72764 V Property e Address: 3418 E WATERSTONE DR Lot 052 COPPER CREEK S/D Legal: Parcel #: 001-15179-000 & 001-15179-001 & 001-15180-000 Ownership: YOUTH BRIDGE PROPERTIES INC 2153 E JOYCE BLVD / SUITE 201 rY/ FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 4624 N JULIE LN , 4624 N JULIE (WC 3510) LN & 4647 N COPPER CREEK DR 3522 E ZION (WC 92) RD Legal: PT NW NE 19-17-29 Parcel #: 001-15180-002 Ownership: BOOTE, KEVIN 4675 COPPER CREEK DR SPRINGDALE, AR 72764 / Property Address: 3540 N COPPER CREEK DR PT NW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 765-22517-000 & 765-23917-000 Ownership: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 113 W MOUNTAIN ST FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701-6083 Property Address: 4640 N COPPER CREEK DR �- Lot 082 COPPER CREEK S/D & Legal: Lot 079 COPPER CREEK S/D - PH II Parcel #: 001-15185-000 Ownership: CLARK REVOCABLE TRUST ARTHUR H & BETTY CLARK 3701 E ZION RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3701 E ZION (WC 92) RD PT NW SE NE 9.45AC S/2 SE NE 20.00AC 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15187-000 Ownership: RAHEEN LAND & CATTLE LLLP PO BOX 4245 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 Property Address: j Legal: PT NE SE 19-17-29 Parcel #: 001-15188-014 Ownership: VINSON, JON N & SONDA L 4005 N OLD WIRE RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 4005 N OLD WIRE (WC 87) RD / 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 267-00046-000 Ownership: HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT LTD 2500 N OAKLAND ZION RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: I/ JOYCE STREET COTTAGES - HPR Legal: Parcel #: 001-15188-002 Ownership: TCB VENTURES LLC / 3452 E JOYCE BLVD i FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 t Property Address: 3484 E JOYCE BLVD , 3452 E JOYCE BLVD PT SW SE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15189-000 Ownership: ARKANSAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION PO BOX 194208 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72219-4208 Property Address: 4116 N LEXINGTON LN PT SW SE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 765-13230-000 Ownership: CENTER, LARRY D & BARBARA D; HOUSTON, AMANDA 4146 N VALERIE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703-4801 Property Address: 4146 N VALERIE DR 19-17-29 ' Legal: Parcel #: 765-08872-000 Ownership: MAYES, BENNY R & SUSAN S 3266 E VALERIE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703-4808 3266 E VALERIE DR Property Address: V PT LT 4 & PT LT 5 NORTHSIDE ACRES Legal: Parcel #: 765-08873-000 Ownership: FERGUSON, LINDA S 3258 E VALERIE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 11 3258 E VALERIE DR t PT LT 5 & PT LT 4 NORTHSIDE ACRES Legal: Parcel #: 765-13219-000 ' Ownership: ECT FARMLAND LLLP 339 N WASHINGTON AVE FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 v Property Address: 19-17-29 FAYETTEVILLE OUTLOTS Legal: Parcel #: 765-13212-004 Ownership: DIETERLE, BRIAN D PO BOX 1110 HOLLISTER, MO 65673 Property Address: 3245 E ZION RD / 19-17-29 FAYETTEVILLE OUTLOTS ' Legal: Parcel #: 765-13212-003 Ownership: ROBLES, VICTOR & MARTHA 3281 E ZION RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3281 E ZION RD 19-17-29 FAYETTEVILLE OUTLOTS Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-006 Ownership: GRAVES, VERNE DENNIS & EMMA JANE 3293 E ZION RD SPRINGDALE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3293 E ZION (WC 92) RD / v PT SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-000 Ownership: ANTHONY, NICHOLAS B & KIMBERLY A 3301 E ZION RD SPRINGDALE, AR 72764-7709 Property Address: f 3301 E ZION (WC 92) RD i PT SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-005 Ownership: ROBERTSON, JOSEPH L & KELLIE N 3397 E ZION RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72704-7709 Property Address: / 3397 E ZION RD , 3397 E ZION (WC 92) RD / {{{JJJ PT SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-001 Ownership: BOOTH, NICHOLAS RICHARD; FARMER, JESSICA JANENE 3400 E ZION RD SPRINGDALE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3400 E ZION (WC 92) RD 1� PT NW SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-002 Ownership: CHAPMAN, JANICE S 3462 E ZION RD SPRINGDALE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3462 E ZION (WC 92) RD PT NW SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Advance Title, LLC 624 W Walnut Rogers, AR 72756 Phone 479 631 8274 Fax 479 631 8279 Surrounding Property Owners Search We hereby certify that we have searched the Washington County Assessor records of Washington County, Arkansas on 7-20-2020, and the following is a list of all owners of record along with the County parcel information, located within a 200 foot radius adjacent to the following: Parcel #: 001-15182-000 Ownership: BURGE, ROBERT EUGENE IRREVOCABLE TRUST 2490 N AZALEA TER FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 3435 E ZION (WC 92) RD Legal: 19-17-29 ************************************************************************ Parcel #: 765-22485-000 Ownership: KING FAMILY TRUST MATTHEW J & G ANNETTE KING 3395 E WATERSTONE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72764 Property Address: 13395 E WATERSTONE DR Block/Lot N/A / 050 COPPER CREEK S/D Legal: Parcel #: 765-22486-000 Ownership: BRADLEY, AMY GRACE 3417 E WATERSTONE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 7276 Property Address: 13417 E WATERSTONE DR Legal: I Block/Lot: N/A / 051 COPPER CREEK S/D Parcel #: 765-22487-000 Ownership: NAEEM, BILAL 3418 E WATERSTONE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3418 E WATERSTONE DR Lot 052 COPPER CREEK S/D Legal: Parcel #: 001-15179-000 & 001-15179-001 & 001-15180-000 Ownership: YOUTH BRIDGE PROPERTIES INC 2153 E JOYCE BLVD SUITE 201 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 4624 N JULIE LN , 4624 N JULIE (WC 3510) LN & 4647 N COPPER CREEK DR , 3522 E ZION (WC 92) RD Legal: PT NW NE 19-17-29 Parcel #: 001-15180-002 Ownership: BOOTE, KEVIN 4675 COPPER CREEK DR SPRINGDALE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3540 N COPPER CREEK DR PT NW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 765-22517-000 & 765-23917-000 Ownership: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 113 W MOUNTAIN ST FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701-6083 Property Address: 4640 N COPPER CREEK DR Lot 082 COPPER CREEK S/D & Legal: Lot 079 COPPER CREEK S/D - PH II Parcel #: 001-15185-000 Ownership: CLARK REVOCABLE TRUST ARTHUR H & BETTY CLARK 3701 E ZION RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3701 E ZION (WC 92) RD PT NW SE NE 9.45AC S/2 SE NE 20.00AC 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15187-000 Ownership: RAHEEN LAND & CATTLE LLLP PO BOX 4245 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 Property Address: Legal: PT NE SE 19-17-29 Parcel #: 001-15188-014 Ownership: VINSON, JON N & SONDA L 4005 N OLD WIRE RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 4005 N OLD WIRE (WC 87) RD 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 267-00046-000 Ownership: HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT LTD 2500 N OAKLAND ZION RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: JOYCE STREET COTTAGES - HPR Legal: Parcel #: 001-15188-002 Ownership: TCB VENTURES LLC 3452 E JOYCE BLVD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 3484 E JOYCE BLVD , 3452 E JOYCE BLVD PT SW SE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15189-000 Ownership: ARKANSAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION PO BOX 194208 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72219-4208 Property Address: 4116 N LEXINGTON LN PT SW SE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 765-13230-000 Ownership: CENTER, LARRY D & BARBARA D; HOUSTON, AMANDA 4146 N VALERIE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703-4801 Property Address: 4146 N VALERIE DR 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 765-08872-000 Ownership: MAYES, BENNY R & SUSAN S 3266 E VALERIE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703-4808 Property Address: 3266 E VALERIE DR PT LT 4 & PT LT 5 NORTHSIDE ACRES Legal: Parcel #: 765-08873-000 Ownership: FERGUSON, LINDA S 3258 E VALERIE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Property Address: 3258 E VALERIE DR PT LT 5 & PT LT 4 NORTHSIDE ACRES Legal: Parcel #: 765-13219-000 Ownership: ECT FARMLAND LLLP 339 N WASHINGTON AVE FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 Property Address: 19-17-29 FAYETTEVILLE OUTLOTS Legal: Parcel #: 765-13212-004 Ownership: DIETERLE, BRIAN D PO BOX 1110 HOLLISTER, MO 65673 Property Address: 3245 E ZION RD 19-17-29 FAYETTEVILLE OUTLOTS Legal: Parcel #: 765-13212-003 Ownership: ROBLES, VICTOR & MARTHA 3281 E ZION RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3281 E ZION RD 19-17-29 FAYETTEVILLE OUTLOTS Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-006 Ownership: GRAVES, VERNE DENNIS & EMMA JANE 3293 E ZION RD SPRINGDALE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3293 E ZION (WC 92) RD PT SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-000 Ownership: ANTHONY, NICHOLAS B & KIMBERLY A 3301 E ZION RD SPRINGDALE, AR 72764-7709 Property Address: 3301 E ZION (WC 92) RD PT SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-005 Ownership: ROBERTSON, JOSEPH L & KELLIE N 3397 E ZION RD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72704-7709 Property Address: 3397 E ZION RD , 3397 E ZION (WC 92) RD PT SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-001 Ownership: BOOTH, NICHOLAS RICHARD; FARMER, JESSICA JANENE 3400 E ZION RD SPRINGDALE, AR 72764 Property Address: 3400 E ZION (WC 92) RD PT NW SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: Parcel #: 001-15183-002 Ownership: CHAPMAN, JANICE S 3462 E ZION RD SPRINGDALE, AR 72764 Property Address: 13462 E ZION (WC 92) RD PT NW SW NE 19-17-29 Legal: CERTIFICATE OF SIGN POSTING ,S L L Par"A- County, Arkansas. (signature of person posting) attest that the above sign was posted on adjacent to 3435 E. Zion Rd., Washington City File No./Name: l X -'2 o-, k'c - (; G G G 0 I P r r y�Y i If +1 Y} 5 Plus � }•,1 f i•,: t � -g. 2 i. a.: ........... N ZI' - mk�,. GNPUBLIC HEARINIC7 PLA N,,.NI, G- !:- 7 5 N 5 -82 7 ..CITY FLANNIN m Q w U4 F�7 575-8267 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street - ¢ i _ Fayetteville, AR 72701 AL (479) 575-8323 Text File 2U] Ap 17, File Number: 2020 1136 P„ 12: 45 r Agenda Date: 3/2/2021 Version: 1 $tatus:_Paster]+, In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Ordionce Agenda Number: B.3 ANX 2020-0001(3435 E. ZION RD./BURGE): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION PETITION OF PATRICIA LYNNE SEVERINO, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT EUGENE BURGE IRREVOCABLE TRUST, AND ANNEX 59.00 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 3435 EAST ZION ROAD WHEREAS, Patricia Lynne Severino, as Trustee of the Robert Eugene Burge Irrevocable Trust, has properly secured the Washington County Judge's authorization to annex 59.00 acres located at 3435 East Zion Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby confirms the annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property described in Exhibits A and Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby zones the newly annexed property R-A, Residential Agricultural. Section 3: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official map and zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to recognize this annexation. Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby assigns this 59.00 acres to Ward Three of the City of Fayetteville. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 31212021 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form Legistar File ID 12/18/2020 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Iterr Orly N/A for Non -Agenda Item Garner Sto,l 1/5/2021 CITY PLANNING (630) Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: ANX 2020-000001: Annexation (3435 E. ZION RD./BURGE, 100/139): Submittec by INATKINS LAW OFFICE for property located at 3435 E. ZION RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA a -id co-itains approximately 59.00 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City Limits of Fayetteville with ..he zoning of R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUR=. Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Project Tile Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget 5 - Funds Obligated $ - Does item have a cost? Budget Adjustment Atta-zhed? Current Balance No Item Cost NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget V20180_�21 Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolulion # Change Order Number: Original Contract Number: Comments: Approval Date: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2021 TO: Mayor: Fayetteville City Council THRU: Susan Norton Chief of Staff Garner Stoll, Development Services Director Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager FROM: Jessie Master, Senior Planner DATE: December 18. 2C20 CITY COUNCIL MEMO SUBJECT: ANX 2020-000001: Annexation (3435 E. ZION RD./BURGE, 100/139): Submitted by WATKINS LAW OFFICE for property located at 3435 E. ZION RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 59.00 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City Limits of Fayetteville wi-h the zoning of R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and City Planning staff recommend approval of a request to annex the subject property as described a-1d shown in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. BACKGROUND: The subject property is in northeast Fayetteville on the south side of E. Zion Road, about .30 miles east of N. Crossover Road (-Dr Highway 265). The property under consideration is the majority of a 62.2 acre parcel (001-15182-000), and the applicant intends to not include two portions of land that are adjacent to E. Zion Road, bringing the acreage under consideration to 59.00 acres. The property currently has a single-family dwelling, which county records indicate was built in 1947, and associated outbuildings for what has long been an agricultural use. Hilton Creek runs east and west through the site, and the area surrounding the creek is designated as a flood plain. The property is located within 1 mile from the Fayetteville city limits, and the westernmost portion of the property is adjacent to the current City limits; an associated rezoning has also been submitted by the property owners (PZD-2020-000002). Request: The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. The applicant has stated that the annexatior is needed so that the property can be developed. An order of annexation was signed by the Washington County Judge on July 10, 2020. Land Use Plan Analysis: City Plan 2040's Future Land Use Map designates the properties within the proposed annexation as Residential Neighborhood Area and Natural Area. Residential Neighborhood Areas are primarily residential in nature and offer a w de variety of housing types of appropriate scale and context, encouraging traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity, non-residential uses on corners and along connecting corridors. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Natural Areas consist of lands with limited development potential, including stream and wildlife corridors and encouraging a development pattern that requires conser�raticn and preservation. In addition to the Future Land Use Plan, City Plan 2040 sets fo-th seve-al guiding policies to consider an annexation proposal, which are attached in full to staff's repo-t. These include the potential impacts on Fayetteville's boundaries, services, infrastructure, intergovernmental relations, property administration, and existing environmentally sensitive areas. Staff finds that while the proposed boundary is unusual, it does not create any is ands: an-- begins to square off the existing City limits to the north. Further, the request is compatible with many of these policies, including that the proposed annexation will include environmental y-sensit ve areas along Hilton Creek. Staff finds that leaving the land within Washington County does not prevent development from happening, but limits Fayetteville's control over how the land is developed. If the land is annexed into the City's limits, city ordinances such as tree preservation, streamside protection, and zoning enforcement would apply. Current infrastructure availability to the site is minimal, and staff finds tnat E. Zion Road is underdeveloped, the site's only point of access, with an under -capacity one -lane bridge. That said, the Master Street Plan indicates a Neighborhood Link Street bisecting the property east and west to connect to N. Crossover Road, that opens up opportunities fo- development, access for fire and the extension of needed utilities such as water and sewer tc the site. Further, the applicant intends to include an adjacent property that is already within the City limits in their development plan, making near -term access to proposed development throug-1 this ccrridor in the annexed portion much mcre feasible. Staff finds that much of the cost of infrastructure improvements needed would be borne by the developer, but future maintenarce would likely be at the City's expense. The school system, Springdale Public Schools, did not comment on the proposal, and neither did the police department. Despite its potential shortcomings, staff finds that the annexation request is overall of a benefit to the City, given the added development control, the proposed development form of the associated Planned Zoning District, and the ability to offer greater protections over an area of environmental concern with regards to the Hilton Creek floodplain and the Lake Faye_tevi 1? watershed. DISCUSSION: The item in question was in front of the Planning Commission four times. The item was first brought to Planning Commission on August 24, 2020, where it way tabled indefinitely. Commissioners needed to see a more robust plan for the area for clarity about the potential impact this request could have on the City. The applicant reconfigured an associated rezoning request through a PZD, or Planned Zoning District, re -notified the public, and brought the item with the associated PZD back to Planning Commission on November 9, 2020. Commissioners did not hear the annexation at that meeting, nor at the November 23, 303) meeting, each time voting to table to the subsequent meeting as details of the associated PZD were worked out. Commissioners heard this annexation request in conjunction wi-h tl a associated PZD at the December 14, 2020 meeting. Finding in favor on the balance of issues on :he annexation itself, and finding the associated PZD appropriate (with added conditions as well as conditions recommended by staff), Commissioners voted to forward the annexaticn request with a vote of 7- 1-0 with a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Garlock offered the dissenting vote on the annexation, finding that any development that would occur without annexation likely would not contribute as much asphalt as is wha: is currently proposed with the associated PZD. Public comment was received and provided to the Planning Commission ahead of each meeting and is included in full in staff's report. Public comment was heard on the annexation at the August 24, 2020 and at the December 14, 2020 Planning Commission meetings. Neighbors and residents expressed concerns with flooring in the area, water quality conditions to Lake Fayetteville, limited infrastructure availability for the influx of traffic, and general opposition to the proposal at large. City staff recommended adding a condition that a flood study be provided for the area in association with the PZD, and also reported that impacts from the development as far as drainage was concerned would have to meet all drainage standard criteria. Ultimately, staff found and Commission agreed that many of the issues noted by the public would be best addressed throuch annexation, driving the recommendaton of approval. Annexing the land will subject the property to the City of Fayetteville's Unified Development Code and the drainage, design, and tree preservation standards within. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: • Exhibit A • Exhibit B • Planning Commission Staff Report i ANX-2020-000001 B U RG E ANX-2020-000001 Close Up View I EXHIBIT 'A' ZIUN RD— rmr R-A I Z n J -- 1 x W W d -� a Y a LL O LL ----------� U U J Subject Property 1 � � o U, LU� Q J 1 a Legend Planning Area ' Fayetteville City Limits Feet Y Y Trail (Proposed) 0 180 360 720 1,080 1,440 Building Footprint 1 inch = 500 feet w W J Y U O W_ A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office Neighborhood Services - Gen. P-1 ANX-2020-000001 EXHIBIT 'B' SURVEY DESCRIPTION: THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY- NINE (29) WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW 114 OF THE SE 1/4, S87°29'54"E A DISTANCE OF 570.00 FEET TO A FOUND 1 INCH PIPE; -HENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, N0201719"E A DISTANCE OF 894.88 FEET; THENCE N31 °17"12"E A DISTANCE OF 61.88 FEET; THENCE NO2°17'19"E A DISTANCE O= 30.12 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.86 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE OF S33054'56"E - 30.71 FEET; THENCE S70°07'11"E A DISTANCE OF 2.84 FEET; THENCE N62°13'43"E A DISTANCE OF 193.73 FEET, THENCE N27°46'17"W A DISTANCE OF 7.88 FEET; THENCE N02013'43"E A DISTANCE O= 216.09 FEET; THENCE S87°36'11"E A DISTANCE OF 292.00 FEET; THENCE S02°1343"VIA DISTANCE OF 136.99 FEET; THENCE S27°46'1TIE A DISTANCE OF 193.19 FEET: THENCE S87°46'17"E A DISTANCE OF 148.40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S02013'43"W A DISTANCE CF 971.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S02023'57"W A DISTANCE OF 1316.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND MONUMENT "ALAN REID", THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/47 N87030'23"W A DISTANCE OF 1320.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR IN CONCRETE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, NO2°17'05"E A DISTANCE OF 1316.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 59.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO W4W ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Jonathan Curth, Development Review Marager FROM: Jessie Masters, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: December 14, 2020 Updated with PC hearing results from 12/14/2020 SUBJECT: ANX 2020-000001: Annexation (3435 E. ZION RD./BURGE, 100/139): Submitted by WATKINS LAW OFFICE, INC. for properties located SOUTH OF AND AT 3435 E. ZION RD. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contain approximately 5G.00 acres. The request is to annex the properties into the City Limits of Fayetteville. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding ANX 2020-000001 to the City Coy ncil with a recommendation of approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward ANX 2020-000001 to the City Council with a recommencation of approval." August 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting: This item was initiallv heard at the Auaust 24, 2020 Plannina Corr mission meeting, where it was tabled indefinitely by the Planning Commission. The commissioners enressed concerns about available infrastructure and public comment surrounding the one -lane bride on E. Zion Road, and expressed a desire to see a more comprehensive plan for the area such as through a PZD or Planned Zoning District. The applicant has developed a PZD (RPZD-2020-000002) that incorporates an adjacent parcel that is currently located within the Cit4 limits and following the provision of public notification, requests that the annexation be reconsiderec in association with that request. November 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting: At the November 9, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, Commissione-s voted to bring the item off the table to discuss. Commissioners then voted immediately to table the ite m to the subsequent Planning Commission meeting on November 23, 2020. November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting: The applicant requested to table the item until the next Plannina Commission meetin Commissioners moved to suspend the rules and not hear public comment on the item given the applicant's request, and voted to table the item to the December 14, 2020 P annina Commission meeting. BACKGROUND: The subject property is in northeast Fayetteville on the south side of E. Zion Read, about .30 miles east of N. Crossover Road (or Highway 265). The property under consiceration is the majority of Planning Commissi( December 14. 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-J00001 Bur( a 62.2 acre parcel (001-1 5182-000), and the applicant intends to not include two portions of land that are adjacent to E. Zion Road, bringing the acreage under corsideration to 59.00 acres. The property currently has a s ngle-family dwelling, which county reccrds indicate was built in 1947, and associated outbuildir ::s for what has long been an agricultural use. Hilton Creek runs east and west through the site and the area surrounding the creek is designated as a flood plain. The property is located within 1 rrile from the Fayetteville city limits, and the westernmost portion of the property is adjacent to the current city limits; an associated rezoning has also been submitted by the property owners (PZD-2020-000002). Surrounding land Lses and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Table 1 Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning Direction Land Use Zoning North Single -Family Residential Washington County: AG/SF Res 1, Agricultural Single- family Residential (1 units per acre) South Single -Family Residential/ Washington County: AG/SF Res 1, Agricultural Single - A. ricaltural family Residential 1 units per acre East Single -Family Residential/ Washington County: AG/SF Res 1, Agricultural Single- .', ricaltural famil Residential 1 units per acre Single -Family Residential/ City of Fayetteville R-A, Residential -Agricultural; West Lndex eloped Washington Count,: AG/SF (Res 1, Agricultural Single - Family Residential 1 units per acre Request: The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. The applicant has stated that the annexation is needed so that the property can be developed. An order of annexation was signed b; the Washington County Judge on July 1C, 2020. Public Comment: Staff -as received many public inquiries regarding this request and its associated rezoning. Su--ounding property owners have voiced concerns regarding limited infrastructure availability for an influx of traffic, reported flooding concerns from Hilton Creek and its associated floodplain, and expressed general opposition to the annexation and rezoning. Comments in full are pro•.ided with this report. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The property has frontage to E. Zion Road. E. Zion Road is an unimproved, unclassified street with asphalt paving and open di-.ches. Any street improvements required in :hose areas would be determined at the time of development proposal, as well as .any improvements or requirements for drainage. The Master Street Plan also indicates a planned Neighborhood Link Street running east and west through the propery, which would ultimately connect the s to to N. Crossover Road. Water: Public water s available to this parcel through an existing 12-inch water main present along E. Zion Road. Sewer: Sanitary Sewer is not available to the subject property. The subject parcel is currently cuts de the city limits and would need to be annexed and have sanitary sewer extended by the developer to provide access. Drainage: Any additional improvements or requirements for drainage will be determined at time of development. Hydric soils appear to be present throughout most of the subject area. No portion of the property is within the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District. The property is bisected by Hilton Creek, which is not currently part of the Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Streamside Protection Zone, though a portion of the property appears to be in a Zone A floodplain. Fire: Fire apparatus access and fire protection water supplies will be reviewed for compliance with the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code at the lime of development. Station 5 located at 2979 N Crossover, protects this site. The property is located approximately 2.4 miles from the fire station with an anticipated drive time of approximately 5 minutes using existing streets. The anticipated response time would be approximately 7.2 minutes. Fire Department response time is calculated based on the drive time plus 1 minute for dispatch and 1.2 minutes for turn -out time. Within the City Limits, the Fayetteville Fire Department has a response time goal of 6 minutes for an engine and 8 minutes for a ladder truck. This property does not meet the fire department's response goal of 6 minutes for an engine, but does meet the 8 minute goal for a ladder truck. Police: The Police Department did not express any concerns with this request CITY PLAN 2040 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2040 Future Land Use Plan designates the property within the proposed rezone as Residential Neighborhood Area and Natural Area. Residential Neighborhood Areas are primarily residential in nature and support a wide variety of housing types of appropriate scale and context: single-family, duplexes, rowhouses, multifamily and accessory dwelling units. Residential Neighborhood encourages highly connected.. compact blocks with gridded street patterns and reduced building setbacks. It also encourages traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity non-residential uses intended to serve the surrounding neighbcrhoeds, such as retail and offices, on corners and along connecting corridors. This designation recognizes existing conventional subdivision developments which may have large blocks with conventional setbacks and development patterns tha: respond to features of the natural environment. Building setbacks may vary depending on the context of the existing neighborhood. Natural Areas consist of lards approximating or reverting to a wilderness conditions, including those with limited development potential due to topography, hydrology, vegetation or value as an environmental resource. These resources can include stream and wildlife corridors, as well as natural hubs and cores, many of which are identified in the generalized enduring green network. A Natural Area designation would encourage a development pattern that requires conservation and preservation, prevents degradation of these areas, and would utilize :he principles of low impact development stormwater infrastructure for all developments. Natural Areas are prime candidates for conservation subdivision design and/or clustered development patterns. CITY PLAN 2040 INFILL MATRIX: City Plan 2040's Infill Matrix indicates a score of 2-4 for this site, with a weighted score of 3.5 at the highest level. The following elements of the matrix contribute to the score: • Near Park (Lake Fayetteville and David Lashley Park) • Near Paved Trail (Lake Fayetteville, on -street bike lands on N. Crossover Road) • Near Water Main (E. Zion Road) • Appropriate Fire Department Response time (Station 5 located at 2979 N Crossover)* Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 23-000001 Bur( o *Only pDrtions of the site are covered in thisresponse time. The Fire Department indicated an estimate of a 7.2 minute response time to reach the site. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF CITY PLAN 2040 (Res. 35-20) 12.3 Annexation Guiding PoliciEs Boundaries 12.3.5.a Annex exist ng islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that create an island or peninE;Lla Finding: The proposed annexation is a backwards L-shape, and creates an unusual boundary, leaving two portions of land immediately to the north and to the west left unincorporated. Though technically not creating an island since two small notches are remaining within the County of the property as a whole, the proposed new city limit boundaries could cause confusion for residents and inefficiencies for service providers because of the atypical configuration. 12.3.5.b The proposed arnexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits. Finding: Approximately 1300 linear feet of the western -most boundary is completely adjacent to the corporate city limits. The property then jogs to the east and then north, connecting to Zion Road outside of the city limits. 12.3.5.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide. Finding: The proposed annexation is for an area containing no subdivisions, and is the majority of one 62.2 acre legal lot of record with one owner. It does not divide any subdivisions or neighborhoods. 12.3.5.d Boundaries For a-inexed areas should follow natural corridors. Finding: The proposed annexation boundaries almost follow the property lines of the subject propery, but leaves two small notches at the northeast and northwest corners of the property unincorporated into the city limits. The annexation boundary does not necessarily follcw any natural, already existing corridors. The property is bisected by Hilton Creek, a designated natural area bar the City Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map designation, and the only currently existing street frontage is along E. Zion Road, which is outside of the city limits. The property does not currently intersect with any streets within the City of Fayetteville. However, the Maser Street Plan shows a future Neighborhood Link corridor running east and west through the entire property, and connecting N. Crossover Road (Highway 265) to Old Wire Road. 12.3.5.e The provision of services should be concurrent with development. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Finding: The property is adjacent to City water along E. Zion Road, but not City sewer. This property does not meet the fire department's response goal of 6 minutes for an engine, but does meet the anticipated goal of 8 minutes for a ladder truck —hat said, should the associated PZD be approved, a proposed Neighborhood Link Street would connect this site to N. Crossover Road. Any services would need to be extended at the time of development. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 12.3.5.f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas. Finding: The property is largely undeveloped except for a farm, single-family dwelling, and its accessory structures. No portion of the property is within the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District, or Streamside Protection Zone, though approximately 30 acres of the site is within the Enduring Green Network, and approximately 3.5 acres of the site is within a floodplain surrounding Hilton Creek. If the property were to be annexed, a portion of the property would Several citizens have reported flooding events on their properties within the region of the requested annexation, which the city currently does not have any jurisdiction over since the property is outside of the city limits. By bringing the site into the City limits, further development will be subjected to the City's 31reamside protection standards. EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SERVICES 12.3.5.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in ne"IV annexed areas. Finding: Fire: The Fayetteville Fire Department response time to this location is approximately 7.2 minutes from the current closest station (2979 N Crossover). The Fire Department response time goal is six minutes for an engine and eight minutes for a ladder truck; this site is currently above the F re Department's stated response goals. Police: To date, the Fayetteville Police Department has not expressed any concerns with this request. 12.3.5.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city limits. Finding: The subject property would receive the same services, including trash service, police protection, fire protection, sewer, water, recycling and yard waste pick-up, and zoning protection as nearby property within the City. 12.3.5.i The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment, training of personnel, number of units, and response time Plannirg Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Finding: These fac`ors were taken into consideration in the responses and recommendations included in this report. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES 12.3.5.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed. Finding: The property in question is currently served by City of Fayetteville water, but not sewer. Additionally, extensions would need to be made to this property, likely at the property owner's expense at time of development. 12.3.5.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. Finding: Engineering: Engineering anticipates a need to upgrade utilities. Though p ablic water is currently available to tiie site, extensions would need to be made upon any proposed development. Sanitary sewer is not currently available to this proposed property. Planning: If developed under the zoning requirements of the concurrently -requested PZD, there will be a marked increase in both density and traffic. Staf= finds that significant infrastructure improvements would likely need to be made to aasorb the increase in density and t-affic, including potential street improvements to Zion Road (which is currently not owned by the City of Fayetteville), redevelopment of a one -lane bridge on E. Zion Road, and bringing the proposed Neighborhood Link Street into compliance with the Master Street Plan. Staff does find that the most recent iteration of the PZD does indicate a desire to reduce the amount of development which fronts E. Zion Rcad, somewhat alleviating a concern about how much development that road could currently support. Much of the cost of this infrastructure improvement would initially be borne by the developer, but much of the maintenance would likely become the City's responsibility. 12.3.5.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on p anned service extensions or availability of services. Finding: Not applicable; the proposed annexation is not part of a phased annexation initiated by the City. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 12.3.5.m Promote lo-ig-range planning with adjacent jurisdic:tiors. Planning Commissi( December 14. M Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Finding: The extent cf the proposed rezoning is not within or adjacent to the planning areas of other municipalities in Washington County. The property would require at least emergency access through Washington County, as E. Zion Road is currently divided between Fayetteville and Washington County right- of-way, anc does not have a City of Fayettev lie Master Street Plan designation. 12.3.5.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water. stormwater, and sewer. Finding: Several citizens have reported stormwater and flooding concerns in the area; likely discussion would need to occur to discuss solutions for mitigating these issues, especially if this large portion of land is brought into the City of Fayetteville. ADMINISTRATION OF ANNEXATIONS 12.2;.5.o Develop a land use plan for annexation initiated by the city. Finding: Not applicable; this annexation is not City -initiated. -lowever, the property is included within the City's Future Land Use Plan and .is primarily designated as a Residential Neighborhood Area. 12._�..5.p Designate zoning districts for the property during tl e annexation process. Finding: Annexations are automatically zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. The applicant has submitted a concurrent request to •ezone a portion of the property to a Planned Zoning District (PZD-2020.000302) with proposed Planning Areas. The associated item will be heard at the same meeting. The applicant's request indicates that the portion cf the property that is designated as a Natural Area is intended to stay downzoned to limit development potential in that area. 12.5.5.q An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals. Finding: Planning staff has engaged with the Engineering Division along with the Water and Sewer, Fire, and Police Departments to review the proposed annexation. The request was studied to determine if facilities or services are available or needed in association with this request. Responses are included throughout this report. 12.3.5.r Development proposals require a separate review from -. -e annexation proposals. Finding: Future development of the subject property will be required to go through the development review process. No development proposal has been submitted, though a rezoning request as a PZD was submitted concurrently and will be heard at the same meeting. 12.3.5.s Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 27-000001 Bur( Finding: Per §157.03 of the Unified Development Code, property owners and residents within 200 feet of the subject property are notified. Additionally, a legal advertisement has been submitted with the local newspaper prior to the Planning Commission meeting for which this item is scheduled. Signage was also posted on the site informing surrounding neighbors of the annexation proposal. Residents were also informed of the scheduled public meetings and how to participate. 12.3.5.t Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. Finding: Staff finds that this request is of a moderate size, totaling approximately 60 acres. The request would help fill in the City boundaries to the east; to the north of the proposed annexation, the City of Fayetteville boundary extends further to the east, and this annexation would begin to "square off" this boundary. Should City Council choose to annex :his portion of land, there would be a few pieces of land that would remain in Washington County. 12.3.5.0 Conduct a -iscal impact assessment on large annexat ons. Finding: Given the moderate size of the proposed rezoning, a fiscal impact assessment was not conducted for the requested annexation. However, it should be noted that annexing land toward the northeastern extent of the City and developing it can pose financial challenges for the City to maintain the public infrastructure in a fiscally sustainable manner. The proposal to rezone the property in a manner that promotes urban form and higher densities toward property that fronts N. Crossover Road, and lower density towards the west and north and E. Zion Road frontage somewhat ameliorates this concern. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends forwarding ANX-2020-000001 to the City Council with a recommerdation of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: December 14, 2020 O Tabled M Forwarded O Denied Motion: Belden ISecond: Canada with recommendation of approval Note: 7-1-0 (Commissioner Garlock dissenting vote BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT None Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Attachments: • City Pla-i 2040, Section 12.3: Annexation • Reques- letter • Order of Annexation • Public Comment • One Mile Map • Close-up Map • Currert Land Use Map • Future Land Use Map Planning Commissi( Dece-nber 14, 20: .agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 12.3 Annexation Annexation is the inclusion of previously unincorporated lands within the City limits. Annexation has benefits to the residents of the annexed area as well as to the City. The residents gain access to urban services, such as enhanced police and fire protection and have a voice in city government. The City gains the ability to control development and extend boundaries in a logical manner. The purpose of this planning element is to take a more active approach toward annexations by identifying potential annexations areas and establishing annexation policies. The annexation policies will guide evaluation of future annexation proposals. The policies are designed to ensure that public services, infrastructure, and utility extension is properly addressed in order to manage growth. The potential annexation areas may become part of the City when these annexation polices are met. N n � O N o D 3 Lo o (D m n o o o� ;3 m A 3 W oIn 49, Figure 12.15 - Fayetteville Annexation Map De -Annexation (Removes! from Fayetteville) 0 Annexation ■ 1870 ■ 1910 ■ 1930-1939 ■ 1940-1949 ■ 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970'1979 ■ 1980-1989 ® 1990-1999 ■ 2000-2009 ■ 2010-Present 149 Annexation History and Trends SO The original town was incorporated in 1870 with approximately 1,100 acres. Since incorporation, the City has made almost 200 annexations, totaling over 34,000 acres. Annexation activity was relatively slow until the 1940's, when over 2,500 acres were annexed within 19 annexations. During the 1950's, almost the same number of annexations took place, however, the total land area annexed was significantly smaller than in the 1940's. By the 1960's. annexation activity increased dramatically, with 42 annexations bringing over 18,000 acres into the city limits. Annexation numbers dropped in 1970 and stayed steady until the 1990's, when the number of annexations tripled from the 1980's. By 2000, the City contained 45 square miles and by 2018 the City contained approximately 55 square miles. One indicator of the amount of developable land within the City is the number of people per acre. Prior to 1940 there were approximately 5.6 persons per acre. This era represents the time when Fayetteville was still relatively small and consisted primarily of what we would now consider the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. By 1970, after numerous large annexations in. the 1960's, the persons per acre had been reduced to 1.3. The City's population continued to increase dramatically through the 2000's when we maintained just over 2 people per acre from 2000-2010. An annexation referendum in October of 2006 for a large area along Wedington Drive on the west side of town brought in an additional 1,400 acres of low density land for eventual development. N O T O n 3 2n Cr n O (D m G o 3 A3 N 3 O N. Ln N O w r U -1 Figure 12.16 - Fayetteville Town Plot 150 State Statutes on Annexation Title 14, Chapter 40 of the state statute discusses annexation. Annexations can be initiated by a municipality or by property owners. A municipality can annex contiguous lands, lands surrounded by the municipality, unincorporated area that is completely bounded by two or more municipalities. If the municipality has the greater distance of city limits adjoining the area, and land contiguous and in adjacent counties to annex any contiguous lands, the governing body must adopt an ordinance, passed by two-thirds of the governing body and hold an election of the people. Those lands must meet one of the following criteria: • Platted and held for sale or use as municipal lots; • Whether platted or not, if the lands are held to be sold as suburban property; • When the lands furnish the abode for a densely settled community or represent the actual growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary; • When the lands are needed for any proper municipal purposes such as for the extension of needed police regulation; or • When they are valuable by reason of their adaptability for prospective municipal uses. Contiguous lands must not be annexed if they meet either of the following criteria: Have a fair market value at the time of adoption of the ordinance of lands used only for agricultural or horticultural purposes and the highest and best use of the land is for agrici ltnral or horticultural purposes; or Are lands upon which a new community is to be constructed with funds guaranteed in whole or to part by (lie ledeial govenuncia under Title IV of the IIousing and Urban Development Act of 1968 or under Title VII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970. To annex land surrounded by a municipality, the governing body can propose an ordinance to annex the property. Again, the lands must meet the criteria listed above. A public hearing must be held within 60 days of the proposed ordinance, A majority of the governing body must approve the annexation for it to become effective. N n O (D o� 3 CD CT n D o n - 3 °1 a 3 W3R Figure 12.17 - Great Seal of the State of Arkansas 151 Property owners in areas contiguous and adjacent to the municipality may request annexation. They can apply with a petition of the majority of land owners in the area, if the majority of the total number of owners own more than one-half of the acreage affected. Potential Annexation Areas The potential annexation areas should be identified by the City using the following criteria: • Areas that are already urban in character. • Areas that can be developed at urban densities. • Immediate areas are those that arc peninsulas of islands, where municipal services have already been extended. • Vacant lands that are subject to development pressure. • Areas where urban services are already provided. • Areas where urban services are needed. Annexation Guiding Policies Boundaries • Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an island or peninsula. • Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits. • Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide. • Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors. • The provision of services should be concurrent with development. Environmentally Sensitive Areas • Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by dOvnlnpmrnt anrd wilize appropriate dcvelopment regulutiuns to protect those areas. Emergency and Public Services • Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. • Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city limits. • The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment, training of personnel, number of units and response time. N n - O (D :� p > 3 n 0(0 O (D o 3 ,v �3 W3R 152 Infrastructure and Utilities • Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed. • Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. • Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within the active annexation areas based on planned service extensions or availability of services. Intergovernmental Relations • Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions. • Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and sewer. ,Administration of Annexations • Develop a land use plan for annexation initiated by the City, • Designate zoning districts for property during the annexation process. • An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals. • Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals. • Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities. • Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. • Conduct a fiscal impact assessment on large annexations. 153 WILLIAM P. WATKINS, III, P.A. RONALD L. BOYER, P.A. JENNdIFER E. GRAY, P.A.* ANCREw T. CURRY, P.A. WIL_tAMA. KELLSTROM JOHN E, JENVINGS (OF COUNSEL) * ALSO LICENSED IN MISSOURI WATKINS, BOYER9 GRAY & CURRY, PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW � 0- Fayetteville Planning Departrre-1t 125 W. Mountain St Fayetteville, AR 72701 WRITER'S DIRECT E-MAIL wkellstrom a watkinslawofce.com July 15, 2020 Re: Annexation of Par. -el No. 001-15182-000 into the City of Fayetteville Dear Planning Staff: DELYNN HALE, SECRETARY AMY BENSON, PARALEGAL WHffNEY DUCKER, OFFICE MANAGER Our firm has been retained to assist with the annexation of certain lands into the City of Fayetteville. A survey depicting the lands that are proposed to be arl-lexed has su:)mitted along with this letter. The purpose of this letter is to address the consistency of :he proposed annexation the Annexation Guiding ?olicies provided in City Plan 2030. This ar.n-,xation is consistent with those guidelines. The lands prcposed to ae annexed are contiguous to the Fayetteville city :imits and will not create and islands or peninsulas. The property is contiguous to the C.ty of Fayetuville along the majority of its Western boundary, and is located in the corner between lands annexed as the Stonewood Subdivision and lards annexed along N. Crossover Road. In this way, the proposed annexation is a natural extensi.--n of the Fayetteville city limits and follows the natural development corridor along Crossover Road. Annexation o this land would not divide any existing neighborhoods. The proposed parcel for annexation is owned entirely by one individual. The entire parcel is undeveloped, and has served as the homestead for the residence located on the parcel for several years. Public services can be efficiently provided to the proposed parcel, as it is -within a reasonable distance from existing police and fire stations in Fayetteville. The parcel is approximately 1.85 miles from Fire Station #5, and approximately 2.5 miles from the Fayetievi!le Police Department Substation located on Shiloh. For comparison, the proposed parcel is roughly the same distance or closer to emergency services than Stonewood Subdivision, just North of the subject parcel. The parcel proposed for annexation is currently served by Fayetteville Waver, Sewer, Recycling and Trash Pickup services. The property is adjacent to a t«elve inch (12") water main which runs along E. Zion Road. As for sewer, the property would be served through the sewer main running adjacent to N. Crossover Road, and will run through the adjacent parcel which has peen proposed for rezoning concurrently with this request. 1106 WEST POPLAR STREET REAL ESTATE, CONSTRUCTION & LIEN LAW, LAND USE & PLANNING ROGERS. AR 72756 CORPORATE & COMMERCIAL LAW, BANKING, Aat��1wC. Mmissk PH: 479.636-2168 CRIMIN.L LAW, FAMIL" LAW, GUARDIANSHIPS, LANDLON-CTEFI�6j 14, 20, FX: 479.636-6098 E3T,TE PLA NING, ELGFR LAW, PROBATE, TRUST LITIG . N �, hda Item WWW.WATKINSLAWCFFICE.COM CIVIL LITIGATION, CCMMER`7AL & CONSUMER DEBAr�RI6(6Oii01 Bur( Annexation —Fayetteville Pla-fining Page 2 Lastly, the annexation will include a portion of an environmentally sensitive area —that area being a section of Hilton Creek. Although development plans have not been finalized, the applicant is requesting (through a concurrent rezoning request) that a portion of the parcel be zoned R-A for the purpose of preserving and protecting Hilton Creek. Thank you for cons dering this annexation application. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, WATKINS, BOYER, GRAY & CUFaY, PLLC Will A. Kellstrom Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( DocuSign Envelope ID: AB5148BF-BE6C-4F94-B6D9- 7A39C98AC53 n " m m s e e ! a co w. IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF ANNEXING TO THE CITY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, CERTAIN TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS CC NO. 2020-013 TO SAID CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ORDER CONCERNING ANNEXATION On this regular day of a regular term of the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas, there is presentee i-o the Court by Patricia Lynne Severino, as Trustee of the Robert Eugene Burge Irrevocable T-usted, dated December 20, 2012, the petition of the real estate owner desiring the annexation of territory to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, more particularly described therein. The court has received the verification of the county asse ssor and county clerk required by A.C.A § 14-40-609. This Court being fully advised of the fEcts and the law does hereby find as follows: l . The Court finds that the petition and verifications are complete and accurate. 2. The Court further finds that no enclaves will be created by the annexation. 3. The Court finds that the petition contains a schedule of services. 4. The Court finds that fne territory consists of lands that: a.. whether platted or not, are held to be sold as suburban proper_y; b. represent the actual growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary; and C. are needed for proper municipal purposes such as the extension of need police regulations. Planning Commissi< December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( DocuSign Envelope ID: AB5148BF-BB6C-4F94-BED9-F7A,39C98AC53 Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that the petition and this Order be delivered to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. DocuSigmd by: (W 4 34F19462757444F., JOSEPH K. WOOD. COUNTY JUDGE DATED: Jul 10, 2C20 1 3:30 PM CDT Docu8igned by. ice- A8F7527CDF8U5C_, Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( PETITION Date: Nov 21, 2020 RE Requests: Annexation of 3Z35 E Zion Rd and Rezoning for Chandler Crossing :)ZD To: Fayetteville Planning Commission This petition is to request a prudent decision to deny the annexation of 3435 E Zion Road and the Chandler Crossing PZD, due to the following issues: 1. Traffic issues and safe-y concerns regarding school age children, traffic Ili-ough neighboring subdivisions, blind curties, inferior county roads and connectivity po nts, and :he deteriorating one lane b-idge. Jurisdiction on who is responsible for the improvements to the road and one lane bridge. The proposed development would result in as marry as 600— vehicles. 2. The flooding, storm water run-off, and drainage from the subject property into Hilton Creek, which ends up in Lake Fayetteville. Water quality in the lake has been previo4sly studied by a toxicologist and discussed at the previous planning commission mee-ing. There is potential for increased lake pollution by adding 267 housing units . 3. The proposed development would create suburban sprawl and not be cornpa-ible with the surrounding land or semi -rural neighborhoods. This is sprawl, not inf ll, wh ch goes against two of the goals cf the City of Fayetteville. The annexation also would create an isiand of county property surrounded by city property. 4. The proposes development would be in the Springdale School district, so a large part of tax millage would go to Spr n;dale School System. Yet, Fayetteville would be r=_spcnsible for paying for and mai-itenance of the project's infrastructure. 5. A large part of the subject property is located in Fayetteville's long range map of the Enduring Green Netwo; k. The City`s stated goal is to protect existing raturai areas from development and guarantee green space as the city grows. The proposed annexation and r=zonirg do not meet that goal. We the undersigned request a denial to the annexation of 3435 E Zion Road and a denial to the proposed Chandler Crossing PZD. The care and future growth of our unique, quaint =ayetteville should lead us to focus on quality as a top priority rather than a disruption by quant ty. Signature Printed Name Address 1 1'Euc(( ram, tit. '7L?C_' ri;k� tr ---k Signature Printed Name Address -- .2;Vz� 7 t"--"7a703 jh -7C3 -4 2103 7 slob -tA 74 '3 F�y 7.9776 3 r I - � — ` 7 2-- -7 a; ` br— 7 2 7 0,34 7 7-2--74Y - if F 71 71 -7 '70 7— / b, A) 9 -7 Zl 7 Z Y L SlanAtllra Printorl Namc 4rlr4rccc p t)" Contact Person: Phone #: Masters, Jessica From: victo,ia rrcclendon <viktorialeigh@gmail.cem> Sent: Fr day, December 11, 2020 3:31 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Large development near Lake Fayetteville CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click: I nk-s o- open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello I would like to submit a commit of concern regarding the large development proposed near Lake Fayetteville. My concern is for the negative impacts of excess runoff through the Lake Fayet-eville watershed and for the water quality, already suffering, of Lake Fayetteville as a body of water used recreationa ly and attracting more citizens and visitors to that beautiful area. In my opinion,the city planners con-sidering the change of land use from farmir; property largely to residential should consciously and publicly address ho.id to ameliorate the large amounts of new i-npervious surfaces that would be created. Continuing to monitor Lake Fayetteville and including short and long term goals to improve the water quality is about education, planning, and commitment. This is a collaborative effort, with rrany citizen groups contributing to the ecological health and educational building locks as a community grows in a pu-poseful way. I hope to know of our city's strong contributions, including demonstrating tFe .,alue of Lake Fayetteville as a water body near and upon which people recreate. Thank you for your attention and consideration and all the work you do in support of a remarkable city.' Sincerely, Victoria B McClendon 146 West Prospect Fayetteville Masters, Jessica From: William Correll <bc.row@cox.net> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 10:33 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing Concern CAUTION- This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open a_tachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr Masters, I am writing to express concern with the potential impact of the proposed development on water quality of Lake Fayetteville. I am a resident of Bella Vista. I come to Fayetteville multiple times per week to row on the lake with the Rowing Club of Northwest Arkansas. We've had to cancel rowing with increased frequency because of the recurring hazardous algae blooms. As an architect on large scale developments, I am=amiliar with t.ie extraordinary care that is required in site selection and mitigation efforts to avoid harmful runoff in adjacent steams and lakes. The proposed use of this site threatens to exacerbate conditions that lead to algae blooms and othe- public health issues. I have spoken to the City several times about the enormous potential of Lake Fayetteville zs a public amelity. Maintaining it as a pristine jewel is an obligation to future generations. Dlease give strongest consideration to the water quality impacts of the proposed development. Minimal mitigatior efforts should be unacceptable. Anything less than zero impact, or better a positive impact on runoff, should be reason to dEny. Thanks you for your consideration, William Correll Masters, Jessica From: Kari Griggs <kgriggs@nilfisk.com> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 3:09 PM To: Masters, _essica Subject: Annexation on E. Zion Rd. / Burge Property CA; ON This email originated from outside cf the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Masters, Let me start off with saying that the neighbors along E. Zion Road appreciate the time you and the Fayetteville City Planning Commission are taking to listen to our concerns. This is especially t-ue for my husband and I, as we are the ones that have struggled with the most financial loss and property damage. W2 have also fought Mr. Burge the longest, over his Hylton Creek modifications, which continue to damage our property tc this day. About 20 years ago, Mr. Burge was approached by the then neighbors, an•] asked to remove the low-water tar dge and the grate that dams the creek and drives flood water out of the creek and on to neighboring properties. At fi -st Mr. Burge agreed, then changed his mind, for reasons that were never provided. The pictures of the low water bridge in quEstion show a very tranquil strearr with nothing that immediately raises alarms for the surrounding area. Unfortunately, when it rains, this stream can go from a nice place to a raging flood in 20 minutes. The situation can be ve,y dangerous. Also, once the water leaves the creek banks at the Burge bridge, it travels across the Burge farm and through our shop building. When we purchased the house, the flood water came up to the threshold of the shop doors. Now it exceeds 4 feet deep during heavier rains. I don't mean the 100-yr or 500-yr flood rains, I refer only to a simple heavy rain. Regardless, once the water leaves its banks and travels across properties, it can't help bit pick up chemicals, manure and other such things that no one wants in Lake Fayetteville. When we first purchased our property in 1998, the back portion of our shop was in the floodplain. Each time major additions are built; the flooding problem increases. The answer seems to have been to update the floodplain and take in more area. Unfortunately, since our home is not within the city limits, we do nct get t)e courtesy of being notified about any such changes. It seems that the City should correct problems as they take in County land and ensure no residents with Fayetteville addresses are negatively impacted by the desire to spread Fayetteville and gain new tax monies. My biggest concern with the Engineer speaking for the Developer during the last Planning Commission meeting was that he mentioned that they would just leave Hylton Creek along, so they don't cause fir -her disruption and damage. This is exactly how previous developers have been able to come in, build their additions and ignore the implications to the properties in proximity. The Developer should have to address the potential damage he will be causing to surrounding properties and be held accountable for subsequent property damages. Leaving the problem, or in this case Hylton Creek, alone does not address the problem at all and sets us up for increasing future damage. If our properties are being damaged, I fail to see how Lake Fayetteville won't be impacted too. A do-nothi -ig resolution for the creek should not be an option. It is also concerning that some of the E. Zion properties in the County will become an island or peninsula, which I thought was deemed to be illegal. This makes no more sense than letting an individual's creek modification continue to damage personal property and city resources. Again, we really appreciate your time and efforts to help us ensure that this progress isn't solely at our expense. Kari and Tony Griggs 479-466-7756 3349 E. Zion Rd. We are not opposed to progress. We do, however, need to Masters, Jessica From: Linda Ferguson <Ierguson@mstonecc.com> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 10:48 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chand er Crossing subdivision I CAUPC'NThis email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click lin<s x open at-achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To all Planning Commissioners, I am Linda Ferguson and live at 3258 E. Valerie Dr. Fayetteville. I am sending this email in opposition to the planned deve opment of this property. I agree with the other property owners about the amount o- homes that will contribute to the quality of water in regard to the run-off into Lake Fayetteville. I also would like to bring up the beauty of the pond area behind my home and would like the developer to consider using this area with the large trees around it as a -oval point for this side of the property. In regard to the pond crea we all would like to see this saved and used as part of a community gathering point for the homes he is going to builc on top of that area. In another aspect this area has wild geese, wild ducks, blue heron, hawks, eagles that make this their home. I would just like to see the beauty of some of this land saved and used as part of their development, and -ewer homes built so they would match the surrounding neighborhoods of this planned development. If this project gees forward our subdivision would like to have a green buffer between our property and the development. Thankyou for corsidering all aspects of the impact on the surrounding lanc cnd keeping the wildlife and environment secure and the beauty for the future of Fayetteville. Linda Ferguson Office Manager ��MILESTONE_ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2002 S. 48th Street, Ste. A / Springdale, AR 72762 W:479.751.3560 / C:479.387.7656 / F:479.751.4841 www.mstonecc.com FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK! www.facebook.com/MilestoneConstructionCDmpan GTS Laa tEj /9/S N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 727D4 TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAX- (479) 521-6232 Website: unviv.gisconsulting.act November 17, 2020 Margaret Britain Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Fayetteville, AR 72703 TEL: FAX: RE: Dear Margaret Britain: Order Nc.: 2011046 GTS Lab received 2 sample(s) oa 11/10/2020 for the analyses presented in the following report. There were no problems w-th the analytical events associated with this report unless noted in the Case Narrative. Analytical resuhs designated with a "*" or "X" qualifier exceed permit limits provided to the lab for the incicated analytes. Quality control data is within latoratory defined or method specifiec acceptance limits except if noted. If you have any questions regarding these tests results, please feel f re to call. Sincerely, r Richard Brown Analytical Laboratory Directcr 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 Pa 1 of 3 Revisio-i Q gP�ammng Commissk December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( > X n � 0 N o A 3 co om n o Z CD C) 00-3 �v A3 rn GTS Lab Analytical Report 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. GTS, Inc. havetteville, AR 1270.4 (Lbntmuous) Qootochnicnl t testing Sowicos TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAX.- (479) 521-6232 WO#: 2011046 Websile: itiriv.gm,onsuliing.nei Date Reported: 11/17/2020 CLIENT: Margaret Britain Collection Datc: 11/10/2020 3:45:00 PM Project: Lab ID: 201 1046-001 Matrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID 1 Bridge -upstream Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Prep Date Analysis Date Method Nitrogen, Nitrate -Nitrite 0.3 0.3 mg/L 1 11/16/20 9:10 HACH 10206 Total Phosphorus 0.13 0.050 mg/L 1 11/17/20 9:30 EPA 365.3 E. coli >2419.6 1 MPN/100mL 1 11/10/20 16:48 11/11/20 12:26 Colilert-18 CLIENT: Margaret Britain Collection Date: 11/10/2020 3:56:00 PM Project: Lab ID: 201 1046-002 Matrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID 2 South of fence Analyses Result RL Qual Units nF Prep Date Analysis Date Mcthod Nitrogen, Nitrato Nitritc 0.9 0.3 mg/L 1 11/16/20 9:10 HACH 10206 Total Phosphorus 0.55 0.050 mg/L 1 11/17/20 9:30 EPA 365.3 E. coli >2419.6 1 MPN/100mL 1 11/10/20 16:48 11/11/20 12:26 Colilert-18 Qualifiers: * Value exceeds Permit Level for analyte B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank DF Dilution Factor I I I lolding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit RL Reporting Detec�lion I imit q ;pike Rcwveiy outside accepted recovery hA,i vision V2 Page 2 of 3 CHAIN OF CUSTODY Client Name/Address Project Description Billing Information Field Test Information Margaret Britain Test 1st Result 2nd Result Analyst Time PH: Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Ave. 1931 N. Wheeler Ave. Temp: Fayetteville, AR 72703 Fayetteville, AR 72703 DO: Res.Cl: Client Project Manager/Contact project/Site Location (City/State) RUSH -Additional Charges Apply Special DetectionLimit(s) Method of Shipment Fed Ea UPS Matrix Key WW Wastewater GW- Groundwater Margaret Britain Date Results Needed Courier Client Drop Off DW - Drinking Water S - Soil/Solid O - oil Other P - Product M - Misc Project Manager Phone N Project Manager Email Site/Facility lDp purchase Order Number Project Number (479)236-0926 rrlryibritain@gniaiLCom Preservative Key C T S Inc. YA ly 15 N. Shiloh Drive Cool < 1 DC Na2.520.3 (Micro Only) B Cool <=6C iFayetteville, AR 72704 3 N C H2SO4 Ph<Z Go it!nicaf A Testing Services Phone(479)521-764S Y o ar 0 G. D None Required Fax o F NaOH pH>10 U F HNO3 pH<2 www.gtscorisulting.net 0: M Unless noted, all containers per x > Table II of 40 CFR Part 136. . u p = ; - o. o L z n G HCLpH<2 H H3Po4 pH<2 START START STOP STOP DATE TIME DATE TIME to v r Sample Identification 2 a Required Cool <=6C Na2S203 Analysis Sample Number W B�' �..s,t�ri� )Laboratory �f✓�lrt W B G W B G W B G W B G r W B G G W B �) W B G W B G ..� W B G i ... For Laboratory Use Only Sampled by (Name- Print) t , r LZ r ��(-� �r fQt,� Start Flow Reading Final Flow Reading Units Instantaneous or Total Flow Reading Ice CustodySears Lab Comments N 99 V JN Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) D3 Se Time I Received by: IGNATURF7jl Da a Time Blank / Cooler Temp Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time v Relinquisheu by: (SIGNATURE) Date rime by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time ]Zcelvecl T O O o , 3 N Zn Page R of � 3 Masters, Jessica From: Denise Jones <idjones52@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:43 PM To: Masters Jessica Subject: Comments on Chandler Crossing PZD Resubmitted Plans Ch(.'TION! This email originated from outside cf the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open at_achments unless you reccgnize the sender and know the cont=nt is safe. To Whom it May Concern: We ive in the Copper Creek Subdivision near East Zion Road and have been following closely following the proposed annexation and rezoning of the Burge Prope-ty as well as plans for Chandler Crossing. Our concerns are as follows: 1) The latest submitted plans a,e an improvement in that there is no access from Chandler Crossing to East Zion Road except by trail or emergency road. This addresses the traffic issues that many in Copper Creek/Stonewood/Embry Acres neignborhoocs are concerned about. However, are there any guarantees that the developers won't change course again and decide to offer one or two intersections on East Zion as in the original plans? If so, then we'd be back to the same issues of traffic on a narrow road and an insufficient bridge. 2) Where does storm drainage from Chandler Crossing go? It does not seem to be addressed it the resubmitted plans. As the city is aware, there are serious issues and concerns with flooding in that area. 3) How does the design of the "link street" (the street that connects directly across Zion Road at Highway 265 where the traffic signal is) fit with the plan to eventually connect Zion all the way to Butterfield Coach Road? 4) As much as the resubmitted plans try to justify alignment with city goals of infil ing and no sprawl, they miss the mark. We're not a big, urban city and this area is not "walkable" in the sense that residents can walk to stores, restaurants, and coffee shops. Many of us choose to live in east Faye_teville because we enjoy having a bit o- space and a more suburban or rural -eel. The popilation density for Chandler Crossing is too great. Rather tnan "unique" or "vital", it appears to just be crowded. The mik of what is likely to be rental properties anc single family homes is another concern for the issues that can develop. We wouldn't consider buying a house in this type of subdivision. Thank you for �our time, Geor-e and Denise Jones Rockledge Dri\,e Fayetteville Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: K Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 6:59 AM To: Maste,s, Jessica Subject: Fwd: Chandler Crossing PZD - Resubmitted Plans Attachments: Chandler Crossing_v1.pdf CAUTIONThis email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links o- cpen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessie, Good morning. I realize my comments may be too late to be submitted with the pac<et. I did review the attached information. While better than previous submissions, it appears the developer is tying to smash in as many properties as possible in the space. Again, nothing like the neighborhoods it's borders would touch. I hope you will not recommend the proposal as is. I look forward to learning more about the plans on Dec. 14. Regards, Kellie Robertson 3397 E Zion Rd. Subject: Chandler Crossing PZD - Resubmitted Plans Thank you for your phone call. The developer submitted revised plans earlier today. Staff has not yet completed our review, but I have attached what the developer submitted for your reference. If you will have additional written comments that you would like to have included it the published report, please submit to me by Wednesday at 5:00 PM so that staff can include in our report on the issue. You are of course, as always, welcome to submit comments after that time, and of course you may plan to attend the meeting, which will be held virtually. Information about how to attend can be found at this link. Please let me know if you have any questions. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, ArkansF-s (479)575-8239 www.fayettevil le-ar.eov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instaeram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKAMSA6 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Nick Arthony <nanthony@uark.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:17 PM To: Masters, -essica Subject: Burge farm annex and rezone CV " . This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links o- cpen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Fayetteville City Planning Commission Member (please read all articles incluced below), This is the 4th letter that I have prepared concerning the Annex and Rezoning of the Burge farm and adjoining property. live in the corner of the L-shaped acreage and will be one of the current residences in our neighborhood impacted by your decision. I have sat through your mee=ings and struggled with the reality of rot being in control of my destiny when it comes to this decision. I struggle \ ith the definition of urban sprawl vs inf ill ng. I struggle with understanding why the city of Fayetteville would even wart to be a part of this. Why would the city of Fayetteville want to destroy a natural feature that has been proven to act as a natural filtration system for water entering Lake Fayetteville? The proposed "high density" housing is right on top of this feature. How can our city leaders brag about how Fayetteville is a city that "can go green in a red state" https://archive.curbed.com/202O/2/28/21155997/fayetteville-environment-ozarks-!olar-power-sustainability and then consider a proposal that completely goes against the spirit of conservatic n, green growth and stream management. How can assets like Lake Fa•letteville and the Fayetteville Botanical Gardens be gambled away in the name of "progress" My family saw the impact of poor water management on a large lake in Ohio. https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/focal/prand-lake-mares-dyinp-from-toxi.-- algae/sJOD6d5BfSbuGYWGMmi9NK/ The following is taken from a section out of Wikipedia about Lake St. Marys restoration. Environmental concerns and restoration efforts[edit Due to the increasingly high levels of lake pollution, E. coli bacteria,L9J and relatedalgae levels, Grand Lake could be dying off as a destination lake and is cons dered by the Ohio Environmental Prctection Agency to be "impaired" due to "stream channelization, drainage tiles IDss of floodplains and streamside vegetation, manure runoff and untreated sewage flowing from failing hone septic systems and small communities without any wastewater collection or treatment. "'0 " Runoff from farmland is one of the greateEt problems. Nutrients of livestock waste and natural and chemical fertilizers are laden with phosphorus and nitrogen. These elements upset the natural balance of the lake and increase the growth of blue-green algae. The algae is a cyanobacterium, w th Planktothrix being a particularly prevalent and problematic species. The tacteria produce toxic peptides that can be harmful to plants and animals.1121 Humans are also affected by tl-e toxins. Microcystin can harm the liver and cause other health problems including mild rashes and sneezing and Even severe gastrointestinal ailments. Agriculture runoff is not the only source of pollution in the lake. Industrial and commercial drainage contribute to the problem as does drainage from out of date septic tanks and municipal sewage systems. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Heavy deposits of silt into the lake also contribute to the degradation of the lake. Development of homes alo-ig the shore has reduced the number of native plants that helped to strengthen the shore and reduce erosion. Development has also inc-eased the level of phosphates entering the lake by over `erti:ization of lawns. These excess phosphates directly contribute to plant growth, including the algae in the lake. The native flora that has been reduced served as a filter to keep the excess nutrients out of the water. Here are the facts. Grand 1.3ke St. Marys is 13,500 acres of water while Lake Fayetteville i3 194 acres of water. ThE St. Marys watershed is 59,160 acres while the Lake Fayetteville clear creek watershed is 14,400. If you do the math, St. Marys is 70 times the size of Lake Fayetteville but was destroyed by a watershed tha- wa! only 4 times the size of the Lake Fayetteville Clear Creek watershed. So here is the economic imaact of the algal bloom on Lake St. Marys from 2011 to 2C17 https://news.osu.edu/algal-blooms-cost-ohio-homeowners-152-million-over-six-yeas/ My recommendation to you is to Annex the land into Fayetteville but make a significant effort to find a conservation group to preserve the land. Include it as part of the "Enduring Green Network" whici is part of your 2040 plan. A plan that would "protect existing natural areas from development, guaranteeing green space as the city grows". Let's practice the "combination of pro -density policies with preservation". Let's "save nearby green space without cortributing to sprawl". There is one thing for sure, I am not interested in paying more it taxes in the future to save Lake Fayetteville when we :ould have been proactive today in protecting the lake. I nopE that you took the time to read all the attached material. This is a big deal. Sincerely, Nick Anthony 3301 E. Zion Rd Plan ling Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Janes Bost <jimilyb@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday November 16, 2020 12:09 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Lake Fayetteville Algae C.'lU 10 This email originated from outside o`:he City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or ooen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms Masters Thank you for your response to my earlier note. With reference to our previous communications regarding concerns about pollution & blue-green algae growth at Lake Fayetteville - - The front page picture in this morning's NW Ark Democrat Gazette is z vivid example of a major cyanobacteria (also called blue-green algaE) bloom as seen from the air. Although we have not locally experienced such a major event, i would hope we will contina= to protect the lake to reduce the chanc=s of further deterioration in water quality. J. W. Bost 2718 N. Shadybrook Cv Fayetteville, Ar Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartpho ie Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: James Bost <jimilyb@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 11:28 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Lake Fayetteville Watershed Preservation CAU PION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have recently become aware a new housing development is being considered in the lake Fayetteville watershed. I am frequently at the lake during the warm seasons of the year. Over the past few years I have noticed major algae blooms on the lake. Studies conducted (I believe) by researchers at the U of A have confirmedth s to be a blue green algae that can produce what is known as microcystin toxin that can cause illness in humans & animals such as dogs. These algae blooms no doubt are related to nutrient runoff into the creek & lake. I am concerned that residential development in the watershed will indeed further aggrevate the problem of lake pollution. Properly protected & maintained, the lake could be a real asset to the City of Fayetteville providing excellent recreational opportunities for its citizens. J.W. Bost MD, MPH & TM 2718 N. Shadybrook Cv Fayetteville, Ar 72703 Ph: 479-601-6187 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Jan VanSchuyver <jvanschuyver@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:13 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: development near Lake Fayetteville O UTiU^N This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jessie, I'm concerned about the proposed Chandler Crossing development just north of the intersection of Zion Road and Hwy 265 that I think will have a huge impact on the water quality in Lake Fayetteville. The lake is a unique and beautiful asset to our city, on the square -to -square bike route, and an important outdoor destination for tourists as well as local hikers, kayakers, fisherman, and bikers. I-i addition, the lake is a back-up water supply for Fayetteville. As I'm sure you are aware, the water quality of Lake Fayetteville is already compromised, with sediment and P coming in from Clear Creek clearly the culprit. The lake has already experienced repeated dangerous and unsightly blue-green algal blooms. The addition of some 400 houses in the Chandler Crossing development, along with their roofs, roads, and sidewalks moving run-off into adjoining creeks without the natural filters of a riparian zone, cannot help but further impact the lake's water quality. realize Fayetteville's population is continuing to increase, and these new folks have to live somewhere. But please consider the lake's health and mary benefits to our community before jeopardizing it further with this new development. Cannot this land, recently a working farm, be preserved or developed in a more responsible manner so as not to further impact Lake Fayetteville? Thank you for your careful consideration of this important matter, Sincerely, Jan M. VanSchuyver 14601 Candleglow Rd. Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-445-4316 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Jane Purtle <purtlej@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 11:09 AM To: Masters Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click I nks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. M2sters: During the summer I was interested in the presentations by the Fayetteville Watershed Pa-tnership done on Zoom. These sessions informed me of the importance of Lake Fayetteville as a recrea=ional area and as part of the source of our water. I was particularly interested in he family farms that border Clear Creek and of-orts that are being made to reclaim them. I understand the importance of permeable surfaces and how r par an areas aid in water conservation and runoff. I live in south Fayetteville and have watched the loss of wetland prairie and habitat for birds and other creatures to housing development. I am also an advocate of affordable housing, so I think we must find a balance between needs of people for housing and needs of the land to keep itself and its systems functioning. I have big questions about approving a 400-house development in the area a-ound Lake Fayetteville and Clear Creek and alsc the increase in storm water runoff. Despite all the efforts that have beer made or Mcrningside Drive property (as an example) I expect to see some of the houses built on that property floodec when we have any kind of extreme weather. Wi I the area of tl-e Chandler Crossing Development be looking at similar problems? That is a question that should be acdressed to the developers, as well as the health and long-term water quality of Lake Fayetteville. Thank you for your efforts to insure Fayetteville's continued efforts to balance the needs :)f its land and people. Sincerely, Jane Purtle Planring Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Jay Johnson <jaydouglasjohnson@gmail.com= Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:51 PM To: Maste,s, Jessica Subject: Lake Fayetteville and the Proposed Chandler C-ossing Development C- This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or ooen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessie, I'm a Fayetteville resident who frequently rows on, runs around, bikes arDund or hangs around Lake Fayetteville. I am very concerned about the proposed Chandler Crossing development.You know the water quality of Lake Fayetteville is problematic with sediment and P coming in from Clear Creek clearly the culprit. The lake has experienced repeated dangerous blue-green algal blooms (microcystin toxin), which correlate to the eutrophic conditions in the lake. The lake is an important outdoor destination for hikers, bikers, rowers, kayakers, and fisherman. It's on the square to square bike route, and has visitors from throughout the region. It could very well be the crown jewel in the center of Fayetteville's growing trail and activites system. The lake deserves to be protected for generations to come. The Chandler Crossing development, with —400 houses within the lake's -iearby watershed, will negatively impact the lake's water quality. The plan includes miles of impervious surfaces: roofs, roads, sidewalks --all surfaces that will move sediment and P laden run-off directly into the adjDining creeks without the natural filters that a plant rich riparian zone can provide. Neighbors have provided photos to you demonstrating recent flooding. I'm sure the planning commission is also aware that Lake Fayetteville is the Ciy's back-up water supply. For that reason alone, we should be careful of developments in the watershed. One of the recommendations in the Watershed Conservation Resource Center's report (funded in part by the City of Fayetteville) was to "Conserve family farms as working farms ."This —80 acre plot was until recently a working farm. I realize that we cannot stop growth completely in an area where the population is increasing, but I would ask that you pause and reconsider this development with the health of the lake in mind. Can the land be preserved or developed in a way that will have less of an impact on our water supply? Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Cheers, Jay One can on y "Sur, the Edge" in this present moment. U Virus -free. www.avq.com Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: John Fritz <johnfritz2052@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 10:41 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing development "!ON This email originated from outsida of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links o� open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear J Masters, Please consider that the attraction of Lake Fayetteville is a primary motivation for people wanting to move to a potential development at Chz ndler Crossing. And that this development at Chandler Crossing would negatively impact this very attraction, Lake Fayetteville. Non -point pollution from 3 development at Chandler Crossing, in particular phosphorus runoff, would spur to even greater detriment the algae blooms that Lake Fayetteville already suffers. And so, negatively impact the motivation for people wanting to move to a Chandler Crossing development. At the very least please incorporate Rain Garden design throughout any potential Chandler Crossing development, so as to mitigate any potential run off to Lake Fayetteville. Thank you. Sincerely, John J. Fr tz. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Joseph Robertson <joseph.robertson@outl-Dok.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 3:02 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 3435 E Zion Rd related items - planning commission meeting 11/9 and upcoming 11/23 CA:, This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open a-tachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Masters, please include the following letter in the commissioner's packet for the next meeting. Mr. Boccaccio had a question in the last meeting about where the catchment pond was as referenced by Mrs. Grig€s. The only flood catchment pond I know of on this side of Copper Creek is located adjacent to David Lashley park on the East side, and it does not apoear to be catching runoff from that neighborhood. It is a sepa,ate entity from what the developers are proposing for this property. Commissioner Paxton asked near the end of the meeting about the exact location of the Icw-water bridge (and fencing that currently contributes to f ooding) also mentioned by Mrs. Griggs. That bridge is on the property being discussed in these annexation and rezoning proposals. it sits adjacent to my and Mr. Anthony's proEerty line. 202C-0959 ANX 2020-000001 '3435 E. Zicn Rd./Burge) The Northern portion of the 'L' shape of this annexation request - if approved - would cause my land to be encircled by the city. I am afraid that approval of the annex as -is would be taking away my choice of whether or not to remain in the county. At the very least, it would cause confusion for emergency services. By annexing this land, are we enabling development that would otherwise be avoided at the density proposed? It could very well lead to increased flooding and have the opposite effect of conservat'on that you would like. Annexation and subsequent development of this property - in my opinion - would lower my property value because of increased flood risk, and the traffic & safety concerns we have already raised. Annexing makes more sense near the proposed future Zion to Oakland Zion connection. It does not make sense on the section rrostly North of Hilton Creek where it would cause 12 homes (13 properties) to remain in the county yet be encircled by the city as seen by careful examination of the next to last map that includes satellite imagery. These homes lie West and North of the Burge's property being discussed. I have included a screenshot from Google naps to illustrate which houses would remain County while being sur-ounded by Fayetteville boundaries. Planninc Commissic December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-C 00001 i ii google.com/mapsil@36.1313691.