No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6421AYEr, 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6421 File Number: 2020-1140 PZD-2020-002 (3435 E. ZION RD./CHANDLER CROSSING SD): I IIIIIII IIIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII II��I IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIII IIII Doc ID: 019832880005 Type: REL Kind. ORDINANCE Recorded: 04/i6,2021 at 12:49:36 PM Fee Amt: W .00 Page 1 of 5 Washington County, AR Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk File2021-00014248 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED R-PZD 2020-0002 FOR APPROXIMATELY 81.89 ACRES LOCATED AT 3435 EAST ZION ROAD 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 approves R-PZD 2020-0002 as described in Exhibits "A", `B", and "C" attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo which allows the development of 6.2 acres for commercial and multi -family uses, 39.63 acres for 340 residential units, and 36.06 acres for low -density residential and agricultural uses. Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby approved to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED on 3/16/2021 Attest: `��lttrrrrrr�� IaAAA �� .. • 0I T Y 0 .9JG Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurc;�•, %9�y ••Q�gNSP5.•' %N� 0 Page 1 Printed on 3/17/21 PZD-2020-000002 Chandler Crossing Subdivision PZD-2020-000002 EXHIBIT 'A' Close Up View RS-i �a F z A LU ' - - - - DR w wTONE -� a x a w 0w U ....... 1 - , ZIONRD -v---------- , , 1 1 , it W W > r 1 O _ 1 W N O 1 1 U' 1 � 1 1 I RANDAL-PL-p 1 Cr Q: w ' 1 c-t > O ' 1 co co ZION RD 1 1 Subject Property /� 1 ti r r , Cn ' v m m M R-o C r 4Q �� RW-24 LU �/ O ■ a ��\� NORTH > 1 \ Residential -Agricultural Legend RSF-4 �- - -� RMF-24 � _ _ 1 Planning Area Residential -Office Fayetteville City Limits Feet c 1 Trail (Proposed) 0 180 360 720 1,080 1,440 OM Neighborhood Services - Gen. Building Footprint 1 inch = 500 feet P-' PZD-2020-000002 EXHIBIT 'B' PZD 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) AND PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 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 894.89 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N31°17'12"E A DISTANCE OF 61.88 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST ZION ROAD AND A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NO2°17'19"E A DISTANCE OF 30.12 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.86 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND LENGTH OF S33°54'56"E - 30.71 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE S70°07'11"E A DISTANCE OF 2.84 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N62°13'43"E A DISTANCE OF 193.73 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N27°46'17"W A DISTANCE OF 7.88 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE NO2°13'43"E A DISTANCE OF 276.09 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 AND A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S87°36'11"E A DISTANCE OF 292.00 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, S02°13'43"W A DISTANCE OF 196.99 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE S27°46'17"E A DISTANCE OF 193.19 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; 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 AND A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S02°13'43"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, S02°23'57"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, NO2°17'05"E A DISTANCE OF 495.30 FEET THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE, N87°53'58"W A DISTANCE OF 925.34 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE NO1°30'48"E A DISTANCE OF 199.83 FEET TO A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE N87°40'12"W A DISTANCE OF 379.49 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 265 (NORTH CROSSOVER ROAD) AND A FOUND IRON PIN WITH CAP "1698 J PAYNE"; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N04°05'20"E A DISTANCE OF 135.79 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N22°40'42"E A DISTANCE OF 91.81 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN WITH CAP "1698 J PAYNE"; THENCE N08°21'32"E A DISTANCE OF 164.12 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N01°35'11"W A DISTANCE OF 238.50 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 AND A FOUND "MAG" NAIL WITH WASHER "1698 J PAYNE"; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S87°46'53"E A DISTANCE OF 1269.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 81.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT `C' PZD-2020-000002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Staff and Planning Commission recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Revise the PZD booklet to reflect the following: a. Accurately indicate 3 proposed Planning Areas, rather than 4; b. The PZD shall require compliance with adopted minimum access management standards as outlined in the Unified Development Code; 2. Proposed parkland dedication must be reviewed by PRAB with associated development; 3. PZD approval does not represent approval of alternative street sections. Additional development variances may be required; 4. Proposed fire apparatus access roads shall meet requirements as stated by all applicable fire codes; 5. Lot width requirements will be reduced to 0' where only alley and parkland frontage is proposed; 6. A flood study shall be completed for this area as a condition of approval for the PZD. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends the following: 7. Revise Planning Area 2 requiring that no more than 25% of the lot width of the fagade facing the street right-of-way can be garage door. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 04/16/2021 12:49:36 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2021-00014248 Kyle Sylvester - Circuit Clerk by.r ter,...... City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 \ I T Text File File Number: 2020-1140 Agenda Date: 3/16/2021 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Ordinance Agenda Number: 13.4 PZD-2020-002 (3435 E. ZION RD./CHANDLER CROSSING SD): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED R-PZD 2020-0002 FOR APPROXIMATELY 81.89 ACRES LOCATED AT 3435 EAST ZION ROAD 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 approves R-PZD 2020-0002 as described in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo which allows the development of 6.2 acres for commercial and multi -family uses, 39.63 acres for 340 residential units, and 36.06 acres for low -density residential and agricultural uses. Section 2: That the offic_al zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby approved to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section 1 above. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 311712021 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2020-1140 Legistar File ID 1/5/2021 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Garner Stoll 12/18/2020 CITY PLANNING (630) Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: FZD-2020-000002: Residential Planned Zoning District (3435 E. ZION RD./CHANDLER CROSSING SD, 100/139): Submitted by ESI ENGINEERING, INC. for properties located at 3435 E. ZION RD. The properties are zoned R-A, FESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 81.80 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RPZD tD include 260 mixed use lots. Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? NA Budget Impact: Fund Project Title Current Budget $ Funds Obligated $ - Current Balance Does item have a cost? No Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget V20180321 Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Change Order Number: Approval Date: Original Contract Number: Comments: CITY OF 17! 1 - 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 Masters, Senior Planner DATE: December 18, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEMO SUBJECT: PZD-2020-000002: Planned Zoning District (3435 E. ZION RD./CHANDLER CROSSING SD, 099-100): Submitted by ESI ENGINEERING, INC. for properties located at 3435 E. ZION RD. The properties are zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 81.89 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to RPZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of PZD-2020-000002 as shown in Exhibits 'A', 'B', with conditions as shown in Exhibit 'C'. BACKGROUND: The subject property is in northeast Fayetteville, east of N. Crossover Road and south of E. Zion Road. The property encompasses two parcels, 765-13219-000 which is in the City of Fayetteville limits, and 001-15182-000, which is the parcel under question for an associated annexation (ANX- 2020-000001). The properties are rural and agricultural in nature, and assuming the annexation passes City Council, will both be zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. 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. Proposal: While Planning Commission reviewed different iterations, the proposal currently includes 3 Planning Areas, as opposed to the previous 6. The plan is to rezone the property to a Planned Zoning District (PZD) with both commercial and residential areas. • Planning Area 1 — 6.20 acres: This planning area is primarily commercial in nature, though does allow for multi -family dwellings, and is intended to serve surrounding residential areas with convenience goods and adaptable mixed use. The area is divided into two locations, the first being located along the property's N. Crossover Road frontage, and the second is located towards the center of the site. • Planning Area 2 — 39.63 acres: Making up the primary acreage of the proposal, this area is categorized by a mix of housing types, ranging from single-family to three- and four - Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 family dwellings. The map shows a variety of lot widths, alley -loaded development, and a gridded street pattern throughout the site. Planning Area 3 — 36.06 acres: Scattered throughout the site, with primary consideration for the area surrounding and north of Hilton Creek, this planning area's primary purpose is to provide open space, detention, drainage, and natural areas (though does allow for low -density single-family dwellings with two -acre lot area minimums). The site plan also indicates an intention to provide a linear park extending north and south through the eastern part of the site, as well as a dedicated area for parkland. Land Use Compatibility. The current land use of the property in question is rural and agricultural in nature, and with the proposed annexation, the