-94.1131282,934m/`data=�3ml!le3 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 2020-0960 RPZD 2020-000002 Planned Zoning District (3435 E. Zion Rd./Chandler Crossing Rd) If this land must be developed, I would prefer to see 2-3 acre lots with single family homes if at all possible which would be in keeping with the current housing on Zion in this section. We purchased our homes because this is the size and style of neighborhood where we want to I've. We want owner occupied housing to produce the highest quality long- term housing market. Ideally, we would have a greenway path connecting to or near the David Lashley park integrated with sufficient flood control measures. The proposed catch ponds cover areas that a ready flood prior to any development so I find it very hard to believe they would be sufficient. Flood risk is a erimary concern. One solution to other concerns regarding vehicular traffic and the existing road/brid€e is to not allow a neighborhood connection between development on the two sides of Hilton Creek. This step would mitigate construction traffic concerns, future vehicular use traffic, and avoid future issues with bridge/culvert stoppages. It would also address the concern raised about the safety of placing an extra neighborhood exit near a hilltop, a 90-cegree curve, and an opposing neighborhood exit - as this additional exit would no longer be needed. Thank you for your consideration, Joseph Robertson 3397 E. Zion Rd. Plann ng Commiss 3 i( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: <<ri Griggs <kgriggs@nilfisk.com> Sent: Morday, November 9, 2020 11:50 AM To: Mas:ers. Jessica; Michele Lang (mlang966S@cmail.com); kellierobe@gmail.com Subject: E. Zi Dn Follow Up Flag: Fcllow up Flag Status: Flagged C;1u f -0 . This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Ms. Masters and Fayetteville City Planning Commissioners, I won't rehash our previous concerns, such as our property flooding every year since 1998, the fact that we did not even recover and finish rebuilding our flooded out home before we were hit by a not-er flood, the fact that we have asked for help from the City and County for years — out only succeeded in starting a finge~ pointing war, that we continue to deal with a very dangerous bridge and road just to get to our property, but please don't mistake this stance as a lack of commitment and concern for our neighborhood on E. Zion Rd. We are very disturbed that the annexation of the former Burge farm on E. Z on Rd. continues to be discussed without the resolution of flooding and traffic problems that have affected our properties for far too long. I do, however, understand that the cwner of the Burge property considers Ferself to be in desperate need to sell the property for financial reasons. This comes From also being forced into financial straits, due to the yearly flooding of our property, home and shop. This floodirg dDes not come every few years. We, instead, have had to manage it every year since purchasing our property in September of 1998. We have tried every avenue possible to force the problems to be corrected, but due to the City of Fayet-evi le and Washington County refusa to -ake responsibility to help the situation, we continue to try to stay on top of the nEw damage. It would be nice to in -jest in upgrades to our property, but that is well beyond us now. The troubling aspect of this flooding issue on E. Zion is that the flood waters do not often leave the Hylton Branch/Creek banks, but instead come out of the creek on the Burge property. Unfortunately, the situation only worsened after someone approved Copper Creek's c umping all of their run-off water into the branch on Burge property. To compound the situation, Robert Burge had built a bridge over the creek so that his animals could cross to the back pasture. The bridge has a grate in front of it, which allows the structure to effectively dam the creek and push water out of the banks and on to the surrounding property. After many discussions with Mr. Burge. it was apparent that he had no intersio-, of working with the neighbors at all. Now that Mr. Burge has passed, we had hoped that his family would attend to his property in a way that did not cause damage to the neighbor's properties. The new owner may be suffering fina nciF ly, but she has access to her air- conditioned cab -over John Deere tractnr, which could remove the dam. In the past, several neighbors have offered to help rebuild the bridge for the Burge form animals in a way that does not cause damage to downstream properties. I dare say that helping to prevent furtner damage to our own property would interest the neighbors in pitching in to clean the creek bed while the Burge property owner ensures that her bridge is no loner a dam. While that was taking place, I see no reason why some regrading anc creek bed development on the Burge property could be done as a good neighbor helping others, which would be a graat he p in protecting the neighbor's prcperties. Planning Commissi( 1 December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( We believe that the neighbors on E. Zion should be provided with informatic n on the potential annex area development plans before they are put in place. Case in point, when HWY 265 was upgraded, the covert pipe that was scheduled to be installed under HWY 265 was undersized and would have led to an even worse flooding problem. The E. Zion neighbors, at the time, attended a planning meeting in Fayetteville and brought up this issue. It was decided that the culvert pipe should be larger. My question is why on earth the neighbors haje to call foul on shortcomings of city design plans. We should not be the experts or the watchdogs, but we are forced to d:) this. To you Ms. Masters and to the Fayetteville Planning Commission members, how do you intend to look at this situation and resolve the existing problems before moving forward? You can't have a water drainage system designed for Copper Creek, one for the Burge property, and let the E. Zion neighbors deal with the flooding fallout. The system has to be all inclusive and designed with all of the input and outputs accounted for understood over time. Consider the area as one and plan for the entire area. It is not enough for an engineer to walk out to our properties, look around and proclaim that "I don't see no problem", as we have experienced before. This is a very threatening situation for my family and for the families around is. We do not want to be ignored or .old that landowners can do wha: they will with their property, without regard to devastating effects caused to others We do not want to be caught between the City of Fayetteville and Washington CDLnty in a way that assures we are not represented or helped. You need to resolve the flooding issues in the E. Zion area and insure the pecple of this area are not fighting an uphill battle. You should also review the traffic situation on E. Zion. The bridge is falling apart, people think of this road as the E Zion speedway, the shoulders are nearly nonexistent and the ones that do exist have gaping holes that can easily shoot a vehicle out of control. We -irge you to stop letting the tax dollar signs cloud your judgement for long enough to address our problems first. There is no way in good conscience that you can move forward with thi3 annexation before ensuring that cur-ent, long term residents are being protected. We are sincerely asking for ycur help in getting the City and County Planners to work together and resolve these long- standing issues once and for all. Best regards, Kari Griggs 3349 E. Zion Rd. Fayetteville, AR 72764 (479)466-7756 Planning Commissi< z December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: K Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Sent: Wed-iesdEy, November 18, 2020 10:19 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Re Annexation and development of 3435 E Zion Rd CAU1ION This email originated from ou-side of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe Commissioners and Ms. Masters, Thank you again for taking the time to review this proposal carefully. As I have s.at=d previously, we are not anti - development, we are against poorly tncugh+ out developments that increase the risk for property damage from increased flooding, increase the risk fo- damage to our natural resources, and charge the dynamics of our neighborhood. One issue not heavily discussed is hcw the annexation will leave out about 12 homes, creating almost a doughnut of county, surrounded by city. I believe your own planning guidelines state this sitLation should be avoided. I am concerned about how this doughnut would affect the residents access to police and fire services. We would also be affected by city rules, but have no say and no representation within the city government. Others have presented recommendations to address our co-icerns. I hope you will consider them carefully. My family is against this proposal as it is currently written. Many of us, and you, are overwhelmed with the complexities of life with COVID. Continuing to push forward and carefully considering long term effects can Le a challenge. The planning team hzs shown, while not always in agreement, that their intent is for the success of Fz_vettEville. Please don't let fatigue stop you =rom following your city goals. Discourage urban sprawl. Infill where i-- makes sense (not prime farm land). Thank you again for the work you dc. Regards, Kellie Robertson 3397 E Zion Rd. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Kelly Stewart <kestewart@mayborngroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:21 AM To: Masters; Jessica Subject: Zion rd .Annex/Rezone Request Questions Importance: High I CA'J r r ,; This email originated -rom outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open a_tachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessica - A ccuple of questions... • How is the development designed to mitigate the increase in rainfall runoff? + Initial construction can result in large sediment loads to downstream creeks and lakes, so what are the construction BMPs that will be used? + Who is the regulato-y authority responsible for enforcement, compliance, and complaints?? Thanks!!! Also. is it helpful for me to send additional flooding videos?? Which is a result cf the already insufficient Stonewood /Copper Creek water retention and runoff plan.... Kelly Stewart Kelly Stewart Category Management Manage- - Walmart 479-841-9095 kestewart@mayborngroup.com A • � tommee' ] �T Z - tippee .� m If you've -eceived this email by mistake, we're sorry `or bothering you. It may contain information that is confidential, so please delete it and any attachments vithou_ sharing. And if you let us know, we can try o stop it from happening again. Thank you. We may -nonitor any emals sent or received by us, or cn our behalf. If we do, this will be in line with our own policies and relevant law. Mayborn JSA Inc. is a company incorporated in New Ycrk and is part of the Mayborn Group of companies, registered in the UK as Mayborn Goup Limited, nurr ber C0419737 & registered office address: Maybon House, Balliol Business Park, New :astle upon Tyne NE12 BEW, England Planninc Commissi( 1 December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Plannirq Shared Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 4:06 PM To: Master; Jessica Subject: r-W: Anre<ation proposal south of Zion Road Sorry, just saw this. Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mountain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 aharrison@fayetteville-ar.gov) T 479.575.8267 I F 479.575.8202 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Irstagrarn I YouTube -----Original Message ----- From: Kevin Boote [mailto:bootekevin@g-nail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2020 11:54 AM To: Planning Shared <planning@fayettevi le-ar.gov> Subject: Annexation proposal sot,th of Zicn Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission Members: As a Fayetteville resident who lives on Copper Creek Drive just off of Zion road I have a few thoughts on the neighborhood being proposed south of Zion and the traffic situation that would follow. The proposed entrance to the new neighborhood includes two spots on Zion where intersections would be added. Presently not only is the one lane bridge a problem before and after work, but taking a left turn from Zion to going south on Crossover is just plain dangerous. Traffic would probably end up going down to Hearthstone to use the stop light access instead of Zion. I really feel any additional housing south of Zion would neEd a new road that will go west across Crossover to Zion. Entrance from the new neighborhood to Zion shoul J be very limited, to encourage people to use the stoplight corner on Crossover. That will be safe for everyone, and keep Copper Creek Drive and Hearthstone from being jammed with commuters every day. Zion road will need major work, widenirg End bridge expansion. A new entrance/exit road would be better for all involved. Please don't start a large expa-isi:)n south of Zion until a new road is built. Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. Sincerely, <evin Boote 711-441-0308 Sent from my Whone Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 9 W E a 0 O . •ram � a vs •o U v � � a � O � y •O � U � vCn O O 0 ONO I� F-, t� A '• A { '�W J 1� J i ��• �+• � �� 4 . l may► _ t � rJ�l: Niarning ccm December 1 Agerda Riparian andStrea-mbank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Project Overview • Results of Assessment Work • Streambank Erosion • Natural Areas • Riparian • Lake Fayetteville Watershed • Land Use and Impervious Surface • Priority Sites • Invasive removal techniques guide i :, -4 a z 4� IKA Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion Inventory of Eroding Streambanks • Evaluated Erodibility of 413 Streambanks over z6 miles of Stream • Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) • Bank Height Ratio • Bank Angle • Root Density • Root Depth • Surface Protection • Bank Material • Stratification • BEHI range: o (low) to 48 (extreme) points • Near Bank Shear Stress (NBSS) ranges low to extreme • Measured Streambank • Height • Length [I & NBSS Bank ID BEHI NBSS BanklD BEHI NBSS BEHI NBSS NECC 8 NECC 12 NFCC 20 NECC 33 NECC 56 NECC 73 NECC 81 NECC 106 NFCC 110 NECC 115 NECC 119 NECC122 SECC 150 MODERATE Low CC 186 HIGH Moderate CC 196 HIGH MndP.rate CC 204 HIGH Moderate SC 208 MODERATE Low SC 213 MODERATE Low SC 214 HIGH Moderate SC 227 HIGH Very Iligh MC 249 HIGH High CC 254 HIGH Moderate CC 260 VERYHIGH Very High CC 280 HIGH Moderate CC281 LOW Low CC 283 VERY HIGH Very High CC 321 CC 327 CC 328 CC 343 CC 352 CC 355 CC 356a CC 356b CC 187 CC 388 CC 389 CC411 CC 412 VERY HIGH Extreme MODERATE Low EXTREME Extreme MODERATE High MODERATE High MODERATE High HIGH Moderate HIGH High VERY HIGH Moderate HIGH Moderate MODERATE Extreme MODERATE Moderate EXTREME Very High HIGH high EXTREME Extreme EXTREME Very High VERY HIr H High MODERATE High HIGH Very High MODERATE High HIGH Moderate MODERATE High HIGH High HIGH Moderate MODERATE Moderate SECC 152 HIGH Low SECC 157 HIGH Moderate SECC164 HIGH Low Measured Streambank Profile -Osage 14 qq 1 NN Profile 2007 Profile eeaoo Di—fi— St ea rbank Ma�� '}^ r* '� Toe PIn Water Surtace 6 5 4 3 2 1 Horizontal Distance (ft) -1 0 Riparian and-Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion Streambank Material Sampling Results Used to Calculate Streambank Material Loadings • Twenty two samples were collected at various locations throughout the Clear Creek watershed • Ten were obtained from streambanks composed of fine material • Twelve were obtained from streambanks composed of coarse material �1 tA. I'*, '* .A � - , 1b, Riparian and St.reambank Erosion Assessment of Gear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion 413 Streambanks Evaluated Over 26 miles; 42 Erosion Monitoring Sites; 22 streambank sampling sites W MCI v� 4.J . rG U v O U Mu U °o v 4-1 cn aA cn aA aA Un aA N Fast Clear Creek �_ Natural Areas r � r 4 l�J GIS Inventoried Natural Areas Mounds and 8waic, Name Ift North Slope Abandoned Channel K Open Wetland i Abdandoneci Channel K pond K Backwater Channel K pond - spring fed �0" K Channel Scar K Spring Run East Slope K Spring Run - in Abandoned Channel - - - K Flatwoods; K Wetland Spring Fed zMiles K Glade ® Field Assessed Natural Feature Site k W lake Fayetteville Watershed 4;2 GIP, Inventoried Natwal Aieae Mounds ano Swales Name North Slope 1x Abandoned Chdnnel 04 Open Wetland K Atxlandoned Channel K Pond K backwater Channel K pond - Spring Fed K Channel Scar Spring Run Fast Slope K Spring Run - in Abandoned Channel K FlaPvoodso K Welland Spring Fed K Glade ® Field Assessed Natural Feature Site n C3 Lake F ayelterlle Watershed O ,—� 4.j cn 40 cu •� O • ^+ "k"oo ..d w CA C rt p O v _k,oO -� 5f..: U U 75 p • • • U v H .... _v v cn o V o Amso V .Now • • • •� O m • •r 7-1 *.. 26 s 42019 Afr Photo T - as` ear r, iir "aN}pAk } -W-.— Both a, 50 ft �� • � .� �� . !�� Lek > 50 ft. Right < 50 ft i -+�` ` �,,i` � art ', `+� •+ �� `� �'� r � .; � � Right 50 ft.Left < 50 ft "f y: �,Left a 50 ft. Right None Right >_ 50 ft, Left None r "•" Both < 50 ft Left < 50 ft, Right None ' •` j1� � � �4 •� � Right < 50 ft, left None 0 05 1. 2btiles �' 'y,` �� No Riparian Riparian and Streambank Erosion .Assessment of Clear Cree Lake Fayetteville Watershed Assessment Results • Land Use Changes • Impervious Surface • Sources of Sediment & Phosphorus • Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation • Recommendations ;Y,. � 4NMSwi•CONiI•YNM� i J t. TIME l� A ,,rota 20 G uaw,:yw.e suw J nycwW l 14 w 20+6 Land Use Level Urban Agricultural Forest -land Water Wetlands Barren Lands Total . ' +` \ r _ � /' � raev lean• 20+8 � -+ rww+zore - t + Wan la�dt 7D' d Wl•4 i•rMaM•9•sn 2006 Percent of 2016 Percent of Change Change of Total Total Basin Acres i., Acres :, Acres n 289S 48.2% 3243 54.0% 348.4 5.8% 2184 36.4% 1720 28.7% -464.1 -7.70/u 425 7.1% S23 8.7% 97.9 1.6% 293 4.9% 328 5.S% 35 0.6% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 203 3.4% 186 3.1% -17.2 -0.3% 6001 6001 Riparian and St'reambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Impervious Surface Change over 10 years Schueler, Tom, An Integrated Framework to Restore Small Urban Watersheds, Center for Watershed Protection 2005 The Lake Fayetteville Watershed falls under the "Impacted" category based on the Schueler Index with 15.6% Impervious Land Use in 2016. Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Sources of Sediment and Phosphorus Source Sediment Phosphoru s Accelerated Streambank Erosion Pasture • Hay Production • Livestock • Cattle • Poultry • Horses, goats, etc. Septic Tanks Urban - Stormwater runoff • Industrial • Commercial • Residential • Parklands Construction Other Sources • Forest • Roads • Undeveloped land • Barren land • Farmsteads N Potential Water Quality Impact Sources rttd . Lake Fayetteville Watershed, a a • , e K1 •t±'`^t ds"' ( ,lt " y _ +iit R-0477iai `�'rA�,.� a '�w,. .; :,. •d, ;, 7d' i"I a i7 il O �-{'p ut rM At o NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit `�'.. . o NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit elc•r " o Chicken Houses • Septic Tanks Springdale Fayetteville 4 Inventory Streams < :5 4 Lake Fayetteville Watershed Miles ' Area or Estimated Average Annual Sediment Load Sediment Source Length g Sediment (tons) Percent of Total Loading Rate Streamank Ero! Pasture Urban (w/out c Construction Other Sources I Un ;ion 2.38 mi 879 52.0% 369.23 onstruction) 1567 ac 217 12.8% 0.14 2750.4 ac 402 23.8% 0.15 ;Total) Forests Highways 139 ac 98 5.8% 0.71 929 ac 93 5.5% 0.10 523 aC 20.0 1.2% 0.04 163 ac 36.3 2.1% 0.22 developed Lands Farmsteads 182 ac 27.7 1.6% 0.15 14 ac 2.2 0.1% 0.16 Barren Lands 47 ac 7.2 0.4% 0.15 Total 1 1690 I 100.0% Riparian and �trPambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Total Sediment Production to Lake Fayetteville sediment Production from Otter Sources Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Priority Sites -177 1 t, 41 ,R .. ' Mounds and Swales •.. ' �p �r t ;. . Do i lrson Phvey ` 1. Mounds and Swales ti Spring Run { - Glade �!, y d ,. ._ i..'.'�.y •:._. —._-__ _� -'3+ `' " `� Swales Mounds and rr t m tNt Mounds and Swales ..i. �i•f } �a� 65 r # Open Welland x %� t — 1oFeYeuevillen %� y a7 �y`wo t any z„ Pon dlWetland ! . m. Mounds andSwales ' +rtdtfi3�.I - FTe�i ,} r r p h.! Tf t waa •,O - b Y��i `u _* t3l1a�Y� •c �iS'^+ +' L ,.+,s .r �1-..;r' ttiJI Mounds and Swales + c Fteldlnventonod GiS Inventoried 5gmydalc. t.:n, Natural Feature Natural Areas L,nt11S Site 4 Lake Fayetteville Fayetteville City • priority C3 Watershed ' Limits y Streambanks Inventory hayettevdie Other Streams planning Oren 0 0.5 1 Z • Streambanks Miles mo w. 16 0 c, d Prairie 1C, 'r... `. \ ! �C1�i+ fi No mention of brooks i of E:w a..,._si. WATF11S1IM COWRVa'ION rk b o Prairie iention of brooks Y Prairie ))w WellandJ� ' Brook mentioned, 2 links wide, 1.3 It PraineL-1= -- - Wotland Prairie:' rBrook mentioned, 6 links wlde,4 It Clear Creek mentioned, 30 ft wide *� '� �` A 1 . •�5,.*� Ciawrt Day Saeama Open Vktwar Splint;; Nan k1ourds and Sv aics Pdndt~Iard Lake Fayetteville Basin 0 0.25 0.5 1 1 5 _. .. VERY t ,y High g a� lion �;�oo,�• AW i +` MODERATE �t!qyj Spring Ron f r ni t f (Vern lii�l r I' HI Very High ' HIGH, Extreme iM. a ` x HIGH;High �Poo HIGH,`., HI'""'�. HIGH,High f� , GH,High y �• t ,: +PA" m Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville N h - Upper NerthPast Tributaries X�_ HIGH,High '.� VERY aHIGH,High, HIGH,Highk,., .>�,76 4 . .,.W ;%�-.. _Qn.._ 4 'e""s n• __ „. ,- ate,.-y.:.�. y�{. - g. .. "9 VERY. r) f HIGH,High HIGH,High ® - i Ilk ghr - .a ir. .tir. -<r a �+►�,al, �ii.+- - Y r.Y U v7+ttiti a.. W—W or ry High .,; .. �- • �%?`w, _+.isel. i �i•;"s"c _ g< rP HIGH High1!i •v .,e- +I"4„y'g !_ v y fi but ..iL" +f�q �:.r„. .�rh•-c'�+j��'ZY,.y, ey 'Y't"Y:�"�"t�+y^.Y ,r �I _!,! �,.. r'... ... _. t".t. ry If. (.i � t'.'�';'a^.y,.'t4'1l•y 9F� 9p,'y+ �t .4"�"(' "f1 ns' Ile City-..-.�L..�__.�. y, nrv-f- v DonTysonPkwy Ile 'HIGH,�•- -� Very High - HIGH, Mot ee...rla . t 'ru �'� - ANI s HIGH,Hieh a , , - --- i. , N A Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville .. - "I Priority Sites with Open Space Score," _, - x ► �. •_ , ,,.� � Mounds and Swales r �� t a. t' � i{rY •pyyy Mounds and Swales DomTYsonPkwY ms. • +� P Mounds and Swales Mounds and Swales r ,\ 0 PondlWetland ,.:, , , . Open Wetland i 65 2 Mo .....� .. _' � ands and Swales a rr f Priority Lake Fa eltevdlg Open Space Stre. mbanks F ayettevdle y Master Score rr: BEMs, Nbss Watershed City Limits Other Fayetteville - >�� Streambanks Springdale Planning®, Mounds and Swales City Limits Natural Areas Area 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Natural Area Priority — Head Water Swale in Former Prairie .. - .w� r „. ...e... . � ..,tom . •. '4 t .Ak Ask i v �'"'tl� A � - •'� - , y is "^• - ., ''�" � Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Recommendations • Address Sediment and Phosphorus • Conserve and/or restore with native vegetation 50 feet of riparian along both sides of the stream channels • Restore priority streambanks or reaches of stream • Include 50 ft riparian buffer • Conduct residential and commercial outreach on fertilizer usage. • Agriculture producers participate in EQIP • Cities should consider putting the streambank erosion data and information from this study into a GIS based program that can be accessed by staff when evaluating new development, watershed planning, and infrastructure projects • Six natural feature sites were located in the Lake Fayetteville watershed should be considered a priority for conservation or at a minimum be protected as much as possible if development were to occur • GIS assessed features should be further evaluated on the ground • Address Impervious Surface • Incorporate low impact development or • Retrofit to LID existing impervious sites LID techniques into future development • Conserve family farms as working farms where there is interest • Restore natural areas to appropriate historic habitat • Using this assessment and stakeholder participation, develop a watershed restoration plan to address concerns and protect water and natural resources 0 Seek funding to implement the plan Invasive Plants -of -Northwest Arkansas: A Field Management Cuid A practical, educational guide for land managers, stewards, homeowners, and volunteers for the removal and replacement of invasive plants in natural spaces Revised: December, 2019 Prepared in cooperation with: Watershed Conservation Resource Center, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension, and City of Fayetteville nvasive PI a n.toNah west Arkansas: A Field Management Guide Overview • Target Audience: land owners and managers concerned with: • Spread of invasive plants • Ecological impact • Protection of property and wildlife habitat • Purpose of Guide: • Help land stewards identify • Slow spread of invasive plants • Raise awareness • Promote use of native plants • Criteria for selection of 15 invasive species: • Federally designated noxious weeds • Land managers, residents, local experts report them as significant problems • Science -based organizations have documented their negative ecological impacts on plant and wildlife habitat 'M"j r r, "X 11nvasive Plants-ef-Ptwthwest Arkansas: A Field Management Guide Guide Contents • Planning a Management Strategy • Safety • Control & Removal Methods • Plant Profiles • Trees • Shrubs • Vines • Herbaceous fortis • Grasses • • con rD rt r rD °�nV rD r .' rD ' rD .1 rD A, �:: ,�. n a O a rD O �• � O � rD C~ `C y '•d rD C) rD D✓ O � r rD Cu Au �• rD 6 UD rD �D>rD rD � a.�.�.rD r-t V) ',- rD `C �j r* iD a rah C 'ft �7 n p rD UQ rD rD rD a n t� � P'. C' r � o o ' .0 CU rD � cn O rD cu rD -4- 1 It �CL V1 • .A • • • fD x = V O n F b y �, b rD �, rD rD rD rD cu rn p r- o F,r • Hr O �r Ln n I 0 O C 4 CD O =W r� r1 • i 25 rD U, z Q cn• i r O n > rD rt rD b (D rD rD cn M rD c� C • • • • • • rD M �.+ • � Z � N• � r" r) i oc fb ' o n (D �-.( � C � rfl � � ate.+• C rD C . 'd M x n cn cn rD _ `� M� • N C TI m z r) c c rD ro n Ln ME.. rho r Ln o ' �C �jnr�u rD O �(D c (D �V rD a o OEM. nvasive Pla �hwest Arkansas: A Field Management wide Example Tree Species: Tree -of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • Status • Introduced ornamental c. 1784 from Europe • Originated in China • Highly invasive • Distribution • Present in most lower 48 states • Well established in N WA • Forest edges as well as disturbed and undisturbed sites • Large groves now reported along Hwy. 71 in Ozark National Forest • Impact • Rapid growth forming dense thickets, suckering from roots • Prolific seeder spread by wind • Alleopathic • Identification • Tall deciduous tree with shallow roots • Mature tree often lack lower branches • Alternate, pinnately-compound leaves with reddish stems near new growth • Circular glands under leaf base • Brown to tan bark • Leaves emit unpleasant odor when crushed • Resembles hickory, walnut, and sumac • Control • Remove entire seedling • Basal bark or frill herbicide application • DO NOT use cut -stump method as it will encourage suckering ym \ g ^!. 11 Invasive Plan- , ffthwest Arkansas: A Field Management Guide Example Shrub Species: Bush Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) r. • Status • Invasive ornamental introduced from China Distribution • Widely present in southern U.S. • Invades forest understory, fence -rows, along streams, and right-of-ways • Impact • Aggressive, shade -tolerant shrub, forming dense thickets • Poor wildlife food source • May contribute to increased tick populat • Identification • Multi -stemmed upright shrub • Bark light brown with striations • Opposite leaves, ovate to oblong • Yellow flowers in spring and summer • Glossy red berries when ripe • Control Remove entire plant Cut stump in fall and apply 50% glyphosate Repeat seasonally until suckers no longer present Invasive Pla hwest Arkansas: A Field Management Guide Invasive Grass Species: Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) • Status • Native to Africa • Introduced in 1800's as drought -tolerant forage • Distribution • Has become widely naturalized throughout the • Present in pastures, greenspace, right-of-ways, along fence rows • Impact • Forms dense colonies in fields, forest edges • Height allows this species to competitively exclude other species • Seeds and rhizomes viable in soil for years • Certain environmental conditions can cause grass to become toxic to grazing animals • Identification • Tall, perennial, warm -season grass • 1.5" wide leaf blades with white stripe mid -vein • Flowers/seedhead form prominent panicle • Control • Spray with Outrider at 18" • Rhizomes make pulling difficult • Repeated mowing can reduce populations ti Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Zoom Presentation West Fork White River Restoration August 12019 WE, Questions? Sandi J. Formica, Executive Director Watershed Conservation Resource Center Fayetteville, Arkansas, (501) 352-5252 .fol-l-l-licaa,v7atershedconservation.org T_ 2 or is F V Y'A M11 tzcst(r.cd Riparian & Restoration Before g 0 :9.' Masters, Jessica From: Linda Ferguson <Ierguson@mstonecc.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 2:31 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: RE: Chandler Crossing CAUTION: This email orig nated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you ri the sender and know the content is safe. Jessica, I am at 32-'8 E Valerie Dr, Fayetteville, AR. I oppose the Chandler Cross'ng Sibdivision, I spoke with Bryon Moore today and he assured me that there would not k cupllexes or apartments, which are clearly visible with pictures on your planning comrr link. He said it was not low income housing and actually laughed when I suggested it t The pic-ures tell a cifferent story. I am surrounded on 2 sides of my property with the wl• development. I called to get an honest answer and was mace to visualize a beautiful subdivision. My property was very beautiful and I live on 3 acres and I am now pretty n ruined! From: Masters, Jessica :imasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2020 1:15 PM To: Ierguson@mstonecc.com Subject: RE: Chandler Crossing Good afternoon, Linda, Thank you for the inqu ry regarding the Chandler Crossing subdivision prcposal. This item will be hearc November 9 Planning Commission meeting beginning at 5:30 PM. The meeting will be held virtually du ongoing health crisis, a-1d the link for participation can be found here. Information is typically posted 2 ahead of time. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Many t-ia-iks, Jessie Jessie Maslers Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKAMSAS From: Linda Ferguson [mailto:lferguson@mstonecc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 1:47 PM To: Planning Shared <planning@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Chandler Crossing CAL " `" This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I have some questions regarding the planning of the Chandler Crossing Subdivision and would like to attend the zoom meeting, can you help me and give me a call? 4793877656 Linda Ferguson Office Manager P r MILESTONE - CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2002 S. 48th Street, Ste. A / Springdale, AR 72762 W:479.751.3560 / C:479.387.7656 / F:479.751.4841 www.mstonecc.com FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK! www.facebook.com/MilestoneConstructionCompany Z Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica Frorw1: Maya Porter <mayaporter479@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 9:02 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing development CAI !" '•CIN This email originatec f-om outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the s-nder and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Masters, I'm writing to urge you to deny the proposed development at Chandler Crossing. I understand the intention to provide needed housing, but please do not allow it to take place in areas that will affect all our quality of life for decades to come. This development will affect the water duality of Lake Fayetteville, which is an important part of the attraction of the area.. Not only is it a destination for much recreation, it is also our fall -back source of drinking water. We need to increase the lake's water quality, not degrade it further. Please consider long-term consequences and not allow this development to be built in that area. Thank you, Maya Porter Maya M. Porter 2418 W. Mary Dr. Fayet-eville, AR 72704 479-387-0030 Click here to pet my memoir wwtv.mai aworhr.comcom 1 Planning Commissic December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Burc Date: 11 /18/2020 To: The Planning Commissioners Re: 3435 E Zion Rd Annexation and PZD request In previous meetings, there were significant comments that the above requests simply did not meet the vision of the commission. In fact, the comments that resonate most are that the only benefit to annexation is for the developer to gain access to city utilities for increased density, and the proposed annexation and subsequent rezoning request is not something to support. Commissioners have made very valid points, listened to neighbors, and provided opportunity to the applicant to discuss their reasoning. It is apparent that the flooding issues, water quality issues, access issues, safety issues, and traffic issues all lead to a prudent decision to deny the request. Sprawl and Creation of an Island: This should definitely be considered sprawl and is not within the vision of the City Planners. The subject property is surrounded by hundreds of acres of land that shall remain in the county. As a point of fact, the proposed annexation does not actually include the physical address on the notice nor where the public hearing signs have been located. It is "carved" out of the annexation request. The developer has eliminated two corners of the entire tract of land (one including the residence with the physical address) from annexation with the only foreseen purpose to "not create an island," which is prohibitive for annexation. Planning Commissi< December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( z Who's Responsible — County versus Citv Economics: The subject property is not only surrounded by property that shal remain in the county but it also lies within the Springdale School District. Under the millage agreement, a large percentage of the property taxes shall be paid to Springdale; however, the City of Fayetteville will be charged with continuous maintenance on tie county road. The county also receives a portion of the millage, but with multiple sec`ions of Zion Road required for access to the proposed development and under the jurisdiction of both the county and city, who will actually keep the road in a safe condition'? The existing one lane bridge will bear a considerable amount of ne,r/ and additional traffic. A damaged bridge will significantly increase the time for service from fire and rescue vehicles, in addition to becoming an inconvenience to the ad;acent neighbors. Who will improve and maintain the bridge? To modify the bridge to accommodate appropriate traffic would not only cost millions but also require significant improvement to the street system. With the subject property creating an island, will the city or county (or nobody) improve County Road 92 / Zion Road from Highway 265 to Butterfield Coach? Traffic and Safet It is understandable that a traffic study may not be part of the requirement for annexation, but it MUST be done prior to approval of rezoning for such requested density. Also, if annexation is approved, it MUST be confirmed if the connectivi_v section to Highway 265 is FUTURE or a requirement prior to development. For all the reasons outlined and discussed, the adjoining connectivity simply cannot handle the additional demands T,nere is already considerable traffic that traverses from the east (Highway 45, Oakland Zion, etc...) that cut through this section to connect to Highway 265 to navigate north. Because the Zion Road /Highway 265 intersection is too unsafe for a left turn, many vehicles daily cut through Copper Creek to "catch the light" and navigate south on 265. From the next attached image, one can see that there are numerous Springdale Scnools located east and northeast of the subject property. Although the developer is proposing that primary traffic will enter/exit the project using the future Zion Rd extension to Crossover, the southern entrance will be much less utilized tl-an proposed because the schools are located east and northeast. Along the northern border of the subject property and continuing east. County Road 92 (aka Zion Road) is a narrow 2-lane road with no curb and guttering on either side for the majority of the distance to Butterfield Coach Road. There is simply no safe way to bike or walk to those schools along the dangerous county roads. Planning Commissic December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Burc 3 When Zion Road is unable to handle the increased traffic, the residents of Chandler Crossing will automatically cut through Copper Creek subdivision, nearly doubling the traffic on the residentia' streets. This is one more confirmation it is sprawl. The infrastructure is not in place or at the City's discretion to improve because the main ingress and egress points will remain in the county. From Highway 265 to Copper Creek Drive, which T's into the subject property, there is not a single stop sign or traffic signal. Also, David Lashley Park is on the NE corner of the intersection. It does not have on -site parking, so there are customarily cars parked on the street, thus narrowing the passing lanes. As mentioned by adjccent land owners in the recent public hearing, the proposed entrance from Chandler Crossing to Zion Road is at the top of a blind hill just east of a 90-degree corner wit' no curb, gutters, or sidewalks. Two large trucks will struggle to pass in addition to the blind entrance exiting the proposed annexed land. To the west of the property, the one lane bridge has been discussed numerous times. It is in poor repair at this time, with a weight limit of 5 tons (10,000 pounds). Researching typical fire engines, they are commonly known to exceed this limit by five times. A typical ambulance can weigh 12,000 — 15,000 pounds, which also exceeds the limit. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 4 Summary: A simple 30 minute site inspection will have each planning comm ssioner understand and agree that this is sprawl and annexation is not the correct decis on for the residents of the City of Fayetteville. The only benefit of the annexation is 10 facilitate the PZD for 200+ homes for tie developer. There are so many reasons to deny the annexation: • Creates an island Potential for existing drainage and water quality issues — both for neighboring land owners and Lake Fayetteville Jurisdiction — county or city? Who is responsible for improvements and economic impact? • Safety — School -aged children, neighboring subdivisions, blind curves, inferior county road as connectivity points, deteriorating one lane oridge. The infrastructure and improvements to the surrounding area mus- be addressed prior to any annexation and subsequent rezoning or development. Lastly, the annexation and rezoning do NOT meet the goals set by the City: Enduring Green Network goals Reducing Urban Sprawl goals • the Mayors Box Thanks for your time and consideration. Michele Lang 3322 E. Zion Road Planning Commissi( Decemoer 14, 20: Acenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Na-icy Vaughn <vaughnnancy92@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 9:03 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Environment This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Masters Please ask for an environmental impact statement before something is passed concerning the area of Crossover and Z;on Road development. Thank you, Nancy Vaughn, concerned citizen Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Nick Anthony <nanthony@uark.edu> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:31 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Additional information (3435 Zion Rd Annexation) Atlachments: Lake Fayetteville Presentation 6-9-2020 - compressed pnotos.pdf CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open zttachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jessica, here is a powerpoint presentation that does a nice job describing additional concerns regarding the downturn of Lake Fayetteville due to reckless placement of housing developmentE with poor water removal planning. I understand that this will not be included with the packet but should be provided to the committee members, so they are aware of this additional information. Take care, Nick Planning Zommissic December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Nick Anthony <nanthony@uark.edu> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 5:03 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Rd Annexation and Rezone CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 11/18/20 Members of the Fayetteville Planning Commission, This letter is a request for you to reject the proposed annexation and rezone of the Burge property on Zion Rd. This item has come up now for the third time and it is time to take a significant stand as to why this decision is not in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville. Early in the discussions regarding the Burge farm, the residents expressed concerns regarding the current water runoff issues associated with this property and the additional water that is being delivered from the Copper Creek subdivision. The addition of high -density housing, as proposed by the developer, does not seriously consider the water challenge that this development would have on the region. Prior to the last meeting on this topic, I submitted a powerpoint presentation that clearly reveals the water related challenges in the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. I don't think anyone can deny that when you look at slide 31 "Priority Sites for Restoration and /or Conservation" you will find that areas that have undergone neighborhood development, like what is proposed, are the highest priority areas for restoration. One would have to assume that lack of attention to water control is the main contributor to this deterioration of these waterways. Poorly planned developments, regarding water management, caused this problem. Why should the current residents around the proposed development on the Burge farm expect anything different? Nothing that I have heard through 2 meetings has put me at ease regarding water management. In the first meeting there was concern that this annexation would create a doughnut with people within county being surrounded with city of Fayetteville. This problem remains with the current proposal. So, the people that live within this doughnut hole and are still in the county are afraid that there will be no support for water management. Water will come from this new development into the "county" with no fear of regulation because it is out of their jurisdiction. What guarantees do we have that this will not happen? Again, nothing has been presented by the developer to address this concern. Is it proper for the Cfty of Fayetteville to create these awkward doughnut hole situations? There has been no clarity as to who will deal with narrow road and the one lane bridge on Zion Rd. Half of the bridge is City of Fayetteville and the other half in the county. It is fine to say that most of the traffic will exit the development on the 265 side but how do you know? Why would people living on the northerr side of the development drive south then west through the whole development to exit on to 265? What about the peoole that work north of Fayetteville? Access to 540 from this location is not easy. Again, the developer has put little thought into this community concern. The land in question is within the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed which means that water from this land makes its way to Lake Fayetteville and beyond. Current concerns regarding the deterioration of water quality of this lake has been presented. Concerns regarding the deterioration of the stream banks that lead into Late Fayetteville are described in the powerpoint presentation. Relevant information regarding the unique features on this land have been presented. In fact, the Burge farm contains one of the only undisturbed "mound and Swales" feature in the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed that serves as a water filtration system for the watershed. In addition, a large "prairie" is embedded in the 1 Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( mound and swales region. it would be environmentally responsible to reestablish this region to support the future integrity of Lake Fayetteville, as an addition to the Botanical Gardens. Do we simply ignore the science -based res=_arch that clearly describes this region and the impact that its destruction would have on tre future of Lake Fayetteville? There is a clear dichotomy between the developers proposed plan for urban sprawl in the form of high -density hcusing and the protection of the prDperty of residents living close to the streams feeding Lake Fayetteville as well as the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. For me the decision is straight forward. I wait to see the science that says building this development specifically on the Burge farm will have a significant positive impact on the City of Fayetteville. think there is clear evidence that building this development specifically on the Burge farm will have a negative impact o-1 the residents living close to the streams feeding Lake Fayetteville and the Lake Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. Si -ice the developer has ignored tre concerns of the people impacted by this decision, he should not be rewarded for the plan. Best Regards Nick Anthony Planning Commissi( Decem:)er 14, 20, Acenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: shelley buonaiuto <goodhelp@cybermesa.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 321 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Concern about Chandler Crossing Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I want to express my concern about the proposed Chandler Crossing developmem. It risks negative impact on the water quality of Lake Fayetteville, already contaminated by Microcystin Toxins.The Development would cause building of road, roof and sidewalk surfaces that would channel sediment and Phosphorous into adjoining creeks. There has been recent flooding. I like to kayak on the lake, as well as hike the trails, and I see the great ecological benefits for birds, turtles and fish. Lake Fayetteville is also a back up water supply for the City of Fayetteville. In addition. I live on Clear Creek, west of the Lake and am concerned about contaminated water flows to my area. I believe it is possible and crucial to plan for development without endangering precious, imperiled ecological treasures, especially those that may serve also as our human and wildlife water supplies. Thank you, Shelley Buonaiuto 13866 Pin Oak rd. Fayetteville AR 72704 479-445-6567 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Stephanie Jones Jordan <barnesjones@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:39 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Development near Lake Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links x open attachments unless you recogni2e the sender and know the content is safe. Please reconsider, and do NOT develop the subdivision above Lake Fayetteville. As an avic bird watcher, I visit the area frequently d.iring migratior season. The only place I've ever seen a painted bunting. Water quality is so important for our own health as well as the species we share this Earth with. Tha iks Stephanie Jordan 206-947-3922 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-0000C1 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Sue Mayes <sbmayes@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 9:21 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Road Property Annexation and Rezoning proposal '.'fii This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe, Jessica, My husband Ben and I would like to weigh in the Zion Road property being proposed for annexation on Nov. 9. We have lived in our neighborhood on Valerie Road for 35 years. There are four of us live on lots bordering this proposed development that built our homes at the same time, then raised our families in these homes. Now our grandchildren come to our homes to enjoy the atmosphere of our neighborhood and the homes and yards their parents grew up in. Ben and I shared a barbed wire fence with Robert and Ellen Burge and their cattle, donkeys and llama, and they were great neighbors! We have always known that someday the farm might be sold, and a housing development might ensue. But none of us were prepared for the high -density, multi -use, cram -as -many -dwellings -as you -possibly -can scenario, which is currently before the Fayetteville Planning Commission. I'm sure that our story is similar to the stories of many people who own homes in this area that will be affected by a development such as one proposed. Several of us have visited one of the most recent neighborhoods that this developer has done, which included duplexes and single family homes. The neighborhood is less than a year old, and is already quite run-down and something that would definitely negatively affect the value of any home surrounding it. Most of the homes have already converted from single family homes inhabited by their owner to investment properties (rentals). Our quality of life is sure to be negatively impacted by the dramatic increase in traffic and the noise and light pollution that will accompany so many people living in such close proximity after being in our idyllic setting for the majority of our adult lives. That being said, at the very least the proposed development is completely incompatible and almost conflicting with the immediately surrounding neighbors. We have spent the last 35 years caring for and investing in our property, with literal blood, sweat and tears, hoping it would provide for us in our retirement years. The proposed development will surely significantly decrease the value our home, greatly impacting our ability to survive our retirement years. Please know we are not opposed to the land being developed in a manner more consistent with the neighboring homes. We would like for any development to enhance and not devalue the neighboring properties and our ability to continue to love where we live. Just because a development meets the criteria of a plan doesn't mean it is appropriate for a particular community within our city, such as in this case. Therefore we would like the Planning Commission only approve a development of much less density and single family homes, something similar to the Copper Creek neighborhood to the north of the Burge property. Thank you for your consideration and time. Please send me a link for the Zoom meeting on Nov. 9`h Ben and Sue Mayes 3266 E Valerie Dr Fayetteville AR Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Susan Drouilhet <susan.drouilhet@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 5:10 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Development Plans in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed J + )Ni This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jessie - I have just learned of the proposed Chandler Crossing development and its potential impact on the Lake Fayetteville watershed. As a frequent user of the lake and its surroundings - rowing, kayaking, hiking, running, biking - I am very concerned about the potential impact of the proposed development on the health of the watershed. It seems that the efforts to not only maintain but improve the watershed health and vitality as promoted by the Lake Fayetteville Watershed Partnership would be greatly impeded by this development. This lake is a precious water resource in Fayetteville and needs to be protected and improved, not just for recreation, but for the preservation of a valuable and irreplaceable resource. Sound and sustainable development practices that provide for protecting the watershed make good sense for all, economically, environmentally, and aesthetically. I would ask that you please take these concerns into consideration as the plans for the development are reviewed. Thank you, Susan Drouilhet 1119 N Shady Lane Fayetteville, AR 72703 (479) 236-2341 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: victoria mcclendon <viktorialeigh@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 1:25 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Concern for water quality impact of proposed development CT, "'+'' This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello J. Masters, I am a Fayetteville citizen who enjoys Lake Fayetteville in many ways and who volunteers for the Lake Fayetteville Wa_ershed Alliance lake cleanups and invasive plant removal efforts.. I am aware of the posted al;Ee bloom warnings this year and the lake assessments with concerns for runoff to the lake. It sEems that it is clear that the city should have a position of protecting Lake Fayettedi le, and committing to its long term improvement, as a backup water source, and as an asset for public recreation. There are so many reasons that Lake Fayetteville has great appeal and potential. It so naturally works with the greEnway, expansion of biking and hiking trails, Botanical Garden, birding, fishing, and family enjoyment. And the city's commitment and support to new recreation areas, the south Fayettevil a rivEr development for example, should not bely the existing underdeveloped natural jewels- Lake Fayetteville the predominant one. I woald like to see this long to-m commitment to improve the water quality and public enjoyment of the Lake in formal city planning, and ask in this present moment that any nearby building development plans be required to assess the impact on Lake Fayetteville., and the Planning Commission bring that serious consideration to their decision makin€. Respectfully, Victoria McClendon 146 West Prospect Faye=tevile AP, Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-0D0001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: A P <adampinion@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 9:46 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Re: City Planning Attachments: image001.png CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for the information. I would like the following include in the comments for the meeting. My name is Adam Pinion and my family and I live at 3522 E Zion, the most northern section of the proposed plan. If this proposal is approved, I will be on a land island on my own property. I have Fayetteville utilities (except no sewer) and mailing address, but a Springdale zip code of 72764. This worries me. Additionally, traffic and flooding are of great concern. The nature of the proposed property isn't consistent with the feel of the land in this area. The soil is prime farmland. Use the land for what it's best intention should be. I am against this development and the threat of a land island that this possess to myself and my family. Adam Pinion On Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 8:55 AM Masters, Jessica <*masters@fayetteville-ar.gov> wrote: Good morning, Adam, The developer is bringing back the same annexation request that was previously tabled, and is now requesting to rezone the property that is being annexed and a portion of adjacent land along N. Crossover to a PZD, or a Planned Zoning District. The proposal indicates some commercial zoning along the property's Crossover frontage, and residential zoning throughout the rest of the property. For a quick visual, I recommend taking a look at the Planning Projects Map to show the land in question. The project numbers are as follows: • ANX-2020-000001 • PZD-2020-000002 The plans can be viewed at this link here. This link includes both information on the annexation, and information regarding the proposed PZD zoning. The entire project is still under staff's review, and final comments on both will be available by Thursday, November 5 ahead of the November 9 Planning Commission meeting. The meeting will begin at 5:30 PM. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( The meeting is likely to be held virtually due to the pandemic and information aboLt how to participate can be found at this link. The meeting spezi-ics are typically posted around 24 hours ahead of time. If yo.i would like to issue comments and want to make sure they are included in staff's report, please have them to me by Wednesday, November 4 so I can make sure to include them .311. Members of the public can issue comments to me vi 3 email, phone, (or mail!), and you can also provide comments at the meeting. (You can continue to submit comments to rre after that deadline, bu: they will not be included in the packet). I am happy to answer any additional questions you might have. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I nstasram I YouTube 0 From: A P <adampinion@email.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2C20 8:36 AM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: City planning CAUTION; This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or op=_n at-achments unless you recognize the sender and know the conte-itis safe. Gooc morning. Planning Commissic December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-070001 Bur( I'm attempting to locate more information about the site plan or submitted proposal for the requested annexation and rezoning of the 3435 East Zion property. I live at 3522 e zion and this directly impacts myself and my family. I've attempted to use the City of Fayetteville planning website but the instructions to the dropbox for current items doesn't exist anymore. Any information is appreciated. I attended the virtual meeting in September for the same property where it was tabled indefinitely, so I'm looking to see if there's anything different and I appreciate your time. Adam Pinion Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Allen Carney <acarnack@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:41 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: East Zion road zoning hThis email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize I J the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, I'm writing to ask the city to contemplate opening the extension of Zion Roac to the east at it's juncture with Crossover Rd before allowing additional property to the east of that intersection to be developed. This would allow planning to take a future look at traffic and water flow before allowing additional development work to be done. Problems that could be overcome before they become massive: 1) flooding in the area 2) diverted traffic through an established neighborhood 3) replacement of a small bridge By extending the current Zion Road to the east across Crossover Road, master planners could alleviate these as well as other problems. Thanks for your consideration. Allen Carney 3747 E Lexus Dr, Fayetteville, AR 72764 479-871-7042 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: whiterl@cox.net Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:50 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Road Development This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is. safe. Dear Ms. Masters, My husband and I want to object to the large development that is proposed for Zion Road. We bought a house in Stonewood/Copper Creek in late 2018. We live at 3145 Ladelle Place. You cannot imagine the disappointment to find out that a developer is trying to put in a huge, crowded complex next to our neighborhood. This is a quiet neighborhood with so many older folks who walk and so many children on bikes, etc. There is no major road plan to carry the traffic load for the proposed huge development. Our neighborhood .... nor the surrounding rural neighborhoods .... does not deserve to have this. Our whole area is quiet, somewhat rural, and with higher end homes. East Fayetteville is wonderful. We have all heavily invested in our homes. A developer wants to "sandwich in" a crunched and crowded neighborhood with no major road development to handle that traffic level. This type of neighborhood DOES NOT FIT INTO EAST FAYETTEVILLE. EAST FAYETTEVILLE IS MADE UP OF QUIET AND SAFE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. Not only traffic but flooding is a major concern for many of our neighbors. Please help us to preserve our wonderful family neighborhoods in East Fayetteville. Dr. Charles and Rebecca White Virus -free. www.avast.com Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Darryl Calvert <calvert42@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 11:22 PM To.- Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing CAUTIOP� This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or cpen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The development of Chandler Crossing on East Zion Road will be detrimental to the existing neighborhoods. Buildings with no maximum height limitations could lead to apartment houses rivaling those downtown, on campus, and on Dickson. The flooding problems already in existence in the area will get worse and the water flowing into the Botanical Garden and Lake Fayetteville will be heavily polluted from the development runoff. Finally traffic congestion during and after construction will cause personal a-ld property damage, not to mention increased air pollution. I respectfully ask the City Planning Commission to reject completely this awkward proposal that will spoil the environment and ambience of northeast Fayet-eville. Sincerely, Darryl Calvert D Planning Commissi( Decerrber 14. 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Deborah Ogg <deborahgogg@hotmail.com> Sent:—uesday, November 3, 2020 6:38 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Road Rezone/Annex CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed development on Zion Road. I do understand that the beautiful property off East Zion will not always stay the same. However, what does concern me is the city allowing this project to go forward without first resolving the issues of traffic and flooding which no doubt will be a problem. We live in Copper Creek and our neighborhood along with Stonewood and Embry Acres will be just a few areas affected by your decision. Thanking you in advance for your consideration and thoughtfulness on this matter. Debbie Ogg Sent from my iPad Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Debra Aasmundstad <dka5065@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 146 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 3435 E. Zion Road Annexation and Zoning Request-- Citizen Comments CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Maste-s, My name is Debra Aasmundstad and I live at 4701 Copper Creek Drive, Fayetteville, in the Copper Creek Subdivision. see that the Fayetteville City Planning Commission is, again, having a hea-ing on the above -noted ma _ter. I've reviewed the proposed annexation, and the revised detailed map of the proposed development of this land. Sad to say, the proposed development is the epitome of badly designed urban sprawl. The dens ty and type of housing, and access, is almost comical in its design. Urban Sprawl is genera ly characterized by discontinuous, haphazard, uncoo,dinated, unplanned or poorly planned urban development. It is characterized by low density, excessive consumption of land, automobile dependence, separation of land -uses, social segregation and displeasing aesthetics. This should not become the face of Fayetteville. Clearly the land will eventually be sold and developed. Preserving natural resources such as farmland, parks, open spaces and unused land is one way to reduce urban sprawl. I wish to continue to be proud and boast of being a resident of Fayetteville. Please practice your due diligence as city planners in considering this proposed land annexation and this development plan. They do not meet the standards set by Fayetteville in stellar community design. Surely thoughtfulness, with high standards in mind, need to be at _he core of your deliberations. Thank you for your consideration. I trust you will act in a manner which keeps Fayetteville a wonderful place in which to live. Debra Aasmundstad Planning Commissi< December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur: Masters, Jessica From: Dennis Graves <denem5051 @yahoo.com> Sent: M Dnday, November 2, 2020 11:51 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Rd rezoning proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good day After reviewing the available plans for this project we are even more concerned about multiple things. *Water exiting the retention ponds, one of them exits right into our back yard. * Drainage concerns. (Can't stress this one enough) * Since some of the drainage in this proposal is down their right -away, what part will SWEPCO play? * Density and style of homes. *Fence type, if any, along property ines. *Green -spaces, or lack of, within each planned area. *Potential loss of property values. *Zion road safety issues...( narrow road, increased traffic) * Dangerous one lane bridge with _c ton weight limit (which is currently only a suggestion to heavy traffic.) 1 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Planning Shared Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:21 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: FW: Annexation and Rezoning, Patricia Severino prDper-y Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mourrain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 aharrison(cDfa•letteville-ar.gov) T 4-9.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8232 Website I Fac�book I Twitter I 'n3taoram I YouTube CITY OP FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: Malcolm [mailto:dmalcolm.mcnair@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 11:01 AM To: Planning Shared <planning@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Malcolm McNair <dmalco m.mcnair@gmail.com> Subject: Ann=xation and Rezoning, Patricia Severino property CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or oEe-i attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a-i adjacent property owner to the Patricia Severino property, with layman description of 3435 E Zion Road, Washington County, Arkansas, my sister and I are very much in favor of the Annexaticn into the City and requested rezoning of the 59 acres. This Annexation and Rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission on November 9, 2020 at 5:30pm. Thar k You for your consideration of our support. ECT Farmland, LLLP D Malcolm McNair, Jr. Lucy McNair Jones Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Planning Shared Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 8:11 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: FW: Resining of E. Zion & North Crossover ANX and PZD on Zion Rd. Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mountain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 aharrison(a fayetteville-ar.gov) T 479.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8202 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: nfullerl2@aol.com [mailto:nfullerl2@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 5:57 PM To: Planning Shared <planning@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Resining of E. Zion & North Crossover CAUTIOV This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My home at 4260 N Hillside Terrace is adjacent to this development. I am concerned about what is going to be built next to our fence. I hope there will be no large apartment complex butted up against our fence for us to look at from our deck. I would hope there is a design available for the people to look over before this is passed. Single family homes with privacy fences would be something that would keep our property values from going down. Ray & Nancy Fuller 4260 N Hillside Terrace Fayetteville, AR 72703 479-530-2924 nfullerl2@aol.com Sent from AOL Mobile Mill. Get the new AOL app mail. mobile. aol. com Planning Commissic December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Georgia Ross <georgiahross@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 3:51 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Proposed development on Zion/Crossover CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I write in corcern for the development proposal at Zion/Crossover. My concern pertains tc drainage. Will this proposal slow water getting out of the neighborhood by increasing flow from the development into Hilton Creek? Several yards in Stonewood already flood during heavy rain. Also, I am concerned about the effect on The Botanical Garden of the Ozarks which has flooded on occasion and suffered damage to plant and signage. The garden is a popular spot for many people and is supported IargEly by memberships and fees from activities. The Garden is a kig draw to our area from all of NWA and ndeed from all cver the USA. Its importance to the economy, to family life, and to recreation and relaxation should never be overlooked. Thank you for considering the concerns mentionec here. Sent from my iPad Georgia Ross 3741 Hearthstone Dr Fayetteville AR 72764 870 208 3396 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-0D0001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: James Cooper <DrCooper77@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 1:43 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion road proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We reviewed the amended proposal by the developer. Once again, where is the drainage feasibility study, and once again, there is no mention of the na-row road or inadequate bridge, not to mention the problems with county ownership or maintenance. It is our understanding that the extension of Zion Road south past the traffic light is a possible future project that would entail the city purchasing that land and paying for the extension. Since our property is downhill from a proposed extension, again where is the drainage feasibility study? We appreciate the desires of the developer, however, to extend Zion beyond the traffic light to facilitate his desire for commercial expansion along Zion plus apartments and homes seems inappropriate at this time. Zion road from 265 to his property can not accommodate continuous traffic involving heavy dump trucks and construction materials. I see nothing in his proposal that resolves the issue with the county. We are adamantly opposed to the city approving this proposal. Dr. James Cooper 3209 East Zion Road Fayetteville 72764 479-872-6558 Sent from my Phone Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Jessica Farmer <jjfarmer1234@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 8:36 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Road Annexation/Rezoning Concerns Attachments: Video.mov; image1 jpeg; image4jpeg; image2jpeg imaje3jpeg CAI TION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. DeE r Jess e, My name is Jessica Booth and I live on E Zion road. I would like to request that this er-.ail be included for the planning commissioners review. Thank you! Plarning Commissioners, I am writing today to express concerns regarding the E Zion Road rezoning request, annexation, and plans for development. Before I jump into my concerns, I'd like to urge each of you to take a drive cut to our neighborhood. Take a walk all around and watch the traffic. Note the condition of the road and the bridge in relation to the proposed plans. Check out the several 90 degree turns of the road in relation to where the plan wants co pat entrances/exits. Check out our livestock and gardens (although they looked much more alive this summer, the garders I mean ... the livestock is still alive and well). You're more than welcome to park at our house, as parking on the street is not a great idea due to the narrow road. Survey the character of our neighborhood. I can assure you, what is bei:ig proposed is absolutely not in line with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. As was discussed in the last meeting in August, a very large percentage of the proposed property was described as "prime farmland." Why is this prime farmland being wasted? The properties adjacent --o the proposed property are a semi -agricultural type community. As mentioned before, many neighbors raise livestcck, crive tractors, maintain ponds, and grow gardens to feed thei- families and neighbors. Most of the homes surroundin=_ the proposed development area are cn 1-3+ acre lots, with plenty of distance between neighbors to maintain our hobby farris or hobby gardens. We voiced our concerns at the last meeting regarding road safety, bridge safety, and increased traffic problems that E Zion Road can hardly sustain as is. Also, not discussed as much is the intersection of E Zion road and 265. It is already incredibly dangerous (especially turning left!). Additional traffic would compound the problem. A stoplight would be direly needed to prevent even more accidents at that dangerous intersection if traffic increases. I will attach photos of the sketchy one lane, 5 ton limit bridge that has come up so often in our concerns (which is half in the city, half in the county). There is also a video attached of the bridge guardrail that is attached by one single bolt. For reference, google says that an ambulance weighs 5 tons, a cement truck weighs 16-24 :ons, a fire truck can weigh 40 tons, and the legal weight of a semi truck is 40 tons. I have personally seen several of these vehicle types cross our tiny little bridge. I fear that with this type of development, illegal(?) crossings of overweight veh cles will increase and eventually the bridge will fail. We talked about flooding that already damages and impacts our property even withou- an incredibly dense development upstream. Roofs and asphalt, especially hundreds and hundreds of them gill rot absorb rainwater. This Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( type of development will make it much worse for those downstream, including potentially polluting runoff into Lake Fayetteville. None of these concerns that we have expressed previously (or currently) have been alleviated. In fact, with the addition of the developer's plans for this proposal, my concerns have gotten much worse. The proposed plans for the property in question are a blatant, almost comical attempt to make as much money as possible without regard to the current members of the community or the character or the area. As others have surely said, we are not against developmert. We would love to welcome new neighbors to this community. At the last meeting in August, a commissioner suggested that the developer come out and talk and work with the neighbors regarding this proposed development. I can assure you that not a single attempt was made to communicate with us. We are friendly folks and would have welcomed a cl ance to work together to safely (and without creating additional flooding) expand the area while preserving the character of the neighborhood (6 feet apart and masked, of course). The developers have made it clear that their priority is not to preserve the character, safety, or wellbeing of the community, but to stuff as many dwellings into as small an area as possible so as to make the most money possible. Thank you for your time and your consideration, Jessica Booth 3400 E Zion Rd Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissi( December 14. 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Joseph Robertson <joseph.robertson@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 9:40 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing / 3435 E Zion Rd annexation anc rezoning CAt T!oNl This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or oxen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms Masters and Commissioners, The latest annexation proposal does not meet the city's guiding policies on what should be annexed. Please reference my previous letter below (8/24) reviewing the report released just tefore our last meeting. All of the previously voiced concerns still apply. Neighbors have issue with inc-eas=d traffic on Zion, pedestrian safety, bridge (load and flow) capacity, existing and future storm water runoff, sprawl, emergency services access, and impaft to the Lake Fayetteville water quality. Last time annexation of this property was discussed, one commissioner pointed out that the lines do not follow any natural corridor (not even property lines). This proposal does not a_terrpt to correct that issue. I hope that you carefully consider Mr. Lang's report about the current water runoff capacity of this area and the dramatic increase in flooding that will occur from added roofing and paved areas. It is in the city's best interest to avoid floods as the property damage leads to lower home values and water pollution that flows directly into Lake Fayetteville. Extending the city's borders to facilitate more development affects not only the established homes and the lake, but it also impacts our wonderful Botanical Gardens. Please reject the current proposal and consider only annexing and zoning property ocalized to the 265/Zion light intersection while requiring significant storm water runoff steps be implemented and verified. Even working systems will degrade and fail over time without proper maintenance. Joseph Robertson 3397 E. Zion Rd. From: Masters, Jessica <jmas.ers@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 24, 202C 3:18 PM To: Jcseph Robertson <joseph.robertson@outlook.com> Cc: kellierobe@gmail.com <kellierobe@gmail.com> Subject: RE: 8/24 Fayetteville P anning Commission Memo - New Business items 6 & 7 Joseph, Thank you for your input, and a;ain, apologies for the oversight on the email we receivec from Kellie. I have forwarded both yours and Kellie's emails to the Planning Commission. Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-OD0001 Bur( I encourage you to attend the meeting this evening. Information about how to sign in can be found at this link, and I encourage you to register ahead of time. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www. fayettevi I le-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube IVCITY or F"ETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: Joseph Robertson <joseph.robertson@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 1:38 PM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: kellierobe@gmail.com Subject: 8/24 Fayetteville Planning Commission Memo - New Business items 6 & 7 U, ' This email originated from outside cf the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mrs. Masters, I was disappointed to see that our letter — sent 8/17 - was not included in the planning commission report for this evenings meeting. We tried to keep it to a single page so that it would be easy to read and include. I see that you responded this morning and said it would be provided to the council, but it worries me that they will not have adequate time to read ours and other letters that were missed. After reading through the report, I wanted to provide my feedback and questions on that content in case I am not given a chance this evening. 1. On page 2 under Infrastructure, you state that any required street and drainage improvements would be established at the time of development. a. Is the total cost of those improvements to be borne by the developer? If not, how can the city make an informed decision without knowing the financial impact? b. Page 9 describes Annexation policies as guidelines "designed to ensure that public services, infrastructure, and utility extension is properly addressed in order to manage growth". Based on that definition, it sounds like annexation is exactly the time to address those services and not at development. c. Can we get the ball rolling on having a flood study done in the section that is already under city jurisdiction (between the 1-lane bridge and 265)? Flooding is already a concern without changes, it makes sense that we first determine what is happening before adding additional development. Fire response time is longer than their 6 minute goal. To meet their goal to cover this undeveloped neighborhood, would the city need to add another fire station and at what expense? Would that also be covered by the developer or the taxpayer? Page 3 shows scores from the City Plan 2040 Infill Matrix with one of the elements that contributes to that score as a "4 minute fire department response time" yet it was stated the response time is actually 7.2 minutes. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 4. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.a states that the city should "not annex areas that create an island or peninsula". The finding text explains that this annex would not create an island. It does however create a peninsula of county land wrapped by Fayetteville City limits. This fact counters tie guideline. 5. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.d says that the "annexed areas should follow natura corridors". a. Can you please define "natural corridors"? b. The findings state that "annexation boundaries almost follow the proper--v lines... [but] does not necessarily follow any natural, already existing corridors". This seems to counter the guideline. 6. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.f about environmentally sensitive areas a. The finding section seems to argue that city oversite is needed to address flooding issues, but most of the land between the named property and Lake Fayetteville is already in the City. This has not helped matters in the —6 years that we have owned our property. I got to speak with Alan Pugh on these matters this morning and it sounds like it is currently the property owner s responsibility for keeping the stream clear of debris. Beyond making sure every property owner understands that, I believe a flood study could help root out the cause(s). b. The findings also mention development will be subjected to the City's 3treamside protection standards. How will those standards protect current residents and how will they address preexisting issues? 7. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.g "Public services must be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas." a. While the Police Department has no concerns with the additional load, we have experienced delays with the current boundary lines because both City Dispatch and County Dispatcn are quick to defer to the other. Muddying the waters by making an irregular boundary will ma ke th's a bigger issue. b. With the estimated response times for Fire protection service not meeting the current standard, what is the current plan to address this policy? 8. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.h Annexed areas should receive the same level o- service — While this address already receives Water and Trash/Recycling pickup, what additional cost will be incurred by the city to add Fire Protection (to standards) and Sewer service? I see no estimates in this report. Is there another report that has those numbers? 3. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the up -grading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. a. Engineering states upgrades will be needed. This statement counters the ;;.sideline. b. Planning states significant infrastructure improvements would need to oe made. This also counters the guideline. c. There was no mention of capacity for gas. =0. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.m Planning with adjacent jurisdictions — Is Washington Count a jurisdiction? Has it been discussed with them? Do they want the city to take on Zion Rd. as part of their street plan? 11. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.n "Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater, and sewer." a. How are these agreements established? The finding text only mentions discussions and does not define the procedure or included parties. b. What if neighbors do not agree with the plan? What recourse is available? 12. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.p "Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process." a. I understand that Item #7 on tonight's agenda was rescinded. It sounds like the plan is to move forward with annexation discussion which counters this guideline. It is very concerning to me that the city would take this step without proper public input and potentially deciding on it beh nd closed doors. It is especially concerning if it potentially affects our ability to continue using oL r own land consistent with how we have since we purchased the property. 13. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.q "An annexation study should be completed on a I annexation proposals." a. The finding states that responses with other departments were included in this report. The only data I see included is the Fire Department response time estimate which counters guidelines already discussed above. Please define what an annexation study entails. b. Where is the cost estimate that will be placed on the taxpayers? 3 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000031 Bur( 14. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.r "Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals." a. Will that proposal be public and open for comment? 15. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.t "Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries." a. It seems very ambiguous what is considered a large vs moderate size annexation. b. The finding text seems to skirt over the issue that annexing the portion North of Hilton creek would create a distinct peninsula as previously mentioned with item 12.3.5.a. 16. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.0 "Conduct a fiscal impact assessment on large annexations." a. Given finding that "annexing land toward the northeastern extent... can pose financial challenges for the City to maintain the public infrastructure in a fiscally sustainable manner", should we not therefore require an impact assessment so that the council can make an informed decision? 17. Is the land in question for this annex to be used to establish Title IV (Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968) or Title VII (Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970) housing? 18. Will this item get placed on the next election if passed by the city council? Based on the findings in this report countering guidelines and no hard data backing up the decision, I cannot understand why the staff recommends approving this annex request. Joseph Robertson 3397 E. Zion Rd. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Kellie Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 1:47 PM To: Joseph Robertson; Masters, Jessica Subject: Re: Concern about 3435 E. Zion Rd rezoning request This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commissioners and Ms. Masters, I appreciate the information sent out concerning the proposed Chandler Crossing development. As our family stated back in August, we have many concerns with this development. Foremost are flooding and safety. The proposal mentions that a drainage report and traffic study will be submitted. Who will be responsible for orga-iizinp- these studies? What is the timeline for them? Are there any requirements that the studies be completed and someone Epprove them prior to the development work beginning? What recourse will current property owners have to combat damages from poorly pla-fined developments? Since we moved into our hone 6 years ago, at 3397 E. Zion Rd, flooding from Hilton Creek has been a constant concern. We have seen nothing done to alleviate the drainage issues. There are many factor-, at play including unmaintained existing retention ponds, undersized culverts along Zion, and excessive vegetation in Hilton Creek all the way to Hwy 265. During a hard rain, the back of our property often turns into a river,-lowir_g straight into our neighbor's home to our west. Another contributing factor is the low water bridge on the Burgess property. They have placed fencing across the creek, which catches debris and forces the pooling water on their property outside of the creek bed and eventually reroutes through our property. The ditches along Zion Road fill up quickly with the excessive runoff and undersized calverts cause it all to spill over the road. The one lane bridge becomes impassable and a safety hazard as water covers the road and bridge. We have attempted removing brush up to the one -lane bridge ourselves, but for it to be effective, that action must be carried through to the larger culverts at Hwy 265. If new development is put in place, without very careful planning and ongoing maintenance, we are concerned this flooding problem will only become worse. We are attaczing pictures from the floocing so far in 2020. We can provide pictures from previous years that look very similar. Our hope is that the city and county can find a way to finally address the cause before adding more homes and devel:)pme-it in this area. We would very much like to remain in the county and at the very least remain zoned agricul_ure so we can continue to use our land as a family farm. Can you provide us any information about how regulations or requirements might change for our property if the area is rezoned? As mentioned above, the one lane bridge is a safety problem. There are issues with visibility, load carrying capacity, Gnd traffic flow, and it may also be acting as a choke point for water during heavy rains. An increase in population on this section of road increases the chance of pedestrian accidents, as there are no sidewalks or bike lanes, except for a small section of sidewalk at Hwy 265 and another section at Copper Creek. People drive through the area with little regard to children playing in the yard o- people exercising on the road. Our family enjoys the playgrou-id in Copper Creek. It is within easy walking distance, but due to the way people drive and the current state of the road, we usually choose to drive for safety. We have not seen any information on how the city will support the families in the new development area. Where will they go to school? Will current residents be moved to a different school? What emergency suipor- systems will cover this area? The few times we have needed either police or ambulance, the dispatch wastes time ser_ding us back and forth between Fayetteville City and Washington County. It seems they do not know where we belong either and care was delayed. What will happen if the area doubles or triples in families? How will their services be provided in a timely and safe n-:anner? Planning Commissi( December 14, 20; Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( The proposal mentions the development will be similar to the Lakewood Subdivision. That subdivision is very dissimilar from the current Copper Creek neighborhood and surrounding rural area. I don't see how the developers can state this new neighborhood will be "similar" to surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed development will require the creation of infrastructure. Why should the City of Fayetteville be left with this bill? The City has already stated it wants to prevent sprawl. How is this development not sprawl? My family loves our neighborhood. We love the access we have to both Fayetteville and Springdale. We hope any future development will work to preserve our environment, not create more problems for flooding or property damage due to poor planning. We hope developers will carefully consider how their work will affect not only the surrounding homes, but the Botanical Garden of the Ozarks and nearby roadways that can be impacted by increased flooding. We aren't shying away from new neighbors. We love the area and understand why others will too. We hope any new families will find a similar, well cared for environment, with easy access to services. We do not want to see a neighborhood thrown together quickly with no regards for the timing of fire or police, with no regards to the impact to local schools or nearby property. I would encourage the planning commission to come out and view the area for themselves. Maybe seeing will help everyone better understand our concerns. As mentioned above, I am attaching pictures of flooding from this year. We would welcome discussion on how to prevent this in the future. Regards, Pellie Robertson 3397 E. Zion Rd. 479-283-6182 Planning Commissi< December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bun w Z� __ "•,.7 �''.i mil* y�-, Y - ✓ Est • �, �,.:. �,�-�. IL n , s y�m 1 a Ian _ •�.. 