entire site will be zoned R-A, Residential - Agricultural prior to the approval of this Planned Zoning District. The property is surrounded by a mix of land uses, ranging from agricultural along the eastern property to commercial along the western side of the property and low -density single-family residential to the north and south. The request takes this into account by establishing higher intensity uses along the N. Crossover frontage, and decreasing the proposed density and intensity as the proposal moves to the east and north through the site. The applicant has included an intention through Planning Area 3 to dedicate parkland to the north of Hilton Creek, which takes into account the available infrastructure concerns of E. Zion Road given the limited development potential and large lot sizes; this dedication would require final approval with an associated development. The proposal also considers the Hilton Creek floodplain by leaving this unbuilt and in a natural state. Staff also finds that most of the surrounding property remains in the county, which has a limited suite of by -right allowable uses; staff supports the proposal of low -density residential uses such as single-family dwellings adjacent to the land in Washington County for compatibility of land uses not included in the City of Fayetteville boundary. Staff also supports the applicant's inclusion of a secondary commercial node towards the center of the site, to promote walkability and provide additional services to the future residents of the development. Staff also finds those uses compatible given the applicant's description that non-residential uses will be subject to a higher scrutiny of design standards through Unified Development Code sections 166.24 and 166.25. The booklet also states an intent to adhere to the Downtown Architectural Design Standards (166.21). Land Use Plan Analysis: Staff finds that the proposal is generally compatible with the goals in City Plan 2040, adopted land use policies, and the future land use designation for this location. This area is designated as a City Neighborhood Area, a Residential Neighborhood Area, and a Natural Area. The proposed Planning Areas appear to take these future land use designations into account in the proposed uses, proposed setback and building height requirements, and proposed lot sizes. While the infill score is low for the overall area, the tapered density is in line with the tapering of the infill matrix score, by allowing higher density and intensity uses towards the N. Crossover Road frontage, and low -density single-family homes towards the Zion Road frontage. The addition and incorporation of a new proposed Neighborhood Link Street also helps bring planned infrastructure improvements to the area. Staff does find that the applicant has requested an alternative street section for that proposed Neighborhood Link Street, but no written variance to that standard has been received. Staff also finds that with existing transit stops and nearby on- street bike facilities, an existing transportation network along N. Crossover Road helps support the introduction of new, higher density and intensity development along that frontage. Further, the applicant's consideration for the existing floodplain, Natural Area designation, and the existing Enduring Green Network through Planning Area 3 helps fulfill goals as outlined by City Plan 2040. On the balance of considerations, staff finds the proposed PZD to be compatible and consistent with existing land uses and adopted land use plans. CITY PLAN 2040 INFILL MATRIX: City Plan 2040's Infill Matrix indicates a varying score for the subject property, ranging from 3 to 7. Areas closer to N. Crossover Road have higher scores than those near E. Zion Road. The elements vary by the area of the property being considered, and include the following: • Appropriate Land Use (City Neighborhood Area) • Near ORT Bus Stop (Route 30) • Near Park (Lake Fayetteville and David Lashley Park) • Near Sewer Main (N. Crossover Road) • Near Paved Trail (On -street bike lanes, N. Crossover Road, Lake Fayetteville) • Near Water Main (N. Crossover Road, E. Zion Road) • Appropriate Fire Response (Station 5 located at 2979 N. Crossover Road) DISCUSSION: This item was first heard at the November 9, 2020 Planning Commission, where it was tabled to the subsequent meeting to allow the applicant to make changes to the proposal. Commissioners expressed concerns about the lack of alley -loaded development, concerns about the water quality of Lake Fayetteville, and concerns about the compatibility and lack of inspiration with the proposal. The applicant provided minimal changes prior to the November 23, 2020 meeting, and requested to table themselves until the subsequent meeting for a chance to come back with a more suitable request. Planning Commissioners did not hear the item at the November 23, 2020 meeting, voting to table until December 14, 2020. At the December 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant proposed significant changes to the proposal, and Commissioners spoke favorably about the submitted amendments. The Commissioners admired the consideration given to the northern portion of the site by limiting development in that area in response to the lack of adequate infrastructure along E. Zion Road. They