'ice • � I - r •.S 3R 3 77 _ f F .a K I• Masters, Jessica From: Kristin Collins <kristin.collins65@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 2:10 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 3435 E. Zion Rd. Ln. This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or ooen attachments unless you reccgnize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Masters, I live in a nearby subdivision, Copper Creek. The 85 acres behind us can Not sustain a multi family and commercial properties. There are drainage and flooding issues, traffic issues, not to mEnticn a complete change to the environment! We do not want this in our beautiful rural setting. You need to hear what we have to say as residents of this area. Our area can not sustain more development and keep Fayetteville a desirable place to live. Thee is too much already! —his is not .he area -or development for many reasons. I have lived in Fayetteville for 20 years anc want my local government to continue t:) listen to its res dents. Kristin Collins, B.F.A., M.S. Counselor Heritage High 1 Planning Commissi( Decerrber 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: mmbritain@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:47 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing concerns C.AU 1'C)N This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessie, As a Fayetteville resident who is frequently rowing on Lake Fayetteville, I am very concerned with the proposed Chandler Crossing development. As I'm sure you are aware, the water quality of Lake Fayetteville is not good, with sediment and P coming in from Clear Creek clearly the culprit. The lake has experienced repeated dangerous blue-green algal blooms (microcystin toxin), which correlate to the eutrophic conditions in the lake. The lake has become an important outdoor destination for hikers, bikers, rowers, kayakers, and fisherman. It's on the square to square bike route, and therefore has visitors from throughout the region. The lake deserves to be protected. I'm afraid that the Chandler Crossing development, with —400 houses within the lake's nearby watershed, will negatively impact the lake's water quality. The plan includes miles of impervious surfaces: roofs, roads, sidewalks --all surfaces that will move sediment and P laden run-off directly into the adjoining creeks without the natural filters that a plant rich riparian zone can provide. Neighbors have provided photos to you demonstrating recent flooding. I'm sure the planning commission is also aware that Lake Fayetteville is the City's back-up water supply. For that reason alone, we should be careful of developments in the watershed. One of the recommendations in the Watershed Conservation Resource Center's report (funded in part by the City of Fayetteville) was to "Conserve family farms as working farms ..." This —80 acre plot was until recently a working farm. I realize that we cannot stop growth completely in an area where the population is increasing, but I would ask that you pause and reconsider this development with the health of the lake in mind. Can the land be preserved or developed in a way that will have less of an impact on our water supply? Thank you for your consideration. Where can I optain the Zoom link for the Planning Meeting where this will be addressed? And, are citizens allowed to speak? Sincerely, Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72703 479 236 0926 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Margret Walker <wmargret09@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 1:03 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 3435 E Zion rezoning proposal concerns Attachments: Planning Commission Members and City Staff.docx CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reccgnize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessica, I have attached my concerns to be presented to the November meeting of the Planning Commission. Thanks for your assistance, Margret M. Walker 3441 Pepper•nill PI, Fayetteville, AR 72764 1 Planning Commissi( Decerrber 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-WO001 Bur( Planning Commission Members and City Staff: Subject: Annexation 3435 E. Zion RD, Chandler Crossing Proposed Annexation From: Margret M. Walker, resident of Copper Creek Subdivision, adjacent to proposed annexation My concerns: 1. Traffic access and flow out of a proposed high -density dwellings' area The proposed street connections: Two new streets onto Zion Rd from the proposed site going west over a one -lane bridge to HWY 265 with no stop lights on HWY 265 at that intersection. Not mentioned is for the more likely scenario of these two new accesses onto E. Zion Rd to flow into Copper Creek Subdivision onto Hearthstone Drive a more likely route for a subdivision of multi -family constructions. Copper Creek has struggled with existing traffic speeding in a residential area along this street. On many occasions speed alerts have been installed at the request of the POA to protect children and residents from speeding cars some of which use it as a short cut from Buiterfield Trail onto HWY 265. • Also, include as a future street connection is a street in the Fayetteville Master Plan should a future additional row of lots be built to feed into a proposed street near the eastern property. As proposed pushing traffic through the Copper Creek Subdivision on Hearthstone Drive or across a one -lane bridge. 2. Devaluing of existing property in the Copper Creek Subdivision. The 35' and 50' wide lots listed for townhouses or multifamily residences adjacent to Copper Creek Subdivision will diminish the value of existing homes due to the density and traffic flow expected. 3. The homeowners in the existing flood zone: Without addressing existing limited street flow out of Zion across a one -lane bridge, the existing drainage/flooding issue from Hylton Branch (not including the proposal of 260 lots east of these homes), would that not invite a lawsuit? I do not mention such as anything other than these homes are at risk as it is. Videos and photos of frequent flooding up to and into these homes and buildings is easy to provide. To disregard the issues and further acerbate their concerns for these homeowners simply could not be accepted. Their investments in their home and property would compel them to protect their investments. Issues I would hope the Commission would address: 1. Existing drainage and flooding from Hylton Branch. 2. Denying annexation of a high density residential proposal in an area not suited to multi -family construction. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Michele <mlang9669@gmaiI.com> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 1:41 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 3435 E Zion Rd annexation and rezoning requests CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or o yen attachments unless you reccgnize the sender and know the contert is safe. Ms. Masters, Our neighborhood has seen the new signs posted at this property, giving notice of annexation and rezoning requests again. As the serri-official spokesperson for a group of neighbors, I am rEquesting a copy of the proposed plat, description of developer's plans, or any other information you iavE relating to this subject. If you are able to send all this by email, that would be great. Then I can share it with the others. Thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, Michele Lan; 3322 E. Zion Rd Mlang9669@gmail.com Sent from Mail for Windows 13 Planninc Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Michele Lang <mlang9669@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 1:30 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Re: 3435 E Zion Rd annexation and rezoning requests I a"` - This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessie, two quick questions for you Will the emails/comments that were included in the first staff report be included in this second report, or are we starting over with just new emails? Are we allowed to know the name of the developer or company? We would like to see any of his previous projects, which seems only fair. Thanks, Michele Lang Sent from my iPad On Oct 22, 2020, at 3:02 PM, Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> wrote: Michele, Thank you for reaching out. The developer is bringing back the same annexation request that was previously tabled, and is now requesting to rezone the property that is being annexed and a portion of adjacent land along N. Crossover to a PZD, or a Planned Zoning District. The proposal indicates some commercial zoning along the property's Crossover frontage, and residential zoning throughout the rest of the property. For a quick visual, I recommend taking a look at the Planning Projects Map to show the land in question. The project numbers are as follows: • ANX-2020-000001 • PZD-2020-000002 The plans can be viewed at this link here. This link includes both information on the annexation, and information regarding the proposed PZD zoning. The entire project is still under staff's review, and final comments on both will be available by Thursday, November 5 ahead of the November 9 Planning Commission meeting. The meeting will begin at 5:30 PM. The meeting is likely to be held virtually due to the pandemic and information about how to participate can be found at this link. The meeting specifics are typically posted around 24 hours ahead of time. If you and your fellow neighbors would like to issue comments and want to make sure they are included in staff's report, please have them to me by Wednesday, November 4 so I can make sure to include them 1 Planning Commissi< December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( all. Members of the public can issue comments to me via email, phone, (or r-iail!), and they can also provide comments at the meeting. (You can continue to submit comments t.- me after that deadline, but they will not be included in the packet). Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, A-kansas (479)575-8239 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube <image001.png> From: Michele <mlang9669@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 1:41 PM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: 343S E Zion Rd annexation and rezoning requests CAU 1 *ON This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do rot click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Masters, Our neighborhood has seen the new signs posted at this property, giving nctice of annexation and rezoning requests again. As the semi-official spokesperson for a grDup Zf neighbors, I am requesting a copy of the proposed plat, description of developer's plans, or Zny other information you have relating to this subject. If you are able to send all this by email, that would be great. Then I can share it with the others. Thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, Michele Lang 3322 E. Zion Rd Mlang9669@gmail.com Sent from Mail for W ndows 10 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-0D0001 Bur( I To: Fayetteville Planning Commission Re: Proposed Annexation and Rezoning 3435 E. Zion Rd Thank you for listening and considering the area residents' previous comments on annexation in August. Now that the developer has submitted plans for rezoning into a mixed use project of high density, the neighborhood is even more upset at this proposal. Our major concerns are drainage, increase in traffic, and maintaining the quality of our neighborhood. Flood control and water drainage MUST be addressed prior to any development. Those of us who live just west and north of the subject property already have to contend with flooding every time there are heavy rains. Some owners have had their homes flooded multiple times. Requests for solutions to the city and county over the years have been brushed off. The stream channel of Hilton Creek is not adequate to handle the amount of runoff currently from unimproved land. The city and county need to work together on the ongoing drainage problems before allowing more vacant land to be paved over and greatly increasing the flooding problems. The developer's plan for access to the project includes a new east -west street from Crossover. Who will pay to build this street ... the developer or the city? When would it be built? This planned street, as a continuation of Zion Rd from the west, is on the city's Master Plan. Those of us who live on the eastern section of Zion Rd would be thrilled for this street to be constructed, from Crossover to Butterfield Coach Rd, thereby reducing the amount of through traffic that we currently have. But without this new street, the only access to the project is via not one but TWO entrances from Zion Rd, per the submitted plan. This part of Zion Rd is curvy, with no shoulders, and so narrow in places that vehicles have to drive off the pavement in order Planning Commissi( December 14. 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 2 to pass each other. The number of vehicles using this road already strains safety limits, especially during commuting hours. Adding hundreds of additioral users from this high - density development, not to mention all the construction traffic, is poor planning. Zion Rd started as a narrow country road, winding through the countryside ... it was never intended to be a thoroughfare street. Additionally, the one -lane bridge over Hilton Creek is on Zion Rd, between the proposed project entrances and Crossover. The bridge is located in a curve and has been the site of multiple accidents and almost daily near -misses . The bridge has 2 5-ton load limit which is frequently ignored by heavy trucks hauling gravel, cement, bricks, etc. The bridge definitely could not safely handle an increase in traffic. The planning booklet states that a drainage report and a traffic study will be done. Who s responsible for performing and interpreting these studies? Wil' it be an independent and impartial party? When would the results be available to the pu ;lic? The proposal's descriptions of the zoning districts and surrounding properties of the development are inaccurate or misleading. The subject site is adjacent to only R-A and RSF-4, plus unincorporated areas. Zones C-1 and P-1 are not adjacent to the subject, but are west of a four -lane highway (Crossover). Rezoning of the subject parcel from R- A to a mixed use PZD is NOT within the zoning of the adjacent properties zoning districts znd densities, contrary to this statement in the planning booklet. TI e neighborhood is composed of single-family homes on sites ranging from 1.3 acres to 29 acres. The average parcel size is 3.73 acres. How is a high -density project similar to this? The proposal states: "This development has been proposed to relate directly to the Lakewood Subdivision to the East of the site, while staying within a similar density to the Lakewood Subdivision. Furthermore, the land use of this developmen --fits well within the residential surroundings currently built along E. Zion Road, all while remaining similar in P anninc Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 3 appearance to the Lakewood subdivision and the Woodbury Townhomes along E. Zion Road. The appearance of this PZD shall compare to the surrounding subdivision and developments with its similar lot size, alley fed access, smaller setbacks, and neighborhood character. " The developer is currently building Sagely Place, another housing project located on Zion Rd, but farther west in another neighborhood. Apparently the information describing Sagely Place was co ied for the proposed subject project. The referenced Lakewood and Woodbury projects are NOT located in the subject neighborhood. The appearance of the proposed high -density project does NOT compare in any respect to the neighborhood surrounding the subject parcels. After reading carefully through the 20-page proposal booklet several times, my conclusion is that the developer is attempting to "check" all the boxes for urban planning in order to receive approval by city planners. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of promoting a high -density project of multi -family buildings, duplexes, and small -site homes ... all crammed into a semi -rural area on the city outskirts, where 3- acre lots are the norm? Where drainage and flooding problems already exist, and will be exacerbated by hardscape and buildings? Where the amount of traffic on a narrow road and one -lane bridge is already unsafe, and several hundred additional vehicles each day will only make the problem worse? During my 30+ years in residential real estate, with 21 years as a Certified Residential Appraiser, I inspected, viewed, or appraised thousands of properties. In my experience, high -density developments deteriorate more quickly than any other type property, no matter how "attractive" they are originally. Multi -family buildings and duplexes tend to be rental or investment properties, i.e. non -owner occupied. This lack of onsite attention and care leads to deferred maintenance issues, overall neglect, and a decline in value, which soon transfers to the surrounding area. This is not the type of development that I want to see in our neighborhood. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 4 To the commissioners, please carefully consider the future of this area. Currently the subject site looks like this: Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( We don't want this beautiful land to end up looking like this. There is no going back. Michele Lang Certified Residential Appraiser, CR #1058 (Retired) 3322 E. Zion Road Planning Commissi< December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Mona Calvert <mjwc82@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 11:08 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion road project CAUTIOi1 This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom It May Concern: As a resident of the city of Fayetteville who lives on East Zion Road I am extremely interested in the proposed annexation and development on farmland east on Zion. The scope of this development and the apparent focus on crowded housing lots, smaller units, and multi -story buildings, not to mention shopping centers lends this the entire endeavor an aura of greed-drive-i, low -quality urban sprawl. Recent documentatior provided by the developers does not adequately address the two primary issues which cause great concern to me and my neighbors: flooding and traffic. As a rnatter of fact, the new documentation seems to be nothing but a paper blizzard to snow the city as they don't even use the correct name of the waterway that is sourced on the land in question. They refer to it as Hilton Creek. It is named Hylton Branch. Such an oversight makes one wonder if they even reviewed the water issues we brought up or looked at a map. The traffic issues are another matter altogether. The roadway of Zion to the entrance of the proposed development is not suited to construction traffic from either direction - east or vrest. I foresee the driveway to my house blocked from emergency vehicles, much less friends, family, and the mail carrier, when the first loaded dump truck crashes through the week one -lane bridge cn Zion. I know money talks anc my neighbors and I don't have the funds to fight a foreign developer, but the city and county citizens who will be most affected by this proposed development are going to suffer in more ways than financially if this overgrown apartment and mini -mall complex s instituted. The following is a full-blown NIMBY comment: I don't want my side of town to look like Martin Luther King Blvd. as it heads west towards Farmington. While I am not opposed to development in northeast Fayetteville, it should be consistent with the bea.itiful neighborhoods and acreages that already exist here. Sincerely, Planning Commissic 1 December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Monetha Calvert 3312 E Zion Rd Fayetteville, AR 72764 mjwc82@yahoo.com P.S. Where the heck is N. Zion Road as referenced multiple times in the planning documents? Do these greedy people not know that the neighborhood road they are trying to destroy runs east and west? Again, did anyone check the map? Who is ECT Farmland LLLP listed as one of the owners? I can find no information about them on the internet? Plus, what is an LLLP? 2 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Nick Anthony <nanthony@uark.edu> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:47 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Fw: Anthony Flooding Zion Rd Attachments: IMG_2361.JPG; IMG_2427.JPG; IMG_1824.JPG; IMG_2/-26 JPG; IMG_5881.jpg; IMG_ 2424.JPG; IMG_2423.JPG; IMG_5824.jpg; IMG_5792jpg; IMG_2425.JPG; IMG_5825;pg; IMG_5823jpg; IMG_5491 jpg CAL1"10 This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open at_achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jessica, please consider this letter a complete rejection of the developers plans to build a high concentration neighborhood on the land designated to be annexed and rezoned. I appeal to the Fayetteville Planning Commission to take a.serious look at this request and consider the damage that this project will do to the surrounding neighborhood as well as Lake Fayetteville. In rry worst nightmares did I ever envision a development going on to the Burge farm that tota ly rejected the passion rhat he had for the land. In fact, Robert Burge rejected $4.5 million offers for this land becz use he just could not allow his farm to be turned into what is being proposed in this request. There are many aspects of this request that mist be considered. First is the water runoff issue that I address in the letter submitted to the Planning Commission in August 2020. Based on what I see from the submitted materials this has not been addressed. Sure a few detention ponds are proposed and a green space around what is re�erred to as Hilton Creek. Neither of these suggestions consider what will happen to water flow from the neighborhood through my property, In fact, the proposa considers the land to be flat which is clearly not the case. In the most recent rain event (7.5 nches over 4 days), I estimated that the runoff through my pond was 200K gallons oer -lour. This was a minor flood event since the rain came over a 4-day period. I invite members of the Fayetteville Planning Commission members to come to my house and explore the land in question. They will see that the developers did :-iot consider reality wher submitting the proposed development. The second thing that I want the Planning Commission to consider is if there is a demand fcr this type of housing project in this of Fayetteville. Just south of the land that is in question is a small 29 house developrent that is of the same style as houses proposed in the developers plan. The concrete road running through the neighborhood is N. Rolling Meadows Drive. I visited with a resident in this neighborhood and simply asked what she liked about renting in this neighborhood. She said that it was quiet. This surprised me since the houses were so CIOSE together, so I asked why, and she said that most of the houses in the neighborhood are empty or used as short-te-m rentals like you would fird on Ai-bnb listings. Right now, several of the houses are for sale. I asked her what the greatest problem was with the neighborhood and her answer was "flooding, flooding, flooding". This is a small develop•nert that butts up against the BurgE land. It is flat and it is drowning in water every time it rains. Narrow concrete roads with no drainage except for a small trench dug next to one of the road is the only water relief that they have. Water was flowing on the road when I visited the neighborhood 2 days after our most recent rain event last week. The bottom line is that I have no confidence that the developer chose to do this project cares a second for those that will be impacted. I know that there are other developers interested in the land in quest:on. One of the other developers will be more respectful to the surrounding neighbors, the lake Fayetteville -Clear Creek water shed and (important to me) the legacy of Robert Burge. I ask that you reject the request for annexation and rezcnirg of this land until a reasonable development plan is presented that is in line with the spirit of Fayetteville's future growth and environmental responsibility. Thank you for your time and look forward to discussing this fu-ther on November 9th. 1 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Best Regards, Nick Anthony From: Nick Anthony Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 11:05 AM To: jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Anthony Flooding Zion Rd Hi Jessica, Attached please find photos that support my concerns about flooding associated with the runoff from 3435 E. Zion Rd. I included photos attempting to show before and after scenarios for different locations in my yard. My concerns with this rezone of 3435 E. Zion Rd is consistent with most of the neighbors concerns. How will development of this property impact surrounding land owners with regard to water flow? My concerns are multifaceted. I need water flow from the land runoff to support the 3/4 acre pond on my land. Clearly, from the map included below, the flow of water from the land in question is a tributary of Hilton Creek that originates from the 3435 Zion Rd property and funnels water through my property. Without the runoff my pond will be lost and there will be significant cost to fill it in. There are several scenarios that could happen if a neighborhood is built on this land. Runoff could be diverted and ruin (dry up) my pond or I will get way too much water flow along with pollutants associated with a neighborhood (trash, oils, fertilizers and pesticides). The water flow is to Lake Fayetteville thus putting more pressure on the lake water quality. Flooding issues will have to be addressed downstream removing choke points that impact smooth movement of excessive water to Lake Fayetteville. One of these choke points include inadequate flow under Highway 265. There are other choke points associated with the lack of maintenance of the Hilton Creek easement. Approval of this annex and rezoning plan without understanding the development plan for this land is difficult to understand. In a way, approval without understanding sets a negative tone for the City of Fayetteville because it shows lack of empathy for the landowners that will remain in the county on a doughnut hole surrounded by city limits. The infrastructure for access to the land is inadequate to say the least; one lane bridge with weight limit, narrow road poor access to Highway 265. Finally, the cut-outs for the section in RI-U is really odd and creates unnecessary clutter to the map. I had plenty of fence -side chats with Mr. Robert Burge prior to his death. He loved this land and had always dreamed that his farm would continue in the family. He had plenty of opportunities to sell the land and could have lived a much easier life. Robert chose to keep the farm. I will be sad to see this change, not just because of the obvious reasons, but also because of the loss of a legacy of someone who loved to farm. He loved the land. Sincerely, Nick Anthony 2 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( z t4' I a4 -.qr� - qw Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bun: Planninc Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item AMX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissi( December 14. 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissi: December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur: Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( IF x _Y Yk R Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item PNX 20-000001 Bur( 7:, .......... Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-D00001 Bur( Planning Commissi( December 14. 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: birdhs57 <birdhs57@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 3:35 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: EAST ZION ROAD CHANGES CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open at_achments unless you recognize the sender an know the content is safe. Please make sure to keep our neighborhood safe. The proposed changes do not aopear to take into account the this adjacent to thus area. We are very concern that all aspects of changes are not to benefit all. Ou- property values are important too. Safety of runoff, narrow road with increased trafii:� are several factors. Respectfully Tereia Pace Willard 4668 Rockledge Drive. Faye-teville Arkansas Sent f-om phone Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: nbooth479@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:32 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal C,$', "C,` This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessie, It looks like this project is back on the docket again, and I have two questions that I was going to see if you could answer for me The development plans show the main access to the property via connection with Crossover/265. I know it was discussed previously that this road was on the Cities Master street plan. In this proposal, who would be responsible for building this road? The developer notes that there will be a drainage and traffic study submitted. Will this be available before the meeting? Thanks Jessie, Nick Booth Nbooth479@gmail.com 479-879-5520 From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:07 AM To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Thank you for your comments. I did want to bring to your attention that the applicants have requested to table the associated rezoning request at this time. While Planning Commission may take public comment on the item, they will likely not discuss it since the applicant has requested that the item be tabled. So all that will be up for consideration is the annexation request. If the annexation passes, the property will be automatically zoned R-A. For instructions on how to participate in this evening's meeting, please follow this link. Below are some screen shots to help walk you through the process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( 1+.os.r:aan www�qr .xm.cWrr Learn About Zoom Meetings: Instructions HOW TO FIND AND "N A VIRTUAL (ZOOM) MEETI NG: i ifsfd the nrenieg n the 2 Copy and Pasta to a**" s Zoom letia info you b rwoser C cmpfe to tow Isom a wdrnp rogktrtalon - If tfou w*w to speak at Me m"" nckada o±+ at 'am you d due to speak about wMrr you r"Ww snot avNabe tot Mawesnpst 4 M mf h $w an eeseli carMnrution w o Zoom web so OR phorw dLu.is dams 5 Use Ow "rtNae your hand" footwo fn Zoom w speak when pubbe comtteam a attwved Got advance mock* of all pubak meetings by subscribing to the City Clerk's Pubbe kiw-kVs Calendar ay, Vq, , The Cly Clerk pub e"It wok % scbrt&dmd pttt* meoungs on Uttf Fnday prov#utts Zoorn Meeting Directions • To e*%mw far the "we", c" on eia Zoom meeting rule fn !w PuEit Meet" cdendw is" 'a mac naa"aorfp you rrnat to atsend • V*w ptompilvd. ~ 0* tflet§ p 10 erumbtr as provi W in sht Publkc liaeetng celevu lx nto a tilt v" to am sl saw nwAt !H ptu*OmfK 041* MWWad automa kNf often joinitq tba maethg Remember WD of -vKM'pas mleraphom bola* speatunq To join by ptmww only. toil, her, diak • t t$77) W-5257 or +i .$"1 a75-44% 'Nlftln prompad key in Vow Woofn4 b nwnbw If you do not haw* a Part nowt Wrntw press a Plat 1Mlt OWS -,AW to dW 0 to tMI III q w! be wood for PJVXV s LAAF RAM trrt 4 triKNO torn WtWW M fox VI aem 6 • Far pew to rasa hard b be rtkovaod wah 9 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-OD0001 Bur( CatfndU Y*o AN Cawrodws is #ha defaA Clouse Select a C&ernlx to view A WCAK ca*-dM SubWibe 10 catsm" IMUkd4ions by 6609 €. n `i M t£ taAN) 4fA you suloriwkAv tw Vortod about ** lieW rrerib in aatf corv#wtity pow M"Orvs Cmt 3�noe [anrmaean Pui[e DOlrar bgMtvwe ` t&00 AM I" AM O Ot&4 Fie," Ao"K, _.,2121110 A.V....._.�.._.....e......._,e....m„......M......_.........P,..m.a.�..u�.�....a_.,.�. .. • ®®Ifl � r� r1 Plfetnkq Cawwpi. `*t ta.. X^ b:?0 PM.. ta:� w t37aaa t.aa k.wnAf4an►,�y.:;rtaan.y.r.tfwva,rep,«,.M�Mjp5F9�ib 1_tY4Plryw 21 22 eienerq MA M 9323 "GA Ws611ieknp "_ napun N. 20I0, bio PM 1tc3B p11 dm Z.oan+ 1MGetr*rNdr nlq�;r:iadm.vs`ayWnrrmhp'wrMM_Cp�MeSrMG 6Q9ua" 4?wn*p lAeWw ID 981 MA MST JUMP To. ..�_ Migmt A 2020, 2:00 PM . A:DD PM kt YeatrAe Link tbopeJAvwtKyek*Ae.comu 3-ONtltWW: aF? 2W1t_ Lake sequarsh 8oet Dock Oper"M Aw" 25, 24M. 2A0 Pee - A:oO PM 0 OWS ua Bombe ■mw?aVO" *Aea.eov twh 9,ag_Dew* fe"OnAs CM COMNAApende Seerlon Aapwt M 2M 4,30 PM. 9:00 PM a to0m koaer~ t*pis*p�VtM_Q7fN74WgvANn+o9t2tler..r Kle: 95A 2SW 23M :Mare C.e>Z�ds Ttlsreportepon C*ffAv * • bt39 or q n AapO� 2S. 2A2A; 5:30 PM - 14:30 PM � roam L+eR Nan : h!<ps:'taor.cuwweGr<sar r�epysffir.'F'FIM.IOV'ITeXdR'7gfltAhaM►Rter -r W* M SF42 Mi Dd Dgevw GW 24-71, CWWWWO00- POWW Ake &*MOO As" 3 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Calendar ---- ---------------- - ------------- rBLOOD View All Calendars is the default Choose Select a Calendar to view a specific calendar Subscribe to calendar notifications- b^ clicking on the Notify MeO button, and you wiri automatically be alerted about the latest events in our communityMML NTS] Search calendar by: Of THE GZAW Start date M End date iiiiiiiii search 0 Show Past Events Event Details Planning Commission ® Monday, August 24, 2020 Date: August 24, 2020 Trne: 5-30 PM-10 30 PM Location: Zoom Link ktformation httpslhoom.us/webinattregisterWN_j715F Meeting IDN 984 9303 8966 a ► -- Acdress: Fayetteville AR 72701 Link: Meeting ID# 984 9393 8966 Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.fayetteville-ar.g v Websi-e I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube f IF jo Planninc Commissi( 4 December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( ciry OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKAM3A5 From: nbooth479@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 8:14 AM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@faVetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal CA1.!T r N— This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessica, We are anxious for the meeting this evening. I wanted to make a few last minute remarks with respects to the agenda this evening in case I am not able to speak, so I hope that these can still be thrown in the discussion. • In the 2030 City Plan for Fayetteville, Goal #2 is states that "We will discourage suburban sprawl". We feel that allowing the rezoning to RI-U contradicts this goal, by allowing 3+4 family dwellings, as well as cluster house development. • The rezoning of the southern -most portion of the lot to NC contradicts the 2030 Future land use plan, which labels the entire area as "Residential Neighborhood". • We feel like this rezoning would not be consistent with the surrounding area of Copper Creek which has RSF-4 zoning. • Based on the infill scoring map available on the cities website, our area has a score of 1-3 which should indicate a low development potential. I hope that these points can make it in to the conversation tonight, as well as the many other concerns presented by our neighbors! Thanks, Nick Booth 3400 E Zion Rd Nbooth479@gmail.com From: Masters, Jessica <imasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:52 PM To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Thank you for your input on the proposed annexation and associated rezoning. We always appreciate feedback from the public. We have saved your comment and it will be included in staff's report on the rezoning item, which will be in front of Planning Commission on August 24 at 5:30 PM. We do anticipate that the meeting will still be held virtually at that time. For information about how to participate, you can visit this link. More specific information regarding the August 24 meeting is typically posted a couple days ahead of time. As far as your questions regarding a specific development proposal, we have not yet received one. As staff evaluates the appropriateness of the request, we will look at available infrastructure and report on it for the Planning Commission and subsequently City Council to consider. Should they receive their development entitlement (meaning, the annexation and Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( rezoning passes), once they provide a specific development proposal, staff will evaluate what specific infrastructure improvements may need to be made on the site that meet the proposed impact. It rray be helpful to look into what is available "by -right", or what the developer would hFve the entitlement to do by looking at the zoning ordinances specifically. In this instance, they are requesting a portion of the site to be NC, Neighborhood Conservation, and RI-U, Residential Intermediate - Urban. They are also requesting to leave the portion of the site that is around Hilton Creek as R-A, Residential -Agricultural to minimize development impact in that floodplain. I am happy to answer any additional questions to the best of my ability — I also recommenc attending the meeting thrcugh the link provided above. Many thanks, Jess e Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479; 575-8239 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKANSA6 From: nbooth479@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:52 PM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal CAU?!ON This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessie, My name is Nick Booth and I live at 3400 E Zion, adjacent to the property that is up for re-zo-iing and annexation into the city. I know that there has been correspondence from most of my neighbors, so I am sure that you are aware of our concerns with our road and flooding issues. Due to the fact that the planning commission/c ty council meeting will be virtual and there is a chance that we will not be able to adequately voice our concerns over the project, I just wanted to indicate our apprehensions to you as well just in case that will help our cause. I was also wondering if there was any sort of development proposal from the buyers yet? I tI ink it would help ease some worry from everyone if we had an idea as to what exactly they have planned. Thanks! Nick Booth Nbooth479@gmail.com 479-879-5520 From: Harrison, Andy <aharrison@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent:—uesday, August 4, 2020 3:07 PM Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Attached is the exhibit that shows how the property is broken out by zoning request. Jessie Masters is the planner on this one and she can be reached at imasters@favetteville-ar.Rov Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mountain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 aharrison(a)fayetteville-ar.gov) T 479.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8202 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY 4F FAYETTEVILLE ARKAMSAS Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: nbooth479@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 4:00 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated �rom outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open a_tachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hey Jessie, Thanks for the answers. As a resident living on E Zion Rd immediately across frorr one of the proposed entrances for this development, I would like to submit some refutations from the developers booklet. I hope these items can make it into the verbiage for review by the planning commissior. Illy responses are in rec below the developers statements. J) Relation to existing and surrounding properties: This development has been proposed to relate directly to the Lakewood Subdivision :o the East of the site, while staying within a similar density to the Lakewood Subdivision. Furthermore the land use of this development fits well within the resicential surroundings currently built along E. Zior Road, all while remaining similar in appearance to the _akewood subdivision and the WoodbLry Townhomes along E. Zion Road. Lakewood subdivision is WEST of the proposed property, on the other side of =i-e Highway 265. We shou d compare this lot to the ones immediately adjacent to it, not on the other side of a rrajor highway. The homes then mentio-i on E Zion Rcad are all single family homes that sit on lots of 1+ acre each. The Copper Creek subdivision is the neighborhood that sits the closest to this property just to the north, and shares a road w th this property. This is an upscale neighborhood of homes in the $300-450K range o-i .25 acre lots that are not consistent with the proposed houses. This development does not relate to any property in its immediate surroundings. The appearance of this PZD shall compare to the surrounding subdivision anc developments with its similar lot size, alley fed access, smaller setbacks, and neighborhood character. The proposed PZD will consist cf Single Family, 2-4 family, and Multi -Family buildings. As proposed, this PZD does not compare to the surrounding development. There are no multifamily buildi-igs, small setbacks, or small lot sizes anywhere adjacent to this property. Residents of the subdivision will primarily exit along the access point to Highway 265. Additional connections to E Z.on Road are also ava table but much less likely to be used by residents. As it stands. E Zion Rd is a county road with a deteriorating single lane bridge. It cannot support any increase in traffic without significant mprovements to the road. The entire proposed section that sits north of Hilton creek will likely exit to the north on E Zion, causing a significant increase in traffi-:� or, this road. This road is out of c ty limits, which means the city will not be making the necessary improvements to support this increase in traff c. In addition, the single lane bridge has a weight limit of 5 tons which will force emergency response as well as construction vehicles to enter from a different road. Driving on this road i 3 dangerous. I drive a full size Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( truck, and I have hit mirrors with other trucks going the opposite direction because the road is so narrow. I am in near -accidents on a monthly basis navigating the one lane bridge. CITY OF FAY 2024 PLANNING GOALS Goal 1: We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities. - 17 - The proposed development fits in with Part D of this goal, the development will promote the densest development around logical future transit stops at the central spine and highway 265. There are already a significant number of residential dwellings in this area and developing this piece with a denser development near the existing Route 30 of the Ozark transit system is in line with this goal. The planning area closest to 265 is proposed to be commercial or denser residential to revitalize and infill with more dense developments. This is not infill. The property sits on the very edge of the city limits. This is also not revitalization, the property is currently prime farm land. Goal 2: We will discourage suburban sprawl. This proposed development is in compliance with Goal 2, discouraging suburban sprawl, as it is just 1.5-miles from the middle of North Fayetteville. Additionally, the development follows objective B by developing a more compact and mixed -use development at the edge of the city, and Objective D, by allowing city influence in an unincorporated area of the city. This is the definition of suburban sprawl. 1.5 miles to "middle of north fayetteville" is not a city center, nor is it close enough to justify. This is not close to the Fayetteville city center, and the property is on the very edge of the current city limits. Goal 6: We will create opportunities for attainable housing The proposed PZD will embody Goal 6 by creating a mixture of housing opportunities through the development. Housing opportunities will range from single, two- family, and multifamily uses. Furthermore, The density of planning areas will range from 4 units per acre to 8 units per acres - 18 - while also creating opportunities for Multi -family housing that will create a mix of densities and housing availability There are tons of these types of developments going up in West Fayetteville, this style of development does not fit in with the area. This seems like a blatant attempt to cram as much as possible into this lot for maximum profit without considering the surrounding area. L) Traffic study: After meeting with a representative from the City of Fayetteville Planning department, a traffic study will be performed with development plans to find the impact on existing Zion and Crossover intersection and N. Zion rd. What would change in the development with the results of the traffic study? Shouldn't this study be done before the planning commission can vote on approval? 9) Streets and drainage: Streets shall conform to City of Fayetteville minimum street standards. Street design shall be reviewed by the Engineering department from the City of Fayetteville. Drainage and storm design will be provided on the attached site design/master plan. Drainage and storm design will be reviewed by the Engineering Department from the City of Fayetteville. The current state of Hilton creek cannot support the amount of rainwater we get without the addition of streets and rooftops. Shouldn't this drainage and storm design study be done before the development is approved to make sure the design will work? ANNEXATION Planning Commissi< December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Annexing this property will make the city/county issue for us residents on Eas- Zio-i Road even worse. Em-2rgency services don't know if we are city or county, and our road will never be improved if it stays in the county. Residents on E Zion road are in the Springdale school district. If this property gets annexed, what will be the assigned school district? Thanks for your time, Nick & Jessica Booth Nbooth479@Rmail.com 479-879-5520 From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 1:00 PM To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Thank you for the questions. It is very likely in this instance that the developer will be responsible for making any connections that are outlined in our Maser Street Plan, and they would be required to build these streets to meet city standarls. As far as your question about drainage and traffic, drainage and traffic studies are typically provided at the time o- a proposed development. Righ _ now, the developer is proposing what is called a Planned Zoning District, which typically provides basic guidelines for how a proposed development should look and feel, but they have not submitted any associated development plans (such as a preliminary plat, cr large-scale development). Drainage and specific traffic requi-ements would come into play once they begin to solidify and move forward with development plans. I am happy to help clarify this — I also, as always, encourage you to attend the meeting for these items on Monday, NovEmber 9 at 5:30 PM. Here are the instructions for your reference. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senio- Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-a r.p,ov Webs to I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY Q. FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKAMSA6 From: nbooth479@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:32 PM To: Masters, Jessica <imaster5@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal CAUIIDN. This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recogrize the se:-ider and know the content is safe. 3 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Hello Jessie, It looks like this project is back on the docket again, and I have two questions that I was going to see if you could answer for me The development plans show the main access to the property via connection with Crossover/265. I know it was discussed previously that this road was on the Cities Master street plan. In this proposal, who would be responsible for building this road? The developer notes that there will be a drainage and traffic study submitted. Will this be available before the meeting? Thanks Jessie, Nick Booth Nbooth479@gmaii.com 479-879-S520 From: Masters, Jessica <imasters(a@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:07 AM To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Thank you for your comments. I did want to bring to your attention that the applicants have requested to table the associated rezoning request at this time. While Planning Commission may take public comment on the item, they will likely not discuss it since the applicant has requested that the item be tabled. So all that will be up for consideration is the annexation request. If the annexation passes, the property will be automatically zoned R-A. For instructions on how to participate in this evening's meeting, please follow this link. Below are some screen shots to help walk you through the process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Burc '„L9^ . _..� - :.Y a n�ea"4L_°�Lwaoy -_aez. a.. a.aec . ice* ►c4":,aw� a�ee� ,.s.-.zea-. Learn About Zoom Meetings: Instructions NOW TO FIND AND JOIN A VIRTUAL (ZOOM) MEETI NGC t FMid do mreang m dta 2 Copy and Paso V%e meeting s 23cm iris nso yanr bra},-w 3 C ompkie the Zoom meeting ragkrbati m al ygee wam to at ""NWW i nt* de who Moen you d Moe to speelt abwA wben ym negbUer imt avaaaaG' a for of nreafnglt i taYetdr fw an eamil tonfinviotion W$1 Zoom web in9n OR ph" di" 4*0& 5 U so the "role► "r hand' Upturr in Zoom to speak when pubic co ntnaN is airnred Gat advance nocke of of pubic meetings by subst ff" to the City Clerk's Pubic 11bodings Csiattdw gna t t The C4 Clout prabf hn *90 w* 4 s sdwdu*d publt Mwswgs an the Fr4o y prfttdom Zoom Meeting Directiiom e To re0ow ier efe o-**wq an fie Zoom me" Or* in to Puboc Moo" cafendsr Ut nq `oe ffiso me.etstg you wab to attend e VAwn prorrpeed. erahr 0* tdeell<tq 10 rrrnber as prpvided in fee Pabfc V*o6 q talomw into a U!i y� try nlet/ ifb 1RtiMt finelte a AW wWpwft wf 6* tsaalad a damnWily when peeing fie meeting Rarmmbet to un- nm yaw mietophone before speilonq fa Join by phone only, toe. be*. disk . t (Wn) $53.5257 or +t ,; sl 47548% :tNo n OrmvW It" in N" Mooing Q numt ar if you do net haw a Psriripad t4wn*W pores • Phwe totem mid to 04 it to foes" will be ma0ed to pm M Tocarntrwit v use -R hared koKolan ow wwoem fit an feat 6 requeMld For phone raise hand So be re cog iioW with '9 Planning Commissit December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Burt Pubw Una" C*,d Serr * CowAmNoW - Pdhm 04ka kdpr*kr#A Avr4o 2Xft WW AN I" AM * Doak* F�W A*W Una 4� vmjhob 01200 1 C ANSUM 24. Mo, fw. 30 pu - MW pu a ?*" Om h%%wff.*4,0.M M OMM "No6v we $04 9M a" 0 C1 M 111"NAM A. 610 POA, il;30 PM Zom kftmwum Szw*oo vodww ID lei am t"T PUMC qe*wo I, ad opMM10: w xw Cw"znx*Cw" Hold sw Roa AqpM A 2020.2-00 PM 0-.00 PM 0 YoUtUbe LIM WMD"Alft O"ONW. RPP 26.11- LA" S*WWa Zoe DoCk OPMUM AqpM M 20M 2:00 PM - IZOD PM 0 DUN an $WAN www ft"nmft-w4;uv boft VAMUdko rswftAsr ur Counuf ftwKw S"Stoft Avow K 202W " PW - *;QQ PM 4Z t<*m wd*.noson sw 2" km 4NIM kww*Oft"O ad wM"SMody 611 M a A9pftft 5 AoW* 2L M^ S:30 PM %)O PU 0 loom Lw* WWWAROM "ttkw Cw, M $742 fm bd OOWWW' 00 N-14. coftww000, Poo*" Ave Nwnow R*ca Planning Commissi( 6 December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Burc Calendar --- — ----- ....-- 'View All Calendars is the default Choose Select a Calendar to view a specific calendar Subscribe to calendar notifications by clicking on the Notify MeO button, and you will automatically be alerted about the latest events in our community COMMU BLOOD CENTEI 01 I Ilk, , ik%Rh —41 Event Details VW" a�v Planning Commission Daw. August 24, 2020 Monday, August 24, 2020 _- — ® Tics 5 30 PM 1030 PM Location: Zoom Link Information https:ihoom ustwebinar/registerNVNJDISF Meeting IDk 984 9303 8966 Address: Fayetteville. AR 72701 Lfrk: AAmjt g 10A 984 9303 8966 f 9 � Jessie Masters Senio- Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 375-8239 www.favetteville-ar.g v Webs-te I Facebook I Twitter I Instaf?ram I YouTube Planning Commissi( Dece-nber 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Gl7Y OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKAN ARKAMSAS From: nbooth479@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 8:14 AM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal CAIUTIC�I• This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessica, We are anxious for the meeting this evening. I wanted to make a few last minute remarks with respects to the agenda this evening in case I am not able to speak, so I hope that these can still be thrown in the discussion. • In the 2030 City Plan for Fayetteville, Goal #2 is states that "We will discourage suburban sprawl". We feel that allowing the rezoning to RI-U contradicts this goal, by allowing 3+4 family dwellings, as well as cluster house development. • The rezoning of the southern -most portion of the lot to NC contradicts the 2030 Future land use plan, which labels the entire area as "Residential Neighborhood". • We feel like this rezoning would not be consistent with the surrounding area of Copper Creek which has RSF-4 zoning. • Based on the infill scoring map available on the cities website, our area has a score of 1-3 which should indicate a low development potential. I hope that these points can make it in to the conversation tonight, as well as the many other concerns presented by our neighbors! Thanks, Nick Booth 3400 E Zion Rd Nbooth479@gmail.com From: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:52 PM To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Thank you for your input on the proposed annexation and associated rezoning. We always appreciate feedback from the public. We have saved your comment and it will be included in staffs report on the rezoning item, which will be in front of Planning Commission on August 24 at 5:30 PM. We do anticipate that the meeting will still be held virtually at that time. For information about how to participate, you can visit this link. More specific information regarding the August 24 meeting is typically posted a couple days ahead of time. As far as your questions regarding z specific development proposal, we have not yet received one. As staff evaluates the appropriateness of the request, we will look at available infrastructure and report on it for the Planning Commission and subsequently City Council to consider. Should they receive their development entitlement (meaning, the annexation and Planning Commissi< December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( rezoning passes), once they provide a specific development proposal, staff will evalurte what specific infrastructure improvements may need to be made on the site that meet the proposed impact. It may be helpful to look into what is available "by -right", or what the developer wou d have the entitlement to do by looking at the zoning ordinances specifically. In this instance, they are requesting a portion of the site to be NC Neighborhood Conservation, and RI-U, Residential Intermediate - Urban. They are also requesting to leave the portion of the site that is around Hilton Creek as R-A, Residential -Agricultural to minimize development impact in that floodplain. I arr happy to answer any additional questions to the best of my ability — I also recommenc attending the meeting through the link provided above. Many thanks, Jess e Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (4791575-8239 www.faVetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKAN dRKAN5A6 From: nbooth479[a@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:52 PM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters @fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open at_achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessie, My name is Nick Booth and I live at 3400 E Zion, adjacent to the property that is up for re -zoning and annexation into the city. I know that there has been correspondence from most of my neighbors, so I am sure ti-at you are aware of our concerns with our road and flooding issues. Due to the fact that the planning commission/city council meeting will Le virtual and there is a chance that we will not be able to adequately voice our concerns over the project, I just wanted to indicate our apprehensions to you as well just in case that will help our cause. I was also wondering if there was any sort of development proposal from the buyers yet? I think it would help ease some worry from everyone if we had an idea as to what exactly they have planned. Than<s! Nick 3ooth Nbocth479@gmail.com 479-879-5520 From: Harrison, Andy <aharrison@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2O2D 3:07 PM Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, /Agenda Item ANX 20-J00001 Bur( To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Attached is the exhibit that shows how the property is broken out by zoning request. Jessie Masters is the planner on this one and she can be reached at j~nasters@fayetteville-ar.gov Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mountain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 aharrison(a)fayetteville-ar.gov) T 479.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8202 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF - FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS 10 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 1 To: Fayetteville Planning Commission Re: Proposed Annexation and Rezoning 3435 East Zion Rd. HILTON CREEK STORM WATER RUNOFF This report consists of observations as well as numerical calculations to provide information as to the current state of storm water runoff in the crea downstream of the proposed Chandler Crossing development. Typically, the design of a storm water drainage system will be most successful with the use of field data that support the design parameters. MV objective is to collect as much irformation as is available in the time available to compare field data with a numerical model of limited size, but of similar density to the proposal. Stream flow data was collected at a point or Hiltor Creek about 180 feet west of the Burge farm's western boundary. Soils in the area are from weathered upper Fayetteville Shale anc sandstone from the Wedington member of the Fayetteville Shale. The resulting soils have low permeability and porosity. This reduces the rate of water infiltration into the subsurface, increasing the runoff potential. Plan,iing Commissi( December 14. 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 2 Photo 1: GAUGING SITE, Hilton Creek, Oct. 26,2020 Average depth is about 6 inches. Recent rainfall has provided the opportunity to check the stream depth and flow after a rairfall event. The total for the preceding 24 hours was 2.75 inches (on site rain gauge at 3322 E Zion). The stream channel is completely covered to an average depth of about 6 inches across the test area. The stream velocity was measured using the Velocity Head Rod method to get a value of 1.63 feet per second. Since the velocity is highest at the surface, the 1.63 will be reduced to 1.0 feet per second to account for change in velocity with depth. With the average depth of 6 inches and width of 10 feet, the cross sectional area is 5 square feet. The cross section will be reduced by 30% vertically and 20% horizontally to Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 3 further refine the model. The resulting flow is about 2.8 cubic feet per second, or 20 gallons per second. The hourly total is estimated to be around 72,000 gallons. The main purpose of this exercise is to provide a visual reference for a numerical calculation of stream volume. Photo 1 shows how the stream looks with about 2.8 cubic feet per second of water volume. This is about half of t-le flow predicted by t-ie model using the Rational Formula Method. Rational Formula Method * The formula is: Q= ( C ) ( i ) ( A ) Where Q - is peak runoff in cubic feet per second (cfs). C - is a dimensionless unit for runoff coefficient. Usually stated as .1 to .9; lower means less runoff, higher means greater runoff. i- is average rainfall intensity in inches per hour (in/-lr). A - is watershed in acres. • For purposes of the model, the drainage basin is limited to 50 acres. • The runoff coefficient is set at .3 representing the 2-71/; sloped terrain consisting of pasture, grass, and/or farmland, all with clay sail. • Rainfall intensity is set at % inch per hour The result of applying these parameters to the formula is a Q of 5 cubic feet of water per second, or 37 gallons per second. If a peak runoff for one hour is assumed, the volume from the 50 acres is approximately 6,660,000 gallons of water. Visualize a line of about 1,300 tanker trucks carrying 5000 gallons each to give an idea of the volume of water involved. The additional ruroff generated by the proposed development is calculated using this same formula. • The drainage basin is limited to 50 acres. Planning Commissi( December 14. 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 4 • The runoff coefficient is set at .6 representing the 2-7% sloped terrain consisting of single family homes on small lots, with clay soil. • Rainfall intensity is set at % inch per hour The resulting Q value is 15. Multiply this by .8 to account for the green space and undeveloped areas, resulting in a Q of 12 cubic feet per second or 89 gallons per second. The new totals are 16,000,000 gallons of water or about 3000 tanker trucks per hour. The main point of this part of the exercise is to show that changing from pasture land to single family homes on small lots may cause the runoff to increase by 60% or more. The higher den "it parts of the development will experience even more runoff. Photo 2: Oct. 28, 2020 Average depth is about 12 inches. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page S STORY POLE Photo 3 Story pole, figure for scale. Planninc Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 6 The story pole was constructed and installed at the gauging site on Hilton Creek to show the following: • The relative depths of several rainfall events. • The maximum depth of contained stream flow (24 inches) at the gauging site. • The depths of two events where the flow was above the stream channel. There is some distortion from the camera angle, but overall this is an accurate depiction of the relative differences between the stream depths. The horizontal marker appears to be at a slope, but it was set with a builders' level to within 1/16 inch of true horizontal. It is important to remember that the levels at the gauging station represent the water depth from upstream sources. This means that the flow comes primarily from the Burge farm and the Copper Creek detention pond on East Zion Road. Other sources of runoff will contribute to the total flow further downstream. STORM HYDROGRAPH A hydrograph is simply the visual representation of the flow of water at a single point over time. A graph of the most recent rainfall event would appear as an inverted "V". The line would angle upward to a maximum point, then decline back down to a minimum. The recent rainfall event would look something like Figure 1. Planning Commissic December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 7 STORM HYDROGRAPH I Rainfall I I I J I I I I I � i 2e. 27 2° 2 9 _ 39 Figure 1 The vertical axis represents inches of elevation from the bottom of the stream channel. The horizontal axis is marked with the dates from beginning of rainfall until stream depth returns to baseline. The space between tl-e t4vo dashed lines represent the duration of the rainfall event. The hydrograph shows a maximum water level of about 18 inches. This is just 6 inches below the level where the stream is above the channel, or the at beginning of flcod stage. This illustrates how close this event came to flooding, even though the rainfall intensity was low to moderate over a period of about 1/2 days with a total of 6.5 inches of rainfall spread over that time period. So, how much water is 6.5 inches? Converting to gallons from acre feet, that is about 176,500 gallons of water per acre. Over an area of 50 acres this would be about 8,825,000 gallons... And the runoff has only one outlet - Hilton Creek. Planning Commissic December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000031 Bur( Page 8 The land south and east of the boundry formed by Zion Rd. is in effect a crude detention pond. The bridge over Hilton Creek on Zion Rd. is the discharge point for the "pond". When the flow rate exceeds the capacity under the bridge, water builds up and will flow over and around the bridge. This water short circuits the creek and flows over Zion Rd. and across our yard at 3322 East Zion Rd. as shown in the following photos: Photo 4 Overflow from Hilton Creek across front of 3322 East Zion Rd. May,2020 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 9 Photo 5 Water over Zion Rd. just east of the bridge flowing into the front yard of 3322 East Zion Rd. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 10 Phc-to 6 May, 2020 Following the water around the house, the stream runs more westerly. The overflow stream rejoins Hilton Creek on the west side of the neighboring property at a point not visible in Photo 5. A rough estimate of the flow, based on observed flow velocity and the estimated cross section of the channel, would be around 4 to 5 cubic feet per second at the max mum. This is a significant volume of water passing through the yard. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20; Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Page 11 CONCLUSIONS • This information should be viewed as observational regarding the existing system and does not address the question of dealing with flood events that could result from the development of Chandler Crossing as it is being proposed. • The existing storm water runoff system has been demonstrated to work only with low intensity rainfall events and has failed to cortrol flooding at least once per year in the last three years. • The proposed development may increase the runoff by up to 60%. The actual rurcff is directly dependent on the area covereo by streets and housing. High density = High runoff. • The importance of comprehensive field data for the design chase can not be overstated: If the projected runoff is overestimated, the detention ponds will prevent flooding, even with an atypical, extreme rainfall event. However, if the projected runoff is underestimated , flooding will continue to be a problem. Roy L. Lang Registered Professional Geologist License #1426 (Retired) 3322 E Zion Rd * Applied Hydro Eology by C.W. Fetter, Jr., pgs 44-47 Planninc Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Sandra Soderquist <sandysoderquist@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:27 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Rezoning property on Zion Rd Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click inks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it may concern, Tell me this isn't happening. My husband And I moved to, and were married in, our home at 4676 Copper Creek Dr 15 years ago. We retired from our hectic lives in Santa Fe and chose our home here because of it's tranquil location next to a park, open fields, lack of traffic, lack of noise, etc. We wanted peace and quiet in our golden years. And now we are faced with losing all of that because of the possible rezoning of the property across the street from us. PLEASE consider the safety of all the children walking, riding bikes, skate boarding to and from the playground and park here! If this rezoning happens, it will ruin every reason why we chose our home. My husband now suffers from dementia and needs peace and quiet in his remaining years. Please don't take that away from him. Regards. Sandra Soderquist & Robert Guadagni 4676 Copper Creek Dr. Fayetteville, Ar 72764 479-287-6557 Planning Commissi( 1 December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 9:48 PM To: Masters, Jessica Cc: Curth, Jonathan Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation CAUT!O This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open a.tachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessie & Jonathan: I see that the tabled annexation as well as a PZD is proposed for approval on 11 /9 for the Burge property on Zion Road. I would like to ask some follow-up questions that I do not think were directly answered during the previous meeting. 1) Property to be annexed. Jessie. you acknowledged the shape and proposal was "abnormal" and would probably be a topic of discussion. Can you explain how you recommend the request as proposed with the two "dog ears" intentionally omitted from the annexation? 2) Zion access. There was considerable discussion about flooding along the property, but the discussion along the bridge and public safety vehicles was left a bit unresolved. The bridge is 5 ton limit. What is the weight of all the fire trucks at the closest station that should service the proposed land? 3) Bridge — has anyone from the county or city inspected it and provided a cost estimate to rebuild it to current safety standards with sufficient capacity? 4) Traffic — has a traffic study been received or required? With the numerous issues discussed regarding Zion Road and no definitive timeline for the expansion to Crossover, one has to assume the controlled signal at Hearthstone and Crossover will lead a considerable amount of increased traffic N/S along Copper Creek and E/W on Hearthstone. Based on density of the proposed PZD, vehicular traffic could virtually double along Hearthstone and Copper Creek. a. I noticed the police reported no issues previously. Have there been any requested reports for traffic accidents at Zion & Crossover? b. David Lashley Park is a walk-up park with no on -site parking, so any cars must park on the street, thus narrowing the corridor for passing traffic. i. Have any options for access to Joyce been explored? I am confident the engineers and developers will complete a nice product however, the safety and traffic patterns to the site shall be burdened by the county or city. Without definitive answers on ti-e requirements for Zion Road, the one -lane bridge, and a traffic study for the existing Copper Creek subdivision, how do you recommend the zoning as presented? Thank you for your time. Scott Hancock 4661 Copper Creek Drive From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 3:OS PM To: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Cc: Curth, Jonathan <jcurth@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Scott, Thank you for the follow-up. Staff acknowledges that the proposed boundary is abnormal, and it will likely be a topic of discussion for tonight's meeting. For more information, please feel free to read the staff report in full, which is published here. If you wish to attend tonight's meeting, please find the appropriate information at this link. I recommend registering ahead of time, and those instructions are also available at the same link. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instasram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKANSAS From: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 10:30 AM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@favetteville-ar.eov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize ;he sender and know the content is safe. Thanks again to both of you for your information and your reply. One question that I do not see an email response for is the structure of the annexation. If my information is correct, the annexation creates an island with existing and remaining property surrounding the subject property, remaining in the county. Did you review the request for annexation in light of the two "outlying corners" as well as the border of the county road and adjacent properties on all sides still in the county? Isn't an island created? appreciate your efforts. Scott From: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:44 PM To: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Scott, My apologies if I missed a response to you on this item. I do know that I received your initial comments and they are included in staff's report on the item. That said, to answer your questions, any specific infrastructure improvements that world ieed to be made would be reviewed at the time of a specific development proposal. Staff certainly recognizes that th=_ site currently is underdeveloped for an influx of new housing, and has mentioned current conditions in the report. I should also let you know that the associated rezoning request for this site has been tabled by the applicant at this time, so all that will be under consideration for Monday's Planning Commission meeting will be the annexatior itself. Should the annexaticn pass, the land will be automatically zoned R-A, Residential -Agricultural. The -tem will be heard at the August 24 Planning Commission meeting, which will begin at 5:30 PM. This will be a vi-tual meeting due to the ongoing health crisis. If you would like to participate in the meeting yo a can do so at this link. The agerda for the meeting can be found here. Agai-i, apologies for missing your follow-up email. Please let me know if you have any addi-ional questions. Jessie Jessie Masters Senicr Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479)575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF AVILLE ARKANSARKANSAS Frorr: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:12 PM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recog-lize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessie & Jonathan, I wanted to follow-up on the question below regarding :he partial rezoning. I do not see that I received a response. Can you please provide some insight? Thank you! Scott From: Scott Hancock Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 4:09 PM To: 'Masters, Jessica' <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Planning Commissi< December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Burc Thank you both for your prompt response. I am sure you have and will continue to receive comments from surrounding neighbors. I am curious as to how the traffic flow will be handled for 200+ residences on the exiting Zion Road, which I think is a county road. Also, is it customary for only a portion of the contiguous property to be considered for annexation and rezoning in a situation like this? From: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 12:04 PM To: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Scott, Yes, I am happy to answer any additional questions you might have. It did come to my attention this morning that there was a typo on the initial public hearing sign that was posted. It has been corrected by city staff and a new sign was posted to accurately reflect the request. As Jonathan has indicated, the request is for RI-U and NC. (Photos attached for reference). Please let me know if you have any questions. Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF EYILLE ARKANSRKAMiAS From: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 11:56 AM To: shancock@my100bank.com Cc: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Scott, Following -up on our phone conversation, I have attached the request letter, owner authorization, annexation exhibit, and rezoning exhibit for the proposed annexation an rezoning on Zion Road. The two zoning districts can be found here (RI-U) and here (NC) on our online ordinances for some added detail on the allowed uses. Otherwise, I have also copied Jessie Masters, the planner working on the item. I am happy to continue helping where I can, but if questions reach a certain level of detail I may have to defer to her. Thanks, Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Jonathan Cu•th, AICP Development Review Manager City Planning Division City of Fayetteville, Arkansas jcurth@favetteville-ar.gov 479.575.8308 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Youtube Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Age ida Item A.NX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Allen Carney <acarnack@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 8:31 AM To: Masters, Jessica Cc: Susan Mayes; mland9669@gmail.com Subject: Proposed rezoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Cp U 1 This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessica, How can I get a link to the virtual planning commission meeting for the 24th? I'm concerned about the rezoning of the old Burke Farm property. If multi family units are built on this property the amount of traffic through our neighborhood (Copper Creek) would be overwhelming. Hearthstone Dr is the only stop light access off of Crossover Road for this area. We already get through traffic from Zion and George Anderson. In addition, the drainage in some parts of the subdivision is not great - primarily because of Hylton Creek. If the portion of Zion Rd which lies west of Crossover was developed to run due east across Crossover all the way to Old Wire Road then the drainage could be fixed and access at that stop light could be utilized. As a bonus, the one lane bridge over Hylton would not have to be reconstructed. Thank you, Allen Carney A walker and resident of Copper Creek/Embry Acres subdivision Planning Commissi< December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Ann Haggard <ann.haggard@me.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:40 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Re: Clear Creek CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links cr open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3783 Bluestone 72764 Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 10, 2020, at 8:36 AM, Masters, Jessica <jmasters @fayetteville-ar.gov> wrote: > Ann, > Thank you for your input. We have received your comment, and will include it in staff's r=port on the item. For clE rity's sake, would you mind providing the associated address for your comment? We have several rezoning projects right now and I want to ensure that th s is associated with the correct project. Is this regarding the an-iexation and proposed rezoning at 3435 E Zion Road? > Many thanks, > Jessie > Jessie Masters > Senior Planner > City of Fayetteville, Arkansas > (4 i 9) 575-8239 > www.fayetteville-ar.gov > Websi;e I Facebook I Twitter Instagram I YouTube > -----Original Message----- • Frcm: Ann Haggard <ann.haggard@me.com> > Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 4:08 PM > To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> > Subject: Clear Creek > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > I are against the rezoning for multiple dwellings. A development with nice homes would Le good if the road and the flooding issues will be resolved. The road is basically one lane. Planning Commissi( Dece rber 14, 20, .agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: whiterl@cox.net Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 12:06 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Road Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open a:tachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Masters, We are Charles and Rebecca White, and we live at 3145 Ladelle Place, Fayetteville, AR 72764. We live in the Copper Creek and Stonewood neighborhood. We are close to the Botannical Garden and Zion Road. We are VERY UNHAPPY to hear about a large development on East Zion Road. We a-e unhappy that the plan will be 59 acres for small homes and 1-4 units buildings. We are unhappy about tre flooding that already exists near our home. Ard, we are unhappy that the Zion Road development will kring traffic into or through our quiet neighborhood. This development will GREATLY increase traffic through our neighborhood of Copper Creek and Stonewood. This is so urfair to us and our neighbors, because our neighborhood opens up onto East Zion Road in at least 2 places. There is no doubt that the traffic for us and our neighbors will be unbelievably increased. Copper Creek and Stonewood are very quiet neighborhoods with lots of older people who wal< for exercise. And, we have a lot of bicyclists and dog walkers. Our neighbors mate every effort to keep our homes nice, clean, safe, and quiet for all to enjoy. Charles and I would like to protest the development on East Zion Road. We wait to protest about flooding, about planned small homes and 1-4 units buildings, and the inevitable increased traffic that this development would create for our quiet and safe neighborhood of Copper Creek and Stonewooc. We would like to join by Zoon on August 24t" to hear what will be discussed regard ng the above planning. T-iank you, Ms. Masters, for taking our email into consideration. Sincerely, Charles and Rebecca White 479-295-9264 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. P] www.avast.com Planning Gommissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Denise Jones <idjones52@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 4:35 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Burge Property Rezoning on Zion Road Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CD'--J f 101,��, This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Masters, We are writing to express our concern about the rezoning of the property at 3435 E. Zion Road before issues with flooding and traffic are addressed and plans made to remediate. Residents on East Zion have, for a number of years, requested help from the county and city to no avail. We cannot allow legitimate concerns from people who live in the area to fall on deaf ears, but so far that is all that has happened over the years. We live in the nearby Copper Creek Subdivision, three houses north of East Zion. We have several acquaintances who live on East Zion, and we have witnessed the flooding issues that have occurred just in the 2.5 years since we moved back to Arkansas. We use Zion Road quite frequently and carefully, as it is a narrow road with a one lane bridge that will not accommodate heavy traffic. Once eas: of Nelson Berna Funeral Home, we either have to pull over to let oncoming traffic pass or pull in our side mirrors. Visibility around the bridge is minimal and not everyone approaches it carefully. We've had to make several sudden stops before crossing. Heavy trucks use the one lane bridge even though a weight limit is posted. Some will go around and through Copper Creek, which is not acceptable either. We realize that development of this property will eventually happen and there are issues which will be addressed at that time, such as type of development and traffic flow. City council action on the rezoning should not happen until the city and county can work together, with residents' input, to solve the flooding and traffic issues and alleviate residents' concerns, rather than ignore them. It seems that the city and county always seem to point to each other as the problem, rather than coming together to solve the problem. Hopefully this will change. Any action on the rezoning should be delayed until citizens can attend city council meetings in person. Zoom meetings don't allow for sufficient discussion and viewing of visual displays. We also hope that city council members will take the time to see this area in person and become familiar with the issues, rather than just passing something through that they have no real knowledge of. We appreciate your time and attention. George and Denise Jones 4639 Rockledge Drive Fayetteville, AR 72764 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: denem5051 @yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 3:16 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Proposed annexation for 3435 East Zion Road CALTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unlEss you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Regarding the proposed annexation and development of the above mentioned property, drainage issues from run off of this properties are of great concern to us. A la~ge portion of run off from this property drains along the western edge (approxirr ately 667 feet) and adjoining sou=hern ed€e (approximately 237 feet) of our property causing great concern for flcodin€. Dur ng periods of heavy rain, Hilton Creek backs up from the run off of this land and drainage from Copper Creek. We fear that the paving of this area and additional houses with even more drainage will significantly increase the chance for flooding of our property. Additionally, the increase in traffic flow along an already over used, not maintained and iradequate East Zion Road with a single lane bridge will have to be addressed. Dennis & Emma Graves 3293 East Zion Road Planring Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: B Dieterly <largepox8@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 5:01 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 59 acrea at 3435 E. zion rd CIA ' This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We live at 3245 E Zion and have issues with back yard flooding after a rain and creates a swamp. Development would eliminate runoff and cause more flooding. What about the sewage system? Zion Rd is 1 1/2 lanes with a single lane bridge. The additional traffic would be a disaster. Thanks, Brian Planning Commissi: December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur: Masters, Jessica From: Kari Griggs <kgriggs@nilfisk.com> Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 9:23 AM To: Masters, Jessica; Mayor; joseph.wood@co.washington.ar us; ncrouch@co.washington.ar.us Cc: Pugh, Alan Subject: RE: 3435 E. Zion Rd Rezoning Request Attachments: Griggs Flood Pics - April 2017.pdf; FW: Re: 3435 E Z on Rd rezoning request CAI. i iO,N This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open at_achments unless you recognize the sender anJ know the content is safe. Good morning Ms. Masters, Please be assured our entire neighborhood is planning to attend the August 24th meeting. It is not assuring that the meeting is still planned when we cannot be in front of you when expressing our concerns. As we've requested previously, this meeting should be tabled until in -person discussion is possible. This may not seem important to ycu; but to t.s, it represents fighting against catastrophic property damage and loss. I am very sorry that the City does not feel they have a solution for our flooding problem, short or long term. If you can't work with the County to immediately begin correcting the flooding problems that have al -eady been caused by the City planning systems in a vacuum, then Judge Wood and Mayor Jordan should step in and force this collaboration. At the very least, City or County, should be on a tractor cleaning out and deepening Hylton Creek. It is raining as I am typ ng this email, and we are yet again in danger of flooding. This is completely unacceptab e!! Judge Wood and Mayor Jordan, We respectfully ask that you require the City and County to work together on a closed-loc p system that will allow storm water drainage from Fayetteville developments, without damaging properties on E. 2ion Rd. The City is currently dumping storm run-off water into Hylton Creek, which is in the County. It is unconsc onab a that the City is not required to work with the County to ensure that long-term residents do not suffer increasing flood ng problems because the City and County Simply point fingers at one another. All the while, after 22 years in our home, we clean up after yet arother flocd. Please stop this long-term pattern and require the City of Fayetteville and Washington County to put forth a nd act on a plan that considers everyone in the E. Zion Rd. area. Best regards, Kari Griggs 3349 E. Zion Rd. (479)466-7-56 From: Masters, Jessica [mailto:jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov] Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 8:45 AM To: Kari Griggs Cc: Pugh, Alan; Mayor; joseph.wood@co.washington.ar.us Subject: RE: 3435 E. Zion Rd Rezoning Request CAUTION This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and krow the content is safe. Planring Commissi: December 14, 20; Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur: Good morning, Ms. Griggs, Thank you for your email and for bringing your concerns to us. As far as the annexation and associated rezoning request, there will be a public meeting on that item on August 24 at 5:30 PM. Due to the current health crisis, we do anticipate that it will be held virtually at that time. For information about how to participate, you can follow this link. Specific information about how to join the August 24 meeting will be available at that page a couple days ahead of time. The item will first be heard by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, and if it passes, it will then go in front of Fayetteville City Council for consideration. I encourage you to participate at the August 24 Planning Commission meeting, and don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions about how to join. Additionally, staff has received your comment below, and we will ensure that it is included in staff's report on the item. As far as the flooding issues you've reported, I did circle back with our Floodplain Manager, Alan Pugh, who, unfortunately at this time, does not have a good short-term solution that the City can offer for you, especially since this property is located outside our jurisdiction. We can assure you that should the annexation and rezoning pass, any future development will be subject to an evaluation of necessary infrastructure improvements, and there may be an opportunity to partner with future development to oversize upstream detention areas to reduce the peak flow, but that is too far out to judge at this time, and obviously, a longer -term solution. And finally, thank you for sharing your concerns about the one -lane bridge. At this point of the development process, staff is looking at available infrastructure on the site as we gather our information to make a recommendation on the item. Similarly to the flooding, any future infrastructure improvements that may need to be made based on development impact are evaluated more specifically once a development proposal is brought forth, which at this time, it has not. Please let me know if you have any questions moving forward — I am happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook ( Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF RKIE AMS EVILL Aaxwe�sws From: Kari Griggs <kgriggs@nilfisk.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:10 PM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Mayor <Mayor@fayetteville-ar.gov>; joseph.wood@co.washington.ar.us Subject: 3435 E. Zion Rd Rezoning Request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Ms. Masters, Mayor Jordan and Judge Wood, My husband and I have been advised to contact each of you in regard to the 3435 E. Zion Rd rezoning request. Several of our neighbors share similar concerns. 2 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( We have owned our home at 3349 E. Zion Rd. for the last 22 years. We have had to carry f ood insurance for the same amount of time. Our property is considered part of the County, even though my neighbors are in the City. Our property has flooded at least once in each of our 22 year residence, with recent years being much worse. In fzct, during the flood of 2017, we sustained catastrophic damage to our home and shop. Since the rebuild was completed, we have endured additional floods. Over the years, we have been to countless meetings, sent letters, emz ils, contacted anybody who might be able to help. Very seldom do we get any kinc of response. We have yet to receive any actual help to resolve the problems. Our issue is with the Copper Creek water collection ponds, Hylton Creek and the property potentially rezoning. The east run-off pond for Copper Creek dumps directly into Hylton Creek, which runs behind aid beside our property. Them are several areas, including on the potential rezoning property where the creek is only a foot deep and a foot wide. It is not possible for Hylton Creek to handle the volume of storm water that flows through it. Tie slater leaves its banks on the property in question and puts us in danger in about 20 minutes or less. Also, due to a secoid run-off pond in the Copper Creek area, we also flood along E. Zion Rd. In many cases, the water is white capping as it flows down the street. Please see the attached pictures, as this represents our typical experience during a heavy rain. I understand from my neighbor that Ms. Masters suggests we contact the Washington County Planning group, as the property is in the County. Please understand that I have contacted them many times My most recent experience -Nas disastrous, as the County Planner asked me if I realized how stupid I was to have purchasec a home on a creek. He did try to get Mr. Burge to address the problem on his property, but was turned down flat, just as we were. After that experience, we asked the City Planner (not Ms. Masters) to our property. She came cut of a hot August day, when no rain had fallen in weeks. She looked around, shrugged and said, "I don't see no problem". In the many times we have asked for help, we find that the City and County just point fingers at each other and no one takes responsibility for engineering a closed loop plan that does not damage property in our area. We need ielp! Our losses are excessive and continuing to shirking responsibility or assign it to someone else is unacceptable. During the late 1990's, one of our neighbors routinely used his tractor to clean Hyltor Cree< from HWY 26S back to Mr. Burge's property line. This did help and should be done now, but again the City and Coiniy point fingers instead of acting. Please understand tiat all of this water eventually flows into Lake Fayetteville. We have received letters asking us to police the dog excrement in our yard, so that it does not make it to the lake. I fE it to see how my dog is a problem when the water comes across a pasture with somewhere near one hundred head of cattle, 4 donkeys and a few llamas, into our pool and through our shop. Still, we tried to get someone associated with Lake Favetteville to help. When we contacted Erin Scott at the LFWP, she thought that they could do something about ot'r predicament. Unfortunately, she has not returned any of my subsequent emails since 2017. We are very concerned that we will yet again be faced with an inexcusable situation if this rezoning is allowed to pzss without being able to ask our questions and express our concerns at a city planning meeting. We ask that you table the decision on rezoning until a plan can be put in place that addresses our concerns and protests our properties from further damage. Also, the one lane bridge on E. Zion Rd. is at the corner of our property. The increased traffic that we are now experiencing seems to think the road between the bridge and property in question is a racetrack. We have seen multiple wrecks at the bridge and countless near -accidents. As recently as last Friday I wzE nearly hit head-on on tie bridge. I did have the right-of-way and I also had my four grandchildren in the car. The bridge can't sustain the traffic we have now, so what will be done to ensure that it can handle increased traffic, while sig-tificantly reducing the current level of danger? 3 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( We are sincerely asking for your hela in getting the City and County Planners to work together and resolve these long- standing issues once and for all. Best regards, Kari Griggs 3349 E. Zion Rd. Fayetteville, AR 72764 (479)466-7756 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: karib.griggs <karib.griggs@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 6:54 PM To: Kari Griggs Subject: FW: Re: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning request CN -? !i'N This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and krow the content is safe. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy 59+, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message-------- Fro•n: K Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Date: 8/5/2C 3:12 PM (GMT-06:00) To: "karib.gr ggs" <karib.grig€s@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning request Sounds gooc! I need to write up something as well. Home with the boys today, so not focasing much on anything! Ha! Kel!ie On Aug 5, 2020, at 1:28 PM, karib.griggs <karib.griggs@gmail.com> wrote: I'll send mine later today and forward the response I get back. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy 59+, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone ----- -- Original message -------- From: K Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> DatE: 8/5/20 12:42 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Karib.griggs@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning request My aunt Michele (brown house across from you) sent the following email. Also includes the response. Begin forwarded message: 1 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( From: Michele Lang <mlang9669@gmail.com> Date: August 5, 2020 at 11:05:11 AM CDT To: Denise <idjones52@gmail.com>, Margret Walker <wmargret09@gmail.com>, Kellie Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com>, Joseph Robertson <jojonogogo@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: RE: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning request Sent from TypeApp On Aug 5, 2020, at 10:43 AM, "Masters, Jessica" <imasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> wrote: Michele, Thank you for contacting me. My responses to your questions are below in RED. I am happy to discuss any additional questions you might have as well. My direct line is 479- 575-8239 if you have any questions. Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube -----Original Message ----- From: Michele Lang <mlang9669@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:34 AM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayettev Ile. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Masters, Andy Harrison provided your name as the contact person on this rezoning request. Correct! On behalf of several neighbors, I am writing to you with our initial questions. 1. The sign says approximately 44.69 acres is requested to be zoned CS Community Services. However the proposed plat shows the request to be zoned NC, which I believe is Neighborhood Conservation. Which of these is correct? Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It turns out the sign had a typo on it - the correct district is NC, Neighborhood Conservation. Staff should have a new sign out to the site by the end of today. 2. How does the developer plan to provide adequate vehicular access to all the property? Currently, the only access is to Zion Road. This is a narrow road with no shoulders. Some parts of the road are so narrow that it's difficult for two vehicles to pass each other. The number of vehicles using this road already strains safety limits, especially during commuting hours. Adding additional users, without addressing the 2 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( road's condition, is poor planning. When evaluating rezones (and in this case, an associated annexation as well), staff will report on what is currently avaikble as far as infrastructure. Further infrastructure needs and infrastructure improvements that may be needed are typically evaluated at the time of the specific development proposal. The Master Street Plan for this site does indicate that a future Neigl-borl-ood Link is planned for the site. While this may not address all needs, it will be :something that staff will take into consideration. This is marked by the orange dotted ling in the image below. The blue dotted line is a planned Residential Link. (More information below image, keep scrolling!) Additionally, there is a one -lane bridge between the subject property and Crossover. Vehicles meeting each other at the bridge and screeching to a suddEn halt is a common occurrence. Another concern is this bridge has a load limit of 5000 Ins, which is already frequently iEnored by haulers of construction materials. Thank you for the input on this. 3. Flood con.rol and water drainage MUST be addressed. Those of t.s who live just west of the Subject property already have to cope with flooding every tim= there are heavy rains. Hilton Creek can not handle runoff that comes from Copper reek, so it backs up and overflows into our property, even some houses. This has h2ppened multiple times, complaints to the city and county have been made, Lut absolutely no results. Adding houses and pavement to what is now unimproved land is only going to make the situation much worse. Thank you for the input on this as well. I have asked our Floodplain Manager to look into this. For now, if you have specific issies, since the property is currently in the County, I do recommend reaching out to Wasl-ington County Planning at 479-444-1724. It is probably worth nothing that the applicant has requested ti at the area surrounding Hilton Creek to remain R-A. Since the city offices and meetings are closed to the public now, whet is &e best way for our neigl-borhood to make our concerns and objections known? I haVE been encouragirg folks to contact staff ahead of the meeting, like you've done. We include all email comments in our reports to the Planning Commission, and menti-Dn all public comment in our reports as well. Additionally, this item will be going -o Planning Commission on August 24 at 5:30 PM, and staff does anticipate that the greetings will still be virtual at that time. Specific information regarding how to attend y rtually can be found at this link. Full information regarding that specific meetin€ is typically posted a couple days ahead of time. I'm happy to help with any questions you m ght have regarding participation. I have saved your initial email in the file already, and you are welcome to submit additional. I look forward to getting your response. If there are other persons that I should contact instead, please let me know. Thank you, Michele Lang 3322 E Zion Rd Phone 501-232-3350 mlang9669@gmail.com 3 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( ILO iwal .. ".n' .. 79111-Ir 7- Back yard of Griggs property at 3349 E. Zion Rd. Arrow points to the diving board of a 30,000 gallon pool. We have to replace the pumps and motor annually. The heater no longer works, due to water damage. missic 4. 20, 3 Item 1 Bur( Plannirg Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissic December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Jeffrey Byrd <byrdj@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 10:54 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: RE: 3435 E Zion Rd Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAU FION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you Jessie, I think it's a great plan to maintaining the area that falls within the Hilton Creek floodplain as R-A. I assume that means larger plots in that zone? Jeff 3yrd Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Masters, Jessica Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:53 AM To: Jeffrey Byrd Subject: RE: 3435 E Zion Rd Jeff, Thank you for your input. We have received your comment and it will be included in st2ff's report on the item, which will be in front of Planning Commission on August 24 at 5:30 PM. For information about hour to join and participate in that meeting, given that it will likely be held virtually due to the ongoing health crisis, please vis'i this link. Specific information regarding that meeting will likely be posted a couple days ahead of time. Please let me know if you have any issues. As far as your questions regarding flooding, while we do not know the full scope of what ul= mately will be developed, the developers have proposed maintaining the area that falls within the Hilton Creek f oodp'ain as R-A, Residential Agricultural R-A, Residential -Agricultural, to minimize future development witnin the f oodp ain. Again, I encourage you to participate in the meeting, and I am happy to answer any additional questions you might have in the meantime. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City o- Fayetteville, Arkansas Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-)00001 Bur( (479) 575-8239 www.fayetteviIIe-a r.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS aRKar�sas From: Jeffrey Byrd <byrdj@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 6:37 PM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: 3435 E Zion Rd This email originated from oL tside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessica, I'm concerned about the flooding that will occur from putting a subdivision in on the 59 acre parcel of land at 3434 E. Zion Rd. There is already flooding in the neighborhood next to it, and am worried that it would cause even more runoff. How do you plan on preventing this? Also, Some of the 59 acre plot floods and is underwater when it rains. How are houses going to be built in a flood plain? Is that part going to be left undeveloped? Thank you, Jeff Byrd Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Joseph Robertson <joseph.robertson@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 1:38 PM To: Masters, Jessica Cc: kellierobe@gmail.com Subject: 8/24 Fayetteville Planning Commission Memo - New Eusiress items 6 & 7 CAU !ON This email originatec f-om outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mrs. Masters, I was disappointed to see that our letter — sent 8/17 - was not included in the planning commission report for this evenings meeting. We tried to keep it to a single page so that it would be easy to read and nclude. I see that you responded this morning and said it would be provided to the council, but it worries me that they will not have adequate time to read ours and other e_ters that were missed. After reading through the report, I wanted to provide my feedback and questions on that ccntent in case I am not given a chance this evening. 1. On page 2 under Infrastructure, you state that any required street and drainage improvements would be established at the time of development. a. Is the total cost of those improvements to be borne by the developer? If not, how can the city make an informed decision without knowing the financial impact? b. Page 9 describes Annexation policies as guidelines "designed to ensure that public services, infrastructure, and utility extension is properly addressed in order to m2 nage growth". Based on that definition, it sounds like annexation is exactly the time to address those services and not at development. c. Can we get the ball rolling on having a flood study done in the section that is already under city jurisdiction (between the 1-lane bridge and 265)? Flooding is already a concern without changes, it makes sense that we first determine what is happening before adding additional development. 2. Fire response time is Icnger than their 6 minute goal. To meet their goal to cover th s undeveloped neighborhood, would the city need to add another fire station and at what expensE? Would that also be covered by the developer or the taxpayer? 3. Page 3 shows scores from the City Plan 2040 Infill Matrix with one of the elements that contributes to that store as a "4 minute fire department response time" yet it was stated the response time s actually 7.2 minutes. 4. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.a states that the city should "not annex areas that create an island or peninsula". The finding text explains that this annex would not create an island. It does however create a peninsula of county lard wrapped by Fayetteville City limits. This fact counters the guideline. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.d says that the "annexed areas should follow natural corridors". a. Can you please define "natural corridors"? b. The findings state that "annexation boundaries almost follow the property lines... [but] does nit necessarily fellow any natural, already existing corridors". This seems to counter the guideline. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.f about environmentally sensitive areas a. The finding section seems to argue that city oversite is needed to address flooding issues, but most of the land between the named property and Lake Fayetteville is already in the City. This has not helped matters in the 6 years that we have owned our property. I got to speak wit-1 Alan Pugh on these matters this morning and it sounds like it is currently the property owner's responsibility for keeping the stream clear of debris. Beyond making sure every property owner understards that, I believe a flood study could helo root out the cause(s). Planninc Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( b. The findings also mention development will be subjected to the City's streamside protection standards. How will those standards protect current residents and how will they address preexisting issues? 7. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.g "Public services must be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas." a. While the Police Department has no concerns with the additional load, we have experienced delays with the current boundary lines because both City Dispatch and County Dispatch are quick to defer to the other. Muddying the waters by making an irregular boundary will make this a bigger issue. b. With the estimated response times for Fire protection service not meeting the current standard, what is the current plan to address this policy? 8. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service — While this address already receives Water and Trash/Recycling pickup, what additional cost wil; be incurred by the city to add Fire Protection (to standards) and Sewer service? I see no estimates in this report. Is there another report that has those numbers? 9. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. a. Engineering states upgrades will be needed. This statement counters the guideline. b. Planning states significant infrastructure improvements would need to be made. This also counters the guideline. c. There was no mention of capacity for gas. 10. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.m Planning with adjacent jurisdictions — Is Washington Count a jurisdiction? Has it been discussed with them? Do they want the city to take on Zion Rd. as part of their street plan? 11. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.n "Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater, and sewer." a. How are these agreements established? The finding text only mentions discussions and does not define the procedure or included parties. b. What if neighbors do not agree with the plan? What recourse is available? 12. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.p "Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process." a. I understand that Item #7 on tonight's agenda was rescinded. It sounds like the plan is to move forward with annexation discussion which counters this guideline. It is very concerning to me that the city would take this step without proper public input and potentially deciding on it behind closed doors. It is especially concerning if it potentially affects our ability to continue using our own land consistent with how we have since we purchased the property. 13. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.q "An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals." a. The finding states that responses with other departments were included in this report. The only data I see included is the Fire Department response time estimate which counters guidelines already discussed above. Please define what an annexation study entails. b. Where is the cost estimate that will be placed on the taxpayers? 14. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.r "Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals." a. Will that proposal be public and open for comment? 15. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.t "Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries." a. It seems very ambiguous what is considered a large vs moderate size annexation. b. The finding text seems to skirt over the issue that annexing the portion North of Hilton creek would create a distinct peninsula as previously mentioned with item 12.3.5.a. 16. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.0 "Conduct a fiscal impact assessment on large annexations." a. Given finding that "annexing land toward the northeastern extent... can pose financial challenges for the City to maintain the public infrastructure in a fiscally sustainable manner", should we not therefore require an impact assessment so that the council can make an informed decision? 17. Is the land in question for this annex to be used to establish Title IV (Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968) or Title VII (Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970) housing? 18. Will this item get placed on the next election if passed by the city council? Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Based on the findings in this report countering guidelines and no hard data backing uo the decision, I cannot understand why the staff recommends approving this annex request. Joseph Robe-tson 3397 E. Zion Rd. Planning Commissi< December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Judy Cunningham <judyergirl@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 6:32 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Development off of Zion road Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I greatly object to this development Zion is already dangerous . my son totaled a car . In a rainstorm on Zion he slid into that ditch off the side of the road the two cars behind him had a collision the tow truck Could barely Get thru. why can you not improve this road to begin with . How could you possible. Allow a development to be built where Zion is the only access To the development Please review these plans more carefully and make adequate adjustments or disallow the subdivision. Thanks for your futher Consideration of this matter Sincerely Judy cunninghan Sent from my Whone 1 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Kathy Cooper <DrCooper97@cox.net> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 12:07 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Proposed plat for 59 acres, 3435 E Zion Rd Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click li -ik:s cr open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Masters: Prio- to annexation and re -zoning of the above property, please consider study and data collection on the following areas of concern to current residents of the area. 1) Flooding and drainage is.? current problem along E Zion Rd, frequently flooding the street, yards and homes during heavy rains. What do the drainage feasibility studies show the impact will be when additio-ial paving and home construction s added at the e-id of the street? Is this area currently in a flood zone? W th the additional structures. will the homes upstream be dec a -ed in a flood zone, potentially altering insurance alternatives available? I have video of my yard and the -oad during heavy rain if you would find that helpful. 2) Traffic on E Zion Rd current y moves at 20-25mph over the posted speed limit. Is there d2ta on how many cars and trucks travel this area daily and at what speeds? What would be the safety impact of increasing the traffic, first for construction and then for the 'ncrease in new residents? Will a narrow road with no shoulders be able to accommodate this increase? Anecdotally, my brick mailbox has been knocked down 3 times and I have been injured dodging vehicles while getting my mail. 3) TI ere is a cne lane bridge located on a curve on Zion Rd. There is currently no signage t:) indicate the bridge is one lane or as a warning that it is ahead. There is a posted weight limit that is routinely igno-ed. This bridge, absent warrings, is the site of frequent traffic accidents and countless near misses. What is tl-e safety impact of increasing the traffic over this bridge? What would be the expected increase in frequency and severi-y of traffic accidents? Thank you for considering these safety concerns. Dr. Kathy Cooper Dr. James Cooper 3209 E Zion Rd Sent from my iPad Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Kathy Cooper <DrCooper97@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 2:09 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Amendment to email CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click inks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Masters This weekend we had occasion to go to the end of Zion. There are warning signs for the one lane bridge. However, on the west side, the sign is not visible until you are already rounding the curve. The fact that signs are present is even more troubling since there are so many accidents and near misses at this location. Kathy Cooper Sent from my iPad Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Kellie Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 9:01 PM To: Masters, Jessica; Pugh, Alan;joseph.wood@co.wash-ngtan.ar.us; ncrouch@co.washington.ar.us Subject: Concern about 3435 E. Zion Rd rezoning request Attachments: IMG_2792jpg; IMG_2795jpg; IMG_2793 jpg; IMG_2791 jpa C,`' Thi<_ email originated -rom outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click finks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Subject: 3435 E. Zion Rd. rezoning request Good morning, We are reaching out to express our concerns about the annexation and rezoning request for the Burgess property at 3435 E. Zion Rd. Since we nioved into our home 6 years ago, at 3397 E. Zion Rd, flooding from Hilton Creel: has been a constant concern. We have seen nothing done to alleviate the drainage issues. There are many factors at play including unmaintained existing retention. ponds, undersized culverts along Zion, and excessive vegetation in Hilton Creek all the way to Hwy 265. During a hard rain, the back of our property often turns into a river, flowing straight into our neighbor's home to our west. Another contributing factor is the low water bridge on the Burgess property. They have placed fencing across the creek, whic=o catches debris and forces the pooling water on their property outside of the creek bed and eventually reroutes through our property. The ditches along Zion Road fill up quickly with the excessive runoff and undersized culverts cause it all to spill over the road. The one lane bridge becomes impassaole and a safety hazard as water covers the road and bridge. We have attempted removing brush up to the one -lane bridge ourselves, but for it to be effective, that action must be carried through to the larger culverts at Hwy 265. If new development is put in place, without very careful planning and ongoing maintenance, we are concerned this flooding problem will only become worse. We are attaching pictures from the flooding so far in 2020. We can provide pictures from previous years that look very similar. Our hope is that the city and county can find a way to finally address the cause before adding more homes and development in this area. The rezoning proposal would create an island of county land between parts of both Fayetteville and Springdale city limits on the west side of said property. We would very much like to remain in the county and at the very least remain zoned agriculture so we can continue to use our .and as a family farm. Can you provide us any information about how regulations or requirements might change for our property if the area is rezoned? Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( As mentioned above, the one lane bridge is a safety problem. There are issues with visibility, load carrying capacity, and traffic flow, and it may also be acting as a choke point for water during heavy rains. An increase in population on this section of road increases the chance of pedestrian accidents, as there are no sidewalks or bike lanes, except for a small section of sidewalk at Hwy 265 and another section at Copper Creek. People drive through the area with little regard to children playing in the yard or people exercising on the road. Our family enjoys the playground in Copper Creek. It is within easy walking distance, but due to the way people drive and the current state of the road, we usually choose to drive for safety. We have not seen any information on how the city will support the families in the new development area. Where will they go to school? What emergency support systems will cover this area? The few times we have needed either police or ambulance, the dispatch wastes time sending us back and forth between Fayetteville City and Washington County. It seems they do not know where we belong either and care was delayed. What will happen if the area doubles or triples in families? How will their services be provided in a timely and safe manner? We appreciate the time you are taking to review our concerns and respond. If you have any questions for us, please let us know. Regards, Joseph and Kellie Robertson 3397 E. Zion Rd. 479-283-6182 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: K Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:18 AM To: Masters, Jessica Cc: Joseph Robertson; Michele Lang; Nick Booth; Christie M. Hancock Subject: Re: Latest information on Annexation and Rezoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open a_tachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jess e, I appreciate the quick response. Thank you for organizing all of the information and provici-ig the links. You help is much appreciated. Regards, Kellie Robertson On Aug 24, 2020, at 8:58 AM, Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> wrot-2: Kellie, My apologies for the oversight on including your letter in the report. I received a few additional letters last week that will be forwarded individually to the Planning Commission today ahead of the meeting, and I will ensure yours will get to them prior to the meeting. Also, for the benefit o` others on this email chain, please note that the associated rezoning request has been tabled indefiniteli by the applicant. While Planning Commission may choose to take public comment on that item, they likely will not discuss the item, and will vote to table. If you would like to participate in tonight's meeting, please find the instructions at this link. I recommend that you register ahead of time, and below are some screen shots to h=1p guide you through that process. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Many thanks, Jessie <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> <image004.jpg> Planninc Commissi< 1 December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube <image001.png> From: Kellie Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 10:40 AM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Joseph Robertson <jojonogogo@gmail.com>; Michele Lang <mlang9669@gmail.com>; Nick Booth <nbooth479@gmail.com>; Christie M. Hancock <christie.hancock@mana.md> Subject: Re: Latest information on Annexation and Rezoning Cf '';J' This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessica, I am disappointed that our letter expressing concerns with the rezoning on E. Zion Road were not included in the report. Will there be an update by Monday so all parties can be heard? Thank you, Kellie Robertson On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:36 AM Kellie Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> wrote: They left out our letter. On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:16 AM Michele Lang <mlang9669@gmail.com> wrote: Zion Road neighbors -- The final agenda for tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting is posted online. Here is the link: https://accessfayetteville.granicus.com/GeneratedAl7endaViewer.php?view id=14&eve nt id=2373 The Burge requests are items #6-7 under New Business. Attached are copies of the planning staff's reports. The rezoning memo is just one page, saying that the request for rezoning has been tabled indefinitely, at the request of the applicant. The annexation report is 65 pages long, and includes some of the emails that were sent to Ms. Masters. Unfortunately, the planning staff is recommending approval of the annexation. Despite the problems and opposition, which they acknowledge, the staff seems to feel these can be handled after annexation. In other words, putting the cart before the horse. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planninc Commissi< December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Flanning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-i)OOOC1 Bur( +bntli; SRC t J � V r Masters, Jessica From: Kelly Stewart <kestewart@mayborngroup.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:20 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning concerns Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessica - I reside on Zion road, 3306 East Zion. I have two serious concerns regarding the annex and rezone request of the Burge farm at 3435 E Zion. 1) I'm deeply concerned that the annex then rezoning request for the Burge property will be detrimental to my home. We have lived in this house for over 10 years and have unfortunately flooded (property AND home) many times due to already insufficient runoff from the more recently developed Stonewood and Copper Creek neighborhoods. The rain runoff collects and runs downhill to our property. This already existing terrible runoff from those two neighborhoods coupled with further development (more cement and less green space) that most likely won't properly account for water volume will seal the fate of the homes West of the property in question. Flood control and water drainage must be addressed. Hylton/Hilton Creek cannot handle runoff either. This compounds the issue since it also backs up and overflows into surrounding property and homes. Complaints to both the city and county have been made, but absolutely no results. Adding houses and pavement to what is now unimproved land is only going to make the situation much worse. 2) The home value and traffic is a concern as well. Whomever is in the wings to buy the Burge farm clearly has a long-term plan which inc udes annexing into Fayetteville and rezoning to multiple tenant, mixed use development. Will this be ayetteville Schools??? Because that certainly is already an issue. Our neighborhoods are in Fayetteville with all Fayetteville utilities, but Springdale schools. Traffic cannot be sustained on this portion of Zion. Much of it is hardly even two lane. Not to mention the tiny weight constraint bridge that fits 1 car. Please consider all the emails and calls you are receiving. The later Robert Burge was adamant that this not happen to his land and it is extremely unfortunate that this is how its headed. Who can I voice my annex and rezone concerns to with the County? Do you have a contact? Thank you. Call or email with any questions. We will Zoom the hearing next week. Kelly Stewart 479-841-9095 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Kelly Stewart Category Management Manager - Walmart 479-841-9095 kestewart@mayborngroup.com MAYBORN A tommee GROUP cie If you've received this email by mistake, we're sorry fog bothering you. It may contain information that is confidential, so please delete it and any attachments withcuf sharing. And if you let us know, we can try to stop it from ha)pening again. Tiank you. We maw monitor any en.ails sent or received by us, or on our behalf. If we do, this will be in line with our own policies and relevant law. Mayborr USA Inc. is a company incorporated in New York and is part of the Mayborn Group of companies, registered in the UK as Mayborn Group Limited, number 00419737 & registered office address: Mayborn House, Balliol Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne NE12 SEW, England Planning Commissi( Deceriber 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Michele Lang <mlang9669@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August S, 2020 4:01 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Re: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning request Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 1 =�Au1 i i0j* This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessie, I appreciate your informative and quick response to my earlier email. I have a few additional questions for you. Do you know how many and what type of dwelling units the developer plans for each zoning? Is there a way to share photos and/or short videos of flooding episodes with the commission or planning staff? Who is the city's Floodplain Manager and how do we contact that person? Part of Hilton Creek is located in the county currently, but the flooding problem originates inside the city limits. Hilton Creek, between the one -lane bridge on Zion Road and Crossover is not capable of handling the amount of run-off that occurs each time there is a heavy rain or several days of steady rain. So the water backs up on city property until it overflows the bridge on Zion, and subsequently floods the properties of adjacent owners. Thanks for your continuing assistance. Michele Lang From: Masters, Jessica Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 10:43 AM To: Michele Lang Subject: RE: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning request Michele, Thank you for contacting me. My responses to your questions are below in RED. I am happy to discuss any additional questions you might have as well. My direct line is 479-57S-8239 if you have any questions. Jessie Masters Senior Planner Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube -----Original Message ----- From: Michele Lang <mlang9669@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:34 AM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: 3435 E Zion Rd rezoning request CALTION: This email origin2ted from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Masters, Andy Harrison provided your name as the contact person on this rezoning request. Cc rrec= On behalf of several neighbors, I am writing to you with our initial questions. 1. Tie sign says approximately 44.69 acres is requested to be zoned CS Community Services. However the proposed plat shows the request to be zoned NC, which I believe is Neighborhood Conservation. Which cf these is correct? Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It turns out the sign had a typo on it - the correct district is NC, Neighborhood Conservation. Staff should have a new sign out to the site by the end of today. 2. How does the developer plan to provide adequate vehicular access to all the propertv? Currently, the only access is to Zion Road. This is a narrow road with no shoulders. Some parts of the road are so narrow that it's difficult for two vehicles to pass each other. The number of vehicles using this road already strains safety limits, especially during commuting hours. Adding additional users, without addressing the road's condition, is poor planning. When evaluating rezones (and in this case, an associated annexation as well), staff will report on what is currently available as far as infrastructure. Further infrastructure needs and infrastructure improvements that nrl oe -ieeded are typically evaluated at the time of the specific development proposal. The Master Street Plan fo- :his site does indicate that a future Neighborhood Link is olanned for the site. While this may not address all needs it will be something that staff will take into consideration. This is marked by the orange dotted line in the image below. The Llae dotted line is a planned Residential Link. (More information below image, keep scrolling!) IF Additionally, there is a one -lane bridge between the subject property and Crossover. Vehicles meeting each other at the bridge and screeching to a sudden halt is a common occurrence. Another concern is tF is bridge has a load limit of 5000 Ibs, which is already frequently ignored by haulers of construction materials. Thank you -orthe input on this. 3. Flood control and water drainage MUST be addressed. Those of us who live just west of _he subject property already have to cope with flooding every time there are heavy rains. Hilton Creek can not handle runoff that comes from Copper Creek, so it backs up and overflows into our property, even some houses. This has happeneJ multiple times, complaints to the city and county have been made, but absolutely no results. Adding houses and pavement to what is now unimproved land is only going to make the situation much worse. Thank you for the input on this as well. I have asked our Floodplain Manager to look into this. For now, if you have specific issues, since the p,operty is currently in the County, I do recommend reaching out to Washington County Planning at 479-444-1724. t is probably worth nothing that t:ne applicant has requested that the area surrounding Hilton Creek to remain R-A. 2 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Since the city offices and meetings are closed to the public now, what is the best way for our neighborhood to make our concerns and objections known? I have been encouraging folks to contact staff ahead of the meeting, like you've done. We include all email comments in our reports to the Planning Commission, and mention all public comment in our reports as well. Additionally, this item will be going to Planning Commission on August 24 at 5:30 PM, and staff does anticipate that the meetings will stil, be virtual at that time. Specific information regarding how to attend virtually can be found at this link. Full information regarding that specific meeting is typically posted a couple days ahead of time. I'm happy to help with any questions you might have regarding participation. I have saved your initial email in the file already, and you are welcome to submit additional. I look forward to getting your response. If there are other persons that I should contact instead, please let me know. Thank you, Michele Lang 3322 E Zion Rd Phone 501-282-3350 mlang9669@gmail.com Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Michele Lang <mlang9669@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 2AS PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Proposed rezoning and annexation of 3435 E Zion Rd Attachments: flood 3.png; flood 2.png; flood 1.png �C411, "C~ This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize i the sender anc know the content is safe. Ms. Masters, This is a follow-up email, reiterating my concern over the drainage and flooding problems currently experienced by residents of East Zion Road, just west of the proposed annexation. The flooding is an on -going problem that the city and county must address before allowing further development in the area. I am attaching three photos that illustrate what we experience each time =-lere is heavy rainfall, sorretimes as little as 1-2 inches. Our property is located on the north sidfE of Zion Road, not adjacent to Hilton Creek, yet we continually experience flooding issues. Photos 1 and 2 are of Zion Road in front of our house. These are snapshots from a video taken in 2017. There is actually a 3-foot deep ditch between the road and telephore pole. Photo 3 is our front yard during one of the high water events in 2019. This is moving water about 12 inches deep. Thank you for including these in your report to the city. Michele Lang 3322 E. Zion Rd Planning Commissic December 14. 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Plannirg Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Planning Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Tina Moeller <tinawmoeller@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 8:52 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Road CAI_TION, This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reccgnize the sender and know the cont=rt is safe. Jessica, Hi. I live in Fayetteville near Zicn Road and I am concerned about the potential problems teat would be associated with the development of the 59 acres ocated at 3435 E Zion Rd. There are drainage problems that need to be addressed and Zior Road is :n extremely poor condition now and it doesn't seem like it could handle the increase in traffic that would come with a new de4e.opment. Thank you for hearing my concerns. Tina A oeller 704-965-5230 Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Mona Calvert <mjwc82@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 3:03 PM To: Masters, Jessica; Pugh, Alan Cc: Michele Lang Subject: Annexation and rezoning on Zion Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attEchments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Masters and Mr. Pugh; I live on Zion between Crossover and the farmland (old Burge property)to be annexed/rezoned. As we live downhill from the Copper Creek and Stonewood neighborhoods as well as the aforementioned farmland, we suffer from increasing flooding as the neighborhoods are built out and the climate changes. I attended pre-Covid city planning meetings when the fields to the southwest of us were zoned for a church, but to no avail. That church with its attendant large parking lots has yet to be built but will even more severely impact our flooding issues when it is completed. Any recourse we might have to alleviate flooding on our property is hindered by the Fayetteville Stream Protection Ordinance as well. The stream in question - Hylton Branch - originates in the middle of the farmland in question. Minimal efforts were made to capture floodwaters from the Copper Creek development, but they are not effective. In fact they made the situation worse given that the detention pond overflows during heavy rains directly into the farmland. There are only a few houses affected by this flooding and some are in the city and some in the county, so our collective voice on this issue has been totally disregarded. And given that the Hylton Branch drainage was rezoned a few years ago, our access to flood insurance has gone to $15,000 per year. Not a feasible thing for me or my neighbors. Adding to these significant emotional and financial issues is the complication of a massive increase in traffic on Zion where there is a one -lane, 5000 lb. load limit bridge that already causes congestion. The likelihood of a construction truck weighing well over the weight limit and crushing this bridge due to ignorance on the part of the driver or the construction company is well within reason. Not to mention the future traffic on our narrow road when two or more large housing and multi -family developments are completed as well as possible retail uses. If I could have any sense of responsibility and communication on the part of the city and the county relative to the flooding and traffic issues that will ensue when this land is developed, I would be happy to receive them and share with my neighbors. We are well aware that the city will expand whether we like it or not, but we would like for our concerns and financial issues to be considered as it does so ... regardless of the fact that the quarantine for coronavirus is making it very convenient for the city to meet and proceed in virtual secrecy with any developers or other parties with financial interest and lawyers. Sincerely, Monetha Calvert 3312 E Zion Rd mjwc82@yahoo.com Planning Commissi( December 14. 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Nick Anthony <nanthony@uark.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 11:05 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Anthony Flooding Zion Rd Attachments: IMG_2361.JPG; IMG_2427.JPG; IMG_1824.JPG; IMG_2426.J:'G; IMG_5881jpg; IMG_ 2424.JPG; IMG_2423.JPG; IMG_5824jpg; IMG_5792jpg; Ir/G_2425.JPG; IMG_5825jag; IMG_5823jpg; IMG_5491.jpg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the conten _ is safe. Hi Jessica, Attached please find photos that support my concerns about flooding associated with the runoff from 3435 E. Zion Rd. I included photos attempting to show before and after scenarios for different locat,ons in my yard. My concerns with this rezone of 3435 E. Zion Rd is consistent with most of the neighbors concerns. How will development of this property impact surrounding land owners with regard to water flow? My concerns are multifaceted. I need water flow from the land runoff to support the 3/4 acre pond on my land. Clearly, from the map included below, the flow of water from the land in question is a tributary of Hilton Creek that originates from the 3435 Zion Rd property and funnels water thrcugh my property. Without the runoff my pond will be lost and there will be significant cost to fill it in. There are several scenarios that could happen if a neighborhood is built on this land. Runoff could be diverted and -ain (dry up) my pond or I will et way too much wate• flow along with pollutants associated with a neighborhood (trash, oils, fertilizers and pesticides). The water -low is to Lake Fayetteville thus putting more pressure on the lake water quality. Flooding issues will have to be addressed downstream removing choke points that impact smooth movement of excessive water to Lake Fayetteville. One of these choke points incluJe inadequate flow under Highway 265. There are other choke points associated with the lack of maintenancE of the Hilton Creek easement. Approval of this annex and rezoning plan without understanding the development p'an for this land is difficult to understand. In a way, approval without understanding sets a negative tone for Vie City of Fayetteville because it shows lack of empathy for the landowners that will remain in the county on a doughnut hole surrounded by city limits. The infrastructure for access to the land is inadequate to say the least; one lane bridge with weight limit, narrow road poor access to Highway 265. Finally, the cut-outs for the section in RI-U is really odd and creates unnecessary clutter to the map. I had plenty of fence -side chats with Mr. Robert Burge prior to his death. He loved this land and had always dreamed that his farm would continue in the family. He had plenty of opportunities to sell the land and could have lived a much easier life. Robert chose to keep the farm. I will be sad to see this change, not just because of the obvious rEasons, but also because of the loss of a legacy of someone who loved to farm. He loved the land. SincErely, Nick Anthony Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( E }F(�tj ry x u M ' Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planning Ccmmissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-•]00001 Bur( Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planning Commissic December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Burc Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planninc Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planning Commissi( December 14, M Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planninc Commissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-0000D1 Bur( Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Nick Anthony Email Att2chments August 20, 2020 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( i ♦ �7 . '` y tom. ` � ,S �Ar t, r . Nick Anthony Email Attachme-its August 20, 2020 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Nick Anthony Email Attachments August 20, 2020 Planning Commissi( Deeenber 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 10:30 AM To: Masters, Jessica Cc: Curth, Jonathan Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAJT'0"s This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks again to both of you for your information and your reply. One question that I do not see an email response for is the structure of the annexation. If my information is correct, the annexation creates an island with existing and remaining property surrounding the subject property remaining in the county. Did you review the request for annexation in light of the two "outlying corners" as well as the border of the county road and adjacent properties on all sides still in the county? Isn't an island created? I appreciate your efforts. Scott From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:44 PM To: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <jcurth@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Scott, My apologies if I missed a response to you on this item. I do know that I received your initial comments and they are included in staff's report on the item. That said, to answer your questions, any specific infrastructure improvements that would need to be made would be reviewed at the time of a specific development proposal. Staff certainly recognizes that the site currently is underdeveloped for an influx of new housing, and has mentioned current conditions in the report. I should also let you know that the associated rezoning request for this site has been tabled by the applicant at this time, so all that will be under consideration for Monday's Planning Commission meeting will be the annexation itself. Should the annexation pass, the land will be automatically zoned R-A, Residential -Agricultural. The item will be heard at the August 24 Planning Commission meeting, which will begin at 5:30 PM. This will be a virtual meeting due to the ongoing health crisis. If you would like to participate in the meeting you can do so at this link. The agenda for the meeting can be found here. Again, apologies for missing your follow-up email. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Jesse Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479j 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter ; Instagram I YouTube 6irY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKAMSAS From: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2023 4:12 PM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters @fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open at:achments unless you recognize the s=nder and know the content is safe. Jessie & Jonathan, I wanted to follow-up on the question below regarding the partial rezoning. I co not see that I received a response. Can you please provide some insight? Tha-ik you! Sco-t From: Scott Hancock Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 4:09 PM To: 'Masters, Jessica' <imasters@fayetteville-ar.pov> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Thank you both for your p,ompt response. I am sure you have and will continie to receive comments from surrounding neighbo,s. I am curious as to how the traffic flow will be handled for 200+ resicences on the exiting Zion Road, which I think is a county road. Also, is it customary for only a portion of the contiguous property to be considered for annexation and rezon ng in a situation like this? From: Masters, Jessica <imas-ers@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 12:04 PM To: Scott Hancock <SHancockC myl00bank.com> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Scott, Yes, I am happy to answer any additional questions you might have. It did come to my attention this morning that there was a typo on the initial public hearing sign that was posted. It has been corrected by city staff and a new sign was posted to accurately reflect the request. As Jonathan has indicated, the request is for RI-U and NC. Planninc Commissi( 2 December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( (Photos attached for reference). Please let me know if you have any questions. Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.fayettevi Ile-ar.gov byebsite I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ateKwMsws From: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August S, 2020 11:56 AM To: shancock@my100bank.com Cc: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Scott, Following -up on our phone conversation, I have attached the request letter, owner authorization, annexation exhibit, and rezoning exhibit for the proposed annexation an rezoning on Zion Road. The two zoning districts can be found here (RI-U) and here (NC) on our online ordinances for some added detail on the allowed uses. Otherwise, I have also copied Jessie Masters, the planner working on the item. I am happy to continue helping where I can, but if questions reach a certain level of detail I may have to defer to her. Thanks, Jonathan Curth, AICP Development Review Manager City Planning Division City of Fayetteville, Arkansas icurth@faVetteville-ar.gov 479.575.8308 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Youtube Planning Commissi: December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur: Masters, Jessica From: nbooth479@gmail.com Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:52 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal CA l0', This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or ope-i attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessie, My name is hick Booth and I live at 3400 E Zion, adjacent to the property that is up fo, re---oning and annexation into the city. I know that there has been correspondence from most of my neighbors, so I am ! ure -hat you are aware of our concerns with our road and flooding issues. Due to the fact that the planning commission/pity council meeting will be virtual and there is a chance that we will not be able to adequately voice our concerns over the project, I just wanted to indicate our apprehensions to you as well just in case that will help our cause. I was also wondering if there was any sort of development proposal from the buyers ye--? I think it would help ease some worry from everyone if we had an idea as to what exactly they have planned. Thanks! Nick Booth Nbooth479@gmail.com 479-379-5520 From: Harrison, Andy <aharrison@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:07 PM To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Attached is the exhibit that shows how the property is broken out by zoning request. je3sie Masters is the planner cn this cne and she can be reached at jmasters@fayetteville-ar.t;ov Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Plann ng Divisio-i 125 W. Mountain City o- Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 aharrison@faye-teville-ar.gov) T 479.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8202 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instaoram I YouTube (CITE' OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS Planninc Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: nbooth479@gmail.com Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 8:14 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed C^ -T C,N4 This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessica, We are anxious for the meeting this evening. I wanted to make a few last minute remarks with respects to the agenda this evening in case I am not able to speak, so I hope that these can still be thrown in the discussion. • In the 2030 City Plan for Fayetteville, Goal #2 is states that "We will discourage suburban sprawl". We feel that allowing the rezoning to RI-U contradicts this goal, by allowing 3+4 family dwellings, as well as cluster house development. • The rezoning of the southern -most portion of the lot to NC contradicts the 2030 Future land use plan, which labels the entire area as "Residential Neighborhood" • We feel like this rezoning would not be consistent with the surrounding area of Copper Creek which has RSF-4 zoning. • Based on the infill scoring map available on the cities website, our area has a score of 1-3 which should indicate a low development potential. I hope that these points can make it in to the conversation tonight, as well as the many other concerns presented by our neighbors! Thanks, Nick Booth 3400 E Zion Rd Nbooth479@gmail.com From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters @fayetteviIle-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:52 PM To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Thank you for your input on the proposed annexation and associated rezoning. We always appreciate feedback from the public. We have saved your comment and it will be included in staff's report on the rezoning item, which will be in front of Planning Commission on August 24 at 5:30 PM. We do anticipate that the meeting will still be held virtually at that time. For information about how to participate, you can visit this link. More specific information regarding the August 24 meeting is typically posted a couple days ahead of time. Planning Ccmmissi( December 14, 20. Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( As far as your questions regarding a specific development proposal, we have not yet received one. As staff evaluates the appropriateness of the request, we will look at available infrastructure and report on it for the Planning Commission and subsequently City Council to consider. Should they receive their development entitlement (meaning, the annexation and rezoning passes), once they provide a specific development proposal, staff will evaluate what specific infrastructure improvements may need to be made on the site that meet the proposed impact. It may be helpful to look into what is available "by -right", or what the developer would have the entitlement to do by looking at the zoning ordinances specifically. In this instance, they are requesting a portion of the site to be NCB Neighborhood Conservation, and RI-U, Residential Intermediate - Urban. They are also requesting to leave the portion of the site that is around Hilton Creek as R-A, Residential -Agricultural to minimize development impact in that floodplain. I am happy to answer any additional questions to the best of my ability — I also recommend attending the meeting through the link provided above. Mary thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479)575-8239 www.fayettevi Ile-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube 6F F EVILLE ARKANS ARKAMSA6 From: nbooth479@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:52 PM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal CAUTICr�4 This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessie, My name is Nick Booth and I live at 3400 E Zion, adjacent to the property that is up for re -zoning and annexation into the city. I know that there has been correspondence from most of my neighbors, so I am sure that you are aware of our concerns with our road and flooding issues. Due to the fact that the planning commission/city council meeting will be virtual and there is a chance that we will not be able to adequately voice our concerns over the project, I just wanted to indicate our apprehensions to you as well just in case that will help our cause. I was also wondering if there was any sort of development proposal from the buyers yet? ► think it would help ease some worry from everyone if we had an idea as to what exactly they have planned. Thanks! Nick Booth Nbooth479@gmaii.com 479-879-5S20 Planning Commissi< December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( From: Harrison, Andy <aharrison@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:07 PM To: nbooth479@gmail.com Subject: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Nick, Attached is the exhibit that shows how the property is broken out by zoning request. Jessie Masters is the planner on this one and she can be reached at (masters@fayetteville-ar.>;ov Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mountain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 aharrison(a)favetteville-ar.gov) T 479.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8202 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( TO: Fayetteville City Planning Commission From: Roy L. Lang, Registered Professional Geologist, Arkansas License #1426 (Retired) RE: Proposed annexation and rezoning of property at 3435 East Zion Rd. Commissioners. As returning residents of Fayetteville, my wife and I purchased our current home and property on East Zion Rd it 2017. Professionally, most of my experience has been dealing with water issues in cne form or another. I am very interested in the plans to provide flood control for the are -a down stream of the proposed anrexation property as our home will potentially be affectec by the development. From my own observations, at least three times in the past three years, storrr waters have covered the bridge over the creek on Zion Rd just to the west of the subject property. The storm rainfall amounts have varied between 4 and 7 inches. The depth of wa-er over the bridge has been as mucl- as 16 inches, at times probably more, but I was unable to t2ke a direct reading due to the swift current. Since that first storm event, I have taken the opportunity to review some of t-ie basic information available about our area. According to the EPA Storm Water Calculator, there are three factors that should raise a caution flag concerning further development without fully considering flood control. The soil it the proposed annexation area is composed of high clay content soil-- this means the soil has little capacity to allow rainwater to infiltrate. The result is an increased rate of runoff as compared to a soil with very little clay. The land is nearly flat with very gradual slope from the north, south, and east-- all slope toward the creek that crosses the subject property, forming a natural oasin. The property in question is currently used as pasture. The addition of streets and roofs will greatly increase the rate of runoff as compared to the present use. To better understand the local storm water runoff system, we need to also consider the topography downstream as well as the stream channel condition. A USGS benchmark places the elevation of tFe Zion Rd bridge at 1258' MSL. The creek channel under the oridge is around 1251' MSL. The sL rface of Lake Fayetteville is shown as 1238' MSL on the topographic map. A straight line distance from the bridge to Lake Fayetteville is about 2950'. The vertical change in elevation is 13'. These numbers allow us to calculate the slope of 0.44% from the bridge to Lake Fayetteville. As a reference, house gutters slope about 0.41% to allow for adequate drainage of roof runoff, this is with the drainage flowing through a smooth gut=er. In contrast, the stream channel is not smooth and actually has a very high channel roughness primarily caused by vegetation overgrowth. This roughness slows flow, increasing flood ng of property Planning Commissi( December 14, 20: Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( adjacent to the stream. Based on my research and personal observations, the method of controlling storm water as it is now, does not prevent flood damage to nearby homes and property, or prevent the immediate danger posed to motorist attempting to cross the bridge covered by flood waters. In conclusion it would seem that a prudent course of action would be to review the current system of flood control to identify, then implement, the needed changes before adding additional runoff to an already overwhelmed drainage system. Sincerely, Roy L. Lang 2 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Masters, Jessica From: Sandra Soderquist <sandysoderquist@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 10:19 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: rezoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click li Fks cr open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, Tell me this ifn't happening. My husband and I moved to, and were married in, our home at 4676 Copper Creek Dr. 15 vears ago. We retired frcm our hectic lives in Santa Fe and choose our home here because of it's tranquil locatior nex.' to a park, open fields, I2ck of traffic, lack of noise. etc. We wanted peace and quiet in our golden years. And now we are .aced with losing all that because of the possible rezoning of the property across the street from us. What about the safety of the children walking, riding bikes, skate boarding to and from the park here? If this rezoning happens, it wil' ruin every reason why we chose our home. My husband new suffers from dementia and needs peace and quiet in his remaining years. Please don't take that away from him. Regards, Sandra Soderquist & Robert Gaadagni 467E Copper Creek Dr. Fayetteville, Ar 72764 479 287 6557 Planning Commissi( December 14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-D00001 Bur( Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( ANX-2020-000001 Close Up View C V ZIUN RD R-.a Legend E. z W W p -� a Y ❑ aW p W ---- U Ir V- Subject Property _ 4*_ c'QO ■ � O W ;�"�y ■ w Ov O ■ Planning Area �- - - Fayetteville City Limits Feet Trail (Proposed) 0 180 360 720 1,080 1,440 Building Footprint 1 inch = 500 feet a A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 Residential -Office Neighborhood Services -Gen. P-1 Planning Co missi( 4, 20, Agenda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( Agerda Item ANX 20-000001 Bur( ANX-2020-000001 Future Land Use Civic and Private Open Space RANDAL_11 C PL Legend BURGE NORTH LADELLE pL I JASPER LN \ fll`� \7MNR p I 5,w 4> -HEARTHSTONE DR—M ;--_40Q�1 O w D a °z 0a L) �� ,E DR S, z0 co y---� a 2 Y TONE DR- C w 0 0 J J �ZION RD' - - City Neighborhood VALERIE DR F— SON _ (DIz X J w _.J -,JOYCE BLVD Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail 0 255 510 Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Subject Property ■ ■ ■ ■ jRR:c2 r. w O� Z OON Feet Nat4ral Residential Neighborhood 1,020 1,530 2,040 1 inch = 700 feet FM IM City Neighborhood Civic nstitutional Civic and Private Open :apace Indus,rial Nat,ral Non -Municipal Government ResiJantial Neighbo-hood Rural Residential Urban Center p �nrunr r14, 20, Agenda Item ANX 2D-000001 Bur( Submit Public Comment This page is provided for efficient submission of public comment for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure your comments conform to the Rules of Order and Procedure. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Full Name* Kandy Johnson and Dr.Steve Johnson Address or Ward* Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address * 4131 N Valerie Dr. Ex. 113 VV Mountain St Phone Number 479-601-4204 Email <andyrej@cox.net Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item C.11 2020-1136 and C.12 2020-1140/Annexation and Chandler Number/Subject Crossing PZD Please click the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position Opposed Comments Date: January 2.. 2021 To Mayor Lioneld Jordan and Fayetteville City Council Members: Re: Annexation of 3435 E. Zion Rd and Rezoning for Chandler Crossing PZD that is on your agenda for next week (January 5th17th). We are Kandy and Dr. Steve Johnson and we live at 4131 Valerie Drive (Ward 3) in Fayetteville. Although our property is not adjacent to Chandler Crossing. it is nearby and we are writing as we have concerns about this development. Those concerns are well expressed in the 1.800 pages that have previously been submitted to the Planning Commission and forwarded on to you. Please, please spend time reviewing the letters, e-mails, calls, water studies, pictures. and petition. These pages reflect various topics such as traffic, safety concerns, flooding, storm water run-off, drainage, etc. The developer has included an area for Parks and Recreation although the David Lashley Park and the Botanical Garden are nearby. It seems that the park is on the north side of Hilton Creek and we wonder if this will assist drainage in working to protect Lake Fayetteville. The meeting for Parks and Recreation Board to review this is Monday January 4th. We hope that our City Council has interest in preserving Fayettev lie's unique, quaint, and extraordinary beauty in a controlled manner as it seer -is developers are running the show with build, build, build and tons of identical subcivisions, duplexes with 7-8 cars around them and multiple apartment complexes filling in every square foot of land. A recent drive around Fayetteville made us sad. This is not the town Kandy grew up in and not the town that her father. Dr. Rodney Ryan. who served on the Fayetteville Parks Board for 36 years worked so hard to preserve and protect in order to encourage people to be a part of this community. Thanks for listening. We fear that all the effort we have made to stop this large scale PZD may not amount to a "hill of beans" but at least we tried to preserve the character and integrity of Fayetteville. Respectfully, Kandy Johnson (cell: 479-601-4204) Steve Johnson. MD 479-841-4306 Attachments Section from the RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Adopted 01/07/2020 by Resolution #01-20 & Amended 06/16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Public comment at a City Council meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being opened for public continent. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes to be broken into segments of three and two minutes. Amendments may receive public comments only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent of majority vote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment. speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent or majority vote Courtesy and Respect. All members of the public, all city staff and elected officials shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. All shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements about motives or personalities. Any member of the public who violates these standards shall be ruled out of order by the Mayor, must immediately cease speaking and shall leave the podium. Enter the text you want this field to display Submit Public Comment This page is provided for efficient submission of public comment for City Courcil and Planning Commission meetings. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure your comments conform to the Rules of Order and Procedure. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Full Name* Michele Lang Address or Ward* • Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 3322 E Zion Rd Ex. 113 W Mountain St Phone Number 501-282-3350 Email mlang9669@gmail.com Meeting Body* City Council Agerda Item C-11 and C-12 Annexation and Rezoning (Burge) Num:)er/Subject Please click the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Posit'on Opposed Comments Re: 3435 E Zion Rd (Burge) Annexation request and Rezoning to PZD (C-i3ndler Crossing) Council Members: Your agenda packets contain several hundred emails and photos from our neighborhood, along with a petition signed by 68 neighbors. During the months that these two issues were before the Planning Commission, we repeatedly va.ced our concerns and our reasons for opposition to these requests. Unfortunately, vie feel that our comments have been largely ignored up to this point. We are since-ely hoping that you, our elected officials, will give more thought and attention to the future of this neighborhood. We realize that annexation of this property is probably inevitable. This will -lopefully be an advantage, because it means the city will be responsible for developing a FUNCTIONING water drainage system around Hilton Creek. Currently, we and several neighbors have flooded property every time there is a heavy rain. —he main culprit is water runoff from the inadequate detention ponds of Copper Creek. There art? nhntns in vnttr narkatc of SP.vPral flnnciinn inririantc Annn with a sturiv of Hiltnn Creek., results of water sample tests, and statements by a toxicologist about the quality of Lake Fayetteville's water. The current drainage problems will increase drastically if all this acreage is paved over with buildings and streets. Concerning the proposed Chandler Crossing PZD. we are dismayed'' This area is semi -rural, all the homes are owner -occupied, and almost all of the properties have acreage. The proposal is for a high -density development, not at all compatible with the surrounding area, It seems the developer (and the Planning Commissioners) are intent on forcing an "urban" project into our neighborhood; thereby permanently affecting the semi -rural location that all of us existing residents deliberately chose. The city long range plans call for an extension of Zion Road. going from Crossover to Old Wire Road on the east. The plan is for this new road to be a major connection to all the subdivisions on the east side of town. Yet the developer's current proposal is for a 2-lane street with parallel parking on each side., so how dces this fit into the long range plan? This development is located in the Springdale school district, So most of the tax millage would go to Springdale, yet Fayetteville tax payers will be responsible for paying for all the infrastructure and public services. It seems that the only persons who will benefit from this project are the seller and the developer. In closing, we want to remind everyone that the City Plans for 2030 and 2040 list six goals, three of which are especially relevant. Goal #1, with the highest priority, is for "appropriate infill and revitalization", The proposed annexation and project do not meet this goal. Goal #2 is to "discourage suburban sprawl". The proposed annexation and project do not meet this goal. Goal #5 is to "assemble an enduring green network". Much of the subject property was already identified by the city as a potential green space. So the city has a prime opportunity, right now, to preserve as much of this area as possible and incorporate it into the green network. We realize your agenda this week is lengthy, and there are over 1800 pages in your packets. We hope you have a few minutes to at least scan through all of our previous comments on these two issues. We also invite you to visit our neighborhood, knock on a few doors, see what our area looks like. Thank you for your time and consideration! Michele and Roy Lang 3322 E Zion Road Attachments w, pcpfef red Section from the RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Adopted 01/07/2020 by Resolution #01-20 & Amended 06/16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Public comment at a City Council meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being opened for public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes to be broken into segments of three and two minutes. Amendments may receive public comments only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment. speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent or majority vote Courtesy and Respect. All members of the public, all city staff and elected officials shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. All shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements about motives or personalities. Any member of the public who violates these standards shall be ruled out of order by the Mayor. must immediately cease speaking and shall leave the podium. CityClerk From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please see email below. CityClerk Monday, January 4, 2021 8:14 AM Bolinger, Bonnie; Pennington, Blake; CityClerk; Eads, Gail; Roberts, Gina; Hertzberg, Holly; Batker, Jodi; Jones, D'Andre; Johnson, Kimberly; Rogers, Kristin; Williams, Kit; Branson, Lisa; Jordan, Lioneld; Mathis, Jeana; Paxton, Kara; Petty, Matthew; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Thurber, Lisa; Gutierrez, Sonia; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Scroggin, Sloan; Bunch, Sarah; Turk, Teresa; Smith, Kyle esimpson@uark.edu FW: Water issues, Chandler Crossing The City Clerk office is happy to forward emails to City Council Members but wanted to make you aware that you can also submit a public comment using the link provided below which will automatically be routed to Council Members. The link can be found on the City Clerk page on the city website. https://documents.fayetteville-ar.gov/Forms/publiccomment Have a nice day! Office of the City Clerk Treasurer 113 W. Mountain Street, Suite 308 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.575.8323 cityclerk(aD-fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY of �- FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: Ethel Simpson <esimpson@uark.edu> Sent: Friday, January 1, 2021 11:30 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Water issues, Chandler Crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please forward this email to the members of the City Council and the mayor. Thank you very much. ecs I am writing to support the presentation of Margaret Britain, Dr. Lucy Frasier, and William Correll regarding the impact of the proposed Chandler Crossing development on the water quality of Lake Fayetteville, and ultimately of the water supply of our entire community. This is a passage from their presentation: the level of microcystin toxin in the lake (produced by blue-green algal blooms), was so high that the health department required the City to notify the public of the danger. Microcystin is a liver toxin and a skin irritant. Reports of dog deaths from drinking microcystin in water bodies are common. Microcystin is challenging to remove from water and has shut down water supplies across the country. Last June, the city reported a toxic algae bloom in Lake Fayetteville. The cautions reported by the press were serious, even alarming. People should avoid contact with the water, especially near the bloom, according to the release. Swimming isn't allowed at the lake, as usual. Parks employees have placed signs near the lake to inform park users. Dogs shouldn't swim in or drink the water. The dead, dry algae near the water's edge also should be avoided because it could contain toxins. It seems likely that further development in the area would present a danger to the water quality in this important recreational asset. At a time when Fayetteville is marketing its environmental and recreational qualities, I hope that you will consider very carefully whether Chandler Crossing, or any other developments, endangers or diminishes these qualities. Thank you for your attention to this. Ethel Simpson 409 N Oliver Avenue Fayetteville AR72701 2 CityClerk From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please see email below. CityClerk Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:05 PM Bolinger, Bonnie; Pennington, Blake; CityClerk; Eads, Gail; Roberts, Gina; Hertzberg, Holly; Batker, Jodi; Jones, D'Andre; Johnson, Kimberly; Rogers, Kristin; Williams, Kit; Branson, Lisa; Jordan, Lioneld; Mathis, Jeana; Paxton, Kara; Petty, Matthew; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Thurber, Lisa; Gutierrez, Sonia; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Scroggin, Sloan; Bunch, Sarah; Turk, Teresa; Smith, Kyle Sue Mayes FW: Chandler Crossing proposed annexation and development The City Clerk office is happy to forward emails to City Council Members but wanted to make you aware that you can also submit a public comment using the link provided below which will automatically be routed to Council Members. The link can be found on the City Clerk page on the city website. https://documents.fayetteville-ar.gov/Forms/publiccomment Have a nice day! Office of the City Clerk Treasurer 113 W. Mountain Street, Suite 308 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.575.8323 city clerk(o)fayetteviIle-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube C!TY OF �S FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: Sue Mayes <suem@crosschurch.com> Sent: Tuesday. January 5, 202114:50 PM To: C tyClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Bunch, Sarah <sarah.bunch@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Scroggin, Sloan <sloan.scroggin@fayetteville-a-.gov> Subject: Chandler Crossing proposed annexation and development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear ,2ouncilwoman Bunch and Councilman Scroggin, Mayor Jordan, other members of the City Council, and Clerk Paxon, We are writing today as born and raised citizens of Fayetteville, and 35 year residents of our current home on Valerie Drive, adjacent to Robert Burge's farm. We chose this site on which to build our life long hcme for the large lots, for the area a nd for the fact that our neighbors to the east would be cows, donkeys and a llama. Many people come to our home and call t paradise, definitely not for the house itself, but for the country feel in the c ty limits. We are opposed to the proposed annexation and re -zoning for numerous reasons. These reasons were clearly stated by many of our neighbors and area residents, including ourselves, when it was brought before the Planning Commission. We believe this proposed development is way too dense and are greatly concerned about the increased amount of noise, extreme increase in traffic, and light pollution that would result from this urban sprawl. As very well explained by several experts to the Planning Commission, we too are greatly concerned that this type of development would put undue strain on the water issues that currently exist on this property and the negative environmental impact it would have on Lake Fayetteville. We are aware that Fayetteville has a 2040 Plan, but we are not in complete agreement with this plan. As long-time citizens of Fayetteville, we feel that the impact new developments have on existing homeowners/tax payers should be of significant concern when considering these developments. Very selfishly, we are concerned about the impact this type of development would have on the value of our property, which is one of the major provisions we have for our retirement, which is not so far away. Living on a spacious, quiet lot has provided a sense of happiness, contentment and relaxing environment, and we believe the fact that we do have spacious lots in NW Arkansas is one of the main attractions for the people moving here. Many people are moving away from places with densely placed homes to NW Arkansas for this very reason. A lesson we have learned from our COVID experience and working from home is the value of being in a quiet area where one can feel secure and content. As we visited the Lights of the Ozarks last week we were noticing once again the lovely historic district. The lot sizes in those neighborhoods are significantly larger than what we have seen in this proposed development. We would like to see a development with much larger sized lots, similar to the historic district, to reduce the amount of hard scape in the overall development. As well, we would like to see much more green space. Cutting back on the amount of hard scape would obviously help address the water issues. If this development were to be approved we would ask that all lots that are contiguous with existing single family homes must be single family dwellings, and be the largest lots in this proposed development to protect the lifestyle experience of current residents. As well, we would ask that these homes be required to install privacy fencing and multiple trees in the back yards. Thank you for your consideration! Ben andSue _►Mayes 3266 E Valerie Drive Fayetteville AR 72703 6 January 2021 1931 N. Wheeler Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72703 Greetings Council Members, I apologize for burdening you with such a long letter, but the water quality issues involved with the Chandler Crossing development are complex and critical to the health of our City. I hope that you will take all the time that you need as a Council to carefully consider how you will ptoceed. Further studies, perhaps an independent environmental impact study, might be warranted before you come to a decision. This week when you begin to study the proposed Chandler Crossing development, please step back for a moment and consider the well-being of one of our parks, Lake Fayetteville. What happens in the Chandler Crossing area will have a direct and immediate impact on the quality of water in the lake. The problem: The Chandler Crossing development will have a significant impact on phosphorus levels in Lake Fayetteville. Background: A quick reminder: Lake Fayetteville is listed on the 2018 list of impaired waterbodies.' We need to improve the water quality in the lake, not let it further degrade. For the last two summers, the level of microcystin toxin in the lake (produced by blue-green algal blooms), was so hig-i that the health department required the City to notify the public of the danger. Microcystin is a liver toxin and a skin irritant. Reports of dog deaths from drinking microcystin in water bodies are common. Microcystin is challenging to remove from water and has shut down water supplies across the country. Why do we have so much algae? That's simple: too much phosphorus (P). Research on Lake Fayetteville has shown that P is the limiting nutrient in the lake. That simply me -ins that algae have plenty of everything they need for virtually unlimited growth (C, H, O, N, etc.), except P. So, the more P that flows into the lake, the more algae. Tilton Creek flows through the Chandler Crossing land, and within a very short cistance, into Lake F ayetteville. From there it flows into Clear Creek and then into the Illinois, which runs west into Oklahoma where it eventually joins the Arkansas and comes back into our state, finally ending up in the Mississippi and then the Gulf of Mexico. As a water rich state, we have a zonsiderable obligation to protect the waters running through our neighborhoods and beyond. The P levels in Hilton Creek are critical to the health of the lake and to all downstream waters. Recent P levels in the creek were .13 mg/1 after a light rain on 11/10/20 and .25 mg/l afte_ a heavier rain on 1/25/20. The highest level, .55 mg/l, came from a rivulet flowing over the land leaded for the creek. Z To begin to put these P levels in perspective remember that the legal limit for P in the Illinois River as the water crosses into Oklahoma is .037 mg/l. The water flowing into Hilton Creek is up to 15 times higher than that legal limit! Oklahoma sued Fayetteville in 1986 over high levels of P in the Illinois and the Supreme Court ruled that "downstream states water quality laws must be met at the state line". 3 Fayetteville responded by doing an excellent job in removing P from our wastewaer effluent. Unfortunately, we have not yet begun to tackle non -point source pollution from run-off in soils like those in Chandler Crossing. The Chandler Crossing farmer stated that her father had access to free chicken litter and for many years spread it on the land which he used for grazing cattle. This has historically been a common farming practice in NW Arkansas. The litter contains high levels of P which fuels plant growth. Unfortunately, this land has become saturated with P, and frequent flooding and degraded stream -banks move tons of P laden sediment into the creek every year. This is the situation now, pre -development. Solutions: 1) I would argue that it is important for the City to annex in the land and to address the flooding 4 and water quality issues. Clearly, the county is not addressing these issues, has no stream -bank protection guidelines, and has allowed homes in the area to be built on land very prone to flooding. To not annex the land would be a decision to allow the lake to continue to degrade. We must protect our parks, and for this one, that means protecting the quality of its water. That's the simple decision, I think. But the PZD? A much more complex issue, for sure. The Planning Commission was generally very pleased with the latest iteration (the process started back in August) of the PZD for Chandler Crossing. It met many of their goals regarding dense housing, building styles, and the possibility for some affordable housing. They were impressed by the open areas around the creek and north of the creek. But they didn't much dive into the messy issues regarding increased water flow from the addition of extensive impervious surfaces (streets, sidewalks, roofs). This kind of detail is not required in a PZD, unfortunately. But the council can add conditions of approval, certainly, if it decides to move forward with this plan. 2) If you move to approve the PZD, there need to be stringent conditions of approval such as: 1) Require an approved comprehensive storm -water management plan before any construction can begin. Require that rainwater gardens be built perpendicular to the flow of water and then flow into a series of holding ponds that will meet the requirement to remove 80% of total suspended solids (TSS). The sediments are bound to P. The holding ponds must be built to accommodate 100 year floods, but the developer has said that they are only bound to build for a 1 year flood. With climate change we are seeing increased flooding, very often, and must develop to accommodate that reality. The council must be certain that the capacity is sufficient. 2) The flood zones adjacent to Hilton Creek must have P removed either by topsoil scraping and removal or by repeated plantings of plants that take up a large amount of P, and then removing the above ground foliage from the watershed (phytoremediation). 3) The City should either take ownership of the proposed park donation to the city (north of the creek) OR should facilitate the transfer of the land to a conservation group. Either way it should be remediated with native prairie plants or with other native plantings that will best protect Hilton Creek. The Parks Commission has said they would rather not take on this park, partly because they don't want to deal with any flooding and partly because another park is right across the street. The developer has said that if the City doesn't take the land it will be developed. The City needs to work with the NW Arkansas land trust, The Nature Conservancy, The Botanical Garden of the Ozarks, or the Illinois River Watershed Partnership to manage this land as a conservation area that will protect and improve the water quality. 4) The creek should be remediated to its earlier sinuosity and all strearl-banks restored to protect the water quality. Stream -bank restoration must be done by an entity witl: proven expertise in this endeavor. 5) All public green spaces must be planted with 500/o/ft2 native species. 6) The HOA covenants should prohibit P fertilization unless soil tests prove a significant depletion. Please note that none of the above conditions are in the PZD. The devil is certainly in the details on this one. Development could possibly improve water quality in the creek, or it could make the situation much worse. As the owner of Lake Fayetteville, the City must begin to take mo-e ownership of the health of its watershed. Thank you for your attention and your careful consideration. Best wishes for a healthy City in the New Year. Regards, Margaret Britain, M.S., Fisheries and Wildlife Dr. Lucy Fraiser, PhD, DABT, Environmental Toxicologist William Correll, Arch-tect Hailey Young, student, Haas Hall Academy Green Team; frequent rower on Lake Fayetteville Footnotes 1 https:Harkansasdeq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html? appid=edf6259f9c8840e7b686287bc2c29799 2 See attached water test results. Soerens, S., Fite, E, and Hipp, J. "Water quality in the Illinois River: Cor_flict and cooperation between Oklahoma and Arkansas, Diffuse Pollution Conference Dul• lin 2003. https://www.ucd.ie/dipcon/docs/theme09/themeO9—O3.PDF 4 Flooding issues have been well documented with text and photos by Chandler Crossing area neighbors. This information is in the packet provided by the Planning Commission. GTS Lab 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. GTS, In c• Fayetteville, AR 72704 Geotechnical & Testing Services TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAX.- (479) 521-6232 Website: www.gtsconsulting.net November 17, 2020 Margaret Britain Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Fayetteville, AR 72703 TEL: FAX: r'lw Order No.: 2011046 Dear Margaret Britain: GTS Lab received 2 sample(s) on 11/10/2020 for the analyses presented in the following report. There were no problems with the analytical events associated with this report unless noted in the Case Narrative. Analytical results designated with a "*" or "X" qualifier exceed permit limits provided to the lab for the indicated analytes. Quality control data is within laboratory defined or method specified acceptance limits except if noted. If you have any questions regarding these tests results, please feel free to call. Sincerely, zt�'"-6.ztew Richard Brown Analytical Laboratory Director 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 Revision Q Page 1 of 3 GTS Lab Analytical Report GT S In c. 1915 N.Shiloh Dr. Fuveaeville, AR 72709 (Cuuliuuuus) Geotechetcet 3 Testing Services TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAX: (479) 521-6232 WO#: 2011046 Website: iviviv.gisconsulting.net Date Reported: 11/17/2020 CLIENT: Margaret Britain Collection Date: 1 1 /10/2020 3:45:00 PM Project: Lab ID: 2011046-001 Matrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID 1 Bridge -upstream Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Prep Date Analysis Date Method Nitrogen, Nitrate -Nitrite 0.3 0.3 mg/L 1 11/16/209:10 HACH 10206 Total Phosphorus 0.13 0.050 mg/L 1 11/17/20 9:30 EPA 365.3 E. coli >2419.6 1 MPN/100mL 1 11/10/20 16:48 11/11/20 12:26 Colilert-18 CLIENT: Margaret Britain Collection Date: 1 1/10/2020 3:56:00 PM Project: Lab ID: 2011046-002 Matrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID 2 South of fence Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Prep Date Analysis Date Method Nitrogen, Nitrate Nitrite 0.9 0.3 11iy/L 1 11/16/20 9:10 HACH 10206 Tidal Phusphorus 0.55 0.050 mg/L 1 11 /17/20 9:30 EPA 365.3 E. coli >2419.6 1 MPN/100mL 1 11/10/20 16:48 11/11/20 12:26 Colilert-18 Qualifiers: * Value exceeds Permit Level for analyte B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank DF Dilution Factor I I Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit RL Reporting Detection Limit e Rjj3V1$1011 v2 S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery I',, Page CHAIN OF CUSTODY Client Name/Address Project Description Billing Information Field Test Information Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Test 1st Result 2nd Result Analyst Time pH: Temp: DO: Res.Cl: Client Project Manager/Contact Project/Site Location (City/State) RUSH -Additional Charges Apply SpecialDetectl°nLimit(s) Date Results Needed Method of Shipment Fed Ex UPS Courier Client Drop Ott Other Matrix Key WW- Wastewater GW- Groundwater DW - Drinking Water 5 - Soil/Solid 0 - Oil P - Product M - Mist Margaret Britain Project Manager Phone it Project Manager Email Site/Facility IDN Purchase Order Number T= Project Number (479)236-0926 i7i�)ibr-itain(@Fryiii.il.com G T S, In `. C Geofschnica! 3 Testing Services ly N. Shiloh Drive Fa etteville, AR 72704 Phone (479) 521-7645 Fax (479) 521-6232 Y w x Cz v 0 cc v a a) a 0 �U V M - o v z s o a Preservative Key A Cool < 10C Na2S203 (Micro Only) B Cool C H2SO4 Ph Ph<2 D None Required E NaOH pH>10 F HNO3 pH<2 G HCL pH<2 H H3PO4 pH<2 I Cool <=6C Na2S203 www.gtsconsuiting.net Unless noted, all containers per Table It of 40 CPR Part 136. START DATE START TIME STOP DATE STOP TIME Sample Identification Required Analysis Laboratory Sample Number ... _ .� X �q� '�)1 JfB W B G For laboratory Use Only Sampled by (Name -Print) �1 r! y Gt r ��` �Q l i t Start Flow Reading Final Flow Reading Units Instantaneous or Total Flow Reading Ice N Custody Seals Y �(ra1 lab Comments Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Me /Time tderD(�c: 1�y� Received by: IGNATURq /�— r lCJ i r'✓� Da a Time f f to Blank / Cooler Temp Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Received by: (SIGNATURE) Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time shed by: (SIGNATURE) F Date Iime Date Time Page --l--- of GTS Lab GTSIn c■ 1915 N. Shiloh ! Fayetteville, AR 72704 G—technical s Testing Services TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAX. (479) 521-6232 Website: mm.gtsconsulting.nei November 30, 2020 Margaret Britain Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72703 TEL: FAX: RE: Dear Margaret Britain: Order No.: 2C 11116 GTS Lab received 2 sample(s) on 11/25/2020 for the analyses presented in the following report. There were no problems with the analytical events associated with this repor_ unless noted in the Case Narrative. Analytical results designated with a "*" or "X" qualifier exceed permit limits provided to the lab for the indicated analytes. Quality control data is within laboratory defined or method specified accepta_-ice li�nits except if noted. If you have any questions regarding these tests results, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Richard Brown Analytical Laboratory Director 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 Original Page 1 of 3 GTS Lab Analytical Report c 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. GT ! J, In c ■ Fayetteville, AR 72704 (Continuous) Geotechnicat s resting Services TEL: (479) 521-1256FAX.