also approved of the decision by the applicant to make the development more alley -loaded, and in cases where lots were not alley loaded, discussed the applicant's provision of limiting the proportion of the garage door related to the lot width on those lots; the applicant offered a reduction to 25% from 30% on that provision in Planning Area 2. Finally, Commissioners were in support of the move to include a portion of Planning Area 1 towards the center of the site to provide more walkability in the proposal. Finally, the revision included more provisions of open space throughout the site, which the Commissioners also looked favorably upon. Much concern was still given to the flooding concerns on the site with relation to Lake Fayetteville, and staff recommended and the Commission approved adding a condition that a flood study be required as a condition of approval of the PZD. Public comment was received and provided to the Planning Commission ahead of each meeting and is included in full in staffs report. The public comment received was also related to the proposed annexation, and since Planning Commission heard the items in tandem, the public comment was included for both items. Public Comment was heard specifically on this item at the November 9, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, and again at the December 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Neighbors and residents expressed concerns with flooding 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. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: • Exhibit A • Exhibit B • Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval • Planning Commission Staff Report 4 PZD-2020-000002 Chandler Crossing PZD-2020-000002 Close Up View Subdivision EXHIBIT'A' a 0 9� i— Li RS F--t cn,a Z w '---- `STONE DR-J w w J a Y aw Q w i--------- U X - ZIDNRD -v--------- -- w - > 0 PRANDAL-PL-p IY , w (-I > O Subject Property ZION RD G,. i R-.4 i ti r , Ln v m m X R-O ' c r RBI I -2 t , ,0 NORTH Residential -Agricultural Legend RSF-4 �- — —� RMF-24 L - - : Planning Area Feet Residential -Office �- - - Fayetteville City Limits C-1 Trail (Proposed) 0 180 360 720 1,080 1,440 Neighborhood Services - Gen. Building Footprint 1 inch = 500 feet P-' PZD-2020-000002 EXHIBIT 'B' PZD 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) AND PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 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 DOINT 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 894.99 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N31°17'12"E A DISTANCE OF 61.88 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST ZION ROAD AND A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NO2°17'19"E A DISTANCE OF 30.12 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.86 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING AND LENGTH OF S33°54'56"E - 30.71 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE S70°07'11"E A DISTANCE OF 2.84 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N62°13'43"E A DISTANCE OF 193.73 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N27°46'17"W A DISTANCE OF 7.88 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE NO2°13'43"E A DISTANCE OF 276.09 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 AND A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S87°36'11"E A DISTANCE OF 292.00 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, S02°13'43"W A DISTANCE OF 196.99 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE S27°46'17"E A DISTANCE OF 193.19 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; 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 AND A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S02°13'43"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, S02°23'57"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, NO2°17'05"E A DISTANCE OF 495.30 FEET THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE, N87'53'S8"W A DISTANCE OF 925.34 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156 THENCE N01'30'48"E A DISTANCE OF 199.83 FEET TO A FOUND 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE N87'40'12"W A DISTANCE OF 379.49 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 265 (NORTH CROSSOVER ROAD) AND A FOUND IRON PIN WITH CAP "16981 PAYNE"; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N04°05'20"E A DISTANCE OF 135.79 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N22°40'42"E A DISTANCE OF 91.81 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN WITH CAP "1698 J PAYNE"; THENCE N08°21'32"E A DISTANCE OF 164.12 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN WITH CAP "PLS 1156"; THENCE N01°35'11"W A DISTANCE OF 238.50 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 AND A FOUND "MAG" NAIL WITH WASHER "1698 J PAYNE"; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S87°46'53"E A DISTANCE OF 1269.