• (479) 521-6232 WO#: 2011116 Website: www.gisconsulting.net Date Reported: 11/30/2020 CLIENT: Margaret Britain Collection Date: 11/25/2020 9:30:00 AM Project: Lab ID: 2011116-001 Matrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID Hilton Creek Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Prep Date Analysis Date Method Sampler M. Britain Sampling Date 11/25/20 Sampling Time 09:30 E. coli 1,764 20 MPN/100mL 20 11/25/20 14:37 11/26/20 11:45 Colilert-18 CLIENT: Margaret Britain Collection Date: 11/25/2020 9:30:00 AM Project: Lab ID: 2011116-002 Matrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID Hilton Creek Analyses Result RI, Qual Units DF Prep Date Analysis Date Method Sampler Sampling Date Sampling Time Total Phosphorus M. Britain 11/25/20 09:30 0.25 0.050 mg/L 1 11/30/20 10:00 EPA 365.3 Qualifiers: * Value exceeds Permit Level for analyte DF Dilution Factor J Analyte detected below quantitation limits RL Reporting Detection Limit B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Original Page 2 of 3 CHAIN OF CUSTODY Client Nome/Addross P-1—i. Des ip1Im Rilling Information Field Test Information Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Margaret Britain 1932 N. Wheeler Ave. FayetteOlio, AR 72703 Test 1st Result 2nd Result Analyst Time pH: Temp: UU: Res.Cl: Client Project Manager/Contact Project/Site Location (City/State) RUSH -Additional Charges Apply Special Detection Limit(s) Date Results Needed Method of Shipment Fed Ex UPS Courier EE Client Drop Off Other Matrix Key WW -Wastewater GW -Groundwater DW - Drinking Water 5 - Soil/Solid 0 - Oil P - Product M - Misc Margaret Britain CV c S l� Project Manager Phone p Project Manager Email Site/Facility ID# Purchase Order Number Project Number (479)236-0926 mmbritain@gmail.com G T S, In c Geotecbnical d Testing Services 1915 N. Shiloh Drive Fayetteville, AR 72704 Phone (479) 521-764S Fax (479) 521-6232 a Y o ` cu PE, x R YA Y w v > f0 ? In a � a C U O — o U u.i a 0 rz Preservative Key Cool < 10C Na2S203 (Micro Only) R Cool <=6C C H2SO4 Ph<2 D None Required E NaOH pH>10 F HNO3 pH<2 G HCLpH<2 H H3PO4 pH<2 I Coot <=6C Na2S203 www.gtsconsuIting.net Unless noted, all containers per Table II of 40 CFR Part 136. START DATE START TIME STOP DATE STOP TIME Sample Identification Required Analysis Laboratory Sample Number y �UwV\,fY'?d W B G zy�f(II& C)01fl CT t "r- �,. W G Zo I) I 1 �p 06 Z 0 W B G W B G W B G - W B G W B G W B G W B G for Laborntovr U, O,dt Sampled by (name - erint) a v Start Flow Reading Final Flow Reading Units Instantaneous or Total Flow Reading Ice /rYJ N �i Custody Seals Y/(10) 22.E Lab Comments Relinquished by: GNATURE) Get /a� f.:n eClir�1 Date Time I�ii .D Rec ived by: (SIGNATURE) G'17,t"r`i Date Time 1` 0 Blank CuolerTem / p Relinquishe (SIGNATURE (, ' y/� n ) Date Time IQ ;,-r— Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date -Time Relinquished by: (SIG Date Time Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Page 3 of 3 Page __1_ of ___ Submit Public Comment This page is provided for efficient submission of public comment for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure your comments conform to the Rules of Order and Procedure. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Full Name* Address or Ward* Nicholas Anthony • Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 3301 E. Zion Rd Springdale AR 72764 Ex. 113 W Mountain St Phone Number 479-601-3271 Email nanthony@uark.edu Meeting Body* City Council and Planning Commission Agenda Item C-10 and C-11 Annex and Rezone of Burge Farm 3435 E. Zion Rd Number/Subject Please click the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position Opposed Comments Attachments Lake Fayetteville Presentation 6-9-2020 - 10.5M6 compressed photos (3).pdf letter to Fayetteville City Council.pdf 111.92KB Section from the RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Adopted 01/07/2020 by Resolution #01-20 & Amended 06/16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Public comment at a City Council meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being opened for public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes to be broken into segments of three and two minutes. Amendments may receive public comments only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. if public cotmnent is allowed for an amendment, speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent or maiority vote Courtesy and Respect. All members of the public, all city staff and elected officials shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. All shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity. abusive comments and staterrents about motives or personalities. Any member of the public whc violates these standards shall be ruled out of order by 'he Mayor; must immediately cease speaking and shall leave the pcdium Enter the text you want t-iis field to display O -i-j N 0 �• O CIO O KM Mir O � V V 1 v� • � C!� � v •> N CIO v � '�'-., v ro v 4-1 zw un Ln ^� Q k 'ouu o�—0-4 u A$ Wn Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Project Overview • Results of Assessment Work • Streambank Erosion • Natural Areas • Riparian • Lake Fayetteville Watershed • Land Use and Impervious Surface • Priority Sites • Invasive removal techniques guide w Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Assessment Results • Results of Assessment Work • Streambank Erosion • Natural Areas • Riparian • Data and Information Useful for Local Planning • Help to select future project sites • To reduce Sediment, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen within the Illinois River Watershed • Help Fayetteville, Springdale, Tontitown, & Johnson to • Evaluate proposed development that could potentially impact streams, wetlands, and springs • Select stream restoration sites where infrastructure is threatened • Provide information on unique areas that could potentially be protected, such as, wet prairies, wetlands, rare plallL habitat, rare aquatic species habitat, and stable sections of stream. Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion Inventory of Eroding Streambanks • Evaluated Erodibility of 413 Streambanks over Z6 miles of Stream • Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) • Bank Height Ratio • Bank Angle • Root Density • Root Depth • Surface Protection • Bank Material • Stratification • BEHI range: o (low) to 48 (extreme) points • Near Bank Shear Stress (NBSS) ranges low to extreme • Measured Streambank • Height • Length 4 ~t r , � � W--7� y Low r ; ��; BEHI & NBSS Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion Streambank Material Sampling Results Used to Calculate Streambank Material Loadings • Twenty two samples were collected at various locations throughout the Clear Creek watershed • Ten were obtained from streambanks composed of fine material • Twelve were obtained from streambanks composed of coarse material Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion 413 Streambanks Evaluated Over 26 miles; 42 Erosion Monitoring Sites; 22 streambank sampling sites L Ah-y t 4--00 Ids , .. ,► i�., " 4' ,., �, ;� � .. ,. Po .ti n d l Ccm � Y 0 0.5 1 2019 AK Photo a$ a• y� � t �.A Y �1 U �1 �.�VO..{ V�r o °o w rx w � aA au are In o u CA o ;-4 ;.4 0 o a as a cn cf 0.., a, cn .+ N Fast Clear Creek Natural Areas to atz �651 FavPtt° ale - - GIS Inventoried Natural Areas K Mounds and Swales w, Name ., Norm Slope K Abandoned Channel K Open Wetland K Audandoneo Channel K Pond K Baekwater Channei 94 pond - Spring Fed K Channel Scar K spring Run 06 East Slope K spring Run - in Abandoned Channel Flatwoods° K Wetland Spring Fed K Glade ® Field Assessed Natural Feature Site V 0 5 2 Miles WatershedC3 Lake Fayetteville �' t. .,. 4 � AAa�er 4h 1 i Oil, 1 Il Mdes N GIS Inventoried Natural Areas Mounds and Swalee Name North Slope K Abandoned Channel K open Wetland K Abdandoned Channel K Pond Backwater Channel K Pond - Spring Fed K Channel Scar K Spring Run Fast Slope « Spring Run - in Abandoned Channei K Flatwoods? K Wetland Spring Fed K Glade ® Field Assessed Natural Feature Sae P IL- C3 lake Fayetteville Watershed ICI VI �I �I cu Z � �WI • rl 3 i--I � � •• vi U O nj cu T-� v a CA 7z �:j 4-J 4% cn i••I Q 4—Jtz i-� L75 Q� W W W Vt f: I • c Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Assessment Results • Land Use Changes • Impervious Surface • Sources of Sediment & Phosphorus • Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation • Recommendations ?5 05 Land Use Level I Urban Agricultural Forest -land Water Wetlands Barren Lands Total 41 �i Arptwto"r2016 /�ycearr l.nWH �p19 dr oey lenw.e 70+6 , �. ." ��. • #.• r! dF IAte. 301E `� �, \�5 i i..f ��- � Bs•cn lN�h ]0.6 . a �Q Iwu.roe Nle 2006 Percent of 2016 Percent of Change Change of Total Total Basin A,r,, % 2895 48.2% 3243 54.0% 348.4 5.8% -7.7% 1.6% 2184 36.4% 1720 28.7% -464.1 425 7.1% 523 8.7% 97.9 293 4.9% 328 5.5% 35 0.6% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 203 3.4% 186 3.1% 17.2 0.3% 6001 6001 V c� OWN x O 4-4 E2 � ct a� C.0 Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Impervious Surface Change over 10 years Schueler, Tom, An Integrated Framework to Restore Small Urban Watersheds, Center for Watershed Protection 2005 The Lake Fayetteville Watershed falls under the "Impacted" category based on the Schueler Index with 15.6% Impervious Land Use in 2016. Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Sources of Sediment and Phosphorus Source Sediment Phosphorus Accelerated Streambank Erosion Pasture • Hay Production • Livestock • Cattle • Poultry • Horses, goats, etc. Septic Tanks Urban - Stormwater runoff • Industrial • Commercial • Residential • Park lands Construction Other Smirces • Forest • Roads • Undeveloped land • Barren land • Farmsteads Potential Water Quality Impact Sources t", Lake Fayetteville Watershed .� f ` o NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit ct o NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit y �r d o Chicken Houses ; • Septic Tanks Springdale Fayetteville - 4R•", a ;4Me tsls ��`, �, f"^r� eFr,�.� - . inventory N Streams A rsLake Fayetteville Watershed ,• 1 7,0..RW, Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Total Sediment Production to Lake FayetteNille Other Sources (Total) 93 tons S% FOf25�5 20.0 tons 21% M Sediment Production from Other Sources _ ,-" s — 4. f 4 - - - :r - -- - Prairie 5 -, \• `�� \C,` t :• 1```• 1``, WATFPS4r)CnWR—T'(N `_ ♦ H Sror" `• ' O — No mention of brooks y �- V F •\ =, Qua L_. fl _ a ` Prairie ` u No mention of brooks Welland, .._ L. 91 Brook mentioned, 2 links aside. 1.3 h — 'Prairie` /Wotland - Prairie i Brook mentioned, 6 links wlde.4 It] Clear Creek mentioned. 30 It wide ( _ i y CJIrC nI ony Sl,edrna Own Wetdrw a �"�3` • Spnnp Hun Moanos eno Swarea 0 0.25 0.5 1.5' �`_" PoncirWetlana lake rayetteviie Sawn ._J.. - - VER ......... 4u +dt iHIG .j�_._... ,,.�,_s�1,' JF�. 4�l �� HIGHHigh �r f ngRun far ilf`7 'd��'} _, Very High B;5'HIGN,{+�v�Y....`ckr $"� HIGH,High O-Very High c HIGH,EK,rem : e HIGH;High„4 1 0 HIGH, NIGH High HIfiH,High� k ` Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Northeast _a, +y' Mounds and SW I- f , i f' m N Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville :Priority Sites_with Open Space Score,_, * ^ q t. -' F_y s ree• b e tJR - A l ° "ito ' • , Mounds and SMratp I 4� ° M. - de -nA SIN Don Tyson Pkwy �, , •......� w .,, I �' Mounds and Swales a » r, Spring Run f► �.,. r, ._.......L. MOunds and Swales Glade f � 4 PondlWetlend Open Wetland a PaY��i1� 85 �',�� •� ..., ,,,., ' tMamde esw t3tirNee n �1� ."5 r. s a ♦ " prosy '•. ..� Lake Fayetteville open space su.•,.mn��ks 0 Bt H; Nbss Fayetievdla ^�`'� City Limits master Score Watershed - 5 ® Other �` _, � } 5vFayetteville Springdale Planning � ' Lounds and Swales City Limits g Lid' Natwai Areas Area 0 0.5 1 Miles x w UM 4-4 U O 1° �v v 3 3� w v O • � • �^ v '° as Ch a t o .� : 4 V� V� v v v aQ �� 4; v v �--� a Q • cn a b b v C U .0 r v, cn sue- ,�.+ 4-J-' � � O O r N Q. CAS Q bw ° 4 �ovav°3 o u v a �' CC CCU cn 0. a-' �' O O 'Es '� v +-w Cn -� r, N N w z V a 4 N ip- �" Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas: A Field Management Guide A practical, educational guide for land managers, stewards, homeowners, and volunteers for the removal and replacement of invasive plants in natural spaces Revised: December, aoi9 Prepared in cooperation with: Watershed Conservation Resource Center, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension, and City of Fayetteville .o i •r�l m b 7. � w v 4-J con 4-1 l ¢" b a ..� v �•E > ft cu • •� ° LI) aJ o v v u .a 3 cn = u 4% o Q ( O V) 4.j cn p, cn u (10 v r v 3 m lc� 4 o av� r. - O > v•� p cA V �, 6� a) cn° ra 'ti a--' ro --� CJ v r� a) _ a � . • 1 ' 44/ '.''' A-m `C, h `Sm i� U O O 1421 N :z O � V ri �� u .0 rz u v 02 � o o w � u a ro4.J 'd � b CA 1-4 v b � v (ub � v v V rG .0 • (Q 4-1 Gi E-i v Ll • • V C rC N v 4-J cn v :3 .4 E _ O �00 u C cu Cu -Z ;75 In W rz (Ii V O U ccn i, U �C Qj 121) N Ln V 3 0 v o a v c cn v > 0 o v u v a v v t. tn � v o u cu Hx 4-J > CIO z U i 4�j O' NLn Oj un cn� O h U • 0 • w v � b � v 0 0 u m 4-4 z v b � w a w ^� � O v u 0 ' ' o � x � .0 o75 4-13 n u ° �, cu oo J -� ° � a � d rc a4 . .n �' v z � 3 �, v 3 v a v ^ft v .� Ts 3 3 o a � v cn� �uro v4,u cn ft > o o � v u t . ' �, o u a o ro o 4-5 v v c o_ v4-1 o o a, M -J o o �Ox�a�ww u �c1,Q',E- `u Q�Uc�awr� u 4-J v 4J 4-1A, 0 U 0 0 cu o aI�Icl v v� G:�^° >o Ln r O °J a o � o ° a O 4-1 LI)cn U � v � � � U4-14-1 'b 3 C) O 0 v �= COo = cn o'C (Z a as.� o � o �, o Cl, �Q�°a�•��0��7 �rxUr� • • • .� • • • • • U • • • W l cu •+-� a O � �n i.-I � � � a 4-J O ft C v w N M o �: ° E v v u 0 0 a ,� � .v -0 o o v v tc v av ° G U cn v v C v o°o 75 :5 ° a� v 3 MCA v u 3 v ANC �° ^' -n v'�0 a a) 3y ° 1:0, M v o vb o v~ v v w a)o rd M 4-' a, un � .� a v °� o ; , o • ., b �� v cn V u E� ba � 0 0 Q 0 0 . . • • 7:1 • • • v 0 0 0 4j Lr) 44 U L � N p V Lr) cr) cz C v; V ct —1 c 1J •- 141 S4 V 0 r I t° I t' �t. 1/6/2021 Dear membersofthe Fayetteville City Council, This letter is a request for you to reject the proposed annexation and rezone of the Burge pro pertyonZion Rd. Over the course of this letter I will try to sum marizethe contents of4otherletters that I prepared for the Fayetteville Planning Commission. I invite you to review these letters because they include mores pecificcl eta ils of my concerns as well as supporting photos/ websites and news articles. The first thing that I want to assure you is the fact that I am not alone in expressing concerns regarding the high -density housing project proposed forthe Burge Farm. Essentially all the residents in the surrounding properties as well as friends of Lake Fayetteville resist this. Even the Fayetteville Planning Commission had significant concerns as well. This annexation and rezone request was tabled multiple times by the Planning Commission because of community concerns and lack of a meaningful plan by the developer. This hesitation by the Fayetteville Planning Commission should be considered as a red flag to the project. The rejection of the park land offered to the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Committee should be a second red flag. Overthe course of these meetings, water management issues surrounding this project were front and center. This development will have a negative impact on Lake Fayetteville and will extend flood plain areas along Hilton Creek. Early in the discussions regarding the Burge farm, the residents expressed serious concerns regarding the current water runoff issues associated with this property and the additional water that is being delivered from the Copper Creek subdivision. The addition of high -density housing, as proposed by the developer, does not seriously considerthe water challenge that this development would have on the region. I have included a powerpoint presentation that clearly reveals the water related challenges in the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. I don't think anyone can deny that when you look at slide 31 "Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation" you will find that areas that have undergone neighborhood development, like what is proposed, are the highest priority areas for restoration. One would have to assume that lack of attention to water control is the main contributorto this deterioration of these waterways. Poorly planned developments, regarding water management, caused this problem. Why should the current residents around the proposed development on the Burge farm expect anything different? Nothing that I have heard through all the Fayetteville Planning Commission meetings has put meat ease regarding water management. In the first meeting there was concern that this annexation would create a doughnut with people within county being surrounded with city of Fayetteville. This problem remains with the current proposal. So, the people that live within this doughnut hole and are still in the county are afraid that there will be no supportforwater management. Waterwill come from this new development into the "county" with no fearof regulation because it is out of their jurisdiction. What guarantees do we have that this will not happen? Again, nothing has been presented by the developerto address this concern. Is it properforthe City of Fayetteville to create these awkward doughnut hole situations? Why has nobody reached out to the doughnut hole residents to invite them into the city limits? There has been no clarity as to who will deal with narrow road and the one lane bridge on Zion Rd. Half of the bridge is City of Fayetteville and the other half in the county. I bring this up because the project Architect said that if the offered park land was not accepted then the development would extend into the northern portion of the Burge Farm. The Park and Recreation Committee rejected this offered park land. Residents in houses built on the north side of the proposed project will enteron to Zion Rd causing more problems on a narrow road with abridge not capable of supporting the weight of a firetruck. It is fine to say that most of the traffic will exit the development on the 265 side but how do you know? Why would people living on the northern side of the development drive south then west through the whole development to exit onto 265? What about the people that work north of Fayetteville? Access to 540 from this location is not easy. Again, the developer hzE put little thought into this community concern. The land in question is within the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed whic-1 means that water from this land makes its way to Lake Fayetteville and beyond. Current concerns regarding the deterioration of water quality of this lake has been presented. Concerns regarding the deterioration of the stream banks that lead into Late Fayetteville are described in the powerpoint presentation. Relevant information regardingthe unique features on this land havE been presented. In fact, the Burge farm contains one of the only undisturbed "mound and Swales"feature in the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed that serves as a waterfiltration system forthe watershed. In addition, a large "prairie" is embedded in the mound and Swales region (see powerooint). Itwould be environmentally responsible to reestablish this region to support the future integrity of Lake Fayetteville. It could be a nice addition to the Botanical Gardens. Do we simply ignore the science - based research that clearly describes this region and the impact that its destruction would have on the future of Lake Fayetteville? Somebodywill have to educate me as to how building 2 high -density housing project on the top of grasslands that currently absorb rainfall will result improve waterflow to lake Fayetteville. Contaminants associated with sewer runoff (oil, fertilizer, trash) will be concentrated in detention ponds. Rainwate rfrom the development will be heated by hot roofs, streets and sidewalks and moved to detention ponds where the waterwill continue to warm before discharge to Hilton Creek onto Lake Fayetteville. Just imagine the algal blooms that warm contaminated waterwill grow. There is a clear dichotomy between the developers proposed plan for urbar sprawl in the form of high -density housing and the protection of the property of residents living close to the streams feeding Lake Fayetteville as well as the Fayetteville ClearCreek Watershed. For ME he decision is straightforward. I wait to seethe science that says building this development specifically on the Burge farm will have a significant positive impact on the City of Fayetteville. I think there is clear evidence that building this development specifically on the Burge farm will have a negative impact on the residents living close to the streams feeding Lake Fayetteville and the Lake Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. I trust that you will choose environmental impact over urban sprawl. It is my underEtanding that Fayetteville is a city that "can go green in a red state". Please read the following ar_icle: https://archive.curbed.com/2020/2/28/21155997/fayetteville-environment-ozarkk-solar-power- sustainability Best Regards Nick Anthony Submit Public Comment This page is provided for efficient submission of public comment for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure your comments conform to the Rules of Order and Procedure. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Full Name* Address or Ward* Ben and Sue Mayes • Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 3236 E Valerie Dr sr Phone Number 4796013596 Email sb-nayes@cox.net Meeting Body* Ci-.y Council Agenda Item Chandler Crossing Annexation Number/Subject =lease click the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commiss on Agenda Item Position CDmment Only Comments We have already sent a couple of emails expressing our oppositior and reasons for opposition to the project in general, which includes the excessive density Df the dwellings. We would like to respectfully request that the dwellings adjacent to our property be the larger lot, single family dwellings. The platt currently shows much smaller lots and higher density. and the dwellings are not single family dwelling from v& hat we have been told. We feel it would be much more compatible to the existing neighborhood, which it touches. if the type of dwelling were to more close y match those of our neighborhood, Northside Acres. We would also respectfully request that there be made provision fo- a bufter between our backyard and the backyards of the new homes. We would like to have a 10'-12' wide evergreen landscape buffer, which would grow to a minima r height of 6' of evergreen coverage within 3 years. Taller would of course be better As well, we would ask you require 6' privacy fences for those homes that adjoin oar property. We have spoken about this buffer with our immediate neighbor, Linda Ferguson. who would also like to see the same or similar buffer for their land. Thank you for your consideration. Ben and Sue Mayes Attachments Section from the RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Adopted 01/07/2020 by Resolution #01-20 & Amended 06/16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Public comment at a City Council meeting, shall be allowed for all rnembe-s of the audience who have signed up rriur to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being cpencd for public comment. Speakers s iall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes to be broken into se -me its of three and two min-_ites. ,Amendments may receive public comments only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment, speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Couircil may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned-uk perso t to speak by unanimous consent or riajority vote Courtesy and Respe_:t. All members of the public, all city staff and elected officials shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. All shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks, reflectionE as to integrity, abusive comments and statements about motives or personalities. Any member of the public whc violates these standards shall be ruled out of order by :he Mayor, must immediately cease speaking and shall leave the podium. Enter the text you wart this field to display Submit Public Comment This page is provided for efficient submission of public comment for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure your comments conform to the Rules of Order and Procedure, RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Full Name* Kandy Johnson Address or Ward* Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 4131 N. Valerie Dr Phone Number 479-601-4204 Email kandyrej@gmaii.com Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item B.5 and B. 6. Annexation/PZD Chandler Crossing Number/Subject Please click the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Pos tion Opposed Comments To Mayor Lioneld Jordan and all City Council Members I've said it before and I'll say it again, this large scale PZD does no: maka any sense! Please please please pay attention to the people of Fayettevi le'=_ apposition to this large scale development (AND it is 370 units not 2601) and VIE effa is that it can have. We have given you pages and pages of reasons to not let this happen. Respectfully submitted. Steve and Kandy Johnson Attachments Section from the RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Adopted 01/07/2020 by Resolution #01-20 & Amended 06t16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Fublic comment at a City Council meeting shall be allowed for all memb_-s of the audience who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being, opened for public continent. Speakers s iall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes to be broken into segn�nts of three and two min-ites. Amendments nay receive public comments only if approved by the City Coun_i by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment. speakers will only be allo�vec -o speak for three (3) min--ites. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent o- rajority vote Courtesy and Respect. All members of the public; all city staff and elected officials shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. All shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks; reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements a:)out motives or personalities. Any member of the public wt-o violates these standards shall be ruled out of order by the Mayor. must immediately cease speaking and shall leave the podium. Enter the text you want this field to display Submit Public Comment This page is provided for efficient submission of public comment for City Council and Planning Commission meelirgs. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure your comments conform to the Rules of Order and Procedure. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Full Name* Nicholas Anthony Address or Ward* • Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 3301 East Zion Rd ER_ .::V','Jrtc r S! Phone Number 4796013271 Email ianthony@uark.edu Meeting Body* amity Council Agenda Item 3-5 and B-6 Annexation and Rezoning (Burge) Number/Subject Please click the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Loca_e City Council Agerda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position Opposed Comments I have included 2 letters of opposition to these agenda items. I also have attached a power point presentation about the Lake Fayetteville/ Clear Creek Vt/atershed that }ou must consider when deciding this request. 1/6/2021 Dear members of the Fayetteville City Council, This letter is a request for you to reject the proposed annexation anc rezone of the Burge property on Zion Rd. Over the course of this letter I will try to summarize the contents of 4 other letters that I prepared for the Fayetteville Planning Commission. I invite you to review these letters because they include more specific details of my concerns as well as supporting photos/ websites and news articles. The first thing that I want to assure you is the fact that I am not alone in expressing concerns regarding the high -density housing project proposed for the Burge Farm. Essentially all the residents in the surrounding properties as well as friends of Lake Favetteville resist this. Even the Fayetteville Planning Commission had significant concerns as well. This annexation and rezone request was tabled multiple times by the Planning Commission because of community concerns and lack of a meaningful plan by the d-valnnar This hPsitatinn by the FAVP.ttP.VIIIP Planninn Cnmmiscinn ;Fnulri -)a considered as a red flag to the project. The rejection of the park land offered to the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Committee should be a second red flag. Over the course of these meetings, water management issues surrounding this project were front and center. This development will have a negative impact on Lake Fayetteville and will extend flood plain areas along Hilton Creek. Early in the discussions regarding the Burge farm, the residents expressed serious concerns regarding the current water runoff issues associated with this property and the additional water that is being delivered from the Copper Creek subdivision. The addition of high -density housing, as proposed by the developer, does not seriously consider the water challenge that this development would have on the region. I have included a powerpoint presentation that clearly reveals the water related challenges in the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. I don't think anyone can deny that when you look at slide 31 "Priority Sites for Restoration and /or Conservation" you will find that areas that have undergone neighborhood development, like what is proposed, are the highest priority areas for restoration. One would have to assume that lack of attention to water control is the main contributor to this deterioration of these waterways. Poorly planned developments, regarding water management, caused this problem. Why should the current residents around the proposed development on the Burge farm expect anything different? Nothing that I have heard through all the Fayetteville Planning Commission meetings has put me at ease regarding water management. In the first meeting there was concern that this annexation would create a doughnut with people within county being surrounded with city of Fayetteville. This problem remains with the current proposal. So, the people that live within this doughnut hole and are still in the county are afraid that there will be no support for water management. Water will come from this new development into the "county' with no fear of regulation because it is out of their jurisdiction. What guarantees do we have that this will not happen? Again, nothing has been presented by the developer to address this concern. Is it proper for the City of Fayetteville to create these awkward doughnut hole situations? Why has nobody reached out to the doughnut hole residents to invite them into the city limits? There has been no clarity as to who will deal with narrow road and the one lane bridge on Zion Rd. Half of the bridge is City of Fayetteville and the other half in the county. I bring this up because the project Architect said that if the offered park land was not accepted then the development would extend into the northern portion of the Burge Farm. The Park and Recreation Committee rejected this offered park land. Residents in houses built on the north side of the proposed project will enter on to Zion Rd causing more problems on a narrow road with a bridge not capable of supporting the weight of a firetruck. It is fine to say that most of tie traffic will exit the development on the 265 side but how do you know? Why would people living on the northern side of the development drive south then west through the whole development to exit on to 265? What about the people that work north of Fayetteville? Access to 540 from this location is not easy. Again, the developer has put little thought into this community concern. The land in question is within the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed which means that water from this land makes its way to Lake Fayetteville and beyond. Current concerns regarding the deterioration of water quality of this lake has been presented. Concerns regarding the deterioration of the stream banks that lead into Late Fayetteville are described in the powerpoint presentation. Relevant information regarding the unique features on this land have been presented. In fact; the Burge farm contains one of the only undisturbed "mound and Swales" feature in the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed that serves as a water filtration system for the watershed. In addition, a large "prairie" is embedded in the mound and swales region (see powerpoint). It would be environmentally responsible to reestablish this region to support the future integrity of Lake Fayetteville. It could be a nice addition to the Botanical Gardens. Do we simply ignore the science -based research that clearly describes this region and the impact that its destruction would have on the future of Lake Fayetteville? Somebody will have to educate me as to how building a high -density housing project on the top of grasslands that currently absorb rainfall will result improve water flow to lake Fayetteville. Contaminants associated with sewer runoff (oil, fertilizer, trash) will be concentrated in detention ponds. Rainwater from the development will be heated by hot roofs; streets and sidewalks and moved to detention ponds where the water will continue to warm before dischage to Hilton Creek on to Lake Fayetteville. Just imagine the algal blooms that warm contaminated water will grow. There is a clear dichotomy between the developers proposed plan for uroan sprawl in the form of high -density housing and the protection of the property of Eesidents living close to the streams feeding Lake Fayetteville as well as the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. For me the decision is straight forward. I wait to see the science that says building this development specifically on the Burge farm will hsre a significant positive impact on the City of Fayetteville. I think there is clear evidence that building this development specifically on the Burge farm will have a negative impact on the residents living close to the streams feeding Lake Fayette'4ille and the Lake Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. 1 trust that you will choose ene ironmental impact over urban sprawl. It is my understanding that Fayetteville is a cit, that "can go green in a red state". Please read the following article: https://archive. curbed. com/2020/2/28/21155997/fayetteville-envi ror ment-oza rks- solar-power-sustainability Best Regards Nick Anthony 1 /18/2021 Members of City Council. I want every member of the City Council to take a deep breath and consider everything that has been submitted regarding the Burge Farm annexation and rezone. There are hundreds of pages of concern. Obviously, this decision goes much deeper than my personal preference to live in a quiet rural setting. It goes oeyond the flooding concerns of every person in the path of Hilton Creek (including the Botanical Gardens). There has been significant evidence from multipe unrelated sources that Lake Fayetteville is in trouble. Pollution of Lake Fayetteville has -eached the point where we are limiting access to the water because of tie levels of olue green algae blooms secreting microcystin toxins. Again, if you stop and think about your role on City Council; how can you even consider this prcposa ? Sure.. :an understand the annexation of the land with the mission to improve water quality on this land to Lake Fayetteville. That would be a good thing. But really? You would advise (support) the construction of a high -density housing development covering -he hills and swales region of the site? You would actually suggest that covering one of the few remaining filtration systems feeding Lake Fayetteville with impenetrable surface would be beneficial to the lake. In one of my previous letters, I presented information about the impact blue green algae had on Grand Lake St. Mary's in Ohio. I grew up in Ohio. I am very familiar with this Lake. The first lake shutdown was in 2009. Between 2009 to 20' 5 there was an estimated loss of $51 million in home value. Since 2009 an estimated $11 million per year has been lost in tourism dollars. Finally. the price from 2010 to 2015 to attempt to clean the problem was approximately $25 million. Keep in rrind that the lake waters are still closed, and they are still spending money on cleat -up. What happened? `Agriculture runoff is not the only source of pollution in the lake. Industrial and commercial drainage contribute to the problem as does drainage from ou- of date septic tanks and municipal sewage systems. Heavy deposits of silt into the lake also contribute to the degradation of the lake. Development of homes along th= shore has reduced the number of native plants that helped to strengthen the share and reduce erosion. Development has also increased the level of phosphates entering tie lake by over fertilization of lawns. These excess phosphates directly contribute — .1--- .......AIL. ;--1;__ ."_—1...... ;_ i"_ 1-11— r T1. — !. fl..... aL. I. —_ 4........ - P.-II yI-U I, IIIVIUU1111: "- G.JJ 111 U- I--L IIG'""- I '- LI- I- 4G . reduced served as a filter to keep the excess nutrients out of the water." Your decisions on City Council are important because they send a clear message. Are you concerned with the growth of Fayetteville over environmental preservation of a significant Fayetteville asset? It would be responsible to annex this land with the spirit of improving water quality to Lake Fayetteville. It would be careless to build a high -density development on that site. The city should spend a few million dollars on this land to develop it as a green space rather than $50 to 100 million to attempt to clean Lp a biological mess created by unnecessary sprawl. Just imagine the optics of cleaning a major fish kill on Lake Fayetteville. Grand lake St. Mary's experienced another huge fish die off in early July 2020 after 10 years of battling the algae. https:/Makeimprovement.com/video-fish-die-off-water-quality-update/ Clearly, I do not support a high -density housing development on the Burge Farm. I think it is foolish. When I had the opportunity. 1 moved from an urban environment to the country. I wanted the privacy and quiet a rural setting provides. I am just one persor. There is little doubt that water runoff from the development is going to contribute to flooding issues for the residents living next to Hilton Creek. The City of Fayetteville has not fixed the problems with runoff from Copper Creek. The architect wants to widen the Hilton creek; which will create a bottleneck as the water enters the narrow stream at the county line. Water speed will increase leading to more erosion of stream banks. Flooding will affect only 10 to 16 families. The loss of Lake Fayetteville to blue green algae is a different story. Much of the work done to sell Fayetteville as a green city will (and should) be questioned. Millions of taxpayer dollars will be thrown at a problem that could have been managed: money that could have been dedicated to other projects. You know that the algae problem is on the horizon. 1 challenge you to use your authority to follow the science. So; you have a decision you can follow the developers proposed plan for urban sprawl in the form of high -density housing or you can protect the long-term condition of Lake Fayetteville. For me the decision is straight forward. Please consider the protection of this land and restore it as an extension of the Botanical Gardens/ Lake Fayetteville park system. Best Regards Nick Anthony Attachments Lake Fayetteville Presentation 6-9-2020 - 10.5MB compressed photos (1) (1) (1).pdf Section from the RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Adopted 01/07/2020 by Resolution #01-20 & Amended 06/16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Public comment at a City Council meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being opened for public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes to be broken into segments of three and two rninutes. ,amendments may receive public comments only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment, speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent or majority vote Courtesy and Respect. All members of the public, all city staff and elected officials shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. All shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements about motives or personalities. Any member of the public who violates these standards shall be ruled out of order by the Mayor, must immediately cease speaking and shall leave the podium. Enter the text you want this field to display c .O c� i V) O u 0 N . ^, rd b�A C O o � � N rn O CIO Lrn cry •� Q .� u v bA v �' � O . r, 2 fil v O •4 r 4-J J. v v 4-J 4-J O U • rG V �'' 4-J a •� .� .o U v v 4 ' a v � U v Q v '> 4-; •� : U U O O a a C I h Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Project Overview • Results of Assessment Work • Streambank Erosion • Natural Areas • Riparian • Lake Fayetteville Watershed • Land Use and Impervious Surface • Priority Sites • Invasive removal techniques guide Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek TonNbwn , Y a. f r 4. Y Cf rd teJ� M. Ct CCU Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion Inventory of Eroding Streambanks • Evaluated Erodibility of 413 Streambanks over Z6 miles of Stream • Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) • Bank Height Ratio • Bank Angle • Root Density • Root Depth • Surface Protection • Bank Material • Stratification • BEHI range: o (low) to 48 (extreme) points • Near Bank Shear Stress (NBSS) ranges low to extreme • Measured Streambank • Heighr • Length Low BEHI & NBSS Bank ID BEHI NBSS BanklD BEHI NBSS BEHI NBSS NFCC 8 NECC 12 NECC 20 NECC 33 NECC 56 NFCC 73 NECC81 N ECC 106 NFCC 110 NECC 115 N[CC 119 NFCC 122 SECC 150 MODFRATF tow CC 196 HIGH Moderate CC 1% HIGH Moderate CC 204 HIGH Moderate SC 208 MODERATE Low SC 213 MODFRATF tow SC 214 HIGH_ Moderate SC227 HIGH Very High MC 249 HIGH High CC 2S4 HIGH Moderate CC 260 VERYHIGFI Very High CC280 HIGH Moderate CC281 LOW Low CC 283 VERY HIGH Very High CC 321 CC 327 CC 328 CC 343 CC 352 CC 355 CC356a CC 356b CC 387 CC 388 CC389 CC411 CC 412 VERY HIGH Extreme MODERATE Low EXTREME Extreme MODERATE High MODERATE High MODERATE High HIGH Moderate HIGH I ligh VERY IIIGII Moderate HIGH Moderate MODERATE Extreme MODERATE Moderate EXTREME Very High HIGH High EXTREME Extreme FXTRFMF Very High VERY HIGH High MODERATE High HIGH HIGH HIGH Very High Moderate High MODERATE High MODERATE High HICK Moderate MODERATE Moderate w SCCC 152 HIGH I EM.d SCCC 157 HIGH erate SFCC I(A HIGH low Measured Streambank Profile -Osage 14 b S 4 7 2 1 0 Horizontal Distance Inl 8 6 Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion Streambank Material Sampling Results Used to Calculate Streambank Material Loadings • Twenty two samples were collected at various locations throughout the Clear Creek watershed • Ten were obtained from streambanks composed of fine material • Twelve were obtained from streambanks composed of coarse material T i 13 Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion 413 Streambanks Evaluated Over 26 miles; 42 Erosion Monitoring Sites; 22 streambank sampling sites cu CI:. Cl� �W W v b V v 0 o 2 vcu 3 v o ojn 4 v � w tc :-. un cn v w an cn � v� Fast Clear Creek s , P Natural Areas Lakg F eYPttevtUe v Mlles GIs lnventoned Natural Areas Mounds and Swales Name ,:-.''3 North Slope K Abandoned Channel K Open Wetland - K Abdandoned Channel K Pond Backwater Channel K Pond • Spring Fed �''"�`°`'°•a Channel Scar spring Run ` ,A East Slope K Spring Run - in Abandoned Channel K Flatwoods7 K Wetland Spring Fed K Glade ® Field Assessed Natural Feature Site N W Lake Fayetlev lle Watershed N FNat�ntral Clear Creek ral Areas I. tw fl 3 GIS Inventoried Natural Areas , h4ound5 and Swales Name '- North Slope K Awncloned Channel Open 'Met -and K Awandoned Charnel K Pond K Backwater Channel K Pond Spring Fed 94 Channel Scar K Spring Run 94 East Slope « Spring Run in Abandorted Cnannel 04 FlatwoodO Wetland Spring Fed K Glade ® Field Assessed Natural Feature SRe # C3Lake FaYellev Ile Walerahed 0 05 1 2 {tides t r. "+ .��_ West Clear Creek Natural Areas 0 0 05 1 2 Miles Al r GIS Inventoried Natural Areas Mounds and Swales Name North Slope Abanduned Channel K Open Welland AWd"dW1tid Channel 04 pn j fle Backwater Channel 04 Pond - Spring Fed fa k:nAnnal licaf 44 spling flun Fast slope Spring Run - in Abandoned Channel Flatwoods? KWelland Spring Fed Glade Field Assessed Naluial Feature Site C3 Lake f ayetteville Watershed rt cn ate-+cn .� c cncn Z 75 v cn CIS 3 � .� 4 k Q cn v v U o U -61 � T O 75 rr ^^ • rl VJ 4 ro 3 U � cn v v �� 2 • v� $!` N' v o U o 4-J a� v Ln 4-J�o • • • ro • Land Use Level I Urban Agricultural Forest -land Water Wetlands Barren Lands Percent of Percent of 2006 Total 2016 Total Change Arr Acres % Acres Change of Basin 2895 48.2% 3243 54.0% 348 4 S R% 2184 36.4% 1720 28.7% -464.1 -7.7% 425 7.1% 523 8.7% 97.9 1.6% 293 4.9% 328 5.5% 35 0.6% 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 203 3.4% 186 3.1% -11.2 -0.3% 6001 6001 �--' .--� 3-4 cn Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Impervious Surface Change over 10 years Schueler, Tom, An Integrated Framework to Restore Small Urban Watershed,;, Center for Watershed Protection 2005 The Lake Fayetteville Watershed falls under the "Impacted" category based on the Schueler Index with 15.6% Impervious Land Use in 2016. Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Sources of Sediment and Phosphorus Potential Water (duality Impact Sources w Lake Fayetteville Watershed O �'�w �� yY% i �• ) � ill T (. . 1 � ^.Y !'31�Y ' t - Ali � i 1'• 4 � �'• -'.. i t .�. -Z.: C W. • � '4'.tt�^ Jbv 6:- r IIh- r ...,412e'.,ebY1 r. y ;T Iq All AT - .,;� �..P►k �aK O •� � ty >� •.� �• � ® _T"' i. O NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit o NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit 0 Chickon Houoca • Septic Tanks Springdale 6- ` _ ' Q Fayetteville Inventory Streams 6na eke Fayetteville WatPrSharl Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Total Sediment Production to Lake Fayetteville Other Sources (Total) 93 tons S% Forest 20.0 tons ii 21Yt Sediment Production from Other Sources V � t/i o z g El Il 00, to cc toI , y ; c m ` c Z cu ` ' I _ r m m o 61: a r _ 4 t f. J I t, � �, 61 v i.f1 OJ l Ln o ( 9 y •8ul z o I ,r► a H16H,H�eh AHIGH'll h - * Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Northeast L Mounds and $"as ;f7 4AL HIGH, Very High . i ? 0 .eeee¥mh . . a y� _�. ... i at« \ ,, - Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Priority Sites with Open Space Score flw 41 �..� p • ° Mounds and Swales slow � r , N Mounds and Swale Is tDon Tyson Pkwy�, a 1 ---- A' Ir Mounds and Swales 1 ' gPHnli Run Mounds and Swales •� Glad �+ PondlNlattand Open Wetland 265 Y .' .{.r' F8y8�ev1t18 Mounds and Swales it ��2# Pnor .ty Lake Fayetteville open space Y Siredmban¢5 ,_ mast" Score ;l'7,, ".. `*� • 6EH, Nos, Watershed City Ltmds « - Watershed `- f • Other Fayetteville — Streambanks Springdale% Mounds and Swales City Urn Area Planning ., :- Natural Areas Area 0 0.5 1 Miles — - Al: rt" '4 OC � v 7� N � �r p � O �., v v rC +-+ O ;m4 awn �34 a b u � N 'd � �-' v 'n � �n • � � aJ im, aJ ,m, 4- +-J Ocnuw V1 p v v v. p U •Q N U rtj +� PO c In w O O a bA 0 W 4O -p O> p 4-1 � !.� � O O cn A, � O O � � � , O O w � • r, � � � O .... ¢, 'Z un u v v v O O •� cn > cn cn Ov +�-+ n +� r cn v 4 •,a i. . f. 7 �. J cu W V C%� O v v � ro z o 0 r cn ro v u v nvasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas: A Field Management Guide Planning a Management Strategy and Safety • Management Strategy • Prevent Invasives From Establishing • Identify Plant Species & Area to Be Managed • Practice Safety • Divide Area • Seek Assistance From Local Professionals • Revegetate/Encourage Native Plants • Schedule Maintenance Seasonally • Safety • Chemical Herbicide: The Label is the Law • Dress Appropriately and Use Proper PPE • Use Caution with Sharp or Heavy Tools • Be Aware of Surroundings • Work Areas May Not Be Easily Accessible • Be Aware of Wildlife • Take Breaks • Stay Hydrated k � �OV +{ 'r( Clematis terniflora f c-E R.. an � o � ,o w � a nC� �-. r-4 rd J v v b b b J • 11 u O N N ..ate v � ao � 0 4� u ' v a C.7 i Zj O 4 -C u� cs CZ, a� o n e v o x C7 r 3 0 � v c °J s~ ro^ O r� 0 0 v u E G, Gcn o 1 w? oft I C CA I I C v Ln v o o v cn co >, cn O O o� •-- C 4w b v a 0 v � v }' Z ~z ° ro � O V p � J 3 � w b � o riz v a rZI �. b ft 4-1 b -�s 3 4V o a w O v v 00 t- � o ra Cd a `� ra v Z a 3 Q v ra 3 v U? 4-1 `� v `L a v v O o 4 ru v a) E , v N o3 � •� v U O L 0. v 3 rG �G o°°' -+ i+ O un ° V ti 4t ��a H ' °Inro 0 > > 0 _ ° w� ° v v 0Z r¢ r o ��. Q"•.• 44-1Jp �... 2.•. �•••• v•.. .... V cis Q M +j v v v o � o o � v u a � ro 4-1 v � v O � � C4 U • • • � "C7 O � v Ln O � � �' ^p N � N a � v � ^cn O �` v O - u 7 3 o u � o •� � 4-J O u v > cn rG r - cn M cp W z 4 b �n••Q•• b � v '4-J >• J 0. r 4 4-' b.0 cn v aJ 4-J O a .� . 3 V) cn N avN w v 'v v O v b b C Q, bA ra -" v o 'InnIn v r� bA 4-j G! 'Z� 4-1 4-J .� cn ' M a) u a. • 3 �, � O 4-J bA_ 7� cur+ 4-J cn _ 3 M N a � 3-i u N O! O v U L. cn cz �1 r-4 • n 4-J Q� n r'i Im- L N W s � LL ��• : - ct O z. f ivtvlia %,aivcii 2/9/21 CityClerk From: CityClerk Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:43 AM To: Bolinger, Bonnie; Pennington, Blake; CityClerk; Eads, Cail; Roberts, Gina; Hertzberg Holly; Batker, Jodi; Jones, D'Andre; Johnson, Kimberly; Rcgers, Kristin; Williams, Kit; Branson, Lisa; Jordan, Lioneld; Mathis, Jeana; Paxton Kara; Petty, Matthew; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Thurber, Lisa; Gutierrez, Sonia; Ki-iion, Mark; Scroggin, Sloan; Bunch, Sarah; Turk, Teresa Cc: Mona Calvert; Masters, Jessica; Curth, Jonathan Subject: FW: Development on Zion Road Please see email below. The "ity Clerk office is happy to forward emails to City Council Members but wanted t:) make you aware that you can also submit a public comment using the link provided below which will automatically be routed to Council Members. The link can be found on the City Clerk page on the city website. https://docurients.fayetteville-ar.gov/Forms/publiccomment Have a nice day! Office of the City Clerk Treasurer 113 W. Mountain Street, Suite 308 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.575.8323 city clerk(aD-fayetteviIle-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 20214:37 PM To: (Vona Calvert <mjwc82@-Vahoo.com> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <jcurth@fayetteville-ar.gov>; CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Development on Zion Road Good afternoon, City staff has received your ccmment regarding the proposed annexation and PZD along Zio-i Road and N. Crossover. I have forwarded this information to the City Clerk, who will help disseminate this comment tc the City Council ahead of their meeting on February 16. The meeting, as you are likely aware, will be held virtuall-J, anJ information about how to participate can be found at this link. Please let me know if you have any additional questions, and I would be happy to assist Jessie Masters Development Review Manager City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube r,-, 0. EVILLE ARKANSRKdN5A5 From: Mona Calvert <miwc82@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:40 PM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Development on Zion Road CAUT'0f' This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident of Fayetteville who lives on Zion Road, we thank Fran Alexander for her opinion essay of 2/2/2021. As she stated so well, the entire town needs to be on full alert for an issue that will have serious consequences for the Botanical Garden and Lake Fayetteville. On Feb 161", the Fayetteville City Council will consider annexation and rezoning of undeveloped land on the east side of Crossover, across from the Fayetteville Athletic Club. The plan for Chandler Crossing development is to have commercial buildings fronting Crossover and 370 housing units on approximately 39 acres behind that. This high density development would effectively destroy the prairie mounds and wetlands, which currently slow and filter rainfall and storm water runoff. Without them, there will be more runoff pollution of Hilton Creek, which runs through part of the property on its way to the Botanical Garden and Lake Fayetteville. Besides the increase in pollution, the dense development will cause a dramatic increase in flooding of the creek, the Garden, and the Lake. The Lake Fayetteville dam is classified by the state as a "high -hazard dam of intermediate size". A consultant's study dated December 2020 for the City shows that the size of the Lake Fayetteville dam and spillway are currently insufficient to meet the state's regulations. The City planners tell us that to avoid sprawl we must have residential developments of high density. And yet, doesn't the very act of annexing county lands and creating developments result in sprawl? Is it absolutely necessary to do this on an environmentally sensitive watershed, in a location that will negatively impact Lake Fayetteville and the Botanical Garden? Sincerely, Monetha Calvert 2 3312 E Zion Road Fayetteville, AR '40 T VIA 4 Section1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2. Inventory of Streambank, Wetland, other Natural Features, and Riparian ........................2-1 StreambankErosion Inventory ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Erosion Rate Measurement and Sediment Loading.......................................................................................................... 2-2 ToePin Monitoring ............................................................................................ 2-2 StreambankMaterials Analysis..................................... ............................................................................ .................. 2-5 HydrologyAnalysis............................................ ...................................................................................................... .... 2-5 Monitoring of Streambank Erosion in the Clear Creek Watershed............................................................................... 2-6 Additional GIS Analysis of Highly Erodible Streambanks in the Lower Clear Creek watershed ...................................... 2-6 EcologicalAnalysis of Clear Creek.................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Discovery through Collaboration.................................................................. 2-10 RiparianAnalysis...................................................................................................... 2-11 Section 3. - Sediment Evaluation of the Lake Fayetteville Watershed................................................3-1 LandUse Analysis............................................................................................................................................................ 3-2 Determinationof Impervious Cover............................................................................................................ 3-4 StreambankMaterial Sampling....................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Estimate of Annual Sediment Loads from Streambank Erosion......................................................................................... 3-6 Estimate of Annual Sediment Loads from Pasture............................................................................................................ 3-6 Estimate of Annual Sediment Loading from Urban Land Use and Construction................................................................ 3-7 UrbanLand Use.............................................................. ............................................................................ .................. 3-7 Estimated Sediment Loading from Construction.......................................................................................................... 3-8 Estimated Sediment Load from Other Sources.................................................................................................................. 3-8 Summary of Sediment Sources from Lake Fayetteville Watershed.................................................................................... 3-8 Section 4. - Nutrient Evaluation of Lake Fayetteville Watershed.......................................................4-1 Estimate of Annual Phosphorous from Streambank Erosion............................................................................................. 4-1 Estimate of Annual Phosphorous from Pastures............................................................................................................... 4-1 Estimated Septic Tank System Total Phosphorous Loading............................................................................................... 4-1 Phosphorous Loading Sources from Urban Land Use and Construction............................................................................. 4-2 OtherSources of Total Phosphorous................................................................................................................................ 4-2 Annual Total Phosphorous Summary for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed....................................................................... 4-3 Section5. Transfer of Results & Outreach........................................................................................5-1 ProjectOutreach.............................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 InvasiveSpecies Removal Guide....................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Section 6. Prioritization and Recommendations...............................................................................6-1 LakeFayetteville Watershed............................................................................................................................................ 6-1 References......................................................................................................................................7-1 Table of Figures and Tables Figure 1-1. Map of Clear Creek Basin and Adjacent Parcels............................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Figure 2-1. BEHI and NBSS Data Being Categorized on Clear Creek................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Figure 2-2. Toe Pin Monitoring Conducted on Clear Creek............................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure2-3. Eastern Section of the Clear Creek Watershed............................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-4. Central Section of the Clear Creek Watershed.............................................................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2-5. Western Section of the Clear Creek Watershed.......................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-6. Coarse Soil Sampling on Clear Creek............................................................................................................................................................ 2-S Figure 2-7. BEHI Plotted against Bank Erosion for Four NBSS Cases for Streambanks in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed ............................................... 2-7 Figure 2-8. Natural Areas Inventoried in the Eastern Area of the Clear Creek Assessment............................................................................................. 2-9 Figure 2-9. Natural Areas Inventoried in the Central Area of the Clear Creek Assessment.............................................................................................. 2-9 Figure 2-10. Natural Areas Inventoried in the Western Area of the Clear Creek Assessment........................................................................................... 2-1C Figure 2-11.Collarboration with Other Natural Resource Organizations Resulted in Finding a State Listed SGCN............................................................. 2-1C Figure 2-12. Riparian Conditions forthe Clear Creek Watershed in Lake Fayetteville....................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-13. Riparian Conditions forthe Clear Creek Watershed in the Central Section................................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-14. Riparian Condtionis forthe Clear Creek Watershed in the Western Section................................................................................................ 2-12 Figure 3-1. Lake Fayetteville Historical Survey Map Overlaid with Shapefile Features from a Natural Area Inventory ....... _............................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2. Level I Analysis Completed forthe Lake Fayetteville Watershed in 2016..................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3. Land Use Types Identifying Ares with Imperviousness for 2006 and Additional Areas with Imperviousness in 1016....................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4. Pasture Identified in the 2016 Land Use Analysis with Average Pasture Slope ................................................. _............................................ 3-7 Figure 3-5. Active Construction Sites Monitored forthe Land Use Analysis................................................................................................................... 3-10 Figure3.6. Sediment Sources in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed................................................................................................................................ 3-9 Figure5-1. Invasive Plant Removal Guide...................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2. Multiflora Rose Bloom, A Common Invasive Species Encountered................................................................................................................ 5-2 Figure S-3. Tree of Heaven Management Information Presented to the Project Partners and Available in the Guide .................................................... 5-3 Figure 6-1a. An Historic Prairie in the Headwaters of Clear Creek, a Unique Feature that Needs Protection..................................................................... 6-1 Figrue 6-1. Priority Streambanks Overlaid with Natural Features Developed in the Ecological Analysis in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed ................... 6-4 Figure 6-2. Lake Fayetteville Watershed - Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Lower Northeast Tributaries ................................... 6-5 Figure 6-3. Lake Fayetteville Watershed - Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Upper Northeast Tributaries .................................. 6-6 Figure 6-4. Lake Fayetteville Watershed - Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Northeast Portion of Clear Creek ............................ 6-7 Figure 6-5. Lake Fayetteville Watershed - Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Upper Northeast Portion of Clear Creek ................. 6-8 Figure 6-6. Lake Fayetteville Watershed - Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Southeast Portion of Clear Creek ............................ 6-9 Figure 6-7. Priority Streambank Restoration Sites in the Lower Clear Creek Watershed................................................................................................. 6-10 Table 2-1. Banks Inventoried and Streambank Erosion Density per Sub Watershed....................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2. BEHI, NBSS Classification for Erosion Monitoring Banks............................................................................................................................... 2-3 Table2-3. Soil Type, Sediment, and Nutrient Analysis................................................................................................................................................. 2-5 Table 2-4. Bank -full Flow Data for Various Gage Stations in Proximity to Clear Creek..................................................................................................... 2-6 Table2-5. Annual Loadingfrom GIS Monitored Highest Priority Banks......................................................................................................................... 2-8 Table2-6. Riparian Conditions forthe Clear Creek Watershed..................................................................................................................................... 2-11 Table 3-1. Sediment Sources, Data, and Methods Conducted to Estimate Sediment forthe Lake Fayetteville Watershed ............................................. 3-1 Table 3-2. Level I Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed forthe Years 2006 and 2016.......................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3. Level II Urban Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed for Years 2006and 2016................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-4. Level III Residential Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed for Years 2006 and 2016.......................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-5. Impervious Area for Vaious Land Uses forthe Lake Fayetteville Watershed in 2006 and 2016....................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-6. WEPP Soil Loss Coefficients, Sediment Loss and Sediment Delivery by Pasture Slope in the Clear Creek Watershed .................................... 3-7 Table 3-7. Sediment Loading Coefficents and Rates Developed for Urban Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed .............................................. 3-7 Table 3-8. Construction Sediment Production Coefficients and Sediment Production Rates for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed ................................. 3-8 Table 3-9. Sediment Production Coefficients and Sediment Production for Other Land Uses in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed ................................. 3-8 Table 3-10. Total Sediment Production Estimates to the Lake Fayetteville Watershed................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 4-1. Lake Fayetteville Watershed Pasture Phosphorous Runoff Coefficient and Loading Rates by Pasture Slope ................................................. 4-1 Table 4-2. Total Phosphorous Production for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed from Urban Land Use........................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-3. Total Phosphorous Production Rates forthe Lake Fayetteville Watershed from Other Sources..................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-4. Annual Total Phosphorous from All Sources Evaluated in this Summary ........................................................................................................ 4-3 Clear Creek Assessment Proiect Partners Watershed Conservation Resource Center (Lead) City of Fayetteville City of Springdale USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service - State and Washington County Offices Illinois River Watershed Partnership Lake Fayetteville Watershed Partnership Washington County Cooperative Extension Service City of Johnson City of Tontitown Section 1. Introduction Project Description The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) awarded the Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC) a grant to conduct an inventory of the riparian and streambank conditions for 20 miles of Clear Creek and select tributaries. The inventory included the main stem of Clear Creek and the tributaries above the Lake Fayetteville dam and the Skull Creek tributary. A map of the ertire project area is shown in Figure 1-1. The project objectives were to: • Identify riparian areas and streambanks in need of restoration • Identify stable sections of stream, wetland areas, springs, prairie, and other natural areas for potential protection and conservation • Evaluate sediment and phosphorus loadings in the Lake Fayetteville watershed • Provide assessment results to Cities, natural resource agencies, and local watershed and conservation based groups to help direct funding to high priority areas and to protect unique naturalfeatures • Provide outreach to watershed residents Figure 1-1. Map of Clear Creek Basin and Adjacent Parcels 1-1 The headwaters of Clear Creek encompass areas of Springdale, Fayetteville, Johnson, Tontitown and rural communities of Washington County. These communities both rely on and impact the quality and stability of Clear Creek. Infrastructure required by a thriving and growing population ultimately comes with significant impact to rivers and river ecology. Rivers are a system, formed by and functioning off the geology, topography, climate, soils and numerous other environmental factors that exist within and shape its watershed. When there are changes to these features in a short span of time, instability and erosion can occur almost immediately. Farmers expect land for crops and livestock adjacent to rivers to remain intact, land owners need property to remain whole and keep their beauty and value, cities and businesses need their investments and infrastructure to stay unaffected by large storm events, fishermen want fish to remain healthy and spawn, birders and hikers want to enjoy a biodiverse and healthy ecosystem functioning in their neighborhood, and swimmers and kayakers want a deep and functioning river system that contains all the features indicative of a balanced stream system. The Washington County Cooperative Extension Service, Illinois River Watershed Partnership (IRWP), Lake Fayetteville Watershed Partnership, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) — State and Washington County offices, City of Fayetteville, City of Johnson, City of Springdale and City of Tontitown worked with the Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC) on this assessment. An inventory of 26 miles of stream in the Clear Creek watershed and an evaluation of sediment production associated with land use change in the Lake Fayetteville watershed was conducted. The streambank and riparian inventory includes two major tributaries to Lake Fayetteville, one flowing from a Northeastern direction and one from a Southeastern direction, Scull Creek, a portion of Mud Creek, and the remainder of Clear Creek as it flows out of Lake Fayetteville and meets the Illinois River. The Clear Creek Watershed, as a whole, was evaluated by conducting an inventory of natural areas, riparian width and condition, streambank soil material types, and streambank erosion rates. Streambank erosion was measured by conducting bank profile measurements from permanent survey monuments and GIS evaluation. Using this information along with the inventory of eroding streambanks in the watershed and lab results from streambank sampling, loading rates of sediment and phosphorus to the river were estimated. An ecological assessment and GIS evaluation of riparian areas was conducted to determine plant species and habit, and understand the scale and health of remaining riparian areas. Volunteer events and outreach were conducted and an invasive plant removal guide was developed. A GIS evaluation of land use in the Lake Fayetteville watershed was conducted in order to understand the rate that development has increased within this area and the associated impacts to Lake Fayetteville. This evaluation initiated a detailed study of this rapidly urbanizing portion of the Clear Creek watershed to better estimate the amount of increased sediment and nutrient production, impacts to the stream morphology and stream bank erosion, and the impacts on water quality to Lake Fayetteville. 1-2 Section 2. Inventory of Streambank, Wetland, other Natural Features, and Riparian Streambank Erosion Inventory Between April 41h and May 151h of 2017, staff from the Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC) inventoried over 26 miles of stream along the main stem of Clear and select tributaries. This included portions of the communities of Fayetteville, Springdale and Johnson. Data was cal ected for 413 eroding streambanks utilizing a Trimble GeoExplorer XH handheld GPS and a Nikon AW120 camera with geotagging capabilities to match each photograph with the associated Trimble ertry. The following data and information was collected for streambanks (Figure 2-1) showing signs of accelerated erosion: 1) Erosion Potential was evaluated using the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) method which includes the following factors a. Root Depth b. Root Density c. Bank He'ght Ratio d. Bank Angle e. Surface Protection f. Bank Material <. g. Bank Stratification 2) Near Bank Shear Stress (NBSS) was Evaluated�� y.L c 3) Bank height and length was measured T. a 4) The soil horizons were categorized and weighted 5) Photo of each streambank was taken Figure 2-1. BEHI and NBSS Data Being Categorized on Clear Creek Field data was used to rank erosion potential from low to extreme based on a cumulative point total scoring system. This, in combination with the field assessed NBSS dictated the array of erosion potential scenarios to be monitored and measured in future surveys. After analysis of the data, GIS shapefiles Table 2-1. Banks Inventoried and Streambank Erosion Density per Sub were developed to present the streambank conditions in a mapping format. A qualitative indication of accelerated erosion was observed at 413 banks within the study area. Data from each of these streambanks was included in the inventory analysis. The distribution of the 413 streambanks Creek Name Number of Miles of Creek Number of Banks Banks Invertoried Per Mile NE Tributary SE Tributary Scull Creek Mud Creek Clear Creek Total 126 8.5 14.8 40 1.9 21.1 38 1.8 21.1 7 C.5 14.0 202 1 13.2 15.3 413 25.9 15.9 across the streams included in the inventory is shown in Table 2-1. Information for each individual streambank including location, erosion potential, and photographs can be found in Appendix 1 A&B and inset maps for al streambank locations are available in Appendix 2. The riparian area along the streams included in the inventory was also evaluated. The following information and data was collected: 2-1 1) The presence of wetland features, springs, and prairies 2) Forest coverage and vegetation composition 3) The width of the riparian area was evaluated using GIS Erosion Rate Measurement and Sediment Loading Toe Pin Monitoring Toe Pin installation took place between June and August of 2017. Prior to installing the toe pins, 42 streambanks were selected to observe a variety of BEHI and NBSS combinations throughout the project area. Ease of access and obtaining a comprehensive array to the 26-mile project extent guided the selections. BEHI and NBSS are each categorized into one of the five following categories: Low, Moderate, High, Very High, and Extreme. A higher classification based on BEHI scores and field observation results in a higher erosion potential. The selected banks BEHI and NBSS classifications can be seen in Table 2-2. Toe pin monitoring sites were created at each selected stream bank by installing a permanent survey monument by hammering a M . 2' long piece of rebar into the toe of the bank or by drilling in a concrete anchor and ratcheting in a bolt into bedrock sites. A leveling rt survey rod is placed vertically{_ y=, on top of the toe pin or boltr. and another is held level" horizontally from the profile x` of the bank (Figure 2-2).- e ' 4 Vertical and horizontal changes in slope for the bank profile are recorded from the permanent monument. Figure 2-2. Toe Pin Monitoring Conducted on Clear Creek Appendix 3 details the measurements collected for the selected sites and Figures 2-3 - 2-5 show streambanks evaluated along with toe pin locations throughout the watershed. After approximately one year's time, the toe pin monitoring sites were revisited for re -survey between June and July of 2018. This often required a metal detector and shovel for excavation as deposition, erosion or some form of alteration to the river channel occurred. Not all toe pins remain undisturbed, so extra monitoring locations were initially installed to account for potential loss. During the follow-up field trip, three toe pins were never found at their location, most likely damaged and dislodged via a storm event and large debris. Several other toe pins were dislodged from their location but data was able to be reconciled by recreating the toe pin location via RTK positioning where GPS data was available. All other toe pins were located and measurements were recorded for analysis. 2-2 Table 2-2. BEHI, NBSS Classification for Erosion Monitoring Banks Bank ID BEHI NBSS Bank ID BEHI NBSS BEHI NBSS NECC 8 NECC 12 NECC 20 NECC 33 NECC 56 NECC 73 NECC 81 NECC 106 NECC 110 NECC 115 NECC 119 NECC 122 SECC 150 SECC 152 SECC 157 SECC 164 MODERATE Low CC 186 CC 196 CC 204 SC 208 SC 213 SC 214 SC 227 MC 249 CC 254 CC 260 CC 280 CC 281 CC 283 VERY HIGH Very High CC 321 CC 327 CC 328 CC 343 CC 352 CC 355 CC 35Ea CC 35Eb CC 387 CC 388 CC 389 CC411 CC 412 VERY HIGH Extreme HIGH Moderate MODERATE Low EXTREME Extreme HIGH Moderate MODERATE High MODERATE High HIGH Moderate MODERATE High HIGH Moderate MODERATE Low HIGH High VERY HIGH Moderate MODERATE Low HIGH Moderate MODERATE Extreme HIGH Moderate MODERATE Moderate EXTREME Very High HIGH Very High HIGH High EXTREME Extreme HIGH High EXTREME Very High VERY HIGH High HIGH Moderate MODERATE High HIGH Very High VERY HIGH Very High MODERATE High HIGH Moderate HIGH Moderate MODERATE High HIGH High LOW Low HIGH Moderate MODERATE Moderate HIGH Low HIGH Moderate HIGH Low Figure 2-3. Eastern Section of the Clear Creek Watershed. This figure shows the streamtank locations accounted in the inventory, toe pin locations and soil samples 2-3 Figure 2-4. Central Section of the Clear Creek Watershed. This figure shows the streambank locations accounted in the inventory, toe pin locations, and soil samples Clear Creek Assessmeit Streambank, Toe Pin & Soil iample Location Map y� :Y 1 L` { Fr dY Toe Pins Coarse Soil Sample Fine Soil Sample a . •�� r • Erosive Streambanks 0 OS - �wlnventoryStreams _ �9Ai��Jiles Figure 2-5. Western Section of the Clear Creek Watershed. This figure shows the streambank locations accounted in the inventory, toe pin locations, and soil samples 2-4 Streambank Materials Analysis Samples of the streambank materials (Figure 2-6) werep collected at twenty-two different banks throughout the watershed and their locations are shown in Figures 2-3 - 2-5. Sampling sites were selected to provide representation of the bank materials typically found within the study area. Of the samples collected for analysis, twelve coarse bank materials and ten fine bank materials were obtained. A coarse soil sample is generally composed of a mixture of gravel and/or cobble, sand, and soil while fine soil samples consisted Is; only of sand and soils of various textures. Coarse �..�x'a• samples were collected using techniques based on published methods (Brye, 2004). This includes the use Figure 2-6. Coarse Soil Sampling on Clear Creek of expanding polyurethane foam to assist with obtaining bulk density. Fine samples were collected using a 2" by 4" Shelby tube and a slide -hammer. Samples were processed in a laboratory to determine bulk density and particle size distribution. Particle size distribution was used to determine soil type. A sub - sample was sent to the University of Arkansas' Agricultural Department to determine nutrient content. The streambank samples underwent several tests to determine their nutrient content including a Mehlich 3 test (for 21 nutrients, especially total phosphorus), a total digestion (for soluble phosphorus), and a total nitrogen analysis (for total nitrogen). For fine samples, total nitrogen (TN) values ranged from 0.71 to 2.82 lb/ton of soil with an average of 1.38 lb/ton. For coarse samples, TN values ranged from 0.16 to 0.54 lb/ton of soil with an average of 0.32 lb/ton. For fine samples, total phosphorus (TP) values ranged from 0.21 to 0.90 lb/ton of soil with an average of 0.54 lb/ton. For coarse samples, TP values ranged from 0.12 to 0.34 lb/ton of soil with an average of 0.21 lb/ton. For fine samples, bulk densities ranged from 0.87 to 1.45 ton/yd3 with an average of 1.18 ton/yd3. For coarse samples, bulk densities ranged from 1.06 to 2.96 ton/yd3 with an average of 1.89 ton/yd3. Each soil sample was classified and subdivided into four categories based on particle size distribution: fine, Table 2-3. Soil Type, Sediment, and Nutrient Analysis gravel (up to 60% gravel), cobble (greater than Soil Type TN TP Bulk Density 60% gravel), or bedrock. Mean concentration lb/ton Ib/to, ton/yd3 values for use in sediment and nutrient load Fine 1.38 0.54 1.18 calculation can be found in Table 2-3. Gravel 0.43 0.24 1.91 Cobble 0.27 0.2 1.87 Bedrock 0 0 0 Hydrology Analysis The hydrologic conditions that take place during streambank erosion monitoring directly affect the general applicability of those observations to predict future erosion rates. Also, in order to compare erosion rates observed at each toe pin over the monitoring period, the hydrology of the watershed needs to be taken into consideration. USGS gage 071948095 (Mud Creek at Johnson, AR) provides a good representation of channel size, location, and physiography when compared to the streambanks assessed in this study, but is lacking a sufficient historical monitoring period. From initial tce pin installation to resurvey (8/2017-7/2018) the bankfull flow duration at the gage was approximately 62 hours. The hours above bankfull discharge were also compared on five other USGS gages near Fayetteville (on the West Fork White River, White River, Town Branch, Osage Creek, and Illinois River). The additional gages show that like the Mud Creek gage, the duration of bankfull discharge was at or above average (Table 2-4). When compared to historical bankfull flow durations, the number of hours above bankfull flow for the additional gages during the monitoring periods was approximately 40 to 60% higher than the 2-5 average annual bankfull flow duration. Erosion predictions may need to be scaled down to account for this larger than normal bankfull discharge duration during the toe pin monitoring period. Table 2-4. Bankfull Flow Data for Various Gage Stations in Proximity to Clear Creek USGS Gauge River Hours Above Bankfull Bankfull Discharge Max Discharge Date of Max Discharge Average Annual Bankfull Discharge Hours 071948095 Mud Creek 62 cfs 550 cfs 2450 2/24/2018 63 07048550 West Fork White River 73 3400 7470 5/3/2018 53 07048600 White River 53 12500 20800 3/27/2018 35 07194800 Illinois River 36 5360 11800 2/24/2018 24 07048495 Town Branch 115 407 2850 5/3/2018 106 07195000 Osage Creek- Elm Springsi 26 1 4200 9500 2/24/2018 16 Monitoring of Streambank Erosion in the Clear Creek Watershed To estimate sediment loading to Clear Creek from streambank erosion, lateral erosion rates were first applied to inventoried streambanks using the BEHI and NBSS ratings. Streambank erosion rate prediction curves were developed based on physical measurements of streambank erosion in the Clear Creek watershed using streambank monitoring methods described by Rosgen (2006). By relating BEHI, NBSS, and the measured erosion rate at each toe pin monitoring site, lateral erosion prediction curves were developed. The streambank erosion prediction curves are presented in Figure 2-7. After some consideration, it was determined that the initial streambank erosion monitored for the Clear Creek watershed was most applicable to streambanks in the Lake Fayetteville watershed and low erosion streambanks. This was validated by GIS aerial erosion monitoring conducted for streambanks downstream of Lake Fayetteville and described as follows: Additional GIS Analysis of Hipthly Erodible Streambanks in the Lower Clear Creek watershed Within the lower Clear Creek watershed, a significant portion of the sediment and nutrient loading comes from a small minority of streambanks. Direct monitoring of these banks is often challenging, as toe pin monitoring placement does not always correspond to the most erosive areas, and in this case, utilizing toe pin data was shown to drastically under predict the actual amount of sediment entering Clear Creek on a yearly basis when looking at air photos taken yearly. Therefore, a GIS-based air photo analysis was performed on all banks downstream of the confluence of Clear Creek and Mud Creek to find these "Highest Priority" banks and quantify their contribution to water quality impacts within the watershed. Sediment and nutrient loads from the "Highest Priority" banks were compared with the rest of the inventoried streambanks. In total, 203 individual streambanks were analyzed to determine the amount of streambank erosion that had occurred from 2017 to 2019. Of those 203 banks, 18 were determined to have shown significant erosion over the two-year period. Within a GIS environment, the top of bank was traced in ArcMap using Washington County aerial photography from 2017, 2018, and 2019 for each of the 18 streambanks. Polygon graphics were created between the top of bank lines (2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019) and a total eroded area was determined over the two-year period. An average annual erosion rate (per linear foot) was calculated by dividing the total eroded area by the eroding bank length times two (to account for the two-year period). Average erosion rates presented in Figure 2-7 should only be used in the Lake Fayetteville watershed. Additional data should be collected to develop a separate set of curves for the 2-6 lower part of the watershed or combine this data with the inventory results to develop a set of curves that could be used for the entire watershed. L V a M M C Q to 0 W Y M m 10.00 0:1 0.10 001 Streambank Erosion Prediction Curves Clear Creek Assessment Lake * seed ■ N3S Extreme AN3S Very Ngh High •N3S Modarale -- -- • N3S Low z Qt373e�r _ n y = Q.pg�eaaes IY 0059�'' `-.•• 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 4C.0 45.0 50.0 BEHI Score Low Moderate High Very High Extreme Bank Erosion Hazard Index Adjective Figure 2-7. BEHI Plotted against Bank Erosion for Four NBSS Cases for Streambanks for use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed only. Using the GIS evaluation of the lower watershed, the average yearly sediment and nutrient load contributions were c31.--ulated. Sediment load was determined by multiplying the average annual erosion rate, the bank heigh=, the eroding bank length, and the bulk density of the eroded soil weighted by the bank's soil composition. Nutrient loads were found by following that same p-ocess using nutrient concentration based on the soil composition in place of bulk density. Bank height .and soil composition were determined during the initial Clear Creek Assessment inventory. Bulk density and nutrient concentrations were previously calculated using soil samples collected throughout the watershed. Average annual sediment loads for individual streambanks ranged from 200 to '10,000 tons per year. Average annual nutrient loads for individual stream banks ranged from 67 to 3,600 pounds per year for Total Phosphorus and 146 to 8,200 pounds per year for Total Nitrogen. Overall, the "Highest Priority" banks zontribute approximately 37,000 tons of sediment, 13,000 pounds of total phosphorus, and 29,000 pounds of total nitrogen each year to the watershed. In comparison, the other 185 banks in the lower watershed are estimated to contribute only 11,700 tons of sediment, 3,800 pounds of total phosphorus, and 8,000 pounds o= _otal nitrogen each year. Based on these numbers, approximately 75% of all sediment and nutrient loads come from these "Highest Priority" banks. All data discissed in this write-up is presented in Table 2-5 on the following page. Additionally, maps showing the locations of the "Highest Priority" banks and close-ups of the two worst eroding streambanks, CC287 and CC356, can be found in 2-7 Appendix 4. For all other streambanks, erosion prediction curves provide an estimate of sediment loading to Clear Creek (Figure 2-7). Streambank erosion rates increase with higher BEHI and NBSS ratings. The maximum lateral erosion for the Clear Creek curve data set for Lake Fayetteville and low priority banks was 1.33 ft/yr and the average was 0.30 ft/yr. Table 2-5. Annual Loading from GIS Monitored Highest Priority Banks Eroding Bank Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Bank BEHI NBSS Length Bank Height Lateral Erosion Sediment Load Total P Load Total N Load ft ft ft tan/yr Ib/yr Ib/yr CC356 Extreme Extreme 840 8.0 25.1 10,094 3,634 8,176 CC287 Very High Extreme 563 8.0 20.7 5,337 2,081 4,830 CC290 Very High Extreme 626 7.0 16.5 5,100 1,224 2,193 CC336 High Extreme 371 9.5 10.8 2,381 786 1,702 CC335 Extreme Extreme 305 10.0 9.5 1,742 627 1,411 CC294 Very High Extreme 420 10.0 7.3 1,598 719 1,750 CC396 High Extreme 297 8.5 10.1 1,526 549 1,236 CC386 Very High Very High 388 8.5 8.4 1,440 648 1,576 CC282 Extreme Extreme 328 12.5 6.4 1,433 602 1,433 CC302 Very High Extreme 182 9.5 10.9 1,334 320 573 CC286 Extreme High 189 10.0 8.8 910 382 910 CC332 Very High Extreme 375 8.0 4.7 848 305 687 CC344 Very High Extreme 246 10.5 5.6 832 325 753 CC371 High High 163 9.0 9.0 651 312 775 CC352 Very High Very High 227 9.5 3.8 491 177 398 CC340 Very High Extreme 158 9.0 4.3 379 125 271 CC403 Very High Very High 130 9.5 6.5 353 191 487 CC385 High High 180 5.5 3.3 204 67 146 High Priority Bank Total Low Priority Bank Total Lake Fayetteville Wateshed Total Clear Creek Watershed Total 36,653 13,075 29,308 11,678 3,758 8,041 879 208 388 49,210 17,041 37,737 Ecological Analysis of Clear Creek An inventory of natural features was conducted to better understand the presence of unique or under- represented natural areas of interest within the Clear Creek watershed. Areas of potential ecological and botanical interest are defined as those areas that represent unusual, declining, or high -quality natural communities; serve as especially valuable habitat for wildlife; and/or support occurrences of State Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Theo Witsell conducted a GIS analysis of the riparian area along Clear Creek, the Lake Fayetteville watershed, and other identified streams. He identified and mapped 98 potential sites which include: open wetlands, prairie mounds/swale complexes, east slopes, north slopes, wet flatwoods, glades, spring -fed ponds, abandoned channels, channel scar ponds, spring and spring runs, mesic forests, ponds -spring fed, and backwater channels. A rank of high, medium, or low were assigned that indicated the priority of each feature to be ground -verified. Of the 98 features, 16 sites were visited one or more times and assessed on the ground by Theo Witsell and Karen Willard. Maps that display the GIS inventoried sites with an overlay of the field assessed site locations are seen in Figures 2-8 - 2-10. However, many sites identified as areas of potential interest from aerial imagery analysis could not be effectively evaluated due to 1) the condition of the vegetation at the time of the surveys (e.g. the vegetation was either grazed or mowed) or 2) lack of landowner permission to access the sites. As such, these areas were not fully evaluated; therefore, they should still be considered as areas of interest. A 2-8 summary report that includes a description of the 16 assessed sites can be found i-. Appendix 5 and maps showing the 98 sites and 16 assessed sites can be found in Appendix 6. East Clear Creek 4t IN Natural Areas -- �r` x� 412 v r 4 GIS ImaMoriad Natural An— K Mounds arc £wales y r f a_ Name K Nod Slope 1 K Abandoned channel K Open Wetland Abdandoned Channel Pond Backwater Channel K Pand - Spring 'etl Channel Scar K Spring Run i. A 1,7i ; €�• A . £'� � �+. i K East Slope K Spring Run -M Abandoned Channel K Ftarwoodall K 'flatland - Sm,g Fed 05 l 2 K Glade �a Field Ass —Natural Feature Site C Miles C3 Lake Fayette,i •e Watershed Figure 2-8. Natural Areas Inventoried in the Eastern Area of the Clear Creek Assessment Central Clear Creek ,ze _` Natural Areasa _ r �y r r e. i GIS Inventoried Natural Areas K M-rds and 3wales _ Name K North Slope K Abandoned Channel K Open Wetland K Abdandoned Channel ppnd K Backwater Channel K Pond Sprirp Fed K Channel Scar Spring Run K East Slope K Spring Run - in Abandoned Channel b K Flatwoods? K 'flatland - Spring Fed K Glade Field Assessed Natural FeaR re Site' f W Lake Fayetteville watershed C 0.5 1 2 Figure 2-9. Natural Areas Inventoried in the Central Area of the Clear Creek Assessment 2-9 West Clear Creek -; N Natural Areas J w it t h.f GIS Inventoried Natural Areas K hdci.rd 3 and'�Iaes Name « North Slope - K Abandoned Channel « ppan Watland Abaandoned Channel K Pond - - K eackwater Channel « pond - Spring Fed K Chanel Scar K Spring Run East Slope K Spring Run - in Abandoned Channel Flalwaods? K NAaaand - Spnrp Fed K clade Feld Assessed Natural Feature Site z 0 Q5 1 2 - M Mlles W Lake Fayetteville Watershed Figure 2-10. Natural Areas Inventoried in the Western Area of the Clear Creek Assessment Discovery through Collaboration The WCRC utilized the natural resource inventory information and worked with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AG&FC) and Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) to explore areas identified through this work that may have Least Darters (Etheostoma microperca), a State Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). The team from AG&FC and ANHC sampled several sites during their field trip and found 49 Least Darters at an identified site along Clear Creek (Figure 2-11). Figure 2-11 Collaboration with Other Natural Resource Organizations Resulted in Finding a State Listed SGCN, Least Darter, at One of the Identified Natural Areas of Interest Along Clear Creek. 2-10 Riparian Analysis A riparian buffer analysis was performed utilizing ArcGIS and 2018 Air Photos. T-ie riparian width was measured along the streams evaluated for this study. Working from upstream to downstream, the location of the riparian width was demarcated as left, right, both or none. The width of the riparian as determined by the v1S analysis was separated into categories of less than 50 feet in width, greater than or equal to 50 feet in width, or no riparian width at all. Fifty feet was selected as the riparian width cutoff because this value is the prescribed protected width based on the City of Fayetteville's streamside protection ordinance. The results of the riparian assessment are shown in Figure 2-12 - 2-14 and Table 2- 6 along with the width as a function of the percentage of stream length. Maps showing the riparian conditions along the length of the Clear Creek assessment basins are presented in Appendix 7. As much as 32.2% of riparian areas along South East Clear Creek had no riparian on either side of the stream. Table 2-6. Riparian Conditions for the Clear Creek Watershed Riparian Condition North East Clear Creek South East Clear Creek Scull Creek Clear Creek % of basin % of basin % of basin % of basin Riparian Both Sides >_50 26.9% 7.0% 404% 62.7% Left Riparian < 50, Right Riparian >_ 50 12.1% 11.7% 32 2% 6.1% Left Riparian >_ 50, Right Riparian < 50 12.1% 0.0% 11 2% 6.7% Left Riparian >_ 50, No Right Riparian 13.3% 40.9% 6.3% 12.5% Right Riparian > 50, No Left Riparian 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% Riparian Both Sides < 50 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% Left Riparian < 50, No Right Riparian 2.8% 2.2% 1.2% 3.7% Right Riparian < 50. No Left Riparian 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% Figure 2- 12. Riparian Conditions for the Clear Creek Watershed in Lake Fayetteville 2-11 Figure 2-13. Riparian Conditions for the Clear Creek Watershed in the Central Section Figure 2-14. Riparian Conditions for the Clear Creek Watershed in the Western Section 2-12 Section 3. - Sediment Evaluation of the Lake Fayetteville Watershed Sediment sources within the Lake Fayetteville watershed were evaluated to better understand the amount and impact imposed on this waterway from its various land uses. Sources of sediment were developed from general observations, discussion with City staff, direct monitorin€ of erosion, and general trends in sediment production derived from previous studies. The various sediment sources addressed in this study are presented in Table 3-1. These sources of sediment were developed from information and data collected during this study, data developed in previous studies for similar watersheds within this ecoregion, and simple to complex models of sediment production. The sediment loads in this study are an estimate of sediment delivered to the stream. The estimates are for watershed planning purposes only, to help better understand and direct resources to reduce sediment loading and improve habitat in the Clear Creek watershed. Table 3-1. Sediment Sources, Data, and Methods Conducted to Estimate Sediment Production fort he Lake Fayetteville Watershed Source of Sediment Data Method for Estimating Load Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) Near Bank Shear Stress (NBSS) Bank Measurements Graphical Streambank Erosion • Height Prediction �--urves and physical Accelerated Stream Bank Erosion • Length monitorirt€ data for the Lake Streamank Material Sampling Fayetteville Watershed Bulk Density Land Use Digital Elevation Model WEPP derived sediment Pastures Watershed Characteristics production coefficients from Managament Practices Blossom "Nay watershed Soil Classification Published coefficents and data Construction Land Use from a BMP to sediment production study conducted for Blossom Way Watershed Urban Land Use Land Use Published coefficients Other Sources Land use Published coefficients Forest Lands Roads and Highways Undeveloped Land Farmsteads Barren Land 3-1 Land Use Analysis Historically, the Lake Fayetteville watershed was characterized by gently rolling hills, forest and prairie land, wetlands, open woods, thin timber with black oaks, blackjack oaks, post oaks, and hickory undergrowth with some red oaks and cherries, according to an analysis of a General Land Office (GLO) survey conducted in 1834 (Commissioner of State Lands, AR). A map showing the results of the natural areas inventory (Appendix 6) conducted during this project is presented in Figure 3-1 with the background imagery showing the results of the 1834 survey. Clear Creek tributaries were drawn in the 1834 survey, but were not recorded to be nearly as wide as they are today. In some areas there is no mention of water where there is currently a significant tributary, an indication of how development and impervious features within the watershed have altered channel width and reduced ground water infiltration. Wetland features were described in the 1834 survey and several of these same areas were observed in this study. Some areas of prairie features appear to have remained relatively unchanged, in some cases, since noted in the 1834 survey. A land use analysis was conducted for the Lake Fayetteville watershed in order to quantify changes that have occurred within the watershed in a ten-year time span from 2006 through 2016. The Lake Fayetteville basin totals 6,001 acres or 9.4 mi2 covering land within Springdale, Fayetteville, and Washington County. Clear Creek had two main tributaries identified in this study, one in the Southeast N Pratrte T 'too v< 11 - ,. - LZ 4, i Nn morn ,n- � No mention of brooks v / wr,rrnswromvuRvnnor ♦ f f� cc Prame m,o.•, y.. _. - .. . , � _ Wetland i .a - � ' 1 4. =BrookmenUon a __ ed 2 links wlda 1.3ftI C.._, Y_.— - -- �c Prame Prairie- ,f Brook mentioned- 6 finks wide,4 R i r -- - - CWar Creek mentioted. 30 tt wld _ �� • .._`-.:.. _. ._ ----- �, � - `.-.�__.�__—.._—.Z'�3� �..__-_.._ -- i.-SZ -_ilk --q �( Open vwra a ,= j' 3:.1. ` _ Spnng Rur Mounds and Srr iss � Vond,wl:llanf. .ake rs)ense Q. aean 0 0.25 0.5 + 1 { iloo zc Figure 3-1. Lake Fayetteville Historical 1834 Survey Map Overlaid with Shapefile Features from the Natural Area Inventory. 3-2 and the other larger tributary comes from the Northeast, predominantly in Springdale. Where these two tributaries meet Lake Fayetteville is formed, which is impounded in the Southwest corner. The Lake Fayetteville watershed is almost entirely in the Springfield plateau in the Ozark Fighlands Ecoregion. A portion of the watershed in the lower southeast juts into the Lower Boston Mountains of the Boston Mountain Ecoregion. The Ozark Highlands are characterized by a dominance of Paleozoic rock features and is underlain largely by highly soluble and fractured limestone and dolomite. Scils are often cherty and developed from carbonate rocks or interbedded chert, sandstone and shale. The Springfield plateau is characterized by Karst features such as sinkholes and caves, cold, perennial spring -fed streams, oak - hickory and oak -hickory -pine forests, savannahs and tall grass prairies. Most of the forests and almost all prairies have been replaced by agriculture and expanding residential areas (Woods et. al., 2004). In order to monitor the development and changes within the watershed, aerial imagery was obtained for 2006 and 2016 and land use was categorized using the USGS Anderson Land Classification Scheme. Land use was evaluated using a heads up digitization approach. Land use was categorized into six main categories and then further classified into a second level and sometimes third level of analysis. Some results from the GIS analysis can be seen in Tables 3-2 - 3-4 and Figure 3-2. A Level I Analysis indicates urban land is the predominant land use covering 54% in 2016 and when compared to 2006, a rise in 5.8% of the basin occurred over the ten-year time span (Figure 3-2). Agricul-ural land use decreased by 7.7% of the basin as farm land and open space became developed (-able 3-1). A Level II Analysis of the urban land use category indicates that residential land use makes up the majority of this subcategory (Table 3-2). A level III analysis of residential land use is shown in Figure 3-3 and rural homes are still the highest residential use. Additional information and analyses are presented in Appendix 8. Table 3-2. Level I Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed for the Years 2006 and 2016 Percent of Percent of Change of Land Use Level 1 2006 Total 2016 Total Change Basin Urban Agricultural Forest -land Water Wetlands Barren Lands Total Acres % Acres % Acres % 2895 48.2% 3243 54.0% 348.4 5.8% 2184 36.4% 1720 28.7% -464.1 -7.7% 425 7.1% 523 8.7% 97.9 1.6910 293 4.9% 328 5.5% 35 0.6% 1 0.0•1 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 203 3.4% 186 3.1% -17.2 -0.3% 6001 6001 Table 3-3. Level II Urban Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed for the Years 2006 and 2016 Percentof 2016 Percent of Change Change of Urban Levelll 2006 Total Total Basin Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Industrial and commercial Open Urban Lands Acres % Acres % Acres % 1986 33.1% 2156 35.9% 170 2.8% 256 4.3% 359 6.0% 102.5 1.7% 140 2.3% 132 2.2% -8.6 -0.1% 128 2.1% 187 3.1% 59.6 1.0% 70 1.2% 70 1.2% 0.4 0.0% 314 5.2% 339 5.6% 24.6 0.4% 3-3 Table 3-4. level III Residential Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed for the Years 2006 and 2016 Percentof Percentof Change of Residential Levellll 2006 Total 2016 Total Change Basin Low Medium High Multi -family Rural Home Mobile Home Acres % Acres % Acres % 313 5.2% 394 6.6% 81.5 1.4% 452 7.5% 543 9.0% 90.9 1.5% 74 1.2% 78 1.3% 3.9 0.1% 119 2.0% 132 2.2% 12.9 0.2% 1010 16.8% 990 16.5% -19.6 -0.3% 18 0.3% 1 18 0.3% -0.1 0.0% r' � 1. � �+-._�_, ..-ram'✓ �� '! - i• f w �^ s 4r�ia s`z*•��'d7. G Sv^A 016 'n Urban Lard— 3016 Agricutlural Landuse 2016 W dr Forest Landuae 2016 R!r. IW Water 2016 F `/Nellends 2016 r rl r L1�'k `max M1� t $�.-w. Barren Lands 2016 Miles t , ifel- LaMa Fayetlemlle Brim f• 0 025 0.5 51 Figure 3-2. Level I Analysis Completed for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed in 2016 Determination of Impervious Cover An assessment of the amount of impervious surface that coincides with each land use was conducted for the Clear Creek Watershed. Impervious Area Coefficient data developed in a study conducted for the Blossom Way watershed in Rogers, AR were used for this study (WCRC, 2008). The Blossom Way watershed is located in the same ecoregion and has the same soil type and general land use activities as the Lake Fayetteville watershed. The coefficients were developed as follows: 1) A minimum of 10% of the total area for a selected Level III land use was evaluated. Impervious surfaces were digitized within a selected land use. The area of impervious surface was divided into the total area for the selected land use. 2) Completely impervious surface features were added in the analysis. These included paved roads, paved highways, paved sidewalks, and paved runways. . iFix 3 -4 Determination of Impervious Cover An assessment of the amount of impervious surface that coincides with each land use was conducted for the Clear Creek Watershed. Impervious Area Coefficient data developed in a study conducted for the Blossom Way watershed in Rogers, AR were used for this study (WCRC, 2008). The Blossom Way watershed is located in the same ecoregion and has the same soil type and general land use activities as the Lake Fayetteville watershed. The coefficients were developed as follows: 1) A minimum of 10% of the total area for a selected Level III land use was evaluated. Impervious surfaces were digitized within a selected land use. The area of impervious surface was divided into the total area for the selected land use. 2) Completely impervious surface features were added in the analysis. These included paved roads, paved highways, paved sidewalks, and paved runways. . iFix The delineated land uses where the impervious coefficients were applied in the Lake Fayetteville watershed are shown in Figure 3-3. The coefficients for each land use that were applied to the Lake Fayetteville's Level II and III land uses and estimated impervious surface for the years 2006 and 2016 are presented in Table 3-5. The Center for Watershed Protection has developed a tool for predicting the effects of the amount of impervious features within a watershed to the streams within them. This is known as the Impervious Cover Model (Schuler 2005). This model separates impact on streams into four ca_egories of Impervious Cover (IC) 1) Sensitive (0% - 10% IC) 2) Impacted (10% - 25% IC) 3) Non -supporting :25% - 60% IC) 4) Urban Drainage (>60% IC). The results of the analysis showed that in 2006, 13% of the watershed was impervious and in 2016, the impervious surface increased to 16% of the watershed. Both of these percentages fall into the impacted category. Though the categorization hasn't charged since 2006, it has increased. Streams that are impacted suffer from degraded water quality, loss of riparian cover, and channel enlargement. However, these streams are generally good candidates for -estoration as there is significant undeveloped land use where BMPs can be implemented to mitigate anc restore loss of groundwater infiltration within the watershed. '�sP' r I • r ' r fit. e m ^nsle s vt.. :.i'� •,, ;may t: c A*O n-. .. / Ail' r 4 S l T .. 1?Airphoto2016 ' _ . • 4 h t ". R- ` '-� La.9duses vi h Impervious Areas 2006 1 F r','�r'�,,, ?. � �-, `�' ,�.-: ?f � •,�'� `` � ,. Additional _anduaes with ImperviousAreas 2016 Miles Lake FayeAEWle Basin 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Figure 3-3. Land Use Types Identifying Areas with Imperviousness for 2006 and Additional Areas with Imperviousness in 2016. 3-5 Table 3-5. Impervious Area for Various Land Uses for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed in 2006 and 2016. Coefficients presented are from WCRC 2008. IAC or Percent Impervious Cover Change of Change of Land Use 2006 2016 Imperviousness Imperviousness Basin Basin Coefficient 2006 2016 of Basin of Basin Commercial Awes Acres Acres % % Acres % Acres % Low Impervious 183.3 252.8 69.5 1.2% 1 44.4% 81.4 1.4% 112.2 1.9% High Impervious 72.9 106 33.1 0.6% 1 78.8% 57.4 1.0% 83.5 1.4% Industrial Low Impervious 30.9 17 -13.9 -0.2% 37.6% 11.6 0.2% 6.4 0.1% High Impervious Residential 109.2 114.6 5.4 0.1% 90.5% 98.8 1.6% 103.7 1.7% Low 312.8 394.3 81.5 1.4% 15.7% 49.1 0.8% 61.9 1.091. Medium 452 542.9 90.9 1.5% 35.0% 158.2 2.6% 190.0 1 3.2% High 73.9 77.8 3.9 0.1% 50.6% 37.4 0.6% 39.4 0.7% Multi -family Rural Home 119.3 132.2 12.9 0.2% 40.7% 48.6 0.81/. 53.8 0.9% 1009.6 990 -19.6 -0.3% 9.5% 95.9 1.6% 94.1 1.6% Mobile Home 18.4 18.3 -0.1 0.0% 39.7% 7.3 0.1% 7.3 0.1% Paved Roads 69.5 107.7 38.2 0.6% 100.0% 69.5 1.2% 107.7 1.8% Paved Highways 43.1 1 54.9 1 11.8 0.2% 100.0% 43.1 0.7% 54.9 0.9% Paved Sidewalks 6.1 18.8 12.7 0.2% 100.0% 6.1 0.1% 18.8 0.3% Paved Runway 2.5 2.5 0 0.0% 100.0% 2.5 Total 767 12.780A 936 15.60'% Streambank Material Sampling Direct sampling of streambank material was conducted in the Lake Fayetteville watershed. Fine and coarse bank materials were sampled according to the methods described previously. After some consideration it was determined that fine bank material samples collected in the Lake Fayetteville watershed were abundant enough to be representative to all fine streambanks, but there was insufficient data collected solely within the Lake Fayetteville watershed for coarse soil samples, so bulk density amounts and nutrient content amounts were estimated from all streambank material samples in the Clear Creek watershed. Fine bank material has a bulk density of 1.27 ton/yd3, gravel bank material is 1.91 ton/yd3, cobble bank material is 1.87 ton/yd3, and bedrock is 0 ton/yd3 as this resilient bank material was assumed to not release sediment into the waterways. Estimate ofAnnual Sediment Loads from Streambank Erosion Using the streambank inventory, erosion prediction curves, and streambank materials analysis, the volume of eroded material and loads of sediment and nutrients can be developed for the Lake Fayetteville watershed. It was determined that an average of 879 tons/yr of sediment was being released into the waterways from accelerated streambank erosion. 777 tons/yr was released from the Northeast Tributary to Lake Fayetteville and 102 tons/yr is released from the Southeast tributary to Lake Fayetteville. The sediment prediction curves were applied to the various BEHI and NBSS conditions for streambanks in the watershed. This allows for city planners to understand how much a given streambank will erode, particularly ones that are in proximity to infrastructure that may pose a risk of eroding into those features. Estimate ofAnnual Sediment Loads from Pasture Land use in the Lake Fayetteville watershed for the year of 2016 consisted of 1,567 acres of pasture land, designated via heads -up digitization. The Level II land use analysis data used here is available in Appendix 8. Pasture land is generally used for producing and cutting hay and for livestock grazing. Pasture lands have less infiltration of rain water when compared to forested lands because of soil compaction from 3-6 livestock and farm equipment. Surface water runoff from pastures carries sediment particles from eroding soils to the Clear Creek stream network. Soil loss from pasture lands was estimated from soil loss and sediment delivery coefficients based on slope and soil type developed in the Blossom Way watershed study using the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) hillslope model (WCRC 2008). The Blossom Way watershed is located in the same ecoregion as the Lake Fayetteville watershed and the predominant soil type, Clarksville soils, is the same for both watersheds. Therefore, the Blossom Table 3-6. WEPP Soil Loss Coefficients (WCRC 2008), Sediment Loss Way coefficients were applied to the pasture and Sediment Delivery by Pasture Slope n the Clear Creek lands of the Lake Fayetteville watershed. A Watershed summary table developed for this study Average WEPP Soil Loss Area Sediment Percent of Total showcasing WEPP soil loss coefficients (WCRC Pasture Slope Coefficient Delivery Sediment Load Ton/ac/yr Acres Tons % 2008), area, and sediment delivery by slope 1-2% 0.33 17.7 1.1 0.5% value is presented in Table 3-6. There is a 2-3% 0.52 565.1 55.8 25.8% direct correlation in slope to soil loss with the 3-016 0.65 522 64.5 29.7% majority of sediment entering Clear Creek 4-5% 0.8 186.6 28.4 13.1% occurring for the >5% slope pastures. Total soil >s%o 1 1.28 1 275.E 1 67.0 1 30.9% entering Clear Creek from pastures in the Lake Total 1567 216.8 1oo.o°io Fayetteville watershed is 216.8 tons/yr. Estimate ofAnnual Sediment Loading from Urban Land Use and Construction Suspended sediment from urban areas can come from a variety of sources including streets, lawns, landscaping, driveways, atmospheric deposition, construction and erosion of drainage channels (USEPA 1999). Sediment loading will be addressed for this section in two parts 1) Urban land use 2) Construction for the Lake Fayetteville watershed. Urban Land Use Urban land use, excluding land use associated with construction for this part, will contribute sediment in a number of ways. Level II and Level III land use analysis data was applied here from Appendix 8, and the corresponding sediment production is quantified from coefficients developed in previous studies and applying them to the Lake Fayetteville watershed (Shaver, 2007; U.S EPA, 1999).The sediment production coefficients and corresponding loading rates are presented in Table 3-7, in the form of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) data. The minimum and maximum rates for each land use are presented with a mean value for comparison to separate studies. Total sediment production developed here is 149.7 tons/yr at a minimum, 655.6 tons/yr at a maximum, and 402.4 tons/yr as a mean kading rate. Table 3-7. Sediment Loading Coefficients and Rates Developed for Urban Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed Land Use Area Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Load Load Load Residential Acres Ib/ac/yr Ib/ac/yr Ib/ac/yr ton/yr ton/Vr ton/yr Low 394.3 53 303 178 10.4 59.7 35.1 Medium 542.9 70 395 232 19.0 107.2 63.0 High 77.8 86 487 287 3.3 18.9 11.2 Multi -Family 132.2 118 672 395 7.8 44.4 26.1 Rural Home 990 53 1 303 178 26.2 150.0 88.1 Commercial 358.8 215 1218 716 38.6 218.5 L28.5 Industrial 131.6 670 860 765 44.1 56.6 50.3 Public Park 123 3 3 3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total I 149.7 655.6 402.4 3-7 Estimated Sediment Load ng from Construction Areas under construction has almost no vegetation and sediment is exposed to rainfall events. Without proper management prac=ices in place, these sites can generate significant sediment loadings to waterways. Sediment delivery coefficients from construction sites were developed in the Blossom Way watershed for different levels of management of sediment at sites (WCRC 2008) and these values were applied to the Lake Fayetteville watershed. Using Aerial photography, construction sites were identified for 2006 and 2016 for the Lake Fayetteville watershed. The 2016 data was used. A summary of construction sediment coefficients (WCRC 2008) Table 3-8. Construction Sediment Production Coefficients (WCRC 2008) and and loadings are presented Sediment Production Rates in Table 3-8. Moderate Construction Area Runoff Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Load Duration Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Load Load BMP effectiveness, or the acres inches mg/L mg/L mg/L ton/yr ton/yr ton/yr "Mean Load" of 98.2 1-year 1 132.3 1 9.4 1 36s 1 11,217 680 1 51.4 1 1580.1 95.8 ton/yr, was developed to 6-months 1 6.7 1 9.4 1 365 1 11,217 680 1 1.3 1 40.0 2.4 quantify sediment Total 1 52.7 1 1620.2 98.2 production for this watershed due to construction. Estimated Sediment Load from Other Sources Other land uses evaluated for this study were forest lands, major roads, undeveloped land, farmsteads and barren land, determined from the level 2 and level 3 land use analysis Table 3-9. Sediment Production Coefficients and Sediment Production for Other Land Uses in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed available in Appendix 8. Forest lands have obvious signs of substantial tree growth, roads and highways are defined under impervious, paved road types. Undeveloped land is defined as plots of land within the watershed that did not show obvious signs of agricultural activity. Farmsteads are defined as small plots of land in farming areas with housing and little signs of haying/cattle activity. Barren land is defined as lands devoid or nearly devoid of vegetation but with no signs of construction being put in place. Published coefficients were applied to the aforementioned land uses to provide an estimate for sediment production (Shaver. 2007). The sediment production coefficients and sediment loading rates are presented in Table 3-9. Summary of Sediment Sources from Lake Fayetteville Watershed The results of the evaluation of sources of sediment to the Lake Fayetteville watershed provides information to Cities and natural resource based organizations to understand potential impacts to the Lake Fayetteville watershed. A summary of the analysis is presented in Table 3-10 and displayed in Figure 3-6. A total of 1,690 tons/yr of sediment was estimated from the sources evaluated in the watershed. Sediment from streambank erosion had the highest loading with 879 tons/yr or 52% of the total. The second highest loading was urban land use with 402 tons/yr or 24%. Pasture land use was the third highest with 217 tons/yr or 13% of the total. Construction produced 98 tons/yr or 6%. Sediment from other 3-8 sources produces 93 tons/yr, 5.5% of the total. Sediment production from other sources ranged from 2 tans/yr for farmstead land use to 36 tons/yr for undeveloped land use. Table 3-10. Total Sediment Production Estimates to the Lake Fayetteville Water;hed Sediment Source Area or Estimated Average Annual Sediment Load Length Sediment (tons) Percent of Total LaMing Rate Strearhank Erosion Pasture Urban (w/out construction) Construction Other Sources (Total) Forests Highways Undeveloped Lands Farmsteads Barren Lands 2.38 mi 879 52.0°/0 369.23 1567 ac 217 12.8o/o 0.14 2750.4 ac 402 23.8% 0.15 139 ac 98 5.8% 0.71 929 ac 93 5.5% 0.10 523 ac 20.0 1.2% 0.04 163 aC 36.3 2.1% 0.22 182 aC 27.7 1.6% 0.15 14 ac 2.2 0.1% 0.16 47 ac 7.2 0.4% 0.15 Llnd,6. ra Lands 77 7 tons 30% Total 1 1690 1 100.0% Estimated Total Average Annual Sediment Load it t rambtk Erown #79tons 51% ear .ana, 7 7 wn, Farmsteads 3'rt Hf.hways 36.3 tons 39'% Estimated Average Annual Sediment Load from Other Sources Figure 3-6. Sediment Sources in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed 3-9 Section 4. - Nutrient Evaluation of Lake Fayetteville Watershed Sources of phosphorus within the Lake Fayetteville watershed were evaluated and loadings estimated utilizing simple calculations data, information from the sediment analysis, published water quality coefficients, and land use information specific to the Lake Fayetteville watershed. It is important to evaluate phosphorus and explore actions to reduce this nutrient because it can increase algae and other aquatics in Lake Fayetteville. In turn, these plants can decrease the amount of dissolved oxygen in the stream, initiating the process of eutrophication, harming other aquatic species that rely on entrained oxygen in the water supply. This can also lead to algae blooms, which produce toxins that are harmful to animal and human health. Estimate ofAnnual Phosphorous from Streambank Erosion Annual phosphorous (TP) load was developed from the streambank inventory and toe pin monitoring that determined various combinations of BEHI and NBSS erosion rates. This data was applied to non -directly monitored eroding streambanks to estimate total sediment production. Next, Streambank material sampling results were applied. Fine bank material identified during the inventory had an estimated TP amount of 0.35 lb/ton, Gravel bank material had a TP of 0.24 lb/ton, and Cobble bank material had a TP of 0.2lb/ton. TP produced for the Northeast tributary to Lake Fayetteville was 179 Ib/yr and TP produced from the Southeast Tributary to Lake Fayetteville was 30 lb/yr. A total of 208 Ib/yr of TP load was estimated from Streambank erosion. Estimate ofAnnual Phosphorous from Pastures The Lake Fayetteville watershed has a total of Table 4-1 Pasture Phosphorous Runoff Coefficients (ADEQ 1567 acres of pasture land according to the level 2004) and Loading Rates by Pasture Slope 2 land use analysis from 2016. Coefficients were Average Phosphorous Area Total developed from a previous study conducted on Pasture Runoff phosphorous pasture land use in the West Fork White River Ibs/ac/yr acres Ibs/yr (WFWR) watershed. TP runoff coefficients were 1-2% 0.24 17.7 4.2 estimated from three varieties of soil types with 2-3% 0.39 565.1 220.4 3 - 4% 0.36 522.0 187.9 similar land use and various average pasture 4- 5% 0.66 186.6 123.2 slopes (ADEQ, 2004). These coefficients were >5% 0.66 275.6 181.9 based on published phosphorous export coefficients determined from similar watershed I Total 1567.0 717.E monitoring programs and WEPP modeling results of sediment loss coefficients for pastures in the WFWR watershed. One soil type modelled in this study was the Clarksville series, which makes up 97% of the Lake Fayetteville watershed. These coefficients, along with the land use analysis from 2016 and sediment production rates modelled for the same soil type, land use, and soil slopes discussed previously were utilized to develop TP production values. The average annual Phosphorous load is 718 Ibs/yr. Table 4-1 presents a summary of coefficients used for the analysis, corresponding slopes, acreage, and Total Phosphorous delivery rates. Estimated Septic Tank System Total Phosphorous Loading Currently, there is no complete dataset for locations of onsite wastewater treatment systems for the entirety of the Lake Fayetteville watershed. Ongoing projects to map and document septic systems are underway, and in lieu of this lack of published research, data from Blossom Way watershed was utilized (WCRC, 2008). Data for the Blossom Way watershed was evaluated using the EPA's STEPL model (U.S. EPA, 2003). Extrapolating this data to the Lake Fayetteville watershed and adjusting for watershed size 4-1 lends an estimatec total of 256 Ibs/yr of Phosphorous load. A failure rate of 5% of septic systems is assumed. Phosphorous Loading Sources from Urban Land Use and Construction Phosphorous loading was estimated for urban land use types and construction and use types. Urban land uses includes varieties of residential land use, commercial land use, industrial land use, and public parks. Construction land use is defined for sites of ongoing, active construction. Both were delineated using data from the Level II and Level III land use analysis for the Lake Fayetteville watershec in 2016. Phosphorous from the urban land use types studied for this analysis were obtained utilizing published phosphorous loading coefficients Table 4-2. Total Phosphorous Production for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed from (Shaver, 2007; USEPA, Urban Land Use 1999). These are shown In Land Use Acres Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Coefficient Coefficient Coeffici=-nt Load Load Load Table 4-2. A total of 1,170 Residential Ib/ar/yr Ib/ac/yr Ib/ac/y- Ib/yr Ib/yr Ib/yr Ib/yr Of phosphorous was Low 394.3 0.41 0.57 0.49 161.7 224.8 193.2 estimated from urban land Medium 542.9 0.44 0.62 0.53 238.9 336.6 287.7 use. Phosphorous loads High 77.8 0.48 0.68 0.58 37.3 52.9 45.1 Multi -Family 132.2 0.53 0.72 0.62 70.1 95.2 82.0 from constructior were Rural Home 990 0.01 0.22 0.12 9.9 217.8 118.8 estimated utilizing the Commercial 358.8 0.61 0.81 0.71 218.9 290.6 254.7 Blossom Way watershed Industrial 131.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 171.1 171.1 171.1 study of construction sites Public Park 123 0.03 0.25 0.14 3.7 1 30.7 17.2 and typical sediment Total 911.5 1 1419.6 1169.9 reduction practices (WCRC, 2008). This data was applied to the Lake Fayetteville watershed and a typical pound of phosphorous per ton of soil was determined to be 0.34 lb/ton. With the total sediment produced liscussed in a previous section, phosphorous load were estimated to be 33.4 lb/yr. Other Sources of Total Phosphorous Land uses not addressed in the urban land use section were evaluated for phosphorous production as well. These include forest land, roads and highways, undeveloped land, farmsteads and barren land. Utilizing Levels II and Level III land use data from the 2016 delineation, sediment production for other land uses, and published Phosphorous coefficients, Phosphorous load estimates from these sources in the Lake Fayetteville basin were calculated Table 4-3. Total Phosphorous Production Rates for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed from (Shaver, 2007). A Other Sources summary of results is Land Use Area Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Load Load Load shown In Table 4-3. acres Ib/ac/yr Ib/ac/yr Ib/ac/yr (I Ib /yr) ( /yr) (Ib/yr) Average annual Forest 523 0.09 0.12 0.10 47.1 63 52.3 phosphorous loads Roads/Highways 163 0.53 1.33 0.98 86.2 216 159 3 Undeveloped Land 182 0.01 0.22 0.12 1.8 40 21.8 for combined loads Farmstead 14 0.01 0.22 0.12 O.1 3 1.7 from other sources Barren Land 47 0.01 0.22 0.12 0.5 10 5.6 ranged from 136 Ib/yr Total 1 136 332 241 to 332 Ib/yr with a median value of 241 lb/yr. 4-2 Annual Total Phosphorous Summary for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed The Lake Fayetteville watershed continues to develop farmlands into residential and other urban areas. The continued urbanization of this watershed poses a threat to the Clear Creek tributaries and Lake Fayetteville, so it is important to understand the amount of phosphorous loading that is occurring and what the sources are to make informed decisions. The results for each of the land use type's impact on Phosphorous loading to Lake Fayetteville are presented in Table 4-4. An average of 2,626 Ib/yr of Phosphorous is estimated to reach Lake Fayetteville each year. The largest source of phosphorous came from urban land use at 1170 lb/yr. Table 4-4. Annual Total Phosphorous from All Sources Evaluated in this Summary Phosphorous Source Area or Estimated Average Annual Phosphorous Load Length TP (Ib/yr) Percent of Total Loading Rate Streamank Erosion Pasture Septic Tanks Urban (w/out construction) Construction Other Sources (Total) Forests Highways Undeveloped Lands Farmsteads Barren Lands 2.38 mi 208 7.9% 87.56 1567 ac 718 27.3% 0.46 n/a 256 9.7% n/a 2750.4 ac 1170 44.5% 0.43 139 ac 33 1.3% 0.24 929 ac 241 9.2% 0.26 523 ac 52.3 2.0% 0.10 163 ac 159.3 6.1% 0.98 182 ac 21.8 0.8% 0.12 14 ac 1.7 0.1% 0.12 47 ac 5.6 0.2% 0.12 Total 2626 1 100.0% 4-3 Section 5. Transfer of Results & Outreach Project Outreach The WCRC formed a project team with partners after the project was initiated. Pep-esentatives were from several nonprofit, governmental and environmental organizations including: • Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC) • City of Fayetteville • City of Springdale • Natural Resources Conservation Service — NRCS Washington County Office • Illinois River Watershed Partnership (IRWP) • University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (UACES) • City of Johnson • City of Tontitown At the first meeting, the WCRC introduced the project and presented an overview, discussed and requested assistance on how to reach out to property owners within the prcject bounds for access, and presented criteria for prioritization based on sediment and nutrient loads. Members from the City of Fayetteville and Cooperative Extension Service discussed the brochure beirg developed for invasive species management and removal. The WCRC, UACES, and City of Fayetteville formed a subcommittee to develop an invasive removal guide for residents. At the second planning meeting, the WCRC coordinated site tours of an urban .and rLral stream restoration projects and a site visit where restoration needed to be conducted. Representatives from the following organizations participated: WCRC, Beaver Watershed Alliance, City of FayettEMIIe, UACES, IRWP, Beaver Water District, Ozarks Water Watch, and City of Johnson After the assessment was completed, the WCRC presented the results to project partners. Organizations in attendance for the event include: WCRC, City of Fayetteville, City of Springdale, Natural Resources Conservation Service — NRCS Washington County Office, and IRWP. The WCFC presented an overview of the project, results of the streambank erosion assessment, the natural areas assessment, the riparian assessment, land use, impervious area, and priority sites in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed, and the Invasive Removal Guide discussed below. A copy of the presentation is availab a in appendix 9. The project partners then asked questions and discussed the use and implications of results. The WCRC and project partners conducted several outreach events in the watershed including several trasr pick-ups in the Lake Fayetteville watershed. The WCRC gave a presentation on the project to the Lake Fayetteville Watershed Group. A follow-up presentation will be given in -he near future to this group to discuss the results of the project and how the information can be used to improve the Lake Fayetteville watershed. Invasive Species Removal Guide The UACES, City of Fayetteville, and WCRC cooperatively prepared an invasi\.e species removal guide for Northwest Arkansas to educate land managers, stewards, homeowners, and volunteers (Figure 5-1). This guide assists those concerned with managing the spread of invasive plant species, their threat to natural areas and ecological function of forest, soils, and waterways, and protection of property and wildlife habitat. The guide helps land stewards identify invasive species, gives techniques :o manage them, raises awareness, and promotes the use of native alternative species. Species were sele--ted based on a federal 5-1 designation as a noxious weed, reports from land managers, residents, and local experts, and if science based organizations have documented their negative ecological impact on plant and wildlife habitat. The guide instructs users on how to develop a management strategy and implement proper safety when utilizing chemical and mechanical removal methods. Invasive species addressed in this guide include: • Tree of Heaven Mimosa • Callery (Bradford) pear • Chinese privet • Bush honeysuckle Multiflora rose (Figure 5-2) • Oriental bittersweet • Sweet autumn virginsbower �— Appendix 10. INVASIVE SPECIES GUIDE OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS: A FIELD :MANAGEMENT GtiIDE� EA#' A practical educational guide for land rnanagers, swward:y horns mem, and volunteers li>r the mrimal and replacement of invasive plants in natural spaces REVISED: December, 2U79 Prepared in cooperation with: %1-1 ed Coruarvatiwt Rewurce Center, Uniw:rsity of Arkansas Cooperative Eateu,hm, and City of I'aY n611' UfA ►� Figure 5-1. Invasive Plant Removal Guide • Wintercreeper • Japanese honeysuckle • Garlic mustard Poison hemlock • Sericea lespedeza • Perilla mint • Johnsongrass Figure 5-2. Multiflora Rose Bloom. A Common Invasive Species Encountered An example of methods developed to manage Tree of Heaven, presented during a meeting of project partners and available in the Invasive Species Removal Guide is presented in Figure 5-3. The complete guide is available in Appendix 10. This guidance document will be used in future training workshops designed for residents of Northwest Arkansas. 5-2 Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas: A Field Management Guide Example Tree Species: Tree -of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • Status • Introduced ornamental c. 1784 from Europe • Originated in China • Highly invasive • Distribution • Present in most lower 48 states • Well established in NWA • Forest edges as well as disturbed and undisturbed sites • Large groves now reported along Hwy. 71 in Ozark National Forest • Impact • Rapid growth forming dense thickets, suckering from roots • Prolific seeder spread by wind • Alleopathic • Identification • Tall deciduous tree with shallow roots • Mature tree often lack lower branches • Alternate, pinnately-compound leaves with reddish stems near new growth • Circular glands under leaf base • Brown to tan bark • Leaves emit unpleasant odor when crushed • Resembles hickory, walnut, and sumac • Control • Remove entire seedling • Basal bark or frill herbicide application • DO NOT use cut -stump method as it will encourage suckering r �t 0 Section 6. Prioritization and Recommendations The data and information assembled from this project can be used by Cities, government agencies, non- governmental organizations, and other natural resource management groups. Specifically, the data and information is useful for local planning to: • Select future project sites to reduce sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen within the Illinois River Watershed. • Be considered by the cities of Fayetteville, Springdale, Tontitown, & Johnson to evaluate proposed development that could potentially impact streams, wetlands, and springs and select stream restoration sites where infrastructure is threatened • Provide information on unique areas that could potentially be protected, such as, wet prairies, wetlands, rare plant habitat, rare aquatic species habitat, and stable sections of stream. Based on the results of this assessment, priorities were established as a guideline for restoration and conservation. The following are priorities and recommendations to be considered: Lake Fayetteville Watershed Streambank Erosion and Potential Restoration o Priority streambanks and natural features identified in the Lake Fayetteville watershed are shown in Figure 6-1 with close-up maps shown in Figures 6-2 through 6-6: ■ Priority streambanks for restoration are defined as streambanks with BEHI and NBSS defined as High, Very High or Extreme and if NBSS is defined as Very High or Extreme. ■ Streambanks that occur where unique natural features were identified and have high erosion potential should be considered a higher priority. o Cities should consider putting the streambank erosion data and information from this study into a GIS based program that can be accessed by staff when evaluating new development, watershed planning, and infrastructure projects. Conservation of Natural Features o Six natural feature sites (Figure 6-1) that were assessed on the ground and are described in Appendix 5 were located in the Lake Fayetteville watershed. These sites should be considered a priority for conservation or at a minimum be protected as much as possible if development were to occur in that area. For example, one of these sites is a headwater swale in a historic prairie (Figure 6-1a). o Through a GIS analysis, potential natural features were identified which include: open wetlands, prairie mounds/swale complexes, east slopes, north slopes, wet flatwoods, glades, spring -fed ponds, abandoned channels, channel scar ponds, spring and spring runs, mesic forests, ponds -spring fed, and backwater channels. At a minimum, these sites should be evaluated further and Figure 6-1a— historic prairie inthe headwaters ofClear considered for conservation before the areas Creekthatisauniquefeaturethat should beprotected. 6-1 are developed. These sites are shown in Figures 6-1 through 6-6. o Search for a funding mechanism to conserve working farms whe~e there is landowner interest. • Improvement of Riparian Areas o Partners work together to increase the width of healthy riparian alorg the tributaries in the watershed. ■ Cities, NRCS, IRWP, and other conservation oriented entiti=s should concentrate riparian restoration actions on locations identified in the assessment as lacking adequate riparian cover, but having stable or less erosive streambanks. The area of focus should be those areas that are not adjacent to Iota:ions that will require channel restoration work. Improving the riparian cove and increasing riparian buffers will help to lower water temperatures, reduce the velocity of floodwaters, and improve water quality via filtration properties of ripa-ian puffers. ■ Promote native vegetation along the tributaries in the wa-ershed by removing invasive plants and enhancing with native shrubs, trees, and g-asses. • Address Sediment and Phosphorus o Streambank Erosion contributed 54%, the highest percentage among all sources, of the estimated total sediment loadings to the watershed. Therefore, to reduce sediment loadings consider ■ Restoring priority streambanks or reaches of stream anc include both channel and riparian ■ Conserve and/or restore with native vegetation 50 feet of riparian along both sides of the stream channels o Urban rinoff contributed 45% and pasture areas contributed 24% o- the estimated total phosphorus loading to the watershed. Therefore, to reduce phosphorus loadings consider ■ Conducting residential and commercial outreach on fertilizer usage and pet waste disposal ■ Encourage landowners to participate in agricultural programs, such as, EQIP ■ Increase retention and infiltration capacity of new storrrwater management infrastructure • The impervious surface evaluation for the watershed showed the streams to already be in an impacted state. To reverse or slow the increase of impervious surfaces co-Isider the following: o Incorporate Low Impact Development techniques into future development o Retrofit existing impervious sites o Conserve family farm areas o Restore natural areas to appropriate historic habitat Lower Clear Creek Watershed • Streambank Erosion and Potential Restoration o Based on the air photo analysis, there are several streambanks along Clear Creek located downstream of Lake Fayetteville to the confluence with the Illincis Ri✓er that generate the preponderance of sediment and nutrient loads to the stream. The a4erage annual erosion rates ranged between 3 and 25 feet and these streambanks should be considered a priority for restoration. Figure 6-7 shows the locations of the streambanks with the highest erosion. 6-2 ■ A comprehensive masterplan for a portion of Clear Creek should be developed to address the priority sites in a way to leads to a holistic restoration effort. Many of the streambank priorities cannot be restored as a single site and upstream and downstream conditions must be considered to restore the most affected reaches of Clear Creek to morphological stability. The comprehensive masterplan should begin upstream of Arkansas Highway 112 and continue for approximately 2 miles downstream as shown in Figure 6-7. This area has been greatly affected by changes in the peak discharge and frequency of large run-off events associated with increased impervious surfaces in the upstream portions of the watershed. By developing a plan and addressing this section of Clear Creek, 16,500 ton/yr and 5,600 Ib/yr of Total Phosphorus loading from streambank erosion could be eliminated. ■ Streambank CC356 is the largest contributor of sediment from streambank erosion in the Clear Creek Watershed. It appears that this site could be addressed without having to significantly expand the scope of restoration upstream and downstream of the affected site. This site should be a priority for streambank restoration. ■ The NRCS, IRWP, and University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service can use the data for priority sites for restoration of other areas that can be addressed as an individual streambank site. ■ The NRCS should consider putting the streambank erosion data and information from this study into a GIS based program that can be accessed by staff when evaluating EQIP and other program applications for BMP implementation. 0 Conservation of Natural Features o Several natural features of interest were identified using GIS methods and are shown in Appendix 6. The majority of these features are associated with floodplain hydrology and morphology. The entire floodplain of the lower Clear Creek watershed should be protected from encroachment and development as the ecological services provided by the floodplain are immeasurable. Protection of the floodplain could come in the form of farmland conservation through donated and purchased protective easements. o The NRCS should consider putting the natural features data and information from this study into a GIS based program that can be accessed by staff when evaluating EQIP and other program applications for BMP implementation. ■ Improvement of Riparian Areas o The NRCS, IRWP, and other conservation oriented entities should concentrate riparian restoration actions on those locations identified in the assessment as lacking adequate riparian cover, but having stable or less erosive streambanks. The area of focus should be those areas that are not adjacent to locations that will require channel restoration work. Improving the riparian cover and increasing riparian buffers will help to lower water temperatures, reduce the velocity of floodwaters, and improve water quality via filtration properties of riparian buffers. 6-3 Figure 6-1. Priority streambanks Overlaid with Natural Features Developed it the Ecological Analysis in the Lake Fayetteville watershed. 6-4 rn Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville :�*--, ,-A: ? �` Don Tyson Pkvvy J " - Lower Northeast Tributaries Field Inventoried GIS Inventoried Springdale City HIGH, Natural Feature Natural Areas Limits Site # C3 Lake Fayetteville Fayetteville City 'Very High ON HIGH, Priority Banks Watershed Q Limits ; °�,'` `' VeryHi BEHI, NBSS Inventory Fayetteville k Other Streams Planning Area k 0 Streambanks h # r-.0411 ' - y,•� � �,r � . , VERY HIGH,High HIGH, •_ VERY`HIGH; ' #, HIGH Very High!-" P , Ve HIGH,Hgh Ag•� t !�" 1. � � • F �" !' M ,• At .., MODERATE, y Spring Run - o-• Very High MODERATE. HIGH,Extreme VeryHigh r ` HIGH;High aWa y t�r13 �.' HIGH,High + 1 HIGH,High HIGH,High y.. *VeGttHi h .0 Y g FGIadee 500 1,000 2.000 ee Figure 6-2. Lake Fayetteville Watershed — Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Lower Northeast Tributaries Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Upper Northeast Tributaries HIGH High , 4 ti �. �0r' :� • t* •-HIGH High: x,k s• ' `� ;_ - 4i3VERY n R �'HIGH,High, rr^ b HIGH Htgh$ $ ?' _ �? irk'- ♦"�?'k'Ra1 !} t�. �!s-." " ' ��' ` r'!.� '<`,a. •.� VERY. q1" m Y�yg HIGH,High w't a' a .r. •t e '� r' 9 n ;r -.9.yN �� 1 HIGH High .Pr • HIGH,High yn p HIGH,High tY F HIGH, a .at 6_ee-�'-'>E_R.r. ! �..i i-�. v Y i•= I.,,:W3t6tt, i, �tr '�e� 2 . ",,,�s r Very High .r HI , • n3---r.,.„' c: *-`'C.Y''•�'S•_ C 7 'i d -Y-+s` :7 +4t. 't.r+ V�. V y High ..tea .r:71 y �HIGH,High_'� "� .Yy� -� !+j ^a'_+f�•M�s.� ta'z �s r 'v"' t' _e �'� itl+ !��+► • HIGH,Hiiha- t6c#'�+- S!••�q-w�-�,_ -.� t�g�• �'�I^a+'7r,7,ri.aa'.'d'_�,�j:�.•+r— �%70 -7 i!t.. ... Piioii > a YF►. Natural AreasLimits�' a�1►�� v� BEHI` NBSSks �i5lnveutuned Gale ui Y - P g Y _ Lake Fayetteville t Other w��i Y !'� Fayetteville City _„__,•__ _�� - ,Streamhanka '"— Watershed '" LImrtE fli)n Tyson Pkwy ^'nvPninry rayettevdlC �I strearlis Planning Area _ I tt : • ': - J GH HI 500 ,000 2,000 Vrry High HIGH• MO F@C 0 Very l lish - Figure 6-3. Lake Fayetteville Watershed — Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Upper Northeast Tributaries Mounds and Swales V 4 (=� � r., ,cr 411, i N i sand Swales " y- •r *•..�;!► Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville 1 L Northeast I 1 MODERAI : r a Very High MODERAf HIGHery , HIGH High'wvery Highj VHigh„ HIGHHigh" ery` High HIGH,Extreme HIGH High IA C HIGH, + Oa Very High .: H1GH,High ;tit—s Ka 11. ka PortdlWetland _ ,, L) 0 fir ' Field Inventoried GIS Inventoried Springdale City Natural Feature Natural Areas Limits Site #F Lake Fayetteville C3 Fayetteville City 11 Priority Banks Watershed Limits BEHI, NBSS Inventory Fayetteville Other Streams Planning Area 500 1 000 2,000"�"'� �! "' Streambanks Fee - 1 r Figure 6-4. Lake Fayetteville Watershed — Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Northeast Portion of Clear Creek Ql M Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville q HIGH,High HIGH,High Upper Northeast `�' e _u. /!�Xk CC , t f s 'II�SIE "�T• :>� 8 P Y {YtT' A y �•" o ��;�# � +tlt� P� N�fi �, __+ Mounds and Swales o .. {::. • i. = 7 �F.. ��'dram" �`` �` dry. a A n' � � I r ; .�,„�,.. y� , a, 1 ,, •, e y h fi �.A �t < �fy,,� f ��f rA Don Y Tyson Pkw i ,- � ` � _` ' , , ...• `"`1 M ` *` d Y �M V, ;�, p y � } � � f✓ � 7 t+a ., �y ^w'ti�.A 1.Ti1 �`r' ny� � b _�• � . '�-. �� P . i u , .s. PiEfr . HI - ''� t s t� � .r— � :✓'' :'. �. - � � jib' ,� : ' . :. $ ' �tJ • � A �~ Mounds and Swales l � ' �. � �� , t 7 r�' ,, irr ' a1y�N ` �• HIGH, " HIGH,High (�99O O L--._,m..,.—c nd S Very High 6 Field Inventoried GIS Inventoried Springdale City e Natural Feature Natural Areas Limits eYr.N �b•�„�y�.� Site # Lake Fayetteville Fayetteville City Priority Banks Watershed Limps BEHI, NBSS Inventory Fayetteville Streams Other Planning Area 500 1,000 2,000 Streambanks Feet Figure 6-5. Lake Fayetteville Watershed — Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Upper Northeast Portion of Clear Creek T ip t Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Southeast Xy� - �4 �: ,,�b's ti- �l'Y'a�",..,-;�teN �'r w -` r ' ` yr .t "f..: �r./ `'.:; • ' F26 .\:: ",� °d4 ��j4•..� m fZ. "�'. '� , ij �i � i�ia , y* J i" �f. � id' t .4P„� . i '"•d •.t� � J �. :-.i M. c 4. ilk, times' FHIGH,High Figure 6-6 . Lake Fayetteville Watershed — Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Southeast Portion of Clear Creek s 01 0 Air Photo 201i Clear Creek Assessment -N Lower Clear Creek - Priority ErodingStreambanks 1 f t. � tS,.A �'.. ..�s... .�Y' � ` F� � 4t T ��y, �� IN.• s i. �S , .`y_."� al r �,^ � 9 Recommended Area for Master Planning rC �, 2 dvaleyRd \ ,CleafC eek r Ctd Cs 336 r + CAAA ' '+ +%" • CC.3,�36 CC332 F• � my �'S, �'Y •� �. �� ycry CC3 40 p �� Confluence with Illinois River k. CC366 �CC362 f r"yr:l " a " ,! _.. o' 9 . i wit n CC39 6 w ;4 Priority Conservation Areas Priority Level (Annual Sediment Load) Highest (>5,000 Ib/yr) Higher (1,000 - 5,000 Ib/yr) 16 High (200 - 1,000 Ib/yr) o 0 5 z a' ' � Miles Figure 6-7. Priority Streambank Restoration Sites in the Lower Clear Creek Watershed References ADEQ, Environmental Preservation Division: S.J. Formica, M.A. Van Eps, A.S. Cotter, T.L. Morris, J.M. Beck. West Fork — White River Watershed — Data Inventory and Non -point Source Pollution Assessment. 2004. Brye, K.R., T.L. Morris, D.M. Miller, S.J. Formica, and M.A. Van Eps. 2004. Estimating bulk density in vertically exposed stoney alluvium using a modified excavation method. J. Environ. Qual. 33:1937-1942. Commissioner of State Lands, Arkansas, "Original General Land Office Survey Notes and Plats for the State of Arkansas 1815-present," Edwards, Findlay G., Stormwater Pollution Prevention BMP Workshop, Demonstration, and Evaluation, Project 700 FY01 CWA Section 319(h). Final Report. Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 2003. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, US General Soil Map (STATSG02) Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/. Accessed [12/1/2019). Roehl, J. W. Sediment source areas, delivery ratios and influencing morphological factors. International Assoc. of Scientific Hydrology. 59 (202-213). 1962. Rosgen, Dave.Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Fort Collins, CO. 2006. Schueler, Tom, An Integrated Framework to Restore Small Urban Watersheds, Center for Watershed Protection. 2005. Schueler, T. R. and H. K. Holland. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. Shaver, E., R. Horner, J. Skupien, C. May, G. Ridley, "Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues," North American Lake Management Society, 2007. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Soil Survey of Benton County, Arkansas. 1977. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices. 1999. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/stormwater/> United State Environmental Protection Agency, STEPL—Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads, 2003. WCRC, Formica, S. J., & Van Eps, M. Sediment and Nutrient Evaluation of Blossom Way Branch. Sediment and Nutrient Evaluation of Blossom Way Branch. 2008. Woods A.J., Foti, T.L., Chapman, S.S., Omernik, J.M., Wise, J.A., Murray, E.O., Prior, W.L., Pagan, J.B., Jr., Comstock, J.A., and Radford, M., 2004, Ecoregions of Arkansas (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000). 7-1 Received from Jonathan 2/10/21 n —�fssociates Ltd, water resources l environmental nnsultants CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE LAKE FAYETTEVILLE SPILLWAY MODIFICATION PHASE 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY F AUT ARC AN�AS y� a FTN i� = -^� = REGIST R w Associates, P R AL ER No 63 r• o.12942 l2f 1 2a2fl DECEMBER 11, 2020 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE LAKE FAYETTEVILLE SPILLWAY MODIFICATION PHASE 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY Prepared for City of Fayetteville Water & Sewer Department 2435 Industrial Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Prepared by FTN Associates, Ltd. 124 W. Sunbridge, Suite 3 Fayetteville, AR 72703 FTN No. 04370-2159-001 December 11, 2020 December 11, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODU�7TION........................................................................ 2.0 LAKE FAYETTEVILLE DAM INFORMATION ...................... 2.1 Original Dam Design........................................................ 2.2 Dam Modifications........................................................... 2.3 Curent Dam Configurations ............................................. 3.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.......................................................... 4.0 HYDROLOGIC MODELING...................................................... 4.1 Base Model....................................................................... 4.2 Updated Analysis.............................................................. 5.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING......................................................... 5.1 HEC-RAS Model Development ....................................... 5.:.1 Structures.............................................................. 5.1.2 Hydraulic Parameters ............................................ 5.1.3 Boundary Conditions ............................................ 5.2 Model Runs....................................................................... 6.0 RESULTS............................................................................... 7.0 REFERENCES............................................................................. LIST OF APPENDICES ................................. 1-1 ................................. 2-1 ................................. 2-1 ................................. 2-2 ................................. 2-2 ................................. 3-1 ................................ 4-1 ................................ 4-1 ................................ 4-3 ................................. 5-1 ................................. 5-1 ..............................1. 5-2 ................................ 5-3 ................................ 5-3 ............................. 5-4 ................................. 6-1 ........ ......................... 7-1 APPENDIX A: Original Dam Design Drawings APPENDIX B: Spillway Repair Drawings APPENDIX C: Topographic Survey APPENDIX D: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Output (Electronic) i December 11, 2020 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Size Classification......................................................................... Table 2.2 Hazard Classification.................................................................... Table 2.3 Spillway Design Flood for Dams .................................................. Table 3.1 Survey Control Points................................................................... Table 4.1 Land Use Types and Curve Numbers ........................................... Table 4.2 Subbasin hydrologic parameter summary ..................................... Table 4.3 Precipitation Data.......................................................................... Table 4.4 Probable Maxim-im Precipitation Data ......................................... Table5.1 Manning's..................................................................................... Table 5.2 Lake Fayetteville Scenarios.......................................................... Table 6.1 Existing Conditions Summary of Discharges ............................... Table 6.2 Future Conditions Summary of Discharges .................................. Table 6.3 Discharge from Dam and Spillway ............................................... Table 6.4 Elevation at Dam and Spillway ..................................................... Table 6.5 Time of Concentration Comparison .............................................. LIST OF FIGURES .. 5-3 .. 5-4 Figure 4.1 Hydrologic Work Map......................................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4.2 Hydrologic Soils Map.......................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4.3 Existing Conditions Land Use Map.....................................................................4-8 Figure 4.4 Future Conditions Land Use Map......................................................................4-10 December 11, 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION Lake Fay: tteville was formed in 1949 when the City of Fayetteville (t:,ie City) completed construction of the Lake Fayetteville Dam (the dam); thus, creating the res-.rvc-ir to serve as the City's water supply until the development of the Beaver Water District in - 957. Since that time, the lake has provided a source of recreation for the citizens of Fayetteville and the surrounding areas. In October 2018, the Arkansas Department of Agriculture's, Natural Resources Division (ANRD), formerly the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) am the agency in charge of regulating dam safety in Arkansas, performed its annual inspection if the dam. In terms of their size and potential hazard, dams are classified based on Tables 2.1 and 2.2 of ANRD's Title 7 - Rules Governing Design and Operation of Dams (Title 7). Base on these tables, the dam is classified as a high hazard dam of intermediate size. Additionally, because of this classification, the spillway must be capable of safely passing the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). As documented by an ANRD letter to the City dated October 11, 2018, ANRD records indicated that the spillway could only handle 50% of the PMF event. The ANRD letter noted that the dam, based on the relevant classification criteria, should be sized to pass the full PMF event. As a result of this information, the City retained FTN Associates, Ltd. (FTN) to evaluate various options for the possible modification of the Lake Fayetteville spillway. During the development of f1e Project scope, FTN reviewed the available information and suggested that a phased approach be considered, with subsequent phases structured in a manner that will provide the City with an opportunity to examine the results of the previous phase prior to choosing an alternative. This approach should allow the City to develop an orderly and cost-effective solution to modifying the dam and/or spillway, if required. The objective of this first p-tase was to determine the current inflows to the lake that the watershed is producing and tten determining the current discharges capable of being released through the spillway without 2vertopping the dam. This phase also included performing an updated topographic survey for a portion of the dam embankment, the entire approach channel, exit channel, and spillway structure, and December 11, 2020 performing a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for future conditions of the Lake Fayetteville watershed. The second phase will consist of a dam and spillway improvement feasibility analysis and conceptual design, which may include a geotechnical investigation, dam and/or spillway modification analyses, a feasibility study report and conceptual level design of potential improvements. The third phase would consist of designing the selected improvements to achieve compliance with Title 7. A specific scope of work and budget for Phase 2 wi I I be developed after approval of the Phase 1 Study. 1-2 December 11, 2020 2.0 LAKE FAYETTEVILLE DAM INFORMATION 2.1 Original Dam Design The Lake Fayetteville Dam is an earthen dam located on Clear Creek it northern Fayetteville, approximately 0.5 miles east of the City of Johnson's corporate limit. It has a drainage area of approximately 9.3 mi2, per this analysis. It was completed in 1949 and was originally called the Clear Creek Dam. The dam was designed by Max A. Mehlburger, PE, of Little Rock, Arkansas, and W.R. Holway & Associates of Tulsa, Oklahoma, to create a lake to serve as a water supply for the City, which it did until the creation of the Beaver Water District in 1957. Since that time, Lake Fayetteville has provided the citizens of Fayetteville and the surrounding areas with a source for various recreational activities due to its fishing and trail amenities. The original dam design consisted of a 1,733 feet long earthen embankment with a crown width of 20 feet at a stated crest elevation of 1,258.0 ft (NGVD 29). The typical section side slopes for the upstream earthen embankment consisted of a riprap covered embankment (from stated El 1,233.0 to the crest) at a slope of 3H:IV, while the downstream slope was designed with a vegetative cover and a 2.5H:1 V slope, although the center section of the dam was also designed to have berms (10 ft wide on the upstream face, 20 ft wide on the downstream face) added at approximately the mid -height of the dam. Appendix A contains the original dam design drawings. In addition to the main embankment, the original project also consisted 'of a concrete water intake tower and a concrete spillway. The intake tower was to not only serve as a water intake for the City's water supply but also as a means to drawdown the lake. According to the design drawings, the intake structure had an invert at stated El 1201.25 ft (NGVD 29), which was connected to a 48-inc=1 diameter concrete conduit that led to the downstream outfall, where it was reduced to a 16-inch valved outfall and a 16-inch water supply line. Because the lake is no longer used as a water supply lake, the water supply line is no longer in use. The intake structure was designed to have three intakes, which allowed for withdrawing water from different levels of the lake for water supply. These levels were at stated El 1218.0, 1228.0, and 1238.0 ft (NGVD 29), respectively. 2-1 December 11, 2020 For the concrete spillway, the drawings show an ogee shaped spillway to be constructed with the crest at stated El 1248.0 ft (NGVD 29), to be located at the southern end of the dam. This spillway is connected to the lake through an approximately 1,050 feet long approach channel that is narrow and shallow. Per the design drawings, this spillway had a crest length of 175 feet, variable apron and spillway widths that depended on depths to rock encountered in the field, and vertical side walls ranging from 8 to 10 feet above the floor of the spillway. Upon review of the original design drawings, it was noted that the elevations indicated a consistent top of dam at El 1,258.0 ft (NGVD 29), and a normal pool at El 1,248.0 feet (NGVD 29). Both of these listed elevations are approximately ten feet higher than that of the field survey data gathered as part of this project, indicating that the dam was apparently not constructed based on its original design. This elevation difference was also previously observed in the 1996 hydraulic analysis that was performed. 2.2 Dam Modifications In 1974, the City retained McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. (MCE) to repair a cavity that had begun to form under the existing spillway and to remove existing growth in and around the spillway. This repair work consisted of excavation and removal of displaced rock and debris, removal of trees and other objects impacting the flow of water in the approach channel, and the construction of a new spillway within the footprint of the existing spillway. During this project, the spillway section was converted from an ogee spillway to a straight drop or free overfall spillway with a crest length of 130 ft. Because the original ogee spillway had a total crest length of 170 ft, the remaining crest length, approximately 10 to 15 feet on each side, continued to function as an ogee spillway. The modified spillway crest elevation was adjusted to El 1237.5 ft (NGVD 29), which is 0.5 feet lower than the original spillway crest of El 1238.0 ft (NGVD 29). In addition to the change to the spillway crest elevation, vertical training walls were added to the spillway to transition between the new and old spillway. These training walls are approximately 1.5 to 2 ft tall and approximately 3.5 ft wide and project above the weir crest. Refer to Appendix B for the VICE drawings related to these modifications. 2.3 Current Dam Configurations 2-2 December 11, 2020 Since the 1974 spillway modification, the Lake Fayetteville Dam and spillway have largely remained unchanged. The main alterations that have been made to the dam, outside of routine maintenance activities (i.e., mowing, etc.), have been the addition of a paved walking trail to the top of the dam, a trail bridge crossing immediately downstream of _he spillway, the removal of large diameter trees that had started growing on the upstream face cf the dam, the addition of riprap material to the upstream face to address minor erosion ccncarns, and the installation of toe drains to address increased seepage along the downstream face of the dam. Many of these items have been noted and corrected as found during dam safety inspections to continue to keep the dam functioning as intended. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams (NID) lists the Lake Fayetteville Dam height as 49 feet with a maximum storage of 6,566 acre-feet. However, using the information gathered as part of this study, the height of the dam was measured to be approximately 46.1 feet. Also, based on the updated terrain data, the dam provides a maximum storage of approximately 4,570 acre-feet, at an El 1,439.0 ft (NAVD 88). Because the Lake Fayetteville Dam is greater than 25 feet in height and has a storage capacity greater than 50 acre-feet, it is required to be permitted under the State of Arkansas's Dam Safety Program. Dams under 25 feet in height (as defined by ANRD), irrespective of storage volume are not automatically required to be permitted. Per Title 7, a dam's required spi=]way capacity is determined based on two criteria. These criteria are size anj hazard potential. A dam's size classification is based on the more stringent of either the height of the dam or the maximum storage of the reservoir, while the hazard potential of a dam is determined based on the more stringent of either the potential for loss of human life or economic loss. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 from Title 7 are reproduced below. Note that there is a typographical error (corrected herein) in the actual Table 2.1 as published by ANRD that indicates that small dams range in height from 24 to 40 feet. The text within the applicable subtitles of Title 7 clearly state that 25 feet is the regulatory height. 2-3 December 11, 2020 Table 2.1. Size Classification. Size Maximum Storage acre-feet Height (Feet) Small 50 to 1000 25 to 40 Intermediate > 1000 and < 50,000 > 40 and < 100 Large > 50,000 >_ 100 Table 2.2. Hazard Classification. Loss of Cate or Human life Economic loss Low No Minimal (No significant structures; pastures, woodland, or largely undeveloped land); less than $100,000. Appreciable (Significant structures, industrial, or Significant No commercial development, or cropland); $100,000 to $500,000. Excessive (Extensive public, industrial, commercial, or High Yes agricultural development); over $500,000. Notes: • Loss of human life is based upon presence of habitable structures. • Hazard classification does not indicate the physical condition of the dam. Based on Tables 2.1 and 2.2, the Lake Fayetteville Dam is classified as an intermediate sized dam, and because of the large amount of public and commercial developments that would be subject to potential economic loss resulting from a dam breach located immediately downstream, the dam's hazard classification is classified as a high hazard dam. Based on these two criteria and Table 2.3, the Lake Fayetteville Dam is required to have a spillway that can pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). This is in agreement with the State of Arkansas's Dam Safety Division current rating for the dam, as well as ratings determined in previous analyses. 2-4 December 11, 2020 Table 2.3. Spillwav Desin Flood for Dams. Hazard Classification Size Spi=lway Desi a Flood Low Small 0.25 PMF Intermediate 0.25 to 0.50 PMF *Large 0.50 to 0.75 PMF Significant Small 0.25 to 0.50 PMF Intermediate 0.50 to PMF Large PMF High Small 0.50 PMF to PMF Intermediate PTAF Large P?.4F Not=: Where ranges are given in this table, the spillway design flood shall be determined by straight liDL Interpolation. based upon the effective heiglt of dam or maximum storage, whichever computed SDF is greater. *SDF shall be extrapolated at the same rate of change as an intermediate size dam to a maximum of .75 PMF. 2-5 December 11. 2020 3.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY To complete the detailed hydraulic modeling necessary to determine the existing spillway discharge capacity, FTN used a combination of three sources for the Project area. The first source was a new hydrographic and topographic survey conducted for a portion of the existing dam, approach channel, exit channel, and spillway structure that was performed by FTN's surveying subconsultant, B&F Engineering, Inc. (B&F); the second source was 2015 Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) elevation data collected for Washington County through a partnership between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS); and the third source was historic bathymetry surveys for various portions of the lake conducted in 1950 and 1985. For this Project, all topographic data was converted to or collected in the horizontal coordinate system of NAD 83, Arkansas State Plane North Zone, US survey foot with a vertical coordinate system ofNAVD 88 (vertical). Please see Appendix C. Topographic Data for additional details on the information used. The bathymetric and topographic survey conducted by B&F for this study was performed in November and December 2019. The survey extent was limited to an area of approximately 10.5 acres, which primarily focused on the approach and exit channels, the spillway structure, approximately 220 feet of the dam embankment, including the upstream and downstream faces, and lake bathymetry in the approximate location of the old Clear Creek channel up to the inlet of the approach channel. Bathymetry information was also collected in a small area of the lake and the approach channel. Once the survey was completed, it was reviewed by FTN with comments being addressed by the surveyor. Once the review was complete, the survey data was used to develop a detailed terrain surface that could support 1-foot contour generation. In addition to the surface information produced, B&F also set four survey control points within the survey extents so that they can be used for future construction control, if needed. Each construction control point was set using a 5/8-inch rebar with aluminum cap on top. These four points are listed below in Table 3.1. Survey Control Points. 3-1 December 1 1, 20-10 Table 3.1. Survey Control Points. Control Point Northing Easting Latitude Elevation Longitude ft, NAVD 88) 1 662,511.49 680,626.40 36.1346° -94.13930 1249.48 2 662,181.90 680,725.78 36.13370 -94.13890 1250.97 3 661,878.02 680,370.72 36.13290 -94.14020 1252.02 4 662,065.12 680,196.29 36.13340 -94.14080 1223.40 Additionally, ANRD had recently completed modeling for an upstream reach of Clear Creek as part of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Washington County FIS update starting at State Highway 265 (Crossover Road) as part of its Cooperat ng Technical Partnership (CTP) with FEMA (herein referred to as the "Arkansas CTP" study). Therefore, to supplement the Clear Creek portion of the watershed upstream of the Lake, FTN used the exi3ting topograp-lic data developed as part of the Arkansas CTP study to reduce the data gataering effort. For the remaining areas of the watershed around Lake Fayetteville and for the Hylton Branch drainage area, the 2015 Washington County LiDAR data was used, which was the same source data as the Arkansas CTP study information. This data was obtained in the form of 1-meter bare earth digital elevation model (DEM) tiles. These individual tiles were developed through a partnership between FEMA and the NRCS. According to the metadata obtained for this data, the vertical accuracy of the data is listed at +/- 9.25 centimeters or better and supports the development of I -foot contours. The LiDAR was flown when the lake water surface elevation was at normal pool elevation of 1237.5 ft, NAVD 88. Since bathymetric data was collected for a small portion of the lake, FTN elected to incorporate historic bathymetry data collected at various times for the remaining parts of the lake. The information incorporated was taken from a 1950 NRCS Sedimentation Survey and a 1983 University of Arkansas Civil Engineering Department Hydrographic Map. While FTN understands that this bathymetry data is old, most of the tie-in locations between the different sources did not yield large differences; therefore, the information was incorporated as best available data. Additionally, this data was used to provide a better understanding of the travel time and storage patential of the lake and how it plays a role in potential spi]way modifications. 3-2 December 11, 2020 4.0 HYDROLOGIC MODELING In order to assess the dam's ability to meet current hydrologic criteria based on its' hazard classification, a new hydrologic analysis was performed to determine the runoff potential of the contributing watershed. The new hydrologic analysis included the use of the recent Clear Creek hydrologic analysis that was completed by the Arkansas CTP for FEMA's ongoing Washington County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) revision, use of updated LiDAR data, updated land -use data from varying sources, and updated precipitation data. The information used in the analysis was processed using ESRI's ArcGIS® software and supporting extensions and toolsets. Based on the topography and data processing, the watershed delineation for the Lake Fayetteville Dam was calculated to be approximately 5,933 acres (9.27 mil) using LiDAR, which compares reasonably well to the 1996 study's published value of 6,336 acres (9.9 sq mi), considering the differences in data resolution between the older USGS Topographic Quad maps used in the 1996 hydraulic evaluation and the 2015 high resolution LiDAR data being used today. 4.1 Base Model By using the recently completed Clear Creek hydrologic analysis, this current study was able to build from a recently developed hydrologic model that contributed approximately 6.9 mi2. This existing model used the USACE HEC-HMS (version 4.1) program to perform rainfall -runoff simulations for the 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2% annual -chance (10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year) flood events. The existing AR CTP study started approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Crossover Road (State Highway 265), near the upstream end of Lake Fayetteville, and it divided the watershed into 18 subbasins. The NRCS Unit Hydrograph Method was used with runoff Curve Numbers for calculating runoff for the area. The Curve Number is a runoff coefficient that is based on the hydrologic soil group, land use, and hydrologic condition of an area. The hydrologic soil group information was taken from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) 4-1 December 11, 2020 database for Wash.ngton County, with an Antecedent Moisture Condition Typ-. II (average moisture condition) assumed. The soils data, land use information, and subbasins were then combined together in ArcGIS 10.4.1 to develop an area -weighted Curve Numter for each subbasin. Time of Concentration (Tc), calculated using the NRCS TR-55 method, was determined for each subbasin. Tc is defined as the time needed for water to flow from the hydraulically most remote point in a watershed to the watershed outlet. It is a function of the topography and land use within the watershed. The TR-55 method computes Te assuming that water moves through a watershed as sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, open channel flow, or sorr.e combination of the three. The open channel characteristics, as referenced in the Tc calculations, were based on channel section data derived from the LiDAR topography. The Manning's "n' values used in the Tc calculations wexe based on aerial photography and engineering judgment. Upon calculating the T, for each sub:)asin, the lag time (TLag) was calculated as 0.6*Tc. This relationship between TLE,g and T, was given in the HEC-HMS Technical Reference Manual (2000) as the relationship suggested by the SCS (now the NRCS). This lag time (in minutes) was the input required for the transform method ii HEC-HMS. The routing method used for the Arkansas CTP study reaches was the Modified Puls method. This routing method was selected because of the drainage area's over3ank conveyance. ArcGIS® and HEC-RAS were used to create a basic hydraulic model with cross- sections extracted from the topographic data. The resulting storage output from the H&_-RAS model was compiled to extract the cumulative volume (storage) for each reach and entered into the HEC- HMS model as that reach's storage -discharge curve. For precipitation inputs, the 50-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1- and 0.2-percent frequency storm totals for the 24-hour event were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Atlas 14 website. No baseflow was used in the hydrologic model. Whale FTN does note that there are springs present around the dam, FTN is not aware of any information available indicating the presence of large springs located in the headwaters of the watershed that would significantly impact the computed discharges of the contributing streams. 4-2 December 11, 2020 4.2 Updated Analysis The lake watershed covers three different jurisdictions - Washington County and the cities of Springdale and Fayetteville. Each jurisdiction has its own prescribed methodology for hydrologic analysis, which may vary. Since approximately 6.9 miz of the Lake Fayetteville Watershed was covered by the Arkansas CTP study, which falls within the City of Springdale and this new analysis utilizes much of that data and the methodologies established during that study, the decision was made to remain as consistent as possible with the existing data developed by the Arkansas CTP study. While this hydrologic analysis is being used to resize the Lake Fayetteville spillway, there are some slight variations from the City of Fayetteville 2014 Drainage Criteria Manual. After review, the variations from the 2014 Drainage Criteria Manual are considered to be minor as the differences are typically focused on parameter inputs; therefore, this information may be used for future analyses downstream, as long as one is cognizant of the differences in hydrologic methods used. The following paragraphs discuss the various modifications that were made as part of the new hydrologic analysis. With the Arkansas CTP study as the base information, FTN used ESRI's ArcGIS (Version 10.5.1) software and tools to delineate the remaining watershed area down to the Lake Fayetteville spillway. The additional area was broken down based on a combination of factors, including drainage area, roadway crossings, and confluences with tributaries. Additionally, subbasins along the along the perimeter of Lake Fayetteville were further refined along with the lake itself being treated as its own subbasin in order to allow the contribution from direct precipitation onto the lake. All topographic data used for the new study is a combination of the 2015 Washington County LiDAR, available bathymetry data, and survey information where available. Figure 4.1 is a map showing various hydrologic features for the entire Project area. 4-3 VICINITY MAP Jon6b Prgect Location '■ F Ro6k Pine Bluff Te arkana Figure 4.1 Lake FayeLLeville Darn Hydrologic Work Map Legend �. Major Sbeatns C3 Subbasins Aerial Imagery: 2017 Statewide Aerial Imagery v W+ S Feet 0 1,000 2,000 Map Created - October 30 2020 woc—,.,sere %3rr..n 4-4 December 11, 2020 For the SCS Curve Number method, FTN obtained NRCS SSURGO data from the NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway, which from the available documentation on the Arkansas CTP study was consistent with the source data used on that project. As part of the soil characteristics, these soils have been grouped based on their Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG), which determines the ability of the soils to drain when saturated. The Lake Fayetteville Watershed consists of six classifications, which are A, B, B/D, C, C/D, and D. in the dual groups, the first letter is for drained areas while the second is for undrained areas. Additionally, for areas where dual groups were present, the more conservative group was used, as this was the approach taken in the Arkansas CTP study. Therefore, the predominant soil classifications in the watershed for this analysis are HSG C and D. Table 4.1 Land Use Types and Curve Numbers is a breakdown of the different land use types used for the study that can be linked to the Technical Release Number 55 (TR-55) runoff Curve Numbers and includes a summary of the applicable Curve Numbers. The soil characteristics for the entire study area are displayed on Figure 4.2. Hydrologic Soil Group Map. Table 4.1. Land Use Types and Curve Numbers. NLCD Grid Code NLCD Description TR-55 LANDUSE I Additional Notes Soil Group * A I B C D 1 1 Open Water Water -- 99 99 99 99 21 " Dev. Open Space Open Space Fair Parks w/ minor dev. 49 69 79 84 Open Space Good -- 49 69 79 84 22 Dev. Low Intensity Residential 2 acres Lots 2 acres or greater 46 65 77 82 23-L Dev. Medium Intensity Residential 1 acre 1-2 acre lots 51 68 79 84 23-M Residential 1 /4 acre 0.25-0.75 acre lots 61 75 83 87 23-H Residential (up to 1/8 acre Townhouses/apartments 77 85 90 92 24 Dev. High Int ensity Commercial -- 89 92 94 95 31 Barren Land Urban(Newly graded) -- 77 86 91 94 41 Deciduous Forest Woods Good -- 30 55 70 77 42 Evergreen Forest Woods Poor -- 45 66 77 83 43 Mixed Forest Woods Fair -- 36 60 73 79 71 Grassland Herb. grass, brush Fair -- N/A 71 81 89 81 Pasture Pasture Good -- 39 61 74 80 * Some values used differ from those in the 2014 Favelle%illc Drainage Criteria Manual. 4-5 71 gym. 0 64 Act , dle e t II 13 KSYiilv t Lake nt, res o _' 4 Acresli ... t HB B5B j48 �^+_ �. Acre h B B ar 39 Acres , 3 Acres *' tic- lB15C HB_R5A `43 Acue r F r VICINITY MAP Project Location . '.Og W i Figure 4.2 Lake Fayetteville Dam Hydrologic Soils Map Legend Major Streams Subbasins Hydrologic Soil Group A Hydrologic Soil Group B Hydrologic Soil Group C Hydrologic Soil Group D Aerial Imagery: 2017 Statewide Aerial Imagery v w+r s Feet 0 1,000 2,000 Map Created - October 30 2020 4-6 December 11, 2020 Using the 2011 NLCD as the initial starting point, the land use data was modified using publicly available imagery from various sources, with the exception of the portion of the watershed in the Arkansas CTP study area. As the Arkansas CTP study was recently completed, that information was taken as is with no changes being made. For the remaining areas of the watershed, the aerial imagery used to validate land use patterns types consisted of Microsoft's Bing and Google Aerial Imagery (dates vary), 2017 State of Arkansas Imagery, 2019 - 2020 City of Fayetteville imagery, and 2019-2020 City of Springdale imagery. The current land use characteristics for the entire study area are displayed on Figure 4.3. Existing Conditions Land Use Map. 4-7 VICINITY MAP Figure 4.3 Lake Fayetteville Dam Existing Conditions Land Use Map Legend . Major Streams C3 Subbasins Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity 04 Developed, Medium Intensity 00 Developed, High Intensity Barren Land Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Grassland Pasture Aerial Imagery: 2017 Statewide Aerial Imagery A W QrP li Feet 0 1,000 2,000 Map Created -October .e�:7 2020 M.e c�e,� w v roan a., smk v�,a 4-8 December 11, 2020 Another objective of the hydrologic analysis was to examine the impact that future development within the watershed may have on the spillway and resultant discharges. Consequently, a future conditions scenario was performed for the entire watershed. This scenario was completed by recomputing the Curve Number for each subbasin using the existing NRCS SSURGO data and the future land use data for the Cities of Fayetteville and Springdale, and the unincorporated areas of Washington County. For the City of Fayetteville, this consisted of utilizing the 2040 Master Plan land use geospatial data, while for the City of Springdale and Washington County, the best available geospatial master plan data was incorporated. This information was then reviewed and assigned a Curve Number based on the land use and HSG shown in Table 4.1. Additionally, for this study, antecedent moisture condition Type II (average moisture condition) was assumed for all analyses performed. If conflicts were found between the varying data sources, the classification based on the land areas current incorporation status for that particular location was chosen. The projected land use characteristics for the entire study area are displayed on Figure 4.4. Future Conditions Land Use Map. Table 4.2 Subbasin hydrologic parameter summary is a tabular summary of the Subbasin parameters used in the hydrologic analyses. WE J� rnp '1P Sil " 25'Acres CC168.m, ., _ x, . CC_B15E 241 Acres 64'Acres LakeBasin HB 134 F tleville 176 Acres 54 Acres 147 ACres HBT1_B1 •, Lake 164Acres HBT2 B1 HB B2 - i s A _w o F VICINITY MAP Jones tS.fth t Location - ■ ck Pine Bluf J t Figure 4.4 Lake Fayetteville Dam Future Conditions Land Use Map Legend Major Streams Subbasins Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, High Intensity Deciduous Forest Aerial Imagery: 2017 Statewide Aerial Imagery v µ +i. Feet 0 1,000 2,000 u e c Map Created - October 30 2020 4-10 December 11, 2020 Table 4.2. Subbasin hydrologic parameter summary. Basin ID Subbasin Area (sq mi) Cumulative Area (sq mi Curve Number Ezistin Curve Number Future Time of Concentration T, min Lag Time TLag min CC B1 0.140 0.140 76.4 82.0 37.3 22.4 CC 132 0.170 0.310 78.3 81.8 64.2 38.5 CC 133 0.150 0.460 77.3 83.1 46.0 27.6 CC B4 0.240 0.700 79.6 83.6 82.2 49.3 CC 135 0.390 1.090 79.4 80.8 66.5 39.9 CC 136 0.200 1.290 79.4 79.4 73.0 43.8 CC 137 0.450 2.400 77.0 77.0 74.4 44.6 CC B8 0.380 2.780 72.5 77.7 78.6 47.2 CC 139 0.080 2.860 70.1 70.2 31.3 18.8 CC B 10 1.080 3.940 80.9 85.5 128.6 77.2 CC 1311 0.120 4.060 79.0 79.0 59.2 35.5 CC B 12 2.240 6.300 83.8 87.2 109.9 65.9 CC B 13 0.590 6.890 75.9 82.3 66.3 39.8 CC B 14A 0.045 0.045 72.7 73.7 5.0 3.0 CC B 14B 0.031 0.031 61.1 72.3 14.6 8.8 CC B15A 0.053 0.053 72.9 78.3 15.1 9.0 CC B 15B 0.036 0.036 68.6 76.9 21.3 12.8 CC B 15C 0.066 0.066 72.1 78.1 5.8 3.5 CC B 15D 0.053 0.053 77.6 80.3 7.4 4.4 CC B15E 0.100 0.100 79.8 79.8 11.0 6.6 HBT1 B1 0.256 0.256 77.0 82.5 45.2 27.1 HBT2 B 1 0.231 0.231 86.2 89.7 44.5 26.7 HB B 1 0.412 0.412 83.1 84.7 50.5 30.3 HB 132 0.380 1.048 79.9 84.3 42.5 25.5 HB B3 0.230 1.278 77.2 78.8 38.6 23.2 HB 134 0.085 1.363 70.7 74.6 29.5 17.7 HB 135A 0.032 0.032 67.6 71.0 5.4 3.3 HB B5B 0.060 0.060 65.8 69.6 14.3 8.6 HB B5C 0.038 0.038 72.6 77.9 40.6 24.4 CCT2 B 1 0.300 0.300 77.5 87.7 59.7 35.8 CCT2 132 0.030 0.330 76.2 78.8 25.6 15.3 CCT2 133 0.140 0.470 78.6 85.4 69.1 41.5 CCT2 134 0.090 0.560 78.2 78.2 50.0 30.0 CCT2 135 0.100 0.660 81.9 81.9 49.4 29.7 Lake Basin 0.274 9.272 99.0 1 99.0 1.0 1.0 4-1 1 December 11, 2020 In addition to performing rainfall -runoff simulations for the 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2% annual -chance (10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year) flood events, the 50% annual -chance (2-year) flood event and f1e three Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) rainfall everts were also added. The 50% annual -chance event uses values obtained from NOAA's Atlas 14. The PMP rainfall values were obtained from Hydrometeorological Report Number 51 (HMR 51) and the 2019 Regional Probable Maximum Precipitation Study for Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (herein referred to as the "2019 PMP Study"). Within the 2019 PMP Study, there are three different storm types that pan be evaluated. These storm type3 are: Local, General, and Tropical. • Local: storm events that consist of local thunderstorm s/Mes:)scale Convective Systems (MCS) where the main rainfall occurs over short durations (up to 24 hours) and cover a small area (less than 100 mil) and are most active from mid - spring through the early fall. General: storm events associated with areas of low pressure moving across the region from the west and meeting moisture from the Gulf of Mexico; occur in the fall and spring months; and are representative of where the main rainfall occurs over larger areas and cover longer durations of time. Tropical: storm events, which occur less frequently, are influenced by a tropical system or remnants of tropical moisture; occur from June through October; and an have accumulation characteristics similar to the general storm t_,,oe. With multiple events available from the 2019 PMP study and based on guidance from ANRD, it is recommended that the most conservative scenario be used when looking at the performance of thw Lake Fayetteville spillway and potential future modificatio-is. Therefore, for this PMP analysis, a sensitivity analysis was performed using the three storm events described above to determin.- which model scenario would produce the most runoff within the watershed. While Lake Fayetteville is located in Northwest Arkansas, the Tropical scenario has been included as there could be the possibility for tropical moisture to impact the area (i.e., the from the remnants of a hurricane that has moved inland). Additionally, for a 24-hr period, the Local and Tropical precipitation values are very similar. The sensitivity analysis looked at various combinations of distributed rainfall scenarios using the State's new PMP Calculation Tool. This 4-12 December 11, 2020 tool is a python script designed to run in ArcGIS software and will provide the user with PMP values based on the size and location of a user specified watershed for various storm periods (e.g., 24-hr, 48-hr, or 72-hr). As the 2019 PMP Study now supersedes HMR 51, the HMR 51 information is being provided for comparisons only. Table 4.3 Precipitation Data is a tabular summary of frequency events used in the analysis. Table 4.4 Probably Maximum Precipitation Data is a tabular summary of the PMP scenarios used. Table 4.3. Precipitation Data. Duration Annual Chance Flood Frequency (Depth in inches 50% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.2% 5-min. 0.45 0.62 0.73 0.82 0.90 1.11 15-min. 0.80 1.11 1.30 1.46 1.61 1.97 1-hr. 1.59 2.25 2.69 3.03 3.38 4.23 2-hrs. 2.00 2.87 3.44 3.89 4.36 5.53 3-hrs. 2.28 3.27 3.94 4.49 5.05 6.47 6-hrs. 2.77 3.91 4.70 5.36 6.05 7.84 12-hrs. 3.29 4.47 5.31 6.02 6.78 8.77 24-hrs. 1 3.85 5.22 6.17 6.96 7.80 9.97 Table 4.4. Probable Maximum Precipitation Data. Source Probably Maximum Precipitation Depth in inches 24-hr 48-hr 72-hr HMR 51 N/A N/A 44.39 State - Local Event 28.53 N/A N/A State - General Event 23.85 28.45 28.94 State - Tro ical Event 31.19 33.05 33.14 4-13 December 11, 2020 5.