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 81.89 ACRES; MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT `C' PZD-2020-000002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Staff and Planning Commission recommend the following conditions of approval: Revise the PZD booklet to reflect the following: a. Accurately indicate 3 proposed Planning Areas, rather than 4; b. The PZD shall require compliance with adopted minimum access management standards as outlined in the Unified Development Code; 2. Proposed parkland dedication must be reviewed by PRAB with associated development; 3. PZD approval does not represent approval of alternative street sections. Additional development variances may be required; 4. Proposed fire apparatus access roads shall meet requirements as stated by all applicable fire codes; 5. Lot width requirements will be reduced to 0' where only alley and parkland frontage is proposed; 6. A flood study shall be completed for this area as a condition of approval for the PZD. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends the following: 7. Revise Planning Area 2 requiring that no more than 25% of the lot width of the fapade facing the street right-of-way can be garage door. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Jonathan Curth. Development Review Manager FROM: Jessie Masters, Senior Planner MEETING: December 14, 2020 Updared with PC hearing results from 12/14/202u SUBJECT: PZD-2020-000002: Planned Zoning District (3435 E. ZION RD./CHANDLER CROSSING SD, 099-100): Submitted by ESI ENGINEERING, INC. for properties located at 3435 E. ZION RD. The properties are zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 81.89 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to RPZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding PZD-2020-000002 to City Council with a recommendation of approval, with conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward PZD-2020-000002 to City Council with a recommendation of approval, with conditions as outlined by staff.' November 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting: This item was tabled bV Planning Commission at the November 9, 2020 Planning Commission b a vote of 8-1-0, with Commissioner Johnson voting no. Commissioners expressed concerns regarding the lack of alley -loaded development throughout concerns about water quality of Lake Fayetteville, and concerns about compatibility and lack of inspiration in the proposal. Commissioners tabled the item, expressing that the applicant come back with edits to the proposal. The applicant submitted minor revisions to the proposal prior to the November 23. 2020 Planning Commission meetin November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting: This item was tabled by Planninq Commission at the November 23, 2020 Planning Commission bV a vote of 9-0-0. Commissioners voted to suspend the rules not to allow public comment after the applicant requested to table the item until the next Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has submitted changes to the proposal, which are attached to the report. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal BACKGROUND: The subject property is in northeast Fayetteville, east of N. Crossover Road and south of E. Zion Road. The property encompasses two parcels, 765-13219-000 which is in the City of Fayetteville limits. and 001-15182-000, which is the parcel under question for an associated annexation (ANX- 2020-000001). The properties are rural and agricultural in nature, and assuming the annexation passes City Council, will both be zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. The property currently has Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 1 of 214 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. Surrounding land uses and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Table 1: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction Land Use Zoning R-A, Residential -Agricultural; North Single -Family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 Units per Acre; Washin ton County, Ag/Single-Family Residential Single -Family Residential; R-A, Residential -Agricultural; South Arkansas Electric Cooperative; Washington County, Ag/Single-Family Residential Recreational Facility East Agricultural Washington County, Ag/Single-Family Residential Commercial; Fayetteville Athletic C-1, Neighborhood Commercial; West Club; Washington County, Agricultural Single -Family Single -Family Residential Residential Proposal: The proposal has been resubmitted to include 3 Planning Areas, as opposed to the previous 6. The plan is to rezone the property to a planned zoning district (PZD) with both commercial and residential areas. • Planning Area 1 — 6.20 acres: This planning area is primarily commercial in nature, though does allow for multi -family dwellings, and is intended to serve surrounding residential areas with convenience goods and adaptable mixed use. The area is divided into two locations, the first being located along the property's N. Crossover Road frontage, and the second is located towards the center of the site. 39.63 • Planning Area 2 — 36acres: Making up the primary acreage of the proposal, this area is categorized by m�ix of housing types, ranging from single-family to three- and four - family dwellings. The map shows a variety of lot widths, alley -loaded development, and a gridded street pattern throughout the site. Planning Area 3 — 36.06 acres: Scattered throughout the site, with primary consideration for the area surrounding and north of Hilton Creek, this planning area's primary purpose is to provide open space, detention, drainage, and natural areas (though does allow for low -density single-family dwellings with two -acre lot area minimums). The site plan also indicates an intention to provide a linear park extending north and south through the eastern part of the site, as well as a dedicated area for parkland. Public Comment: Staff has received public comment on this item, as well as the associated annexation. The discussion from the surrounding neighborhood has been in opposition to the development, citing concerns about drainage, flooding, increased traffic, and a disruption to the rural setting. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The subject property has frontage to E. Zion Road and to N. Crossover Road. E. Zion Road is an unimproved, unclassified street with asphalt paving and open ditches. N. Crossover Road is a fully -improved Regional Link Street with asphalt paving, curb and gutter, and sidewalk. The southernmost 200 feet of frontage along N. Crossover Road is designated as Regional Link — High Activity Street. Any street improvements required in these areas would be determined at the time Planning Commission Decerrber 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 2 of 214 of development proposal, as well as any additional improvements or requirements for drainage. Water: Public water is available to this site. An existing 12-inch water main is present along N. Zion Road that can serve Parcel 001-15182-000. An existing 12-inch water main is present along N. Crossover Road that can serve Parcel 765-13219- 000. Sewer: Sanitary Sewer is not available to Parcel 001-15182-000. The subject area is outside the city limits currently, but is under review with the associated annexation. Sanitary sewer would need to be extended by the developer to provide access. An existing 10-inch and 8-inch sanitary sewer is present along N. Crossover Road that can serve Parcel 765-13219-000. Drainage: Approximately 3.5 acres of the site lies within the 100-year floodplain. Hydric soils appear to be present in nearly the entire subject area. No part of the parcel lies within the HHOD and there are no protected streams on the property. Fire: Fire apparatus access and fire protection water supplies will be reviewed for compliance with the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code at the time of development. Station 5 located at 2979 N. Crossover Road, 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 to reach 90% of the response area in 6 minutes for an engine and 8 minutes for a ladder truck. The Fire Department also issued a memo regarding the applicant's proposed access to the site, indicating that fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and shall not be longer than 150 feet, unless the structures are equipped with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Police: The Police Department did not comment on this request. CITY PLAN 2040 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2040's Future Land Use Map designates the properties within the proposed rezone as City Neighborhood Area, Residential Area, and Natural Area. City Neighborhood Areas are more densely developed than residential neighborhood areas and provide a mix of non-residential and residential uses. This designation supports the widest spectrum of uses and encourages density in all housing types, from single-family to multi -family. Non-residential and commercial uses are primarily located at street intersections and along major corridors. Ideally, commercial uses would have a residential component and vary in size, variety and intensity. The street network should have a high number of intersections creating a system of small blocks with a high level of connectivity between neighborhoods. Building setbacks and landscaping are urban in form with street trees typically being located within the sidewalk zone. 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 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 3 of 214 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 neighborhoods, 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 that respond to features of the natural environment. Building setbacks may vary depending on the context of the existing neighborhood. Natural Areas consist of lands 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 the 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 varying score for the subject property, ranging from 3 to 7. Areas closer to N. Crossover Road have higher scores than those near E. Zion Road. The high score translates to a weighted score of 8 at the highest level. The elements vary by the area of the property being considered, and include the following: • Appropriate Land Use (City Neighborhood Area) • Near ORT Bus Stop (Route 30) • Near Park (Lake Fayetteville and David Lashley Park) • Near Sewer Main (N. Crossover Road) • Near Paved Trail (On -street bike lanes, N. Crossover Road, Lake Fayetteville) • Near Water Main (N. Crossover Road, E. Zion Road) • Appropriate Fire Response (Station 5 located at 2979 N. Crossover Road) FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: Land Use Compatibility: The current land use of the property in question is rural and agricultural in nature, and with the proposed annexation, the entire site will be zoned R-A, Residential -Agricultural prior to the approval of this Planned Zoning District. The property is surrounded by a mix of land uses, ranging