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING 5.1 HEC-RAS Model Development For this study, a two-dimensional (2-D) model was developed using the USACE's HEC-RAS software (Version 5.0.7) to model both the existing and future condition scenarios. During scope development, the primary objective was to determine the existirg condition discharges passing through the spillway of the dam. However, there were additional discussions about assessing potential impacts to downstream areas that may result from potential dam and spillway modifications. As a result, it was determined that while a one-dimensional (1-D) unsteady flow model could be used for the current analysis, a two-dimensional (2-D) model would provide more ancillary benefits to the City. This could be useful during subsequent phases of he project wifi respect to evaluating potential modifications. Therefore, the decision was made to use a 2-D model to capture the additional complexity (e.g., lateral variations in velocity, formation of eddies) in the system. While I-D HEC-RAS can be used as an unsteady flow model, it cannot model the spread of low (i.e., flow in both the longitudinal and lateral directions) because it uses a series of cross sections to repre&�r_t the terrain surface.and roughness characteristics, and is is assumed that velocities only vary in the longitudinal direction. Between these cross sections, the 1-D model interpolates basec on the available cross section data to perform its calculations for the area of interest. Dependent on the number of cross sections and the detail provided. the limitations of the 1-D model could lead to incorrect computations at the downstream, or tailwater, side of the spillway, which could impact computed spillway discharges. With a 2-D _iydraulic model, the system is modeled using a computational mesh rather than a series of cress sections along the longitudinal axis of the stream reach. The mesh consists of computational cells that have elevation ground profiles and roughness values along the cell faces that represent the topographic surface and frictional characteristics of the area and volumetric relationships for the cell area. The use of the 2-D model allows for more detailed resolution in water surface elevations, velocities, and flow patterns than is possible with a 1-D model that is only capable of computing average values for three general regio-is at each cross 5-1 December H, 2020 section (i.e., that are averaged in the left and right overbanks and the channel). Based on engineering judgment and study goals, breaklines were defined along roads, dams, culverts and other significant features identified on the topography and aerial imagery. Further details of the model development are discussed in the sections below. 5.1.1 Structures There are three primary structures in the immediate study area: Lake Fayetteville Dam, the existing spillway, and a trail bridge located approximately 80 feet downstream of the spillway structure. The Lake Fayetteville Dam and the existing spillway structure were represented by 2-D Area Connections in the hydraulic modeling, which utilized survey and LiDAR data. For the Lake Fayetteville Dam, approximately 300 feet of the southern end was resurveyed for this study. The remaining portion of the dam was represented by the high - resolution LiDAR data collected by FEMA in 2015, since comparison of the elevations to that of the 1996 study revealed a general agreement in elevations. The spillway was based on current survey data for all 2-D Area Connections modeled. HEC-RAS is currently unable to model bridges in the 2-D version. However, as it was unclear if the water surface elevations would actually rise to the low chord of the trail bridge crossing, the initial models were run without the bridge in the geometry. After initial runs revealed that the low chord of the bridge crossing would not be impacted, the existing bridge piers were added to the topographic data to represent the constrictions they create. Since the trail bridge is constructed with a unique pier dimensions and shapes, these features cannot be modeled in HEC-RAS exactly as they are constructed. Therefore, the pier sizes that have been added into the topographic data were adapted from the design drawings of the Lake Fayetteville spillway bridge, as prepared by Carter -Burgess for the City in 2004. Note that the bridge deck and railing have not been included in the model because of the limitations of HEC-RAS and since the elevations for both were determined to be higher than all water surface elevations computed. 5-2 December 11, 2020 5.1.2 Hydraulic Parameters For the hydraulic model, Manning's "n" values (roughness coefficients.) were developed based on National and Cover Database (NLCD) land use type, aerial imager, field survey and reconnaissance photos, and/or engineering judgment. Table 5.1 Manning's "n" Roughness Coefficients is a tabular summary of the roughness coefficients used in the hydraulic model. Table 5.1. Manning's "n" Roughness Coefficients. Roughness Coefficients Description 0.010 Smooth pavement, open water 0.035 Clean straight channels, little chnnel growth 0.040 Park areas 0.050 Open space 0.060 Open fields, pastures, Areas of light development 0.080 Areas of moderate development, lightly forested areas 0.100 Wooded areas and dense develc ment 5.1.3 Boundary Conditions To account for flows coming into and going out of the model, two types of boundary conditions were utilized in the modeling for this analysis. The first boundary condition used is normal depth slope. This type of boundary condition is applied to the downstream end of the 2-D model, which is located downstream of U.S. Highway 71 B. This boundary condition applies a slope, which is calculated from the average slope of the terrain located downstream of the boundary, across the downstream edge of the modeling mesh. The second type of boundary condition used is a flow hydrograph. This type of boundary condition is used to represent the runoff entering the lake through streamflow, overland flow, or other drainage frnm the 12 separate subbasins. Two of these subbasins include the drainage areas of Cl -.ar Creek and Hylton Branch. Adcitionally, one of the subbasins also accounts for direct rainfall onto Lake Fayetteville. All hydrologic data was linked to the hydraulic model directly as Iow hydrograph curves taken from the HEC-HMS model output files. 5-3 December 11, 2020 5.2 Model Runs To set up the 2-D model, an initial run was created which allowed inflows from Clear Creek and Hylton Branch to fill the Lake up to its normal pool elevation. Once the lake level reached an elevation approximately equal to the normal pool elevation, the inflows from Clear Creek and Hylton Branch were stopped, and the model was allowed to run to create steady state conditions, and a "snapshot" of the water surface elevations and velocities everywhere within the model domain was made, which is referred to as a "hot start" file that provides a stable condition for the various inflow scenarios to be applied to moving forward. Therefore, it is the base scenario from which all remaining model scenarios start. To simulate the remaining scenarios, additional model runs were developed as needed to complete the hydraulic analysis. Table 5.2 is a summary of the scenarios evaluated for the Lake Fayetteville Dam. Table 5.2. Lake Fayetteville Scenarios. Event Scenario Description 50% Event Existing / Future 2-Year Discharge 10% Event Existing / Future 10-Year Discharge 4% Event Existing / Future 25-Year Discharge 2% Event Existing / Future 50-Year Discharge l % Event Existing / Future 100-Year Discharge 0.2% Event Existing / Future 500-Year Discharge Local Storm Existing / Future (24-hr) Local PMP Scenario (2019 PMP Study) General Storm Existing / Future (24- & 72-hr) General PN1P Scenario (2019 PMP Study) Tropical Storm Existing / Future (24- & 72-hr) Tropical PMP Scenario (2019 PMP Study) HMR-52 Existing (72-hr) Historic PMF (HMR 51) Scenario 5-4 December 11, 2020 6.0 RESULTS As part of t-le hydrologic and hydraulic assessment, multiple scenarios were analyzed to determine the current existing conditions for the Lake Fayetteville watershed, because the previous analysis was performed in 1996 and significant development has occurred within the watershed since that tame. Additionally, future condition scenarios were developed utilizing the 2040 Master Plan land use data for the City of Fayetteville and other available future land use data sets for adjacent communities to examine the impacts that future land use may have on the discharges from the watershed. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 provide tabular breakdowns of the existing and future conditions summary of discharges for the Lake Fayetteville watershed determined at various locations a.ong Clear Creek and Hylton Branch. Based on review of the summary of discharge data, the increase in land use has a larger impact with respect to i-icreasing discharge for the smaller precipitation events. By performing a simple average calculation for each flow change location based on the discharge event, the future land use provides increases of 24-, 17-, 14-, 12-, 10-, and 7%, respectively for the 50-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2% annual -chance event storms. It is noted that this increase also is decreasing as the storm event is beccming larger, and by the time the various PMP events are reached, the increase in discharge resulting from land use changes is approximately 1% for all PMP storms. This is because of the larger events contributing more rainfall compared to the amount of initial abstractions, which ultimately outweighs any impacts that the land use change makes in the watershed. M December 1 I. 2020 Table 6.1. Existing Conditions Summary of Discharges. FLOODING SOURCEAND LOCATION: Drainage Area s .miles Peak Disc har es cfs Local PMP General PMP Tropic I PMP [I MR 52 50 % Annual Chance 2 r 10 % Annual Chance 10 r 4% Annual Chance 25 r 2 % Annual Chance 50 r 1 % Annual Chance LI 20y r 0.2 % Annual Chance 50 r Existing Condition 24-hr Existing Condition 24-hr Existing Condition 72-hr Existing Condition 24-hr Existing Condition 72-hr Scenario Existing Condition 72-hr Clear Creek Approx. 1700 ft upstream of Horn Ln 0.14 95 166 216 258 300 405 444 370 187 499 252 435 At Horn L.n 0.31 155 277 364 437 513 705 963 801 409 1,061 549 963 At Habberton Rd 0.46 221 396 526 634 746 1,026 1,429 1,188 607 1,575 814 1,430 Approx. 450 ft upstream of Hylton Rd 0.70 266 471 633 771 917 1,281 2,116 1,754 911 2,336 1,211 2,175 At Hylton Rd 1.09 455 794 1,047 1,265 1,492 2,068 3,307 2,744 1,422 3,648 1,893 3,388 Immediately upstream ofconfluence ofClear Creek Tributa2 1.29 445 801 1064 1,272 1,493 2,037 3,871 3,185 1,658 4,269 2,179 4,009 Confluence of Clear Creek and Clear Creek Tributary 2 and At Butterfield Coach Rd 1.95 726 1,295 1,720 2,059 2,413 3,275 5,875 4,834 2,515 6,480J07 6,061 A rox. 600 ft upstream of Geor a Anderson Road 2.40 813 1,462 1,961 2,372 2,801 3,854 7,162 5,856 3,084 7,917 7,457 At Geor a Anderson Road 278 927 1676 2252 2731 3230 4,460 8283 6767 3,567 9158 8,632 At Clear Creek Dr 3.94 1,350 2380 3152 3793 4,467 6,141 11,531 9,487 5,044 12,733 12,235 A rox. 1200 ft U stream Hi hwa 265 Old Missouri Rd 4.06 1358 2383 3151 3778 4461 6190 11 802 9726 5,191 1309912607 At Hi wa 265 Old Missouri Rd 6.30 2350 3971 5153 6121 7158 9,812 18186 15,114 8 080 20,354 19585 A rox. 800 ft downstream of Hi hwav 265 (Old Missouri Rd) 6.89 2,494 4,225 5,483 6,517 7,622 10,476 19,803 16,461 8,821 22,232 21,416 Outlet at Lake Favetteville 9.27 3,143 5276 6,795 8,068 9,396 12,925 26,125 21,755 11,816 29,441 15,503 28,819 Clear Creek Tributary 2 At Hylton Rd 0.30 165 1 286 1 372 442 516 1 697 1 931 775 397 1026 532 932 Approx. 300 ft upstream of Don Tyson Pkwy 033 164 290 381 454 529 722 1,018 847 435 1123 582 1,025 At Don Tyson Pkwy 0.47 238 417 544 645 748 1007 1,444 1201 619 1,594 827 1,461 A rox. 800 ft downstream of Don Tyson P 0.56 273 482 634 752 873 1,174 1,718 1,429 737 1,901 984 1,740 Immediately upstream of confluence with Clear Creek 0.66 293 516 685 824 970 1,288 2,027 1 1,667 866 2245 1,154 2,552 H Iton Branch Approx. 2150 ft ustream of Zion Rd 0.67 475 1 787 1 1,003 1,179 1,360 1,803 2,107 1,739 893 2320 1,199 2,074 .At Zion Rd 128 697 1 1,194 1 1,560 1,864 2,182 2,975 3,998 3,330 1,693 4,401 2,272 3,971 At Highway 265 (Crossover Rd L05 635 1075 1 397 1,662 1,930 2,593 3,295 2,746 1,395 3,629 1,873 3,256 A rox. 1500 ft downstream of Highway 265 Crossover Rd I.63 925 1,567 2,037 2,426 2,834 3,852 5,114 4,261 2,165 5,630 2,906 5,073 6-2 December 11, 2020 Table 6.2. Future Conditions Summary of Discharges. FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION: Drainage Area (sq. miles - _ Peak Discharges cfs Local PMP - - General PMP Tropic I PMP HMR 52 50 % Annual Chance 2 r 10 % Annual Chance 1 r 4 % Annual Chance 25 r 2 % Annual Chance 50 r 1 % .Annual Chance 10 r 0,2 % Annual Chance 50 r Existing Condition 24-hr Existing Condition 24-hr Existing Condition 72-hr Existing Condition 24-hr Existing Condition 72-hr Scenario Existing Condition 72-hr Clear Creek I\pprox. 1700 ft ❑ stream of Horn Ln 0.14 121 198 250 292 3 ,5 439 449 375 189 494 255 N/.A At Horn Ln 0.31 191 320 411 486 563 755 972 811 413 1,070 554 N/A At Habberton Rd 0.46 276 464 603 713 827 1,107 1,443 1205 613 1588 822 N/A Approx. 450 ft upstream of H Iton Rd 0.70 326 552 725 867 1,016 1,383 2 138 1,778 920 2,355 1223 N/A At Hylton Rd 1.09 528 887 1.158 1,380 1,605 2,187 3,332 2,773 1,432 3,671 1,907 N/A Immediately upstream of confluence of Clear Creek Tributary 2 1.29 510 891 1,155 1,368 1,590 2,132 3,897 3,227 1,668 4,294 2,193 N/A Confluence of Clear Creek and Clear Creek Tributary 2 and At Butterfield Coach Rd 1.95 883 1499 1,933 2,276 2,630 3,482 5,925 4,908 2,536 6,527 3,346 N/A Approx. 600 ft upstream of George Anderson Road 2.40 952 1659 2,173 2,590 3015 4,067 7,216 5,934 1 3,104 7,966 1 4,097 N/A At George Anderson Road 2.78 1093 1,912 2,51 2,997 3,495 4,724 8,353 6,866 3,595 9,223 4,748 N/A At Clear Creek Dr 3.94 1600 2,709 3,511 4,164 4,842 6,506 11,631 9,617 5,082 12,827 6,703 N/A Approx. 1200 ft Upstream Highway 265 Old Missouri Rd 4.06 1606 2,705 3,502 4,141 4,835 6,550 11,903 9,855 5,230 13,195 6,890 N/A At Highway 265 (Old Missouri Rd) 6.30 2,713 4,424 5,641 6,619 7,681 10,307 18,327 15,285 8,134 20,482 10,716 N/A Approx. 800 ft downstream of Highway 265 Old Missouri Rd) 6.89 2,894 4,720 6,019 7,064 8,201 11,028 19,968 16,658 8,884 22,384 11,695 N/A Outlet at Lake Fayetteville 9.27 3,615 5,847 1 7.425 8,711 10,073 13,606 26,345 22,000 11,899 29.651 15,610 N/A Clear Creek Tributary 2 At11lton Rd 0.30 247 1 381 1 471 543 616 793 947 1 793 1 404 1 1 041 1 541 N/A Approx. 300 ft upstream of Don Tyson Pkwy 0.33 246 1 386 1 480 555 632 822 1,036 866 442 1,139 592 N/A At Don Tyson Pkwy 1 0.47 343 540 670 769 874 1,132 1468 1227 629 1,615 840 N/A A rox. 800 ft downstream of Don Tyson P 0.56 379 609 760 876 997 1,300 1,743 1,455 747 1,923 997 N/A Immediately upstream of confluence with Clear Creek 0.66 387 641 1 816 956 1093 1,399 2,054 1694 876 2,267 1,167 N/A H Iton Branch Approx. 2150 ft ustream of Zion Rd 0.67 536 860 1 1080 1,258 1,438 1,878 2,119 1,772 898 2,331 1206, N/A At Zion Rd 1.28 800 1,326 1,701 2,010 2,328 3,126 4,022 1 3,357 1,704 4,423 2,286 N/.A At Highway 265 Crossover Rd 1.05 731 1,201 1526 1,794 2,064 2,730 3,316 1 2,770 1,404 3,648 1,885 N/A Approx. 1500 ft downstream of Highway 265 Crossover Rd 1.63 1,063 1,739 2,221 2,618 3,028 4,042 5,145 1 4,296 2,179 5,659 2,924 1 N/A 6-3 December 11, 2020 Because the Lake Fayetteville Dam is classified as an intermediate sized, high hazard dam, it is required to have a spillway that can pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event without overtopping the dam. With the ultimate goal for this analysis being to determine the discharges through the spillway and if any of the modeled events overtop the dam, numerous scenarios were developed using storm events ranging from the 50% annual -chance (2-yr) flood event to large PMP storm scenarios using the 2019 PMP Study. Based on the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed, the largest discharge, excluding the superseded HMR-52 results, that was produced is from the 24-hr Tropical PMP scenario, with the 24-hr Local PMP scenario producing the next largest amount of runoff. The results using the HMR-52 method, while having the largest total precipitation and producing the largest overall amount of runoff, was not considered in this analysis as it has been superseded by the 2019 PMP Study. Therefore, it has been provided strictly for informational purposes. While Table 4.4 shows other storm events that have larger rainfall totals than the 24-hr Tropical and Local scenarios, those storms are also for a longer duration event, which allows the watershed to spread out the rainfall. By spreading out this rainfall event over a longer timeframe, the impacts to lake and spillway are reduced. Based on the computed water surface elevations, the dam is shown to be overtopped for the Existing and Future Condition Local 24-hr, Existing and Future Condition General 24-hr, and Existing and Future Condition Tropical 24-hr PMP scenarios, while the remaining storm events were successfully passed through the spillway without overtopping the dam. The 24-hr Tropical scenarios (existing and future conditions) were found to be the largest and worst -case scenario for the Lake Fayetteville Dam. While the chances of the'Lake Fayetteville watershed experiencing a tropical event is statistically rare, there is still a possibility. After guidance from the State's Dam Safety Division, it was confirmed that the most conservative storm produced by the 2019 PMP Study, which produces the most strenuous event for the reservoir, should be used, regardless of location. Therefore, for this analysis, it is recommended that the 24-hr Tropical storm scenario be chosen for the ultimate analysis. Per the 2019 PMP Study, the Tropical Storm can be classified as rainfall resulting directly from a tropical system. While they are frequent in the warm coastal waters, the 6-4 December 11, 2020 remaining energy and high amounts of moisture often continue inland for long distances and influence weather patterns for hundreds of miles. Additionally, when the tropical systems move inland, they often lose speed, which causes them to drop large amounts of rainfall over longer periods of time. Therefore, this is the reason why the Tropical 24-hr PMP scenario is being recommended for consideration in evaluating the Lake Fayetteville Dam and spillway during future design improvements. Currently, Cie Lake Fayetteville Dam has a spillway crest at El 1237.5 ft and has an effective top of dam at approximately El 1,249.0 ft (NAVD 88), which was obtained from survey and LiDAR data. Using the Tropical 24-hr Future Condition PMP scenario, the spillway passes a maximum discharge of approximately 24,000 cfs. However, approximately 4,025 cfs still overtops the dam as the lake's peak water surface elevation is calculated to be El 1251.1 ft (NAVD 88), whic-1 indicates the dam is overtopped by approximately 1.0 ft. Since the dam can safely pass approximately 19,500 cfs without significant overtopping, this shows that the spillway would pass approximately 70% of a PMF event rather than the current 50% that is lis=ed in the State's records. In order to meet the State's regulations, the dam or spillway will need to be improved. While it is outside the scope of work for this Phase to determine detailed options, a number of options that may be considered for the next phase to bring the dam into compliance are as follows: • Inc -easing dam height to consistent elevation, • Inc -easing length of spillway crest, • Lowering lake level (permanently or temporarily) to increase storage capacity, and • Any combination of the suggestions above. Approximate information for use in planning shows that in using the standard weir equation, the dam would need to be raised to a uniform elevation of approximately EI 1254.0 ft (NAVD 88); have the length of the spillway crest increased by approximately 250 ft; or use other methods or combination of methods to meet requirements. No scenarios were performed to determine the imparts of lowering the lake level, as it was outside the scope of work for this 6-5 December 11, 2020 Phase. Tables 6.3 and 6.4 provide a tabular summary for all of the scenarios modeled. For additional details on the hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses, refer to Appendix D. 6-6 December 11, 2020 Table 6.3. Discharge from Dam and Spillway. 10 % Annual Chance 4%. Annual Chance 2% Annual Chance 1 % Annual Chance 50 % Annual Chance (2yr) (10-yr) (25-yr) (50-yr) (100-yr) 0.2% Annual Chance (500-yr) Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future Location Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (efs) (efs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (efs) Spillway 1,369 1,679 2.671 3,090 3,683 4,153 4,560 5,064 5,508 6,036 8,019 8,591 Dam N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Local PMP Event General PMP Event Tropical PMP Event General PMP Event Tropical PMP Event Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future Location Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition (24-hr) (24-hr) (24-hr) (24-hr) (24-hr) (24-hr) (72-hr) (72-hr) (72-hr) (72-hr) ON (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Spilhvay 22,537 22,689 19,171 19,462 23,873 23,995 10,998 11,086 N/A 14,429 14,548 Dam 1,752 1,955 10 17 3,810 4,025 N/A N/A N/A Table 6.4. Elevation at Dam and Spillway. 50% Annual Chance (2yr) 10% Annual Chance (10- r y) 4% Annual Chance (25-yr) 2 % Annual Chance (50-yr) 1 % Annual Chance (100-yr) 0.2 %Annual Chance (500-yr) Location Existing Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Lake Elevation 1,240.18 1,240.49 1,241.32 1,241.64 1,242.06 1,242.38 1,242.64 1,242.95 1,243.22 1,243.53 1,244M 1,244.89 Approach Channel Elevation 1,240.14 1,240.43 1,241.26 1,241.57 1,242.66 1,242.30 1,242.87 1,242,97 1,243.14 1,243.44 1,244.51 1,244.80 Outlet Channel Elevation 1,229,07 1,229.44 1,230.50 1,230.92 1,211,69 1,211.90 1,232,67 1,232.67 1,233.03 1,23144 1,234.88 1,235.26 Local PMP Event General PMP Event Tropical PMP Event General PMP Event Tropical PMP Event Location Existing Condition (24-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (24-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (24-hr) (it, NAVD 88) Future Condition (24-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (24-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (24-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (72-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (72-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Existing Condition (72-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (72-hr) (ft, NAVD 88) Lake Elevation 1,250.56 1,250.45 1,250.61 1,2SON) 1,249.36 1,249.46 1,250.99 1,251.06 1,246.04 1,246.08 1,247.52 1,247,57 Approach Channel Elevation 1,249.25 1,249.36 1,25U.9U ixw.94 1,243.94 1,243.98 1,247.41 1,247.46 Outlet Channel Elevation 1,243.10 1 1,243.17 1,241.31 1,241.54 1,243.69 1 1,243.75 1,236.78 1 1,236.94 1,238.76 1 1,238.83 6-7 December 11, 2020 At each significant step in the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling process, the information was compared to data previously developed, whether it was from existing topographic data or from previous study information (i.e., 1996 hydrologic and hydraulic assessment of Lake Fayetteville). It was noted that there were some differences in information, however, most of this difference was attributed to updates in data sources (i.e., newer topographic data, land use information, precipitation data) with one exception. The lone exception was the computed Time of Concentration (Tc) for the Project area. Table 6.5. Time of Concentration Comparison provides a tabular comparison of differences between the watershed computed T, and resulting Lag time (TLAG). Table 6.5. Time of Concentration Comparison. Analysis Time of Concentration Tc, min -T La; Time (T,.,k(, min) 1996 Analysis 81.84 49.1 Current Analysis 170.9 102.5 Tc represents the time it takes for runoff to travel from the hydraulically most distant point NN ithin the watershed to the outlet. This parameter depends on the slope, flow path, and other characteristics of the watershed. Therefore, a longer Tc will typically provide a reduction in discharge as the runoff takes longer to move downstream. While this new analysis uses more subbasins and a more detailed breakdown of parameters to determine the Tc, review of both analyses shows that the methodology used is the same. However, one key difference that was noted between the two analyses is the estimated velocity used in the 1996 analysis for the downstream subbasin versus the current analysis. This subbasin should be predominately the lake and flatter stream segments. In the 1996 analysis, the estimated velocity was almost 5 ft/s, which when compared to the new analysis' average velocities of 2.7 to 3.2 ft/s it is significantly different. This difference in velocity leads to a significant difference for the computed Tc as indicated in Table 6.5. 6-8 December 11, 2020 7.0 REFERENCES Applied Weather Associates, LLC. Regional Probable Maximum Precipitation Study for Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. August 2019. ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute). ArcMap 10.5.1. ESRI, Redlands, California. 2017. Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers (Microsoft). Bing Maps Web Map Service° 2010. Schreiner, L. C., J. T. Riedel, and United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Hydrometeorological Report No. 51 (HMR-51), Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the 105th Meridian, Washington, D.C., June 1978. State of Arkansas, Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Division. Title VII: ANRC Rules Governing Design and Operation of Dams. [PDF] Little Rock: Available at: https://www.agriculture.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/rules-goveming- design.pdf [Accessed: November 2019]. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Institute for Water Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center. HEC-GeoHMS 10.5 for ArcGIS 10.5, HEC, Davis, California. http://www.hec.usace.army.m i l/software/hec-geohms/download. htm 1.2019. US Army Corps cf Engineers (USACE) Institute for Water Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center. Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC- RAS). (Version 5.0.7). (Software). March 2019. US Army Corps cf Engineers (USACE). CorpsMap — The National Inventory of Dams (NID). Available at https:Hnid.sec.usace.army.mil/ords/Pp=l05:1:::::: Retrieved on October 7, 2020. US Army Corps of Engineers. (March 2020). Retrieved from https:Hnid_sec.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=l 05:113:8446889078345::NO: 113,2:P 1 13—RLC ORDID:2634. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). Technical Release 55. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Second Edition. June 1986. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Service (NWS), Office of Hydrologic Development. Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PFDS) — NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: AR. https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_Cont.html?bkmrk=ar. Accessed: December 2019. US Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). National Land Cover Database 2611 (NLCD 2011). Available at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd20l l.php.2011. 7-1 APPENDIX A Original Dam Design Drawings Z W n d D U) a z O } Q O� LLJ F UJ z W M Z Q U Y W z O Q Q } Wadi F a WLL] QZoU u am Q Q tit U = � N W z a(9cG j 02�Q o 0 o i J u t} Q W =� a W } ~�--- z W W �W U o 0 F-- Q W -j U V 1- w W J ( w� a o W Q V �� W� �Q T� l� a i a u W �Y=t J Wmo mmm� w V T3:< g i 6 ' i i} a \ C maY 6w obb� d rn M c �I / / ' ." "� aa, r cp/ "psa � It SA-1 co 0,,�, A— st, P? 00 o nu Iz. CLEAR CREEKWATER SUPPLY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CLEAR CREEK DAM LAYOUT DAM AND SPILLWAY W.R.HOLWAY5 ASSOGIATES lAl CONSULTANTS TO THE ENGINEERS .... . ....... LI IT. --- ---------na ro-------- ° A Y Y) k� u a i -_- ------ ---- _.------ - --- ..___.__._. P I - X I I II i IO'Access rocrl .V-:hr M H` %oe /iie rr��rvorr ��ar � •/J t___ � __ /" 19 ! � _ __ __,. D.re�rn 1.�ne-, __.___ ______._--_._ .- •v�fa-' \ 24' V O I W.— 41,eFl YE Moo � �. ❑ n a � � feel { \\ IR CLEAR CREEKWATER SUPPLY _... FAYETTEV ILLS. ARKANSAS CLEAR CREEK DAM GENERAL MAP W.R.HOLWAY 0 ASSOCIATES .'-"'---'---' MOx VLN �HL9JRE CA CONSULTANTS TO THE ENGINEERS �mLE ROGc, PA1tMiLS sxEeT Ho i' �GL•g No.MfC-427 - PLA.lV oF' cSPlLLWAY 1S71 =UPE &v/r: /"-Wu' fnmch N whore b N OA IM R.1d when - rroc/ eArro%Mn o>"rot� is 6nOwn W.R.HOLWAY s ASSOCIATES SfCT,rOM Bb CONSULTANTS TO THE ENGINEERS 45ZCTJOM A -A xo,b., 35".leo, I Norc - .S,biuwoy .rymme/.nevi obn✓F F eom 000 `\ Gmpih oFop..r, w;rrwro. rl .,x. iS o! o of lY6ronl �Nmhrr+ fb� /?i59 as shown <i•�efmr e--c-r7OIY OF' WEIP SE'6TIOX L� c CLEAR CREEKWATER SUPPLY rAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS aoF F'orr CLEAR CREEK DAM DETAILS SPILLWAY STRUCTURE °nu Y MA%A. MEH L&IR GCR ' e�. LITTLE RGEN AIi1wN345 C"CCTnr.'c'OF- TYPICAL SECTION S7,4 0400 TO 7-00 TYPICAL 5'-'C*TIOA' aTA 7-00 2'0 /8 'Cl ,7.ECTIOAI AT 7+00 SECTION AT /B -co -T 7 4 i Zq 0 MAXIMUM Ablh \b- 11-AW 2.4 J, AM T L JL l. CUT OFF WALL �- R, �L, --:FL , I r4 W IrLL�L L 6Y,,'CT,70,V 7,VY7 It 027'0,=FT 10NDUIT &T,t41-/10" �-7 �I VALVE' VAULT W HOLWAY 5 ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS TO THE ENGINEERS CLEAR CREEKWATER SUPPLY F7AYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CLEAR CREEK DAM SECTIONS DAM,CONDUIT AND VALVE VAULT 'A' A �.KILT��'�".=�41�G " C ' R AlFq bbM,4 4M IJ ---- aT o to 0 LA w C) Cc Z, tj 'tc Ju IN, 4t i k T am A 4 w 060 SPILLWAY REPAIR LAKE FAYETTEVILLE City of Fayetteville, Arkansas McClelland Consulting Engineers , Inc. Fayetteville , Arkansas milck i974 bl li 71 111 1, : � 4j- e.jm . Z?,,. e A— 'Fl". '4, 7—:'— Azil r4. ze'. "'219 I McCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS INCORPORATED 1810 north college avenue faveffeville arkansas SZ:c1lom e:? "C:ALZ� -%'-I& SJ --------------- AArd-rrel-14i,-, 44A44t'.45 ........... 30, m MA, I � 111 I � i r igrly v Pv�4�ru hi irp�rrr p� �� 'f ijn Y i via r —, r rrrrr �i i! �yiNiihiu�r �,� rrp�lgjlr, ni irr4�4hiurr ,� I i i r rr .A ni4h niunMi r �d`r,`r\`r�`Vr\\ii, r iqrpm I a a ` s��P ,. � r rplirihiy�V�gr ��nW�ua„dr. LL A"W oil01, 10 20 I i � n , h p� I rr hrlawrr rff r� �. 0 r ,Y �p��64a��i��`s a li 1'1`\, `I'\\\Y z � s� '1 � 'i/;//�: F"C� `.\�♦;7\♦ . iI �i i I l I I F�€ I� � ��:' 1i`'iI'i' y ♦� � l $ ii1;II� ; I' I I� I $$�'��g$ sR 'JIM IA'llllll 148 I i i i 1 1; 1 I � 1 \\ i I `�\ i \r,4�i� 'i: i :'/ I° \\ -\ 1ap J ♦\ `♦ i 1; i; � I i � I I � 2m o �� 4E1 Rim s R g ��q 4 k'ii?r� •'� /�%/./ � i"r'' � \I♦'I i II g\pas+ ` \gyp-1 F 1; i ; � I / /� I � 11 i I d S � ' , / / i /',o/ ••' „-�`♦;;; I ° `b '♦ ^_�___\III 1 I I i i l,II 04 '''y ,'y��{'�'� i `�&��/-_y, ♦♦\\�//IIIIIIII�I /� I I � `` 111 -,�I i 3 - -�- il\Il Wllli\` I liiiilllli'li 1 j-i�i�= . iirl zE i!%, /�`i1e `C• �f�"�%i:.��'�p IIIIIII�I�I i /' � � IIII / l / �%��/ pr' ' ♦ ' 'ii'Sy 'Y/_ �li�ll g6 �'��3. , t Egil/I ' pa fr ♦ �}ppj, / '��pR\ p\\\I��III10 ; _�. I � ,Yi '' '� /pp', � �" li5' ♦♦I /iij j',::i::,.'T3.'/yam \ e\\\ II 1 ♦. \ ___ -J `� .. I ♦ °' ♦1 I \i\Illillllll1111 =e` /� , / �'lui•' �; ^ ^, `• LK Y\q � I t `I f�\\\�\`� � _ ,�=c"�' /x � /,v gvlr �'•-ms. i?\\\\\\la I 1 / \ \d.d�,` '� I I 1 1 I 1 ` _ q - •� </ .� ` 111-IIIAs pj Il, 11111nal /I ��3 , I ♦I I I 1 1 \`I- y �.3c• ` i \5 Y'i.� i?'',/,/F♦`\\``�41�Ir'i1111 I �'�� I I�;11I��1 1 `I i i 11 \I I\ ```♦\ ;� , `�, i g p■ GI y \- I I I /,{. \_�_1 \\ �\♦1 �� n aEgk K`Y =1\ .,�'"i,'''i�ii i ___,k,__ "`"%6_f I,Do''/C 1 l °�I\\N \1:3♦.6 1 I lil In I \ '`\ 1 I ', q,i _�___—�\ /q� p \ ii 1111o�M1 1 I 1\•, a I \`��.' .1 �. q'�'♦ �a {7� Q��%//,, /,'l�/,/i,■/ - \ 1j A�i/,l'/,'rill !`_>— �lr� / �� 'il I �I11I��IIII111 �g.� ° I 1 1�1 1 11 I `\� � ,�k\ s- �� / �/�l ll,l /i •�°1'/:'i:"\/',r'ril/I��k{', -� i��;``'lEi y♦♦ ��' .pj / I11. I i liulli \ _-_, , 1 \ \ I , 8 ,� .`, \ / • Il,l l/I 'l�/r yyss Jci, 4�♦♦♦%j�'V♦♦11/5 1 yr111\\ l _ , 1 11. 1 , � / k IY 1 :-, ¢ �'?: � \ /�iil4i�l ��'li'1'>>'.; ° � I � � , J'zr �i�/�ip``:::� �;ff♦: \�\ vq 1 ''tl�� -. 1::`:` \ 1\ r ' I _ I lii II �j, ;.�%�:, / ;/I II Ir.''l i ,_l�� 4%�l h�^,`, "`,\`♦, '' N 1 n.. III, �\-``1 \ � ' � -♦ //r/ / J4411 r1/II ' , I I/'' I I i 3YI / e �4ry ry,'. , ; ^�l\`\�\\0; 'i`I /,/ lyb' %� ` \ J}�U \`. Nya`,\' la j 1 \ /♦\ b - J+It I'/' �°✓ /'/�,//i 4 r 0 p • — iJ'/ , + I i fir' I i ii'h , ' z li 'P ' = '\ /' � I •-- - Ill l � / ; / 1Jan - J \�\\`\,`� z/,i Q5v ♦ i r l�iir, /'l/j 1 \ \\$`, I`t I\g 1-(/i,')f l i. 54/''I ♦ 5'�/ •� ''`\`\`\ `IIiP� \ I1 1 1, \ 11\ \\ I p Iz eg yl`Is ,"J'II'll ll ll/ / \ I ` �•1 , ",i'�f �'i II J l l l' ._�•: III III I I I 1 1 I \ 1 1 I gam, 'll�ulr°'i'id i'I illil `+�fi g,\`� B'4f 's'.,i`$ri��d\ i �111Fig/E//ii�4i'ii/��I��Jidili;liil;ilii iilnili!I4'I\I\•\\\�\I /: \lil 'I li l.. '' �, Il. 1lll'I � ' IIII \ \ ,`_ +-♦:._v '�4+.-z�s ' e, �,,�` �( � I p /,r �q rq/a py 4/rn III, ylldm ul jI• \ C /'/'J�I'�i'I11 u\Iltl' E�\\y\1, \;f'S �z �V--�'4i�// �, e�8��p •\an �'�/ �r�''�i�lilii�'\ 1'\pililillPlllllllill''III°;hill n',p /n dll /I \\\\I`' ,°� � ' I I/ �\\`' eyl 1 Er7 Y `'\�s- tl_-I Illlll I /�//I/IIII I1 Illlll, IIII,IIIIlIIIIIIIIIllllll � I 1= I I' ��E11 CC4 °Z� �f- _ i� ��__$ ' II`- /"r' //i/'.11 ,1111111111111111111'Iillllli / 11� I I� II' +i"bii • ''p � 1�p'RCC. �nl,p\ / I .4, /,'r'%j/r OI�Ilup11 IIII 111,1 ,11111 IIIr _ / I •= ��F° � `_•'. C� tl rN{- \ � \ / I fJj' I11 ,I 11111111111 I 11 l it I I \ \ i \ \ ly ,1 \ \ I //9 :'.'''i/r// /'' Ill'111111111111111Illill lllll llll',,'pIl el ' r I 1 ry;li �n;lOtl,,llglll,l,�,;, d4°�u,51i I--1 l I� Il rl ^ ' `i 'Y` R -\_.. / `♦\.��J�'/, i' '',�' p/glu Pn lhlu l4/d,pglry111 l I 1 i/ 1 / I 1 IIII, ll l - a � `'`♦a R . `,� ` i`��/// '/// ///%'/ Il llllllllr rl,lllrlllllllll I 1� I / /Illlllll' j�li y,'n♦ gyp N _�y` .�. �° I� r//"' r/, `''i:'iiri�ii�IlluIIIdII1 A,`I�da \\II'� \ , I , \E I q 1, I, 1,,1 „IIrY i} c P �T��: `ji '�� •�'='�rE�;4�;�♦ . I''' „/ rv. 111111111111,,1\�\\4, 1�� \= YyyG B p 4 qG 3 n �°G. T e l\ 1° _p 9v� 111Ii d'��/l�'/ �\ ♦\ \` '�.��.I I'I 111,iuillih;'�'gllllilllillllry\ili I i it \\I 111 i. �l!'�4�iii'4�r'sG = G6 Gn \ 5c `$, r s n\ 1' I Ib111-IIIIIIII;III;I;Illlllllj�lll\ I 1, 1 q,ll, K_ 'ec♦�.M Q _V_n , �\\ VX/', r♦WIU I//�jKo.Lgl lhllllu..u1\ I I---------'• I n ■ /IIII II q '6_ his ♦\ \`�'--, _'i-' III l W�,y�liill- nk, III 1µ// 1'11i5111 llllllht/IIII IN, I, IIll111111111 i,///ili/'14N e ti d� �" ♦ � 'Q's ♦z $ `\ `'�-'_'''-_ ' \I IIII , 1 li;l/I "iII,IIII lu It / / i I i na Y 5°I � ''/ _ ^ I \''llllllllllllll1111 I I11 III II 11 E$\ 1 } I nq'/i'i a ail c: a �xe ce Ri 33" i _ �'/g ''___--� 1'/��r�ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiil;�IlAilii�iii�l�li/iPipl'l11 \1 \I I ■,/II '�' .�_______ r $ ,� rCCC, � � 1 i � Y n R s � __� / =8 , 1 Illrl ll i'I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �l'dnllq,l,llplyiii��l \ I I 1 \ \ 1 '''l li' b � 11 . 5y G E �`Y af�� 6 !i'tP�'/ ''/ f�G ! \I',,14i �I'Ipillill'I'lijll u;i;illili�illlllll�t1l�liiil3\ !I 11 1 I \1 I / ••ee IlA 1a; I / mill OKI Rg' IN 3fi ! I ', 7t, Ihy/I% jAl l i� F5} ip�� 8 iP lfir ilAN l a 1 INE\ I IIY All Am R�$�!.�I•l�%4 IIII,W\I,\I L-M A P/ 1.'ii �' r'"1dDl •' r IE99''I 1'"66 111j11`1 ilE 1 rt�p its �'�'�I�j�'Hli sf�''' 'I�'c' F� .- •1 t �II�� IIII S -y' ``��'pl•j a y� 1`PII till �' �p'i� t VWW igl'�'/ Ig ��/j �,"A„_ tart`' .art.-,, ,� AGAZ F;d a �_ All E.a' 91 'f (3i.:i az 5' J9 :p dFc �'^•F ��_ � 6rE � �F�-FFr,ll \�_D'�'A\�5'4, 9'. HE rII6'�.�-' I l,l I J✓' I , ij'nr b y: 11B\\• 111,11 \,I- F� � $�y IIII llllll I r �' N' p p p A �ply 'd1 ,d.� Illti/r/r;//f� I�'h; l,lll \,�.;• a �•x °� -, , \�1`1,\ \� `&e Hill 1 I iililiiliilry I'h'ihlh p F" \\\\i\\�,��\`, OHS R ��' h,Illlllll, CBS I11,1II, � � • i IIII III Ill, V� ,�'/.�¢k a$`��q&St��9�:� !IIII I'Ilj''Ill�lil�l� \ \, w'-., P, ! �� \1 '�\\ f1YHil vl�Cab II„Ilrt`� 10020 hIiI iI INS: , 1'11 1IIIIdII�IIIIIIIIIIA \9L_ ;-'��\1\\II',1\n I�Ildl l II 7 e P. � •- iI a �1�\`�`\\d`\ "'�I'I'�Ih II" Illfrt \ rtell , \,\\ UP, � H � \\ 1 111 \\ ihl l'b 11111 r.1 IIO P � _ � � � � \��\1\\I�P��\„\\ 3�'' ` ' 0'\\i\ulA n\Ole -5'$"a-r'/0�'\\\\nA,\I A \44^IpJ'\�aOnJ @ III III�II1 IIIII i'IR 1 � . .,- /j' 111111'lllll'',1111'\II111 W l,lil , vly rr �1\n 1 qa }9'-: 9 tlpll�l�ll�lnn'IigPlnPp I'd l d, l'i/ / ;Np' \ ' '�'! N I III 11101'lllllllll' ll 101 I'IIVII i/bhp i ��1NMP� �• � - • IIOIII,dp Ig1141P111' r''ll'd�ll'I' Vli�!f', li'114n\��\\�,�4 s. �' 9 'll'lln1j111'lujl,lln,'Id'I III ,,M,dil n �vuh t9 •I AI11IIn1,lgdillPillP{ IJ1Ih ll \\1- WHIM B 1111111111P�IIl i�' 1IIIIIII�III�IIIII Ip; \ IA q d 9 a q f,•_� \�� of V,I �III'1'j11IIIjIIIl1llll �'lll'�ilill'\\\`f rt� ' i 4•i ' � 9L51 'IIIII'lllllll'llllll''lll'I�I�1' rlli 011pipi `i ,dv��P p �I 9 g rt $ : i A IA,n„IP'11 A11'pl'p'Ir N I Illi',1111111111'\1 I11'llll III II'lllllll � �' �\1\1\.i 'v/'\a � 'Ill"11111'11111 II 11'In '� p10�14 1\ p end 111 � .�y '�'�\9"rt a Iln pl mpl,nl I " Illlpli 1ii a d'14 1 a � � rt F � : rzr - ilil'nunAiyPnOYlnlppin a h ,I%dldl �2� '\iiid'\III ��: «A.^: i ( _,I�i,yliuiiiil4iiAliiOliillili'�� QI'hiil0`Ill hhdi `�Jt 4 ,11 .� M Id44°uul4oruw(ir�odil P II IA`11111 I\: _ �"c ,�IIIrr, 1111111111111''IIII'I 'll llll�'''''dl�1,j 111111 `� ,�1111,11111 pp I I IIII' IIIII'lllllll''lllll'i yc ' I',I'llll'l11'1'lll pllll'll"I I' 'b r-F P ;��.� 'II'i'ijllll'' IIIIIIII''I 11'IIII'il r'�11�1'II'� �,I'Ij I,jlllll IIIIII'II II jIIII II 11 IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII'' 1111' I .' \III I,�, 11'I IINf tllllll'I 11 rt M Y\ --P TjI MANOR IIIIII'11 y�111 d1�III IIN : I 111 1 � : - �. �;,J%r/,'ll°�I',111111111''ll''Inl'll., $•a � M\� �I11'I' ��51 '�119511\P •� y. 1{ � JJ/�/II%,%,'lllil�ll �'I11111111I1'illll"I IIIn1 E..__ II`'111?:j,. rt��11i/II SII�^IIIA.'''�II��II'Illlllih � �3;;�'i'�'t�: � �a__ 6 ---i"' -�:'l-$'. \ y --, 1'1\\'� III'I`,y'1yA V'_ �• ''I"III'llll'lll'I aj V Flo .YQ Aa ilil'lllllllll'��lil ' ,____-_-_a_� �'�-'_� -- I I • 9• l� P p {iP. 'llll'1111i, gun '_ ' /-% S �� .5=.. F✓ S i�- _ . h�l�yllhhllllyll�'IX�II. �' 1� ..fir � � '1j14uPi'illll a �a �ii= �i \yy114Ny NIN,lllllul111 I I I % 1 '�' Inp ll s p - M ly'yl�,µh4lNylq c53 �E� - -rl I Ii14,py 01hy1 /U- ' YY419nnA . .o�ii% � �� oc ��iAq yryM1l''N''NIp� i"' \`�^ , � (. � �r j 1 9�I�'✓i�iiirrii °uli'ir' -„ �,.., , -Ov,- �oats'�;� qs- ,1.:`\c`�0111111111d'iii'Iy11r to irlil gp fir` \ % (/r '\i I " ' iilH"y llir'rii ''''-oa_�s%;' '', � ,I I NI Ipy�MlNh�lpnro' p"t' \ \S�� rf� !'..--v'`•?,.. i �r�d �'w r� 4 �% �•u4\' \ 1 1 \\\1 p`{'yIok �P II\0 -� _ - �r"'✓xr , \ a g r @ $ $ =' •' I�'".' � \�r�,7Jhpitirixbpi�✓rrMNgMr!n''�P_' ,�•r • o _ R, � 1 IIII IIIN L E 0 E ND A 1001 Triangulation Station 0601 lnstrumnt Station A--4R1L Sed.."t Range Channel —'�f- Crest Con r(E1ev. 12384 ® Segmnt Number Surveyed 5W. 27 to Oct. 8, 050 Chic( of Party Jams A. Ogle C—pbrd F.R.K. Smle:r"•.S_f y CoNoer #we, v.I-e.' 'URVEY OF LAKE FAYETTEVILLE ITMENT OF AGRICULTURE SERVATION SERVICE N.H. SENNETT— CHIEF REQION 4 DIRECTOR LOUISP. MERRILL RereKKRGe CNYIpRYMM: MPeaVe� •.. _. ._ ^ T4CNM¢K 41wiNvel.. ..._ .. _ __.._. CaNRIUA T4[N <NeIXeO Wit F.R.K. CAT J.AO. 10-1350 APPENDIX D Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling (Electronic) Received from Jonathan 2/10/21 water n DELINEATION OF POTENTIAL SECTION 404 ISSUES PROPOSED CHANDLER CROSSING SUBDIVISION PROJECT, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS FEBRUARY 1, 2021 DELINEATION OF POTENTIAL SECTION 404 ISSUES PROPOSED CHANDLER CROSSING SUBDIVISION PROJECT FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS Prepared for Engineering Services, Inc. 1207 S Old Missouri Rd, Springdale, AR 72764 Prepared by FTN Associates, Ltd. 124 West Sunbridge, Suite 3 Fayetteville, AR 72703 FTN No. R05220-2539-001 February 1, 2021 I chruarc I _ ?U? 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS.........................................................................................1 3.0 FINDINGS AND RESULTS...............................................................................................2 3.1 General Site Description..........................................................................................2 3.2 Wetlands..................................................................................................................3 3.2.1 Vegetation....................................................................................................4 3.2.2 Wetland Hydrology......................................................................................4 3.2.3 Hydric Soils.................................................................................................5 3.3 Other Waters of the US............................................................................................6 4.0 FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY ISSUES.....................................9 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................9 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Sampling Site Data Sheets APPENDIX B: Representative Photos APPENDIX C: FEMA FIRMette February 1, 202 1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of findings at each of the 22 sampling point locations ........................... 3 Table 2 Summary of nine wetlands features........................................................................ 4 Table 3 Summary of non -wetland aquatic features............................................................. 8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Map showing overview of project area overlaid on the USGS topographic quadrangles Elkins, Fayetteville, Sonora, and Springdale, AR (7.5-minute series). Figures 3.1-3.3 Map showing project area details overlain on the USGS topographic quadrangle Sonora, AR (1994) (7.5-minute series). Figures 4.1-4.3 Map showing project area details overlaid on 2017 Arkansas Digital Orthophotography Program imagery. hlmiary 1 ?0?1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Engineering Services Inc. (ESI) (the Client) contracted with FTN Associates, Ltd. (FTN) of Fayetteville, Arkansas, to delineate Section 404 wetlands and other waters of the US (WOTUS) within the proposed project area of approximately 82 acres, located in Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. The project area is located east of the intersection of North Crossover Road (AR-20) and East Zion Road in hayetteville, Washington, Arkansas. The area of the delineation is mapped on US Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle Sonora, AR (7.5-minute series) (Figure 2). Legal description of the project area is part of Section 19, Township 17 North, Range 29 West. Approximate central coordinates of the project area are 36.12915°N, - 94.11124°W (NAD 83). The project area is located in the Illinois watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 11110103), a watershed of approximately 1,700 mil, within the states of Arkansas and Oklahoma (Figure 1). 2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS FTN conducted a Level 3, routine wetland delineation as described in the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Field investigations for the delineation were conducted on January 26 and 27, 2021. FTN evaluated the area of the delineation for potential Section 404 jurisdictional areas, i.e., wetlands and WOTUS, and complied with the USACE 1987 Manual and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Iviuuulaius acid Pitdwuul RLgiwi Version 2.0 (Engineer Research and Development Center 2012). Sampling point locations were selected to evaluate those low-lying areas and other areas appearing to have at least some potential for USACE regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Twenty-two sampling point locations were established, and data was collected on vegetation, hydrology, and soils at the locations (Figures 3 and 4). Edwin B. Smith's Keys to the Flora of Arkansas (1994) was used to confirm certain plant identifications and the USACE Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory's Eastern February 1,2021 Mountains and Piedmont National Wetland Plant List (2016 with 2018 updates approved in 2020) was used to determine wetland indicator status for the dominant species. Soil pits were dug with a sharpshooter shovel to a depth of approximately 16 to 18 inches, where possible, and soil colors were determined with the aid of Munsell color charts. Soil survey data from the Soil Survey of Washington County, Arkansas (Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1969) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (MRCS) Web Soil Survey (2020) were used to determine the SCS map units for the area. Also, the NRCS (Soil Data Access) Washington County. Arkansas Hydric Soils Map i,ist and Map 1 initc with Hydric Inclusions was used to assist in the selection of sampling points appearing to have a potential for the occurrence of hydric soils. A Juniper Systems Geode sub -meter real time GPS receiver unit paired with a smartphone using ARCGIS collector was used for marking sampling site locations, channels, and wetland boundaries. 3.0 FINDINGS AND RESULTS 3.1 General Site Description The project site is surrounded by residential and commercial development, maintained pasture areas, and undeveloped forested tracts. The project area itself consists mostly of improved upland pasture, with areas of herbaceous wetland communities. The topography of the project area slopes generally in a northern direction and includes wetland depressions and distinct mounded formations. Within the project area, three ponds, two intermittent channels, and a perennial channel are mapped on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). One pond and one intermittent channel are mapped within the project area on the 1994 USGS topographic quadrangle Sonora, AR (7.5-minute series) (Figure 3). During the time of delineation, one pond, two ephemeral channels, one perennial channel, six man-made ditches, four upland swales, and nine wetland areas were observed within the project area. Section 3.2 below provides information regarding the onsite wetlands; Section 3.3 below provides infonnation regarding the ponds and channels within the project area. February 1, 2021 3.2 Wetlands Ninc herbaceous wetland features, totaling approximately 5.8 acres of technical wetlands, were observed within the project area. None of the wetland features observed within the project area are subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA due to a lack of adjacency to a navigable water/tributary of a navigable water or anticipated flooding by a navigable water/tributary of a navigable water during a typical year. Attachment A provides completed USACE data forms specific to the sampling point locations. Attachment B provides representative photos of onsite features. Table 1 provides a summary of findings at the 22 sampling point locations. Table 2 provides a summary of the nine wetland features. Table 1. Summary of findings at each of the 22 sampling point locations. Sampling Site Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydric Soils Wetland Hydrology Technical Wetland S-01 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-02 No No No No S-03 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-04 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-05 No No No No S-06 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-07 No No No No S-08 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-09 No No No No S-10 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-11 No No No No S-12 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-13 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes S-14 No No S-15 YPc Yes Yes Yes S-16 No No Yes No S-17 No No No No S-18 No No No No S-19 No No No No S-20 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-21 Yes Yes Yes Yes S-22 No No No No February 1,2021 Table 2. Summary of nine wetlands features. Wetland Vegetative Community Type Area (in Acres) Jurisdictional Wetland Photo(s) ID WET -A herbaceous 0.76 No 1 WET-B herbaceous 0.90 No 2 WET-C herbaceous 0.40 No 3 WET-D herbaceous 0.05 No N/A WET-E herbaceous 0.31 No N/A WET-F herbaceous 1.6 No 4 WET-G herbaceous 0.26 No 5 WET-H herbaceous 0.28 No 6 WET -I herbaceous 1.24 No 7 Total Acreage 5.8 3.2.1 Vegetation The project area consisted of the following two vegetative communities: Improved upland pasture community and Herbaceous wetland community. The improved upland pasture community, observed throughout the majority of the project area, is dominated by: tall false rye grass (Schedonorus arundinaceus), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), among other species. The herbaceous wetland community areas, i.e., WET -A through WET -I, are dominated by: yellow -fruit sedge (Carex annectens), low spike sedge (Kyllinga pumila), Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica), yellow bristle grass (Setaria pumila), hairy buttercup (Ranunculus sardous), and broom rosette grass (nichanthelium scoparium), among other species. Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed at Sampling Point Nos. S-01, S-03, S-04, S-06, S-08, S-10, S-12, S-13, S-15, S-20, and S-21 (Appendix A). 3.2.2 Wetland Hydrology The wetland areas appear to receive hydrology primarily from local drainage and direct rainfall. Hydrologic indicators observed within the observed wetland features include: surface FAmmy 1., 1011 water, high water table, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres along living roots, crayfish burrows, saturation visible on aerial imagery, and positive FAf nentral tests Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at Sampling Point Nos. S-01, S-03, S-04, S-06, S-08, S-10, S-12, S-13, S-15, S-16, S-20, and S-21 (Appendix A). 3.2.3 Hydric Soils The SCS Soil Sui vey of Washington County, Arkansas (1969) and NRCS Web Soil Survey 3.3 (2020), illustrate thirteen map units within the project area: • Captina silt loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes, eroded; • Enders -Leesburg complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes; • Hector-Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes; • Johnsburg complex, mounded; • Johnsburg silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; • Nixa very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes; • Nixa very gravelly silt loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes; • Razort loam; • Razort silt loam, occasionally flooded; • Samba silt loam; • Samba complex, mounded; • Savannah fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded; and • Taloka complex, mounded. SCS describes the map units as follows. Captina silt loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes, eroded, map unit is described as moderately well drained, slowly permeable soils found on uplands and sll'ewu teii aces. Ende1S-Leesburg complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes map unit is described as moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils found on mountainsides. Hector- Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes map unit is described as shallow, excessively drained soils, comprised of equal parts of Hector and Mountainburg soils. Johnsburg complex, mounded, and Johnsburg silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes map units are described as poorly drained, slowly permeable soils that possess a fragipan. Nixa very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 5 February 1, 2021 8 percent slopes and Nixa very gravelly silt loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes map units are described as cherty, moderately well drained, slowly permeable soils that occur along narrow ridgetops. Razort loam and Razort silt loam, occasionally flooded, map units are described as well -drained, moderately permeable soils found on floodplains and low terraces. Samba silt loam and Samba complex, mounded, map units are described as poorly drained, slowly permeable soils found on stream terraces and uplands. Savannah fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded, map unit is described as moderately well drained, slowly permeable soils that possess a fragipan. Taloka complex, mounded, map unit is rlew.ribed as poorly drained, slowly permeable soils found on level broad uplands. NRCS lists Samba silt loam and Samba complex, mounded, soil map units as hydric soils that possess the potential for hydric inclusions. NRCS lists Johnsburg complex, mounded, Johnsburg silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Razort loam, Razort silt loam, occasionally flooded, and Taloka complex, mounded, map units as non-hydric soils that possess the potential for hydric inclusions. NRCS does not include the remaining map units in the hydric soils list for Washington County, AR. Therefore, they are classified as non-hydric soils that lack the potential for hydric inclusions because they lack the components necessary to be considered a hydric soil or a soil that possesses the potential for hydric inclusions 3.3 Other Waters of the US The 1994 USGS topographic quadrangle Sonora, AR (7.5-minute series) maps a single intermittent channel near the northern portion of the project area. However, the LiSGS US Topo Map 2017 Sonora, AR 7.5-minute series quadrangle) maps and named perennial channel, locally known as Hilton Creek, that flows east to west through the northern portion of the project area (in the location of the 1994 mapped intermittent channel). Field observations confirmed the classification of Hilton Creek as a perennial channel (PER-01) that extends approximately 760 linear feet within the project area. Due to its classification as a perennial channel and its hydrological connection to a downstream navigable water, PER-01 is subject to regulation by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA (Figures 3.3 and 4.3). USGS US Topo Map 2017 Sonora, AR 7.5-minute series quadrangle also maps an unnamed intermittent channel beginning near the central portion of the project area and flows February 1, 2021 northward, exiting the project area, and draining into a pond located on a neighboring property. Field observations determined this channel to be an ephemeral channel (EPH-01) that extends approximately 708 linear feet within the project area before draining into a pond located on a neighboring property to the north via a broad area of sheet flow. Due to its classification as an ephemeral channel, EPH-01 is not subject to jurisdiction as a WOTUS under Section 404 of the CWA (Figures 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, and 4.3). The 19941 JSC,S topographic quadrangle Sonora; AR (7.5-minute series), maps a single open -water feature i.e., a pond, near the southern project boundary. Field observations identified this feature a man-made pond (OW-1) totaling approximately 0.36 acres. OW-1 is not adjacent to a navigable water or a tributary of a navigable water, and is not anticipated to flood during a typical year; therefore, this open -water feature is not subject to regulation by the USACE as a WOTUS under Section 404 of the CWA (Figures 3.1 and 4.1). USGS US Topo Map 2017 Sonora, AR 7.5-minute series quadrangle maps three freshwater pond features within the project area. Field observations determined two of the mapped freshwater pond features to be wetlands (i.e., WET-G and WET-H). Field observations confirmed the third pond to be an open water pond feature (i.e., OW-1). In addition to the mapped features described above, field observations revealed the presence of a second ephemeral channel (EPH-02), six man-made ditches (Ditch-01, Ditch-02, Ditch-03, Ditch-04, Ditch-05, and Ditch-06), and four upland swales (UPL-01, UPL-02, UPL-03, and UPL-04). EPH-02 appears to be the remnants of a former channel (which may have drained an adjacent property located west of AR HWY 265; past development activity associated with this adjacent property may have altered the hydrology associated with this channel) that now functions as a drainage channel between WET -A and WET-B. Due to its classification as eplieuieial, EPH-02 is iiol suhjvo in jiu-Ndir.linn m a WOT1 N ender ,Sernlon 404 of 1hp CWA (Figures 3.1 and 4.1). Six man-made ditches (Ditch-01 through Ditch-06) were observed within central portions of the project as linear channelized features. These man-made ditches may have been constructed to drain excess standing water in order to improve the quality of pasturelands within the project area. These ditches are man-made, likely constructed entirely within uplands, and ephemeral in February 1, 2021 nature (i.e., flowing only in direct response to rainfall); therefore, these six ditches are not subject to jurisdiction as WOTUS under Section 404 of the CWA (Figures 3 and 4). Four upland swales (UPL-01 through UPL-04) were observed within the project area. These swales appeared to functions as drains which direct rainfall and sheet flow runoff down gradient through the mounded topography of project area. Due to the lack of ordinary high-water marks and the presence of upland vegetation, these four upland swales are neither channel or wetland features and therefore not subject to jurisdiction as WOTUS under Section 404 of the CWA (Figures 3 and 4). Table 3 provides a summary of non -wetland aquatic features observed within the project area. Table 3. Summary of non -wetland aquatic features. Feature ID Classification Linear Feet within Project Area Jurisdictional Feature Photos ID) PER-01 Perennial 760 Yes 8 EPH-01 Ephemeral 708 No 9 EPH-02 Ephemeral 95 No 10 Ditch-01 Man-made 460 No 11 Ditch-02 Man-made 404 No 12 Ditch-03 Man-made 799 No 13 Ditch-04 Man-made 770 No N/A Ditch-05 Man-made 978 No N/A Ditch-06 Man-made 446 No N/A UPL-01 Upland Swale 400 No N/A UPL-02 Upland Swale 467 No N/A UPL-03 Upland Swale 367 No 14 UPL-04 Upland Swale 184 No 15 OW-01 Pond n/a No 16 I cbrutir% I. n21 4.0 FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY ISSUES The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps a small section in the north -central portion of the project area, associated with PER-01, as Zone A. Zone A is a designation for areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. The remainder of the project area is mapped as Zone X. Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazard. A FEMA FIRMette is piuvided in Appendix C. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FTN observed nine herbaceous wetland features, totaling approximately 5.8 acres, that meet the technical definition of wetlands within the project area. o None of the wetland features observed within the project areas will likely be subjected to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA due to a lack of adjacency to and/or the direct hydrological connection with downstream WOTUS. FTN observed one mapped perennial channel (PER-01; locally known as Hilton Creek) totaling approximately 760 linear feet within the project area, that is subject to jurisdiction as a WOTUS under Section 404 of the CWA. FTN observed several non -wetland aquatic features (i.e., two ephemeral channels, six man-made ditches, four upland swales, and one open water pond feature) that are not considered WOTUS and therefore not subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. Centerton w iN45UNf. Mason Valley Springtoym Highfill Hoover _.._.__ ... .1 Spnr Avoca Y4 _ Marl ►.. Twain _National Forc�t BentonNlla ,isa rain or s°a�arw t tobvdle � len )trtNe Flock f v/i, � ayettevihr ' Maine Creak r y Rogers USFarANO "^'�"� n a"Nv b��1-g Fort Snuth wuNrl 1 :� Ri View Extent Cave Springs Colville Be" Heights 1 Elm Springs .. , At ,Tontitown �lington Wildlife Manageroa,6t Area Ozark NaFonpl Forest Site Locat)bn hewn r Wheeler ay.r�l - - 6UiN eU 1ltN4 nelti Goshen Fayetteville _ !n` Farmington ti` d Prairie ssasaaGrea)lend • Elkins Prame Grove; Lincoln est Fork Cane Hill bing Brush Creek Hindsville laptop i Chandler Crossing Subdivision 5 � W � i! Site LocationAM OMiles D:\Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\delin\figure_1.mxd Background: Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers Figure 1. Vicinity Map o i � o ;j � Y - .mac . • � { � .� ' i n •�• { -A e y j 1 - }'4.- , !1 s f Lake Sat �� f 1 tz}'Panel: 3on r ---------------------�i'1� 1 I r A �_/•O w e <� I G s c, a9 V .�, o :`!� ,ems. � i' Y` • S AlKyr H ,� �.t3uuMrld 'hut Al �• `,I r r �� Opa.• �"' •�� I _ �+ ,; �• Chandler Crossing Subdivision = N 2,000 _ f Panels n W E 0 Feet ® Project Area AAM L a S p .ira_? mYrI Backgrounds USES 1.24,000 ERG Figure 2. Map showing overview of project area overlaid on the USGS topographic quadrangles Elkins, Fayetteville, Sonora, and Springdale, AR (7.5-minute series). Ep►1 02Y j/ S ( S-01 WET -A S-02 1-1 a S-04 x vvc/ fr —fir - a -us f/li)NET'E .■ / ✓%./J,!f.:./. / WET D- '•� N ;O, L � , , S-07 y: >11-5 /ffS06 p:, J` : : EwqI: ■ . f ',WET-F '2 Chandler CrossingSubdivision _ N Q Project Area Ditch (man-made) __ 200 d Sample Points • Ephemeral Channel W�E 0 Feet 0 Open Waters ^i Perennial Channel Project Wetlands �_. Upland Swale (w/o OHWM) LA S D.\Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\delin\figure_3.mxd Background: Arkansas GIS Office Figure 3.1 Map showing project area details overlaid on the USGS topographic quadrangle Sonora, AR (1994) (7.5-minute series). sr S-17 l� S-16 1 l 20� w \a WET-H. f fj rJr S-15�if f S-14 " f Chandler Crossin Subdivision = N g 0 Project Area ., Ditch (man-made) 200 0 Sample Points • •„ • Ephemeral Channel )W�E OFeet Open Waters �� Perennial Channel Project Wetlands �_, Upland Swale (w10 OHWM) S D.\Pi ujuuls\00220-2539-001 \yis\duu\u idp\dulii iViyui e_9i i Ad Bdukyi uui iLl. Ai kdi isds G I S Off iue Figure 3.2 Map showing project area details overlaid on the USGS topographic quadrangle Sonora, AR (1994) (7.5-minute series). ■ 01 ■ M ■ S-18 f ■ r i PER 01 S-17 U Ditch-01 0 S-T WET-V S-22 o1 f21�• � N � 9 •WET=G � S-16 , Chandler Crossing Subdivision 7 O Project Area ., Ditch (man-made) N 200 Sample Points Ephemeral Channel 'ktn W�E Feet Open Waters ^� Perennial ChannelProject Wetlands �, UplandSwale(w/oOHWM) lam Ltd. S D \Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\delin\figure_3.mxd Background. Arkansas GIS Office Figure 3.3 Map showing project area details overlaid on the USGS topographic quadrangle Sonora, AR (1994) (7.5-minute series). R;,�hai rl s-0a S-09 Ditch-01 FPH-02 S-03 V\IFT-R S-05 S 0° WE I-E S-01 WET-D S-10 �r WET -A a o s 2 I(j U Q 265 S-02 Zion Rd o S-07 0 r p o S-06 p u 0 WET-C 0 a OW-1 J WET-F Valene Dr i Chandler CrossingSubdivision Q Project Area '., Ditch (man-made) — " — 200 0 Sample Points • `� • Ephemeral Channel W�E 0 Feet Open Waters /\o Perennial Channel Project Wetlands �, , Upland Swale (w/o OHWM) L It S D:\Prdects\05220-2539-031\qis\doc\map\delin\fiqure 4.mxd Rarkgrniinri ArkancAc MR Offira Figure 4.1 Map showing project area details overlaid on 2017 Arkansas Digital Orthophotography Program imagery. S-17 Ditch-01 O 5-10 WET-E / �S-22 S-21 WET-G Off! �A JQv .` 1 S-16 0 s U UPI-04 S-12 S-19 G� WET-F S_20 WET-H 0 S-15 S-14 S-13 S-11 WET -I 0 Chandler CrossingSubdivision Q Project Area '., Ditch (man-made) -- N 200 d, Sample Points Open Waters • •. • Ephemeral ChannelLn �� Perennial Channel _-- W�E Feet 0 Project Wetlands �%_, Upland Swale (w/o OHWM) S D:\Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\delin\figure_4.mxd Background: Arkansas GIS Office Figure 4.2 Map showing project area details overlaid on 2017 Arkansas Digital Orthophotography Program imagery. � o ti U v a 0 U S-18 PER-01 S-17 Ditch-01 0 r j S -IU WET-E rV _J O J y .... / WET-G 5-16 f(/ Chandler Crossin Subdivision g Q Project Area '., Ditch (man-made) — N 200 0 4 Sample Points Open Waters ••�• Ephemeral Channel r� Perennial Channel ^I W L In Feet Project Wetlands �_, Upland Swale (w/o OHWM) LW. S D:\Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\delin\figure_4.mxd Backqround: Arkansas GIS Office Figure 4.3 Map showing project area details overlaid on 2017 Arkansas Digital Orthophotography Program imagery. om =I�FTTI Muislio January 29, 2021 Wetlands L] Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lj Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland u Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Wetlands This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Other ® Riverine National Wetlands Inventory (NW1) This page was produced by the NW1 mapper v v s y G i O!1 C a eke WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-01 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): pat Loral relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%). 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.13021 Long-94.11738 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg silt loam NWI classification none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required Surface Water (Al) j( High Water Table (A2) ✓ Saturation (A3) Water Marks (81) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) heck all that apply) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Drainage Patterns (B10) Moss Trim Lines (816) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (CB) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) ✓ FAC-Neuhal Test (135) Surface Water Present? Yes No _ Depth (inches): 4 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (Inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes. ✓ No Depth (Inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yee ✓ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Remarks'. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-01 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 39 ) % over Sbec,es Status Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata. (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB) 6. Prevalence Index workaheet: 7. Total % Cover of; Muttioiv by 8. OBL species x t = Saokngl8hruh Stratum (Plot size: 15, = Total Cover FACW species x 2 = 1 FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = 2 3 4 Column Totals: (A) (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. ✓ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8, _ 2 -Dominance Test is 150 9. _ 3 -Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10 _ 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting = Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. nichanrheliums pnrium 50 ye5 FACW —Problematic 'Indiptors of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 30 Yes FACW 3. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 4. 5. Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. B. 7, 8. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in DBH and greater than 328 ft (1 m) tall. Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 9. 10. 11. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) height. 1. 2. 3. 4' Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation ✓ No 6 Present? Yes = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-01 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) -/ Type' Low Texture Remarks 0-12 10yr ell 60 clay 7 fiyr Fla 40 and day foreign red play NI —lmlul 12-16 1oyr 6/1 60 10yr 5/6 20 C M clay 'Type C=Concentration. D=De lotion. RM=Reduced Malrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location PL=Pore Lmin , M-Mat ix Hydric Sall Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sol Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipadon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Praine Redox (Ai6) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (AS) ./ Depleted Mainx (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)(LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrx (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yee ✓ No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. From 0-12 inches two matrix colors were observed. The primary matrix color observed within the layer was a 10yr 6/1 (60%). The secondary matrix color observed with the layer is a 7.5yr 5/8 (40%) which is not typical for the area, Therefore, it is assumed that red clay fill material used for commercial construction may have inadvertently been placed in the wetland during the construction of either the farm road located to the east or commercial properties located to the west. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Chandler Crossing Subdivision FayettevillelWashin ton 1/26/2021 Project/Sita: g City/County: g Sampling Date: _______._ Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-02 Investigator(s). Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W __ Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): mound Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12965 Long: -94.11746 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg silt loom NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil _, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil _, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophy8c Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetiand7 Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yea No � Remarks: None of the criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indic-af (minimum of one is reouired' check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Shallow Aquitard (133) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Nautral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes_ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ ncludes ce Illery fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerlal photos, previous Uspedions), if available Remarks Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-02 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30, ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 _ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species 2. 3. 4. 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB) Prevalence Index worksheet: 7 Total % Cover of: Multiply by 8 = Total Cover OBL species x t = , lanllnntShfrlh Strahim (Plot Sian: 16, ) FACW speries x 2 = 1, i epocios ' x 3 = 5 FACU species 80 x 4 = 320 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 82 (A) 326 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3-sa 2 3. 4_ 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicator: 7. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 _ 2-Dominance Test is>5D% 9. _ 3 -Prevalence Index is s3.0' 10. — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Aridropogo -gm— 60 Ye5 FACU —Problematic 'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must 2 Srhedonurusa dinareus 20y0s FACU 3 Sermia pumila 2 no FAC be present, unlessdisturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6 T height. 8. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 it (1 m) tall. 10. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall. 12. Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.28 it in B2 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30, ) height. 1. a 4. 5. Vegetation ✓ 6. Present? Yes _ No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-02 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix (inchesl Color(moisti % Reoox Features Color(moistl /> Tvoe'Loc1 Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 5/6 100 alit loam Type C=Concentration. D=De lotion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Greens- 'Location. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrx. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvelue Delow Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Rndox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen SuKde (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N. MLRA 147, 149) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: _------- - Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Easters Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner. Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-03 Investigator(s) Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfdrrt (hilislope, terrace, etc.): swele Loral relief (concave, convex, none): cor'cave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.13046 Long.-94.11615 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba silt loam NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (H no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally probiematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydnc Soil Present? Yes ✓ No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primery Indicators (minimum of one is required' check the ly) _ Surface Soil Cracks (1136) ✓ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) ✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches). 5 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 6 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No 'nndudes capillary hnige) Da3crihe Re..mded Data (sheam yauye, ,.ur6tminy well, aerial phutus, previous inspections). If available. Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-03 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30, ) '/o Cover SoecieO Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Qu—slellara 5 yes UPL That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 2. 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67% (,q/g) 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7 Total % Cover of: Multiply by 8 5 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = SaplinoJShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species 95 x 2 = 190 1, FAC species 10 x 3 = 30 FACU species 5 x 4 = 20 UPL species 5 x 5 = 25 Column Totals: 115 (A) 265 (a) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2,30 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 _ ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % 9. — 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10 — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5, = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Kyl/ingapumda 80 yes FACW — 'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. - 2. Dichonrhehumscoporium 15 yes FACW 3. serarmp—die 10 no FAC q Schedon— arundinaceus 5 no FACU Definitions of Four Vegetation Strafe: 5. Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb —All hertroaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 10. 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall. 12. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 110 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. Hydrophytic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5• Vegetation ✓ 8, Present? yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-03 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicator:.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inchesi Color (moist) % Color (mois0 % p Texture Remarks 0-10 10yr fill 90 7.5yr 5/6 10 C M day 10-16 1Dyr 5/2 95 iuyr ale 5 C M clay 'Type_C=Conoentration D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrx. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (At0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) JMLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 om Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N. _ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`72) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 140) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): _ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ Nn Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed, US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-04 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.)'. Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Lat: 36.13057 Long-94.11520 Datum. NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba silt loam NWI classifieatlon. none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (It needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: SerQndary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) ✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (Bli ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Tnm Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aqu Bard (133) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic. Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observatlons: Surface Water Present? Yes V( No_ Depth (inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): _ 7 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling PnintS-04 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheat: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30, ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Spades '.. 1 om ros vl lone spy �" 30 VeS FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Numhnr of nnminant Species Across All Strata: 4_ (B) Percent of Dominant Species 2. ' 3. 4. 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 i (A/B) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 8 30 = Total Cover OBL spades x 1 = SgplincilSirrub Stratum, (Plot size: 15' ) FACW cpocias sn x 2 - inn 1, 10 yes FACU FAC species 50 x 3 = _ 150 FACU species 10 x 4 = 40 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 110 (A) 290 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.64 '.. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 _ ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is -50 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10. — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5' 10 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum ((Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Dirhamheliumscoparium 40 yes FACW — 'Indicators or hydrle soil and wetland hydrology must 2 Rea m1usamdow 20 yes FAC 3. Carex lurida 15 no OBL be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Perricarlapeuyll-i— 10 no FACW Deflnitlons of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6 7. height. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less 8. 9. then 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 10. 11, of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine —AII woody vines greater than 3.28 It in 12, 85 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. 1. ----------- -- —.__........... .._. --_-- 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5 Vegetation ✓ 6. Present? Yes No _ = Total Cover Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-04 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) ,� _.I)�_ Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 611 95 10yr file 5 C M alb day 'Type: C=Concentration D=De lotion RM=Reduced Metric, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Hisac Epipedon (A2) _ Poyrvalus below Surface (S6) (MLRA 147,146) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147,148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ SbatMied Layers (A5) L/ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136,147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (IFS) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 148) wetlend hydrology must be present _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes �_ No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Sde: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington_ Sampling Date, 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AIR Sampling Point: S-05 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): mound Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36,13044 Long-94.11495 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba silt loam NWI classification none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes Na ✓I. within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Suede Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (81) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aadal Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (1219) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (05) Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ „ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydroloav Present? Yes Nn ✓ (includes capillary tnnge) Describe HeCproed Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: _ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' 1 Schedonemus arvndinaeeus 2. Andrapaxan virginicu 3. 4. 5. 8. 7. B. 9. 10, 11 15' 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. Sampling Point: S-05 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheets Cover Sperrea? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. _,_...... (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Total % Cover of: Multiply by. = Total Cover -) OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species 10 x 4 = Zap UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 70 (A) 280 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.00 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) - Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 it (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in height. - - - - -- Total Cover 40 VeS FACU 30 yes FACU - - - -.. 70 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ Present? Yea No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Paint _ 8-05 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Maj,i. (Inches) Color (moist) % Rp�Qx Mures Color (moist) % Tvoe, Loci Texture Remarks 0-6 10yr 514 100 silt loam B-16 1 Oyr 4/4 100 silt loam .'Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (Al D) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (FB) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Depth (inrhns), Hydric Soil Present? Yos _ No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. Stele: AR Sampling Point: S-06 Inveatigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12910 Long: -94.11493 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Sambe silt loam NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No — Are Vegetation _, Soll or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes i Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reowred) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reeuired� check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (B1) ✓ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) ` Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drift Deposits (63) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (R1i) FAC-Neutral Test (135) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No _ Depth (inches): 1 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 10 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitorhrg well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VFr;FTATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-06 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) 1. Absolute Dominant Indicator _°/ _Cover Species? _ Stetub_ Dominance Testworkshest: Number of Dominant Spades That Are OBL, FACW, or FAQ 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) cies 88.67 % That Are FACW, or f Dominant e FAC: (A!B) 2. 3. 4. 5• 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheets Total %Cover of: Multiply by 8. 3dulhiu/Shrub Shdtum (Plul size. 16, 1, ) = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = FACW species 10 x 2 = eo FAG species 35 x 3 = l05 FACU species 20 x 4 = so UPL species x 5 - Column Totals: ss (A) 266 (B) Prevalence Index = B!A = 2.79 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Hydrophytic vegetation Indicators: 1 -Rapid Test for Hytlrophylic Vegetation -2 -Dominance Teat is >50 -3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) � - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 'Indicators of c soil and wetland hydrologymust be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 8. 9. 10 = Total Cover Norb Stratum (Plot size: 5- .) 1 Dichanrheliumscoparium 40 yes FACW 2 Schedonerousarundinacew 20 yes FACU 3 Ranunculus sardous 20 yes FAC 4 Seraria pumila 15 no FAC S. Definitions of Four vegetation strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.281t (1 m) tall. Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.26 fit tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. 8 7. 8. 9. 10. - 11 12. WoodyVine Stratum (Plot size: 30' _ _) 1. 95 - Total Cover I IyJruyl iyll� Vegetatlon Present? yes ✓ No 2. 3. 4. 5. 8, = Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-06 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix (inchesl COW (moist) ° Redox Features Color (moistt _°� TypQ_�—Loci Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 511 90 7.5yr 414 10 C M clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration D=De lotion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Send Grams. 'Location'. PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrx. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoII83: _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (At6) _ Black Histic 03) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dario Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (FB) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision _ City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Appllcent/Owner: _ Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-07 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landforrm (hillalope, terrace, etc.): mound Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (% ): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12929 Long:-94.11511 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba silt loam NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _,Soil_, or Hydrology signifirantty disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Aftach site map shinwing Rampling point locations, transacts, Important foatureo, oto. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yea No ✓ Remarks: None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (81) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (CS) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) Iron Deposits (85) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (105) Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes_ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (lnnhea) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ✓ gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: S-07 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1 _ Absolute Dominant- Indicator o/QCQver Species? Status Dominance Test workshest: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 % 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Prevalence Index workaheet: Total %Cover of: MuftIoIV by: 8. OBL species x 1 = FACW species 20 x 2 = 40 FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 FACU opoues 55 x 4 = 220 UPL species x 5 = _ Column Totals: Ba (A) 275 (13) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.44 = Total Cover SaohnglShrub Stralum (Plot size: 15' ) 1 2. 3 q 5. 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 -Dominance Test is >50 _ 3 -Prevalence Index is 53.0' — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) —Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. B. 9. 10, = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) 1 S4hedone —di— 40 Ves FACU 2 Dichonrhelium.ernpar;um 20 yes FACW 3. .fancus ;nreno• 10 no FACU q selariapumila 5 no FAC Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tote —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. JS cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBli regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. 5 Cynadondacrylon 5 no FACU 6 7, 8. 9. 10 11 12 Woody Viep Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 80 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? yes No ✓ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-07 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) _% Color (moist) Tvice' Loci Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 3/2 100 clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De lotion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location, PL=Pore Lining M=MaMx. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147. 1481 _ Coast Prairie Redox (Al6) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (N observed): Type: Depth (inches): I Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-08 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range. S19, T17N, R29W Landforrn (hillslope, tenaoe, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.13044 Long:-94.11450 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba silt loam NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yea(? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yea ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hyddc Soil Present? Yes No wlthln a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) , Moss Trim Lines (816) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ i Deposits (B3) _ Thin Much Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) Iron Deposits (65) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (1113) _. FAC-Neutral Test (135) Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 6 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: S-08 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tr a Slratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover a ies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 2. 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAQ 66.67% (A/B) 5. 6. 7. Prevalence Index workeheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by 8. OBL species x 1 = = Total Cover SaplinptShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACYV species 20 x 2 = 40 1. FAC species 45 x 3 = lay FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 85 (A) 255 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00 2. 3. 4. 5. B. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 _ ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % 9. — 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10 — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Sernrinpumilo 40 yes FAC —Problematic Indicators of hydne soil and wetland hydrology must 2. P—icariaperuylva" 20 ves FACW 3 Schedonerove —di ooe,rr 20 Ve5 FACU be present, unless disturbed or problematic. q C—lurida 5 no FAC Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or 6 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7, height. SaplinglShrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less 8. g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall. 10. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall. 12. Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in 85 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:. 30' ) height. Hydr up6yllu 2. 3. t. 5. Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No 6. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-08 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indlcator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color fmoist) % Radox Features Color (moisll _% Type' LocZ Texture Remarks 0-10 10yr5/l 90 10yr 6/6 10 C M miry day loom 10-16 10yr 511 70 10yr 6/9 30 C M ailty clay loam --------- 'Type C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location- PL=PoreLminq. M=Matrix. __ Hydric Soll Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soile _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, Ill 147,148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) li 136) _ Umbdc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches). Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: ___ Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner: _ Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-09 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfonm (hillslops, terrace, etc.): mound Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.13051 _ Long:-94.11448 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba silt loam NWI classification. none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach alto map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yea No ✓ Remarks None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. i HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) _ Water Marks (81) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches). Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ✓ (includes capillary Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), If available: Remarks Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-09 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1. Dmsprvos virginiana Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 20 yes FAC Dominance Testworksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Am OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Prevalence Index workshest: Total %n Cover of Muhloly bv: 8. SaplmgiShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' 1. Juniipems virgini- 20 ) 5 Total Cover yes FACU OBL species x 1 = FACW species 10 x 2 = 20 FAC species 20 x 3 = 60 FACU spedaa 15 x 4 = 60 L. UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 45 (A) 'do (B) '.. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.11 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50 h _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53,0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) -Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) I 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 8 `-"-"-- 9. 10. 5 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) 1 Sehedaneronr arvndirr � 10 yes FACU 2. Dichanfhelium scoparium 10 ves FACW 3. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (OBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. 5. 6 7. a. B. 10. 11 12. Woody Vine Slialum (Plot size. 30' ) 1. 20 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? yes No ✓ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-09 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inchesl color (moist) �% Color (moist) % Ty ee' Loc Texture Remarks D-16 10yr 5l4 100 sift loam 'Type C=Concentrahon. D=De lesion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location. PL=Fore Linln M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Ai) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (Al D) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) _ Stralified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (FB) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Cloyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (111 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matnx (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-10 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillalope, terrace, eta): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none). concave Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Lat: 36.13044 Long-94,11369 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba silt loam NWI classification. none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation _, Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, trensects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yea ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �_ No Remarks: All three criteria for ciassificatlon as a wetland were ubsefved. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reowredl Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauinii check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (07) _ Shallow Aquttard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (04) _ _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test IDS) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 4 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-10 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test workshest: Tree Stratum (Plot cite: 30, ) 9L Cover Gpecies'� 3tai Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) TntAl Numher of Dnminant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 2. 3• 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by OBL species x 1 = B. = Total Cover Saoling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) FACW species an x 2 - i6n 1. FAG species x s = FACU speces 10 x 4 = 40 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: Ile (A) 200 (a) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.22 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. -.------ i/ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50 8 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10. - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5' = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratu(Plot size m : ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) t. Krm,g.pu.d. 50 yes FACW - 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Dichantheliumscaparium 30 yes FACW 3 4. DefInitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 8 7. height, B. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall. 10. Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 R tall. 12. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 R in 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. 1. Hydrophytic 2. 3. -- 4. 5. Vegetation ✓ g, Present? yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) _% Color (moist) % Tvpa, Loc' Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 5l1 60 10yr 4l6 20 C M silty clay loam 'Type C=Concentration, D=Deplehon, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 'Location PL=Pore bring, ly Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Plane Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N, MLRA 147,148) Ill 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Unrl Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (ff observed): ------ Type: Depth (inches). Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont PrnjAr.VSite Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: FayetteviIle/Washington Sampling Data: 112712021 Applicant/Owner.. Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-11 Investlgator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslops, terrace, etc.): mounded hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12765 Long-94.11211 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Hector-mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification. none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No_ Are Vegetation _, Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators [minimum of one is reoured: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Pattems (610) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616) _ Water Marks (81) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (135) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquftard (03) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No Depth (inches): Samretinn Pmnanf9 vex _ Nn ✓ napth (Inches): Wetlond Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ✓ (stream gauge, Remarks. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-1 t Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Queraus s01,1, 20 Yes UPL That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant . Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 2. 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 6. Prevalence Index workshest: 7 _Total % Cover of Multiply by: 8 20 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 SaolinofShrub Stratum (Plot size: is, ) FACW species 5 x 2 = 10 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU species 75 x 4 = 300 UPL species 20 x 5 = too Column Totals: 100 (A) 410 (B) ''.. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.10 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % g. — 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10. — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5' = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Nero Stratum (Plot size: ) ' Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Sehed°nerons amndina— 50 yes FACU —Problematic '.. 'Indicators of s soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. eahnmp---e 20 Yes FACU 3 Ambrosia ari—wifolw 5 no FACU 4. Persicarlapensylvaoica 5 no FACW Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5, Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of '.. 6 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less g. —— __------------ than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 R (1 m) tall. '.. Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 10. 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in SO a Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30, ) height. Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Present? Yea No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a Separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point; 5-11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) _% Color (moist) % Tvce, oc` Texture Remarks 0.8 10yr 413 100 sift loam 8-18 7.5yr 516 100 a181oam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Potyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (Si (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck 10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions i _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral i (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils 19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineu(s Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-12 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Loral relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12843 Long:-94,11275 Datum: NAD 63 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba complex, mounded NWI classification. none Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes V_ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes v( No Is the Sampled Area ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a Wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required' check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (614) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) ✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (810) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhaospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) _ Water Marks (81) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (813) _ FAC-Neutral Test (05) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 1 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No _ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks, Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) -- Llso sclontlflc namos of plants. Sampling Point: S-12 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Species Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 2. 3. _ 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of Multiply by: 8 = Total Cover OBL Species x 1 = SaplinoiShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) rAOYv specias ac X2. 170 1. FAC species ' x 3 = 1b FACU species 30 x 4 = 120 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 120 (A) 305 (a) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.54 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicator: 7. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation B. — ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - — Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 10. 5, = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Cara onnecrens 60 VeS FACW — Problematic HydrophyticVegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. —------ --- 2 Schedonerourarundinaceua 30 Yes FACU 3 Junnr effirsus 20 no FACW 4 Perricarinperuyfvanica 5 no FACW Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5 Xamhium Arum-h.. 5 no FAC Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, lass g than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall. - 10. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall. woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 12. 120 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height HydroplryUc 1. Y. 3. d. 5. Vegetation ✓ 6, Present? Yes No = Total Cover Remarks. (Induce photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moistl _% Color innoisti _% TvneL Loct Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 5/1 00 10yr 4I4 20 C M clay loam 'Type C=Concentration. D=De letion. RM_=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grams. 'Location. PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Praine Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 146) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) Ili 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer ('rf observed): Type Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yea ✓ No Remarks Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Easters Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION nATA FARM — Faatnm Mmintalns and P!Admnnt Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner. Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-13 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfone (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): D Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12791 Long:-94.10923 Datum: NAD 63 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg complex, mounded NVN classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yeah Yes ✓ No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydnc Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired) Primary Indicators minimum of one is re uired� check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (156) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) ✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (816) _ Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dt) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aqudard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) Y' FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Fisld Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes v( No_ Depth (inches): 1 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yos ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 0 Wotand Hydrology Present? Yos ✓ No (includes capillary fring_c) _ Describe Recorded Date (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-13 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3P ) 1. Absolute Dominant Indicator %Cover Species _Status- _ Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are DEL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A 13) 2. 3. ____-- 4. 5. 6. 7. Prevalence Index workaheet: Total %Cover of: Multiply by 8. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' 1 = Total Cover ) DEL species x 1 = FACW species ec x 2 = 160 FAC species x 3 = FACU spades 15 x 4 = 60 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 95 (A) 220 (B) Prevalence Index = 8/A = 2.32 2 3 q 5. B. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicatvn: _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 -Dominance Test is >50 -3 -Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) -Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Hero Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) 1. carena necrans 80 Yes FACW 2 S h,dane.a -rids--- 10 no FACU 3 Andropogon v gb _ 5 no FACU 4. Deffnkfons of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. SaplinglShrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 R (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in hei ht. g 5. 8 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1. 95 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No 2. 3. 4. 5. 8 = Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-13 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix gedox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvcen Loci Texture Remarks 0-9 10yr 5/1 90 7.5yr 516 10 C M .Ilty day H-lb 10yr b1l 60 1. by, bib 20 C M .illy day 'Type C=Concentration D=De lehon, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grams. 'Location. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matruc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gieyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type- Depth (inches). Hydric Soil Present? Yea _V No Remarks: ----------------.__--------------- --. Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastem Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayettevi I I alWash in gton Sampling Date: ____1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point S-14 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): large mound Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12819 Long-94.10901 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg complex, mounded NWI classification: none Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reaulred) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired� check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks IBIS) _ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (BID) _ Saturation (A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616) _ Water Marks (81) _ Presence of Reduced Iran (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (95) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (813) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): _ Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes cApillary trio el Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, serial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 VFAFTAT'IAN (Four Strata) — Use sclentlfl6 na1ri06 of plants. 3enipliny Fulfil. .1-14 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) 1. Absolute Dominant Indicator °h Cover SpecrStatu-&-Number Dominance Test worksheat: of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 A Percent of Dominant Species '.. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) '.. 2. ' 3. 4. 5. _ 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: '.. Total % Cover of MuKiDIV by: 8. Saohng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, 1, = Total Cover ) OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species so x 4 = 240 UPL species 10 x 5 = ___ 50 Column Totals: 70 (A) 290 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4,14 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation '.. _ 2- Dominance Test is>50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting date in Remarks or on a separate sheet) , — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 9 10 = Total Cover Herb Stretu(Plot size: 5' m ) 1 Andropogon vrrginic 50 yes FACU 2 Schedonemw arundinaceas 10 no FACU 3 Planmgo laweolala 10 no UPL 4' 5. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. SaplinglShrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. woody vine -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. 6 7• 8. 8 10. 11 12. Woody Vine e Stratum (Plat size: ) 1. 70 - Total Cover rtyaropnytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Total Cover Hemarxs: (incivae pnoto numoers mere or an a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-14 Profile Descriptbn: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moistl % Redox EilillyMil Color (molst) Tvoe Texture Remarks 0.e 10yr 313 100 silty day laem 8-16 7.5yr 513 100 Bitty day loam 'Type: C=Concentration D=De Ietion RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Send Grains. 'Location. PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : _ Histosol (Al) _ Derr Surface (157) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SO) (11 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Suede (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Radox Depressions (FS) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Messes (F12) (LRR N, NILRA 147,148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbrc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Foodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (SO) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yea No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 WFTI ANn nFTFRMINATIQN nATA Ff)RM — Eastern Mountains and Plwdmnnt Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-15 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (% ). 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12833 Long:-94.10942 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg complex, mounded NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation _, Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY Or BINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Inlpurlenl rudluses, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No ✓ within a Wetland? Yea No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (All _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Suede Odor (CI) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) MicrotopDgraphic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) ✓ FAG -Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No _ Depth (inches): 4 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 4 taturation Present? Yes No _ Depth (inohae): 0 Wattand I lydrology r'roaant? Yea No inrhitlns np lla fnn Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), 9 available: Remarks Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants, Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: _ 1. ? 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Hart) Stratum (Plot size: 5' 1 Ca anneclew 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7._ B. 9. 10. 11. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: _ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sampling Point: S-15 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Coyer Spac,,es Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) -- Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata. 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAQ 100 % (A/B) Total % Cover of: Mu@oiv by Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 15' ) FACW species 40 x 2 . go FAC species _ x 3 = _ FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 40 (A) 80 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting = Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _) 40 Ve5 FACW -Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 40 = Total Cover 30' = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height, Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 328 ft (1 m) tall. Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-15 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox FQatures (inchesl Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci Texture 0.16 10yr 511 70 10y,618 30 C M clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=Da lotion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. zLocation. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matra. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solle': _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (AID) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SS) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 149) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Foodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) 111 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (AID) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) (LRR N, _ iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 111 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4) _ Umbhc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Metrix (S6) Red Parent Material (1721) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer IN observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes V No Remarks Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site. Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date. _ 1/27/2021___ Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-16 Investgator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T171 R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _ flat Local relief (concave, convex,, none): none Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Li N Let: 36.12972 Long:-94.11009 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg complex, mounded NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yea No ✓ Is the Sampled Area ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Welland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Only one of the three criteria for classification as a wetland was observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators !minimum of one is reeui_ed' check air that aprly) ,_ Surface Soil Cracks (B8) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) ✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhaospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (81 B) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C8) _ Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drift Deposits (63) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (133) _ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yns ✓ Nn Depth (InchaM: 7 ( j ✓ No Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth inches) 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (inciudes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VEGETATION (dour Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Gampling Point, S_16 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Riraw (Plot size30' ) %, Cover SperiesStatus Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC _ 0 (A) Total Nurri of Dominant Spa cies Across All Strata: � _ (B) 2. ------------._--- ---- 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AfB) 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7 Total % Cover of: MuRioly by: 8. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species 5 x 3 = _ 15 FACU species 52 x 4 = 208 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 57 (A) 723 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.91 2. 3. 4. 5. -- 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. 2 -Dominance Test is >50 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 10. - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 synod- d-Nloa 40 VeS FACU - 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 Schedoneranr-dinaeeur 10 no FACU 3 Rananrvlur -do- 5 no FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic. q r favmpmfewe 2 no FACU Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Pity'.]. P- 2 no NI Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6 7. height. a. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 10. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall. 12 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft In 59 = Total Cover 30' Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. 2. 3. �- a. 5. Vegetation ✓ --- 5. Present? Yeil No = Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-16 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features —Loc' (inches) Color (r istl �% Color (moist) _% Type' Texture Remarks 0-12 10yr 2J2 100 clay loam 12-16 7.5yr 6/4 100 clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=DeDletion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Sol[ Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Hisfir. Fpipndon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S61 (MLRA 147. 1481 Coast Prairie Redox 0,16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (Al D) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Projoct/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: -_ Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. state: AR Sampling Point: S-17 Investigator(s) : Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: Sig, T17N, R29W Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flat Local relief (concave, convex, none). none _ - Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.13102 Long:-94.11024 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg silt loam NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation _, Soil _, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Weiland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Se::ondery Indicators fmmimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that spoly) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Surface Water (All _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizoapheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) _ Water Marks (81) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C6) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cq) _ Algal Met or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard 03) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Microtopogrephic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (813) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes_ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): _ Saturation Present? Yes _ No Depth (innhes): i Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)— Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: S-17 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stralum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Species '+ Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata'. 2 (B) '.. Percent of Dominant Species 2. 3. 4. 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB) '.. 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7. Total % Cover of: Multiply by; 9 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU species 57 x 4 = 228 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 57 (A) 228 (B) Prevalence Index = BJA = 4.00 2. 3, 4, 5' 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation B. — 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10 - 4-MorphologicalAdaptations' (Provide supporting 5 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) HerC Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Cy —don dacrylan 40 VeS FACU — 'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must 2 .Schedonerous m dinaceus 15 Ves FACU 3 75If lium Pmfewe 2 no FACU be present, unlessdisturbed or problematic. q Physalis P. 2 no NI De}initloras of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6 7. height. a. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 10 Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12 Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in 59 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. 2. 3. 4. Hydrpphytic Vegetation ✓ g Present? Yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Easters Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-17 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix ._- (inches) Color (moist) % _ _..R1194xFalptt.@.. Color (moist) % TVUBT Texture Remarks 0-12 10yr 312 100 day loom 12-16 7.5yr 414 100 dsy loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=Deoletion. RM=Reduosd Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1779) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Metric (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (Il 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (H observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Prssent7 Yes _ No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: _ Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington_ Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Paint: S-18 Investigator(s) Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): none __ Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.13191 Long:-94.10995 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg slit loam NVJI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If nodded, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc. Hydrophyde Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Watland? Yea No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouiredl Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reduiredr check all that amly) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (12114) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (816) _ Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Thin Murk Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Shallow Aquitard 03) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ✓ includes caplllsa fringe)_,__ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use sclentitic names of plants. sampling Point: 3-10 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test workaheet: Tree Sr,alum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover species v Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) I otel Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2_ (B) Percent of Dominant Species 2. 3• 4. 5 That Are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index workshest: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = e = Tri Cnver Sealing/Shrub Slydt.l�m (Plot size: 15 ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU species ss x 4 = 220 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 55 (A) 220 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.00 2. 3. 4. 5. --- ---- 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 9. - 3 - Prevalence Index is 63.0' _-- -- 10. - 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 ' = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Cy -doe d-tyloe 30 yes FACU - 'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 .Schedonerou.v arandlwceus 20 yes FACU 3. Trlfolium praiewe 5 no FACU 4. Phyralu ap. 2 no NI Definitions of Four Vegetation strata: 5. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. g 10. Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 57 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' j height. 1. 2. 3. Hydrophytic 4. 5. Vegetation ✓ - 6. Present? Yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sneet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-18 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Color (moistl %_ Redox Features color (molatl �° Texture Remarks .(Inches) 0-10 10yr 212 100 _ _�—Loc7 clay loam 10-1a 7.5yr 514 100 clay loam 'T C=Concentration D=De lotion RM=Roduced Matra MS -Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix, Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (At0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Poyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Hietic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136,147) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matra (SS) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer (R observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yea No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Eastom Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: __ Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner. Engineenng Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-19 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis _ Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landforn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): mound Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (°/ ): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA)LRR N Let: 36.12836 Long-94.11148 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba complex, mounded NIA classification. _ none Are dimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation _ Soil or Hydrology_ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, trUnNUU18, impurtdrd features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ ✓ within a Wetland? Yas No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicatgrs (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required' check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (816) _ Water Marks (137) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (813) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes T No ✓ Depth (inches), Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Welland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ✓ iineludes k;a tlidi fine e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if availahte: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: S-1 g Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1. Absolute Dominant Indicator Grp Cover Speaes9 Status Dominance Test workshest: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant '.. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) '.. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 8 Saoling'Shruh Stratum (Plot size: 15, 1. = Total Cover } OBL species x 1 = FACW species 2 x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = FACU species 50 x 4 = top UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 52 (A) 204 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 992 2. _ 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation —2 - Dominance Test is >50% —3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) of soil and wetland hydrology must be be present, disturbed or problematic. present, unless 8 9. 10 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1 srhedonemus —dins— 30 Yes FACU y Cj—dondorryr 20 yes FACU 3 Persirm;apenvylvanira 2 no FACW 4. 5. Defiri Eons of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in height. 6 7. 8. 9. _ 10. 11 12. , Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. 52 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetatlon ✓ Present? Yes No 2. 3. 4. 5 6, = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-19 Prairie Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Jyp°` Loci Texture Remarks D-16 1 Dyr 4/2 100 clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grams "Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S7) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (1 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type- Depth (inches) Hytlnc Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision CitylCounty: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 ApplicanttOwner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-20 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA). LRR N Let: 36.12843 Long-94.11117 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Taloka complex, mounded NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year.) Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation _, Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hyrimphytir \/wgntatinn Pmvant? Yqq No_ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yss ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No - Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one is recuired� check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhaospheres on Living Roots (0) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) _ Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iran Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (63) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (132) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (69) Microlopographic Relief (134) Aquatic Fauna (1313) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (135) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches). 2 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (Inches), 0 Wedand Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)— Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S 20 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworkshest: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover a .ies' Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 Percent of Dominant Species (A) (B) 2. 3. _ 4. 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67% (A/B) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheat: Total % Cover of Multiply by 8. OBL species x 1 = SiiplinglShrub Strat!jm (Pint size 15' - Total Cover } FACW species 65 x 2 = 130 1, FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 FACU species 20 x 4 = e0 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 90 (A) 225 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.50 (13) 2, 3. 4. 5. 8. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indlcatom: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation B. _ 2 - Dominance Test is 150 g —3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5• = Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Cnre:onnecrear 40 yes FACW — 'Indicators of s soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 Schedonernu.rmundinaceua 20 yes FACU 3 .Turin r .ru.r 20 Ves FACW 4 Pemrr iap—ylvanico 5 no FACW Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5 Xanrhii— ar umaAum 5 no FAC Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or 6 --- ••--- more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless t0. 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 12. 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. 1 2. 3. a. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6, Present? Yes ✓ No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-20 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix l inched Color (moistl % _- Redox Features Color Imoisti % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks 0.16 10yr 5/1 60 10yr 414 20 G M clay loam 'Type C=Concentration. D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location. PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (At6) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 146) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Ftoodplain Soils (F19) Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) MLRA 136) _ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks. Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date. 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-21 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landforn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let 36.13017 Long:-94.11165 Datum NAD 63 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba complex, mounded NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions an the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil _, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY Or rINDINCS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reeuired check all that apply Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ct) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Crayfish Burrows (C6) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (154) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Gaomorphic Position (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (133) _ Water -Stained Leaves (1219) Microtopographic Relief (134) Aquatic Fauna (B13) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 5 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 3 Saturation proeont? Yos ✓ hio _ Depth (inches): n Wetland 4ydrology Present? Yes ✓ Na mrindea ra ills frin a) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-21 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1, Absolute Dominant Indicator %Cover Soecbs? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Prevalence Index workahset: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species _ _._ x 4 - UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = BIA = 8. = Total Cover Seoling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: t 5' ) 1 2. 3 q 5. 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophylic Vegetation _ 2 -Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting — data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must be presets, unless disturbed or problematic. S. g' 10 = Harp Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Total Cover 1 PenicariapemylvaWca 30 yes FACW 2 Corexannectens 20 VBs FACW 3 Dichmaheliumswparium 20 Ve5 FACW 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 it (1 m) tell. Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants leas than 3.28 It tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 R in height. 5. 6 7. B. 9. 10. it. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1. 70 = Total Cover HydrophytiC nt? Yes ✓ No Present? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Pnint 5-21 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Reoox Features .finches) Color (moist) _L Color (moat) _% Type' Loe� Texture Remarks 0.15 10yr 5/2 70 7.5yr 416 30 C M day roam `Type C=Concentration. D=De lotion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. )Location. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matnx Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Hatosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 143) (MLRA 147, 148) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 146) MLRA 138) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yee ✓ No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. I US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-22 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): mound Local relief (concave, convex, none). convex Slope (% ): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR N Let 36.13031 Long:-94.11196 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba complex, mounded NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Watland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks. None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary - Indicator Iminimum of two required) Primary Indicator (minimum of one is recuired� check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B74) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (1218) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (816) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (Cfi) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits i _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Shallow Aquitard (133) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (135) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes_ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches). _ _ Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks, Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineer Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 5-22 Ahsolule Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Species, Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 2. 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC, (A/B) 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7 Total o Cover of: Multioly bv: 6 = Total Cover OBL species x t = $?P)i0g(ShNb Stratum (Plot SIZE; 15, 1 FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU species e0 x 4 = 240 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: ea (A) 240 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.00 2, 3, 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 — 2 - Dominance Test is >50 9. — 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 10 — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 Total Cover — data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Schedanerousamndiwceur 30 Ves FACU — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 C)vmdon d tylon 20 Ves FACU 3. Andropogon virgin— 10 no FACU he present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6 — — 7. height. 6. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.26 ft (1 m) tall. 10. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.26 ft tall. t2 Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft In 60 = Total Cover 30' Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. Hydrophytic 1. 2. — -- 3. _.-- a. ----- 5. Vegetation ✓ g_ Present? Yes No = Total Cover Remarks. (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: S-22 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) _ Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (most) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 4l4 100 clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (A1) _ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface s9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (FB) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbdc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 N w 0 0 s ar R C d L C a Photo 1. View of WET -A (looking westward). Photo 2. View of WET-B (looking westward). Photo 3. View of WET-C (looking northward). Photo 4. View of WET-F (looking southward). Photo 5. Partial view of WET-G abutting INT-01. Photo 6. View of WET-H (looking northward). Photo 7. View of WET -I (looking southeastward). Photo 8. PER-01 (looking westward). Photo 9. EPH-01 (looking southward). Photo 10. View of EPH-02 (looking eastward). I Photo 13. View of Ditch-03 (looking northward). Photo 14. View of Upland Swale-03 (looking southwestward) Photo 15. View of Upland Swale-04 (looking eastward). Photo 16. View of OW-1 (looking southward). M W National Flood Hazard Layer FI RMette 94°74V 4Fi'81"N 0 250 500 FAYETTEN ILL.E A FEMA Legend SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A. V. A99 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE. AD, AH. VE. AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard. Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard z-,,, x Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. z, -= s FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Leveez-, o ND SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard z-,. x Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard GENERAL - — -' Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation e - - - Coastal Transect --^^sn— Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary - --- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURLS Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped QThe pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/1/2021 at 11:09 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. q , rr This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, 94°6'27W 36°7'34"f� FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for Feet 1 :6 000 unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for 1,000 1,500 2,000 regulatory purposes. Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 13 EA 0 I- V u . "'' 0. 'u o v �.. v ' � ' v ram, v > Z Q Q v s o +�' u o +� u75 .z� v v � .� ft v � '. 0 o u • • • • • • • • in. a 0 0 Ni W tz i••) r• f� 4-1 rC •�i 4--j � 4. n u ° z O ° u 1 a O ° ° qd a 4 Ururc r i O O '� O > -, CA � = o �' R v > .. �, O a �a b 4-' `� v ° ° • rl •ice % ,may ^ ro N Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Priority Sites with Open Space Score �_ —---- in {r �, rt � , ...R .� • . � �= OAT V4, L •12, Mounds and Swales Mounds and Swales » } 10111111PIllimsissDon Tyson Pkwy ! ; ..�' A .. r a Mounds and Swales "" �• 1 Spring Run �, ■ +,r- » Mounds and Swales • ■ iz+ •. —fir- _ .. �. .a>f Glade Pond/Wstlantl Open Wetland 265- ev{ge F3 ( Mounds and Swales »• Prwrlty streambanks Lake .�7 Fayetteville Open Space . • • BEHI, Nbss Fayetteville `»�" City Limits Mastor Score Other Watershed Fayetteville 3 .`,i> streambanks Springdale Planning Mounds and Swales CityLimits �� Natural Areas Area � z 0 0.5 1 2 1' Miles _ y a� c V •4-4 ONO o a� � � o � U 0 on" pmm" V� op" o � o IZ.r � � O -+mo+ "'I L •ION w C � v a 3 '~ � � } R ate) .� ^� 3 d v .� cn -C� .� E ' cn ui-1 •'� -4 r-i •x cu .� ro CJ G v v � N O�v aj w U ai E- G Q'ogo It �� 06 °v c°rl a N o•yvi row �mx O 'O F-• c _o v +" O v c = V) ' FIA o� .L' Cc,� 3 o c� �v� v w0 vo � yu ON fx -k O v GJ C w 2 O 'b v ... �^. CJ o ai awn Z cs. ro o ¢�V) u .'� O •o u 6J it cu ;m. o ff ¢ 'O C ro N �� vv a.+ 3 �-v p � .0 cE ru w ao 0 r ro v vw C. zii Received from Jonathan Curth 02/12/21 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE �' ARKANSAS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council THRL): Susan Nnrtnn, f hiaf of Staff FROM: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director DATE: February 12, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEMO SUBJECT: Anticipated fiscal impact of Burge Annexation and Chandler Crossing Planned Zoning District INTRODUCTION: Between the City Council meetings of January 19, 2021 and February 2, 2021, Councilmember Turk inquired about the anticipated revenue and costs of an agenda item. Specifically, what is the anticipated impact to Fayetteville and the Springdale Public School District from annexing the Burge Irrevocable Trust property at 3435 Zion Road and zoning it and 22.89 acres within the City under the Chandler Crossing planned zoning district (PZD). This analysis is sometimes called a "fiscal impact" or a "cost/benefit" analysis. The numbers in the attached spreadsheets roughly simulate what a fiscal impact model might produce. Fiscal impact models are dependent not only on the actual numbers but also the underlying assumptions driving the model. Those assumptions are listed as footnotes on the attached spreadsheets. BACKGROUND: The property proposed for development under the Chandler Crossing PZD is largely undeveloped pasture with a single-family dwelling and agricultural buildings. Development Services staff consulted across multiple divisions and departments to establish assumptions, benefits, and costs for the project. Unlike the recent request for fiscal impact analysis on the Hughmount annexation and rezoning in 2020, the subject property and proposed PZD lack well- defined develuprnenl details, including types of proposed nousing and potential nonresidential uses. The baseline assumptions start by evaluating the proposed land uses within Chandler Crossing's Planning Areas 1 and 2. Beginning with Planning Area 1, which is largely located along Crossover Road and proposed to permit nonresidential and multi -family uses, the Development Vitality Department established a scenario involving retail, restaurant, office, and multi -family uses. Although not rooted in any known project specifications, these land uses would all be permitted within Planning Area 1 and represent a conservative estimate of potential build -out. A wide range of alternative development scenarios could be developed but all would be subject to assumptions. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Conversely, Planning Area 2 includes a higher -degree of detail, with 340 residential dwellings specifically proposed, and an allowance for single-, 2-, 3-, and 4-family housing. This information affords increased certainty in the validity of results. Accordingly, the numbers for Planning Areas 1 and 2 have been provided separately to afford individual evaluation. The attached spreadsheets were created by the Development Services Department with supporting data from Fayetteville's Economic Vitality, Fire, Police, and Public Works Departments. As indicated on the spreadsheets, development in Fayetteville generates both one-time revenue and continuing annual revenue. One-time Revenue: For most categories of development occurring in Fayetteville, fees are required to off -set a project's impact on the City's services and infrastructure. Although impact fees are not generally associated with the Burge annexation, development under the concurrently proposed Chandler Crossing PZD, will trigger these fees. For the purposes of this analysis, Planning Area 2 and its clearly established land use entitlement of 340 units represent the only portion of the PZD that allows for reasonable assumptions when determining impact fees. Accordingly, the following represent the one-time revenue projected for Planning Area 2 of the Chandler Crossing PZD: Fire Impact fees $51,000 Police impact fees $55,080 Water and Sewer impact fees $445,740 to $626,620 (depending on housing unit type or anticipated mater size for nonresidential) Park in -lieu fees $323,680 to $370,260 (with no parkland dedication) $0 (with parkland dedication proposed to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on January 4, 2021) Total one-time impact fees $551,820 to $1,102,960 Annual Revenue: Annual revenue consists of property taxes (real and personal) and various forms of sales taxes: Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Total Property Tax $39,500 $99,107 $138,607 Internet Sales Tax $24,000 $20,400 $44,400 Restaurant/HMR Sales Tax $70,000 - $70,000 Retail Sales Tax $45,500 - $45,500 Sales Tax from On -site Employee Spending $37,440 - $37,440 Total: $216,440 $119,507 $335,947 Annual Costs: Annual Costs represent operational and maintenance costs incurred by additional residents or infrastructure. Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Total Police Protection $101,850 $86,573 $188,423 Fire Protection $3,129 $3,129 $6,257 Park Maintenance $28,864 $24,534 $53,398 Street Maintenance $13,585 $13,585 $27,170 Total: $147,428 $127,821 $275,249 CostlBenefit: The numbers below distill the identified costs and benefits associated with the Chandler Crossing PZD. Each represents the ratio of total benefits to total costs. A result of less than 1" represents a potential deficit while a result of greater than "1" is a surplus. Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Total 1.47 0.93 1.22 SUMMARY: Without counting additional State and Federal funding or grants, the annual revenue compared to the annual costs anticipates a surplus for the overall Chandler Crossing PZD. As noted above, a critical assumption of this analysis is the conservative scenario of development under Planning Area 1, where a broad spectrum of nonresidential uses are permitted along with multi- family housing. Assuming increased density and intensity of development, associated increases in property tax and sales tax revenues are likely. The other critical policy assumption regards the status of the one-time impact fees. The intent of impact fees is to offset potential capital deficits that may result from growth and development. In this instance, the impact fees may create a surplus due to the presence of existing street, water, and sewer infrastructure along Crossover Road. Attachments: • Economic Vitality Staff Memo • Supporting Data • Fire Department Operational Impact Exhibit og CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE STAFF MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Susan Norton, Chief of Staff CC: Chung Tan, Deputy Director of Economic Vitality FROM: Devin Howland, Director of Economic Vitality DATE: February 12, 2021 SUBJECT: Chandler Crossing Annexation: Economic Vitality DISCUSSION: The Department of Economic Vitality assessed three different components of the proposed annexation: 1. Planning Area 2: 340 Living Unitsi and 748 residents residing in the units"; 2. Planning Area 1: Cap of 269,900 square feet of mixed uses (per PZD book). Assumptions used by the Department of Economic Vitality: Area Assumptions'" Multi Family Living Units 400 Estimated population in living units 880 Restaurant Size 5,000 s . ft. Retail size 7,000 s . ft. Onsi ht employees in office 150 Table 1: The assumptions in the table above were aevelopea by me ueparrmenr or cconomic viraury. 3. Combination of Planning Area's 1 and 2. Sources for base metrics: • Internet Sales of $3,000 per living unit."' • Restaurants Sales of $350 per square foot. • Retail Sales of $325 per square foot." • Full time office employee spend per week of $180." • Property Tax: Springdale/Fayetteville 52.8 total mills. °"' Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING AREA 1: $216,440 Annexed by Buildout planning area 1(staff assumptions) Estimated Population••, _ 880.00 Estimated Multi -Family Units Planning Area a+2 400.00 Real Property Tax Revenue .. $ 39,500.00 Internet Sales Tax Revenue from Multi -Family ••a $ 24,000.00 Sales and HMR Tax from Restaurantsee5 $ 70,000.00 Sales Tax from Retail ae6 $ 45,500.00 Sales Tax from restaurant and retail spending from employees on siteYe7 1 $ 37,440.00 "1 Estimated population = Residential Addresses x 2.2 (per occupied resrence-Census) "2 ratmted by the Deponent of Economc Vitality. Not based on protect specxk. information. "A M if"it, merkrt value of S711 f n nm Irlyartrrard nr Frnnnmr Vft'lay xxtrala of M nm par ,no at Am imps pexta eanr m xxt � xa of $7 nmm,nnn F4W market value of 13,000.000. The total estimated prapeny tax revenue to the city from the annexation is estimated to be 539,500 per year, as determined by the following formulas for the parcels to be annexed'. :((Total Assesseit Value) -0.2)-(8.8+1.1)11000 tpe hei propertyesxmafes not inslude,1117-dsmct usedis the SpnngdaferFayeOeNlle datncf7 The 6.8 constaM used represents the sty property tax mlle9e. The 1.1 constant used represents the cdy roatl property tax mrage. The 0.2 s the 20% of the assessed value on w hich taxes are par. "4 Assuming $3,000 in taxable internet sales for each unit for each year, per City of Fayetteville Econamc Vitally Director, the city captures 2% of Mesa sales in tax revenue "S. Restaurant square feet of 5,000 at $3M in annual sass per sq. ft [2% sales and 2% hm( Rated square feet of 7,000 at S325 per footpar loot sales dervived home 2017 CoSur report. "T. 150 full titre employees on site, average weeny spend of $180 per full one office employee. Assumption of $120 on retail (2% tax) and $60 on restaurant (4% tax). SI Bo per ertployee demand from ICSC, 2012 study Office Worker Retail Spandng in a Digital Age adjusted to 2019 dutsrs. PLANNING AREA 2: $119,507 Annexed by Buildout phase one (staff assumptions)••4 _ Estimated Population ••t 7 Estimated Uving Units Planning Area 2 340 Real and Personal Property Tax Revenue ••2 $ 99,107.00 Internet Sales Tax Revenue •x3 $ 20,400.00 "1 Estimated population = Residential Addresses x 2.2 (per occupied residence -Census) "2 The total estimated property tax revenue to the city from the annexation is estimated to be $100,802.64 per year. as determined by the following formulas for the parcels to be annexed: For parcels wth the homestead credit applied'. ((Total Assessed Value • 0.2) - 375 + ( Personal Property* 0.2))((6.8 + 1.1) / 1000) For parcels without the homestead credit applied: ((Total Assessed Value+Personal Property)' 0.2) • (6.8+ 1.1) / 1000 [personal property estimates included] [Tax district used is the Springdale/Fayeffeur le district] The 6.8 constant used represents the city property tax milage, The 1.1 constant used represents the city road property tax collage. The 375 is the homestead credit The 0.2 s the 20 % of the assessed value on which taxes are paid. "3 Assuming $3,000 in taxable internet sales for each household each year, per City of Fayetteville Economic Vitality Director; the city captures 2% of these sales in tax revenue ••d Ilapartrram of Rrnnnmr Ve,18y Ax—rl m, snnn,MO mnrlrM vnain pnr hmm� fbmmml flnrmrlSr of nne non m rOq QM m9r1!et :'alit!. COMBINED ANNUAL BENEFIT FOR PLANNING AREAS 1 & 2: $335,947 Combined Benefit- Economic Vitality (both planning areas) Estimated Population ••1 1,628.00 Estimated total living units **2 740.00 Real Property Tax Revenue ••3 $ 138,607.00 _ _ Internet Sales Tax Revenue from living units ••a $ 44,400.00 Sales and HMR Tax from Restaurantsee5 $ 70,000.00 Sales from Retail ee6 $ 45,500.00 Sales Tax from restaurant and retail spending from employees on siteet7 1 $ 37,440.00 MARKET VALUES USED: • Market Value of Restaurant: $2M • Market Value of Retail: $3M • Market Value of Multi -family: $20M • Market Value of homes in Planning Area 2: $68M • Market Value of each care in Planning Area 2: $20,000 Density Cap of Planning Area 2, Chandler Crossing PZD Book Estimated population = Residential addresses x 2.2 (per occupied residence, U.S. Census Bureau). "'Assumptions on uses and size derived from conservative estimations by the Department of Economic Vitality. The uses outlined in the table do not reflect any known uses for planning area 1. napartment of Fconomic Vitality Calculations of Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration Local NAICS distributions. ICSC 2019 Restaurant Sales Report and ESRI Business Analyst. `, CoStar, 2017 Sales Report. °" ICSC's 2012 Study Office Worker Retail Spending in the Digital Age. Figures adjusted to 2019 dollars. vi° httos://www.washingtoneountyar nnv/nnvPrnmanTMPpartments-a-a/collectarlmillage-rat es BENEFITS V. COSTS City of Fayetteville Estimated Annual Benefits *`1 $ 335,947.00 Plannin Area 1 $ 216,440.00 Plannin Area 2 $ 119,507.00 Estimated Annual Costs **2 $ 275,248.57 Plannin Area 1 $ 147,427.59 Plannin Area 2 $ 127,820.99 Annual Cost/Benefits Ratio**3 Planning Area 1 w7 Planning Area 2 0.93 Estimated One-time Benefits $ 551,820.00 to $ 1,102,960.00 Estimated Annual Property Tax Benefits Wastv ngton Count $ 77,199.00 Estimated Annual Property Tax Benefits (Springdale School District $ 710,582.00 "1 Estimated Annual Benefits = Real Estate Propert^ -ax + Irate net Sales Tax + HMR Sales Tax + Sales Tax "2 Estimated Annual Costs = Police Protection + Fir- Protecion+ Parks Maintenance + Street Maintenance "3 Cost/Benefit Ratio = Costs / BeneiBs FEES & ONE-TIME REVENUE Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 1 Planning Area 3 Estimated Population **1 748 Estimated Households per PZD **2 Undefined 3401 Undefiled Impact Fees Fire Impact Fees **3 $ 51,000.00 Police Impact Fees **4 $ 55,080.00 Water/Sewer Impact Fees **5 $ 445,740.00 to 626,620.00 Park in -lieu Fees **6 $ 323 680.00 to 370,260.00 w/ Proposed parkland dedication of 8.53 ac. **7 $ 0.00 **1 Estimated population = Residential addresses x 2.2 (2019 ACS Average Household Size) *2 Based on proposed 340 unit density in Planning Area 2 of Chandler Crossing PZD (122020) -'3 Assuming $150/dwelling and build -out to 340 units (UDC §159) **4 Assuming $162/dwelling and buildaut to 340 units (UDC §159) **5 Assuming build -out to 340 units and a range based on $1,311/mufti-family unit and $1,843/single-family unit (UDC §159) **6 Assuming buildout to 340 units no parkland dedication, and a range oased on $952/multi-family unit and $1.089/single-family unit (UDC §166) **7 Based on applicants January 4, 2021 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board request. At ratio of 0.023 ac. per single-family dwelling or 0.02 ac. per mufti -family dwellling. (UDC §165) PROPERTY TAX REVENJE AT BUILD-OUT**1 Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 1 1 Planning Area 3 Overall Total: Estimated Population **2 880 748 Estimated Households per PZD —3 400 **3 1 340 **4 Washington County Real Propety Tax Revenue $ 22,000.00 $ 55,199.00 $ 77,199.00 Fayetteville Real Property Tax Revenue $ 39,500.00 $ 99,107.00 $ 138,607.00 Springdale School District Real Froparty Tax Revenue $ 202,500.00 $ 508,082.00 $ 710,582.00 Real P-operty Tax Revenue Total: 1 $ 242,000.00 **5 $ 607,189.00 **6 $ 849,189.00 "1 The 2019 Washington County Millage Rate, as collected in 2020, totals 52.8 on this property. The break -cloven assuming annexation includes: Washington County. 4.4 mills Fayetteville: 7.9 mills (including 1.1 for reads) Springdale School District: 40.5 ni Is `? Estimated population = Residential addressss x 2.2 (2319 ACS Average Household Size) "3 Estimated by the Department of Economic Vitality. Not based on project specific information. "4 Based on proposed 340 unit density in Planii ig Area 2 of Chandler Crossing PZD (12/2020) n ry indi xer vawe m a,u,uuu,uuu tucyuunc u w eumiu vumuy .sums is m YJU.000 Pei unu er vuu unLb. —men au, II rm verve m-,UUU,UUU. neien irdi xm venue u $_000,990. ((—otal Assessed Value) ` 0.2) ` (X) 11000 (personal property estimates not included] Fax district used is the Springdale/Fayetteville district] Tt e X variable reprsents the millage rate as referenced under "1 above. The 0.2 is the 20 % of the assessed value on which taxes are paid. ' i Department of Economic Vitality Assumptior s $20C,000 market value per home. Personal Property of one car at $20,000 market value. The total estimated property tax revenue to the city from the annexation is estimated to be $1)0,802.64 per year, as determined by the following formulas for the parcels to be annexed: Fc r parcels with the homestead credit applied ((—otal Assessed Value' 0.2) - 375 + (Personal Popery' 0.2)) ` ((X) 11000) Fcr parcels without the homestead credit applied: ((—otal Assessed Value+ Personal Property) ' 0 2 ' (X) 11000 [personal property estimates included] [Tax district used is the Springdale/Fayetteville district] The X variable reprsents the millage rate as refe re need under **I above. The 375 is the homestead credit. The 0.2 is the 20 % of the assessed value on vihi� taxes are paid. ANNUAL BENEFITS AT BUILD -OUT Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Planning Area 3 Overall Total: Estimated Population **1 880 1 1 7481 1 1,628 Estimated Households per PZD 400 1 21 340 **3 1 740 Real Property Tax Revenue $ 39,500.00 **4 $ 99,107.00 **5 $ 133,607.00 Internet Sales Tax Revenue from Housing **6 $ 24,000.00 $ 20,400.00 $ 44,400.00 Sales and HMR Tax from Restaurants **7 $ 70,000.00 - $ 70,000.00 Sales Tax from Retail **8 $ 45,500.00 $ 45,500.00 Sales Tax from Restaurant and retail spending of employees on -site **9 $ 37,440.00 $ 37,440.00 Planning Area Total: $ 216,440.00 $ 119,507.00 $ 335,947.00 "1 Estimated population = Residential Addresses x 2.2 (per occupied residence -Census) "2 Estimated by the Department of Economic Vitality. Not based an project specific information. "3 Based on proposed 340 unit density in Planning Area 2 of Chandler Crossing PZD (122020) "4 Multifamily market value of $20,000,000 [Department of Economic Vitality estimate of $50,000 per unit at 400 units. Restaurant market value of $2.000,00). Retail market value of $3,000,000. The total estimated property tax revenue to the city from the annexation is estimated to be $39,500 per year, as determined by the following formulas for the parcels to be annexed: :((Total Assessed Value)' 0.2)' (40.5) 11000 [personal property estmates not included][Tax district used is the Springdale/Fayetteville distnc] The 4D.5 constant used represents the SpringdalelFayetteville School District tax millage. The 0.2 is the 20 % of the assessed value on vfiich taxes are paid. "5 The total estimated property tax revenue to the city from the annexation is estimated to be $99.107 per year, as determined by the following formulas for the parcels to be annexed: For parcels with the homestead credit applied: ((Total Assessed Value' 02) - 375 + (Personal Property' 02))' ((6.8 + 1.1) / 1000) For parcels without the homestead credit applied: ((Total Assessed Value+ Personal Property)' 0.2)' (6.8 + 1.1) 11000 [personal property estimates included]rTax district used is the Spnngdale/Fayetteville district) The 6.8 constant used represents the city property tax millage. The 1.1 constant used represents the city road property tax millage. The 375 is the homestead credit. The 0.2 is the 20 % of the assessed value on which taxes are paid. "6 Assuming $3.000 in taxable internet sales for each unit for each year, per City of Fayetteville Economic Vitality Director; the city captures 2% of these sales In tax revenue Restaurant square feet of 5,000 at $350 in annual sales per sq. ft. [2% sales a'd 2% hmr) "8: Retail square feet of 7,000 at $325 per foot. Per foot sales dervived from a 2017 Coster report. "9: 150 full time employees on site, average weekly spend of $180 per full time office employee. Assumption of $120 on retail (2% tax) and $60 on restaurant (4% tax). $180 per employee derived from ICSC's 2012 study Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age adjusted to 2019 dollars. ANNUAL COSTS AT BLII_D-CU— Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Planning Area 3 Ov6rall Total: tim Esated Population **1 880 748 1,628 Estimated Households per PZD 400 **2 340 **3 740 Police Protection **4 $ 101,850.00 $ 86,573.00 $ ' 88,423.00 Fire Protection **5 $ 6,257.17 **6 $ 6,257.17 Park Maintenance**7 $ 28,864.00 $ 24,534.40 $ 53,398.40 Street Maintenance **8 $ 27,170.00 **8 $ 27,170.00 PlarniTg Area Total: $ 147,427.59 $ 127,820.99 $ 275,248.57 •• I Estimated population = Residential Addresses x «(per —ed residence -Census) "2 Estimated by the Department of Economic Vitality. Not based -•n project specific information, "3 Based on proposed 34D unit density in Planning A ea 2 of Chandler Crossing PZD (12r2020) "4 Estimates per Fayetteville Police Department law ongoing enforcement costs and Development Services application of proposal. Ar nual cost of annexation to law enforcement = Numbe of Hone- • Total Base Cost per Officer Bose Cost pe, Officer includes: So IariesBenefits - $67,916 PPE/Uniform -$600 Ecuipment - $2,042 (5-year replacement) Vehicle -$9.D31 (6-year replacement) T-h in Vehicle • $2.548 (5-year replacement) _ $82,137 'F- Estimates per Fayetteville Fire Department. Annual cost o' annexation to fire protection = Total Cost— Call * 7alls per Sq. Km Tctal Cost per Call-$109.77 Calls per Square Kilometer -57 (based on 0.31 {n project area) Hcum Dedicated to Calls-1814:24 Tinal Operational Cost of Annex. - $6,257.17 "E Available data could not be separated by planning area or cn a per capita basis. 50% of the cost was attributed to each planning area. Estimates per Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Department Annual cost of park maintenance per capita = ($2,873�390.00 167,590) * Number of residents The $2,873.000 is the Fayetteville park system Maintenance per Capita The 67,590 is the City of Fayetteville population per 2C'1� Censrs Bureau estimates *'E Estimates per Fayetteville Public Works Department and basec on approximate 1.9 miles of public street proposed in the Chandler Crossing PZD t12-2020). Annual street maintenance cost of annexation = (Miles o Stree, ' CS8,000 * $6,300)) TIv $8.000 is the current pavement maintenance cost p• r mile The $6,300 is the current cost per mile for street lights n: sed on 300-foot maximum permitted spacing arid $30/month per light Es-imate does not include alleys given varying maintera ce costs lepending on material. *'9 Available data could not be separated by planning sr -a or cn aper capita bass. 50% of the cost was attributed to each planning area. Operational Impact to Fire Department - :! Chandler Crossing & Burge Trust Annex,: :. ....It ij� .. �} } } k Copper.t ) r , Creek Ph 1 r� r Copper. Creek b. y Replat Lots60, 80 81,83 Ph.'l J Cart~ �- q .. k� 3 f .............. ' EIksTAddn 1 �e .............. I . ..........::. .......................: Lakewood °7 Lakewo Re /a _ SLK� Woodbury._" Jusonia Terrace_ - � Ridgewood—'_-_ "-- --.--. . . _ :- Vista Plaza rr �•, rE, Zlon M Embry i {_' P/ace - "' r�Copper Creek n Copper ReplatlLt 103 Creek Ph 3 Cop Creek � �Y 5- ReolatLt '107, 77 � ! AL— �'! Copper.Cree: r Copper _ Replat Lots Creek Ph.2 16 Ph.2 :. -Legend PZD-2020-0000 USNG1000M USNG 100M __Z USNG Incidents F Total u0 1 - 50 51-93 94 - 171 172 - 284 285 - 483 USNG Population Population 0 1 - 380 381 - 674 675 - 1102 1103 - 1703 1704 - 3551 Received 02/26/21 Submit Public Comment This page is provided for efficient submission of public comment for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure your comments conform to the Rules of Order and Procedure. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Full Name* David B. and Beverly Bassett Jones Address or Ward" Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address 3990 N. Old Wire RD Fx 113VVMrnrntt St Phone Number 14798411767 Email dbjcon@aol.com Meeting Body' City Council Agenda Item 2020-1136 ANX-0001 Number/Subject P1ntasedlck the link 1,0., tonevigato to the Aganda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position In Favor Comments David B Jones 3990 N. Old Wire RD Fayetteville, AR 72703 I would like to speak in favor of this project... if it is done correctly. This project is nothing more than the Natural progression of a growing city that needs to be addressed correctly and developed in the correct way. On the Master street plan it shows the connecting street leaving this proposed development going back due South and connecting in to what will be the 4-way intersection at E. Joyce and Old Wire RD. That section should be installed with this development now or it probably wouldn't get built. E. Joyce Blvd and Old Wire RD intersection has had several traffic counts done on it the last few years that says between 10,000 and 20,000 cars a day come through there. I have owned the SE Corner of that intersection for nearly 25 years and it needed to be improved 15 years ago. Joyce (which is a planned MAJOR ARTERIAL) needs to be extended from 265 to this intersection which would be where A LOT of this developments traffic would come and go through when complete. I have never lived anywhere but Fayetteville and miss what it used to be like as much as the next guy but instead of fighting what is inevitable we should all give helpful input in to how we will make this work instead of complaining about what someone is doing with their PRIVATE PROPERTY. This is why Planning exists, not to keep snmPnne, frnm doing what they want with their PRIVATE PROPERTY. but instead to help them do it so as to be an improvement to the overall community, not a burden. Thank You. David B. and Beverly Bassett Jones Attachments PDF pr,,,erred Section from the RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Adopted 01/07/2020 by Resolution #01-20 & Amended 06/16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Public comment at a City Council meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience \k ho hose signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being opened for public continent. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes to be broken into segments of three and two minutes. Amendments may receive public comments only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent of maiority vote. If'public continent is allowed for an amendment, speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent or majonty vote uurtesy and ResplQL All members of the public, all city staff and elected officials shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. Al[ shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements about motives or personalities. Any member of the public who violates these standards shall be ruled out of order by the Mayor, must immediately cease speaking and shall leave the podium. Enter the text you want this field to display Democrat IF Gazette H.^ i,:iX IC0" ail'Tl `['ilLL', i�P, 7270? • 47" ?-1 %00 • fAX 79-o95•Il'.S • t`J\"+, L4YAD 1 C, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Brittany Smith, do solemnly swear that I am the Accounting Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, a daily newspaper printed and published in said County, State of Arkansas; that I was so related to this publication at and during the publication of the annexed legal advertisement the matter of- Notice pending in the Court, in said County, and at the dates of the several publications of said advertisement stated below, and that during said periods and at said dates, said newspaper was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County; that said newspaper had been regularly printed and published in said County, and had a bona fide circulation therein for the period of one month before the date of the first publication of said advertisement; and that said advertisement was published in the regular daily issues of said newspaper as stated below. City of Fayetteville Ord 6416 Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: March 14, 2021 Publication Charges: $104.88 6,;k &,� Brittany 9mith Subscribed and sworn to before me This l�'day of , 2021. 6L_� U4 Notary Public My Commission Expires: L'ZA/0 Cathy Wiles Benton COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC—ARKANSAS **NOTE** My Commission Expires 02-20-2024 Please do not pay from Affidavit. Commission No. 12397118 Invoice will be sent. Ordinance: 6416 File Number: 2020-1136 ANX 2020-0001(3435 E. ZION RD.BURGE): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION PETITION OF PATRICIA LYNNE SEVERING, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT EUGENE BURGE IRREVOCABLE TRUST, AND ANNEX 59.00 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 3435 EAST ZION ROAD WHEREAS, Patricia Lynne Severino, as Trustee of the Robert Eugene Burge Irrevocable Trust, has properly secured the Washington County Judge's authorization to annex 59.00 acres located at 3435 East Zion Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby confirms the annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property described in Exhibits A and Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby zones the newly annexed property R-A, Residential Agricultural. Section 3: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official map and zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to recognize this annexation. Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby assigns this 59.00 acres to Ward Three of the City of Fayetteville. PASSED and APPROVED on 3/2/2021 Approved: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer 75391416 3/14/21 JOHNTHURSTON ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE DECEIVED July 12, 2021 The Hon. Becky Lewallen Washington County Clerk 280 N. College Ave Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: City of Fayetteville Annexation Ordinance 6416 Dear Ms. Lewallen, 'JAL 16 2021 CITY OF FAYET7EYILLE CITY CIE4 OFFICE This letter acknowledges receipt and filing of the following notice of municipal boundary change by the Office*of the Arkansas Secretary of State: Filing Type: Annexation pursuant to A.C.A 514-40-602 (petition majority of landowners) Effective Date: 4/2/2021 County: Washington City: Fayetteville CityOrdinance: 6416 Dated: 3/2/2021 County Court Order. 2020-013 Date Filed: 7/13/2020 A file marked copy of the ordinance, court order and exhibits submitted to our Office are enclosed- By copy of this letter (and its enclosures), the Secretary of State hereby notifies the appropriate mapping authorities for Arkansas. Please retain these copies as official record of -the filing of the municipal change by the Arkansas Secretary of State. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this filing, please do not hesitate to contact our Office at 501-683-3717. Sincerely, p___�-J Sliante cGraw Elections Division cc: Arkansas Geographic Information Systems Office (w/encl) Arkansas Department of Transportation Mapping Department (w/encl) Department of Finance and Administration (w/encl) Arkansas Public Service Commission (w/encl) Arkansas Economic Development Institute (w/encl) The Hon. Lioneld Jordan, Mayor of Fayetteville (-vv/encl) The Hon. Kara Paxton, Fayetteville City Clerk/Treasurer (w/encl) State Capitol • Suite 256 •500 Woodlane Street • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1094 501-682-1O10 • Fax 501-682-3510 e-mail: mos@sos.arkansas.gov • www.sos.arkansas.gov y °.}.q'�ter Arkansas Secretary of State o�,r ��9y t John Thurston Arkansas Secretary of State, 500 Woodlane Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-1094 'Rrtwxa�' Municipal Boundary Change Checklist' Act 655 of 2017 and A.C.A. §14-40-103 County: Wash i ngton City/Town: Fayetteville City Ordinance/Resolution No:6416 Date approved: March 2, 2021 County Court Case No:2020-013 _ _ Date order -Filed: July 13, 2020 Type. Annexation by Petition Majority of Landowners A.C.A. 14-40-602 H- Date Change Effective: April 2, 2021 Set by: ()Municipal Ordinance O Emergency Clause OCourt ODefault (Required by Act 655 of 2017) For Circuit Court Challenge: Date Order Filed: QUpheldo Overturned(!) Other lattoch explanation Please indicate which ward(s) the territory will be assigned to: Ward 1 (See A.C.A. § 1440-203) Initiating party: SAiI Landowners Q Majority Landowners Municipal Governing Body ()State ()Other, Supporting Documentation attached (check all that apply): Q✓ File marked copy of City Ordinance/Resolution (required) a✓ File marked copy of County Court Order or certified annexation election results (required except forA.C.A. §14-40-501) © Copy of Arkansas GiS approved printed map and certification letter (required) FV Proof of Publication for all Legal Notices (include Hearing, Election, and City Ordinance/Resolution notices) File marked copy of Petition Part (if applicable) File marked copy of Complaint and final Circuit Court Order (Court Challenge only) Municipal Contact: Name: Kara Paxton Title: City Clerk Street Address:113 W. Mountain St. City: Fayetteville St:AR zip code:72701 Complete one form per ordinance/resolution, attach it as o caver page to the supporting document set and submit to the County tlerks Office within 45 doys of the Effective Dote as required by Act 655 o12017 County Ala, l:SlgnatuTitle: Date: Pursuant to Act 655 of 2017, County Officials must submit a fie -marked copy of municipal boundary change documents within 30 days of receipt to: Arkansas Secretary of State, Attn: Municipal Boundary Filing, 500 Woodlone Ave Suite 256, Little Rock AR 72201-1094 Office of the Arkansas Secretary of State use only JUL 12 2021 Recelved by: Arkansas "n.:no19 Secretary of StgfC± WASHINGTON COUNTY • STATE OFARKANSAS ,. Washington County Courthouse 280 North College Avenue, Suite 300 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Telephone; (479) 444-1711 Fax: (479) 444-1894 BECKY LEWALLEN County And Probate Clerk April 28, 2021 To whom it may Concern: You will find enclosed an Annexation to the City of Fayetteville. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to call. Thanks, nnifer Sharpshair Chief Deputy County Clerk 280 N. College Ave.; Suite 300 Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)444-1711 WASHINGTON COUNTY • STATE OFARKANSAS 4 Washington County Courthouse 280 North College Avenue, Suite 300 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-1711 Fax: (479) 444-1894 BECKY LEWALLEN County And Probate Cleric CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY AND PROBATE COURT THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON. I; Becky Lewallen, County and Probate Clerk within and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the entire file of an Annexation for the City of Fayetteville as filed therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal on This O—� day of�4'o , 2021. County Clerk &J By: D uty County Clerk DocuSfgn Envelope ID:•AB51488F.BB6C-4F94-BBD9-F7A39C98AC53 f �51. • ; w 4 G�7G� a� r� her IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS I/ IN•THE MATTER OF ANNEXING -TO THE CITY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, CERTAIN TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS CC NO.2020-013 TO -SAID CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ' ORDER CONCERNING ANNEXATION ems.. C r- CD Co On this regular day of a regular term of the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas, there is presented to the Court by Patricia Lynne Severino, as Trustee of the Robert Eugene Burge Irrevocable Trusted, dated December 20, 2012, the petition of the real estate owner desiring the annexation of territory to the City of Fayetteville; Arkansas, more particularly . ' N described therein. The court has received the verification of the county assessor and county clerk required by A.C.A § 14-40-609. This Court being fully advised of the facts and the law does hereby find as follows: 1. The Court finds that the petition and verifications are complete and accurate. 2. The Court further finds that no enclaves will. be created by the annexation. 3. The Court finds that the petition contains a schedule of services. 4. The Court finds that the territory consists of lands that: a.. whether platted or not, are held to be sold as suburban property; b. represent the actual growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary; and C. arc needed for proper municipal purposes such as the extension of need police regulations. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB5148BF-BB6C=4F94-B6a9-F7A39C98AC53. Therefore; the Court hereby ORDERS that the petition and this'Order be delivered to the" City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. oo q-d b: UFINW7574"F... JOSEPH K.. WOOD, COUNTY JUDGE Jul 10, 2020 1 3:30 PM CDT DATED: D_ ocu9gn�C Cy. C �c�- ABF7577CDF8845C... ! 2021 APR 16 PH 12: 45 Co. File Number- 2020-1136 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6416 AN\ 2020-0001(3435 E. ZION RD./BURGE): 111 III>�IIl�lllll�llil141111111 I'��IllllilN�Yll�Illlal�Ullllll Doc ID: 019792830004 Type: REV Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 03/29/2021 at 10:19:55 Art Fee Amt: $30.00 Pace 1 of A Washington County, AR Kyle Sylvester Circuit,Clerk Fi1e2021-00011TV5 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE: ANNf RATION PETITION OF PATRICIA LYNNE SEVERING. AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT EUGE+N'E BURGE IRREVOCABLE TRUST. AND ANNEX 39.00 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 3435 EAST %ION ROAD WHEREAS. Patricia Lvnne Severino. as Trustee of the Robert F.uecne Burue Irrevocable Trust. has properly secured the Washington County Judge's authorization to anncs 59.00 acres located at 3435 East Zion Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville. Arkansas hereby confirms the annexation to the Clty of Fayetteville. Arkansas. of that property described in Exhibits A and Exhibit B attached hereto and made a pan hereon Section 2: That the City Council of the City of fayetteville. Arkansas hereby zones the newly annexed property R-A. Residential Agricultural. Section That the City Council of the City of Fayenevitle. Arkansas hereby amends the otticial map and zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to recognize this annexation. Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville. Arkansas hereby assigns this 59.00 acres to Ward Three of the City of Fayetteville. PASSED and APPROVED on 3/2/2021 Page 1 Printed on 2M71 Ordnance: 6416 File Number. 2020.1136 Approve Attest: Lioncld Jor4art. a1'or Ara Pa, t n. City Clerk Treasure f VILIL Page 2 Primod an MM1 OocuSlgn Envelope ID: AB5140BF-BBSC-4F94B6C)9-F7A39C93AC53 . C: wCO� ,V b C/f fr`o r.'I O f Z w. m �M.> �r—r co>Mr .. IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF ANNEXING TO THE CITY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, CERTAIN TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS CC NO.2020-013 TO SAID CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ORDER CONCERNING ANNEXATION On this regular day of a regular term of the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas, there is presented to the Court by Patricia Lynne Severino, as Trustee of the Robert 1 Eugene Burge Irrevocable Trusted, dated December 20, 2012, the petition of the real estate owner desiring the annexation of territory to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, more particularly described therein. The court has received the verification of the county assessor and county clerk required by A.C.A § 1440-609. This Court being fully advised of the facts and the law does hereby find as follows: I. The Court finds that the petition and verifications are complete and accurate. 2. The Court further finds that no enclaves will be created by the annexation. 3: The Court finds that the petition contains a schedule of services. 4. The Court finds that the territory consists of lands that: a.. whether platted or not, are held to be sold as suburban property; . t .b. represent the actual growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary; and C. are needed for proper municipal purposes such as the extension of need: police regulations. SURVEY DESCRIPTION: THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) AND PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY- NINE (29) WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S87029'54"E A DISTANCE OF 570.00 FEET TO A FOUND 1 INCH PIPE, THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, NO2'17'19"E A DISTANCE OF 894.88 FEET; THENCE N31'17'12"E A DISTANCE OF 61.88 FEET; THENCE N02017'19"E A DISTANCE OF 30.12 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.86 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE OF S33054'56"E - 30.71 FEET; THENCE S700071 VE A DISTANCE OF 2.84 FEET, THENCE N62013'43"E A DISTANCE OF 193.73 FEET, THENCE N27046'17'W A DISTANCE OF 7,88 FEET; THENCE NO2'13'43"E A DISTANCE OF 216.09 FEET; THENCE S87036'11'E A DISTANCE OF 292.00 FEET; THENCE S02'13'43"W A DISTANCE OF 136.99 FEET; THENCE S27'46'17'E A DISTANCE OF 193.19 FEET; THENCE S87'46'17"E A DISTANCE OF 148.40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S02013'43"W A DISTANCE OF 971.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, S02023'57"W A DISTANCE OF 1316.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND MONUMENT "ALAN REID"; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, N87030'23'W A DISTANCE OF 1320.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR IN CONCRETE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, N02017'05"E A DISTANCE OF 1316.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 59.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT Rom` I rl+i� `tea; • �/`T _� �T" ��_.�— •ems .P F i T I I I I a ° t n+enw+q.ye a f °Amos Tl+a aar,w-� � aLG 1�, T•1N1, M7f.1 �� . �- •SLAG. �. I I err �s� �f L! } ' I I I 6 I I I I It . I lag r �I 0 i �'+�r] i€ Fidel �,�'•-� �i i q FlING4' 7. I` `� r �//��p�i F i. cuR L aWRQ9 RYIYGtASU TIM AMmn WAa NINOTbM COUNTY, "R —A9 MO o M O NORTHWEST ARKANsAS Demo= Vt'gaze& RC 2Gx 1('0 Fr.'-IP[`all'c, AR, 121C2 • r.7y4 2-I)C-0 - Fat .:79•i4S•!I'g :+ l':1 �Y:: D .CCH AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Brittany Smith, do solemnly swear that I am the Accounting Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, a daily newspaper printed and published in said County, State of Arkansas; that I was so related to this publication at and during the publication of the annexed legal advertisement the matter of: Notice pending in the Court, in said County, and at the dates of the several publications of said advertisement stated below, and that during said periods and at said dates, said newspaper was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County; that said newspaper had been regularly printed and published in said County, and had a bona fide circulation therein for the period of one month before the date of the first publication of said advertisement; and that said advertisement was published in the regular daily issues of said newspaper as stated below. City of Fayetteville Ord 6416 Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: March 14, 2021 Publication Charges: $104.88 gn*' S;� _ Brittany Smith Subscribed and sworn to before me This 1 j day of , 2021. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 2-4OI q Cathy Wiles **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit_ Invoice will be sent. Benton COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC—ARKANSAS My Commission Expires 02-20-2024 Commission No. 12397118 Ordinance: 6416 File Number: 2020-1 136 ANX 202MWI(3435 E. ZION �RDJSURGE) AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION PETITION OF PATRICIA LYNNE SEVERINO, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT EUGENE BURGE IRREVOCABLE TRUST, AND ANNEX 59.00 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 3435 EAST ZION ROAD WHEREAS, Patricia Lynne Severino, as Trustee of the Robin Eugene Surge Irrevocahhte Trust, has properly stcvrrd the Washington Counry Judge's a::th:oriznlion to annex 59.00 acres located ai 3435 East Zion Road. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARK.ANSAS: Section 1: That the City Councilor the City of Fayeneville, Arkansas hereby confirms the annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property dcscrihxd in Exhibits A and Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. Smion 2: That the City Council of the City of Faycttrvillc, Arkansas hereby zones the newly annexed property R-A, Residential Agricultural. Section 3: That the City Council of the City of Foycnevillc, Arkansas hereby amends the official map Ictd inning trap of the City of Fayercville to recognize this annexation. Section 4: Thal the City Council ofthc City of Foycaceilic, Arkansas hereby usigns this 59.00 acres to Ward three of the City of Fayeneville. PASSED and APPROVED on 3W-021 Approved: L.iondd JordarL Mayor Attest: Kara Paxton, City Cleric Treasurer 75391416 3/14/21 I GIS OFFICE June 17, 2020 Mr. Will A. Kellstrom Watkins; Boyer, Gray & Curry, PLLC 1106 W. Poplar Rogers, AR 72756 RE: City of Fayetteville Annexation Coordination Requirement Mr. Kellstrom, Department of Transformation and Shared Services Governor Asa Hutchinson Secretary Amy Fecher Director Shelby Johnson Thank you for coordinating with our office as you seek to annex property into the City of Fayetteville, AR described as the "Burge Annex" and located in Section 19, Township 17 North, Range 29 West. This letter represents confirmation that you have properly coordinated with our office (Arkansas GIS Office) as specified in § 14-40-101 (Act 914 of 2015) of the 901h General Assembly. Our office will wait completion of any additional steps necessary for the proposed boundary change, which normally comes from the Arkansas Secretary of .State Elections Division after any appropriate filing by your County Clerk. Thank you, Jennifer Wheeler, GIS Analyst Attachments: GIS Office Map of Proposed Annexation Legal Description Secretary of State Municipal Change Checklist H'\City_Annexations\Cities\FayettevlI le\20200617\Doc\20200617_Fa yette viUe_Annex ation_Coordination_Letter.docx ARKANSAS GIS OFFICE 1 Capitol Mall, Suite 6D • Little Rock, AR 72201 • 501.682.2767 EXHIBIT: _.._ gis.arkansas.gov • transform.ar.gov _. taewcs m X Proposed "Burge' Annex: City of Fayettevlllo City: F. Lio aneld Jordan Juno 2020 Mayor. io STT•T17N-R29Vya� AnaweComtlJ4for, a r tl VAiI 9►fam an entry andanak.s an -.� > z r *At1M A amew aUon, coma da5on, o i a u1 . ntth IPtM daeacfem.M pVeladup unaw IMe .,; - ,� . - ra.• oat c &Apfof. ata Mary "I cooranate ft4m (A. Afkan"s Geo9[aphic )AAwmai/on Sysiame Of&. lw p4parat on of )"so Npperin'11 ti c _f desclobods and d9cal mapppnp /ar the iBlavanf aim "bM cvnsakfab n, and •� 4o• defacllmnM auras. The map eaow od hOmK i, w iftn me anary Ma n.f re9t+ —ma of n f i21-T.17N•R]eW 1 .c ..aM L"Ll _ CURRENT ' CITY LIMITS W:0y439 'ndal a Sig-T1T�5N--R29W ��e1`.— _ - /��J�'• !!�� $20.T17NIR29W r Zan 60 1 c u 0 0.030.06 0.12 I u r t1—Ll_1 l 1 1 1 �lPt i £ Niles c VateAe Y pr n9del.`t�.• 0 f 7Q6A F y Its II � 1aa•wf•t on ornce VJtnIG _ MCp„/Wi...awMrMYia�p•rVe20oa1 A