from agricultural along the eastern property to commercial along the western side of the property and low -density single-family residential to the north and south. The request takes this into account by establishing higher intensity uses along the N. Crossover frontage, and decreasing the proposed density and intensity as the proposal moves to the east and north through the site. The applicant has included an intention through Planning Area 3 to dedicate parkland to the north of Hilton Creek, which takes into account the available infrastructure concerns of E. Zion Road given the limited development potential and large lot sizes. The proposal also considers the Hilton Creek floodplain by leaving this unbuilt and in a natural state. Staff also finds that most of the surrounding property remains in the county, which has a limited suite of by -right allowable uses; staff supports the proposal of low -density residential uses such as single-family dwellings adjacent to the land in Washington County for compatibility of land uses not Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 4 of 214 included in the City of Fayetteville boundary. Staff also supports the applicant's inclusion of a secondary commercial node towards the center of the site, to promote walkability and provide additional services to the future residents of the development. Staff also finds those uses compatible given the applicant's description that non-residential uses will be subject to a higher scrutiny of design standards through UDC sections 166.24 and 166.25. Land Use Plan Analysis: Staff finds that the proposal is generally compatible with the goals in City Plan 2040, adopted land use policies, and the future land use designation for this location. This area is designated as a City Neighborhood Area, a Residential Neighborhood Area, and a Natural Area. The proposed Planning Areas appear to take these future land use designations into account in the proposed uses, proposed setback and building height requirements, and proposed lot sizes. While the infill score is low for the overall area, the tapered density is in line with the tapering of the infill matrix score, by allowing higher density and intensity uses towards the N. Crossover Road frontage, and low -density single-family homes towards the Zion Road frontage. The addition and incorporation of a new proposed Neighborhood Link Street also helps bring planned infrastructure improvements to the area. Staff does find that the applicant has requested an alternative street section for that proposed Neighborhood Link Street, but no written variance to that standard has been received. Staff also finds that with existing transit stops and nearby on -street bike facilities, an existing transportation network along N. Crossover Road helps support the introduction of new, higher density and intensity development along that frontage. Further, the applicant's consideration for the existing floodplain, Natural Area designation, and the existing Enduring Green Network through Planning Area 3 helps fulfill goals as outlined by City Plan 2040. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed zoning is justified to accommodate development of this area; maintaining an R-A zoning designation throughout the entire site would not be in line with stated plans and goals of City Plan 2040 as a City Neighborhood Area or a Residential Neighborhood Area. Staff does find, however, that what the applicant has proposed is not significantly different than what could be accomplished with standard zoning districts. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed PZD zoning will increase traffic, and possibly to a significant degree. Typically, specific on- and off -site infrastructure improvements are evaluated at the time of a development proposal. Given the proposed organization and structure of the land uses in this proposal, staff finds that the decision for low density development along the northern portion of the site alleviates concerns about the available infrastructure along E. Zion Road, since most traffic will be filtered out towards N. Crossover Road. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 5 of 214 thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Rezoning the property from its current zoning designations will significantly alter the potential population density in the area. Initial Engineering Division review indicates that utility extensions or upgrades are likely required, however this is a common condition of developing a property of this size and downstream capacity issues are not noted. Additionally, no outside reviewer comment, including from the Springdale Public School District, the district that serves this site, was received. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A Sec. 161.35. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD) (B) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned zoning and developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit the concurrent processing of zoning and development. The City Council may consider any of the following factors in review of a Planned Zoning District application. (1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. (2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. (4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. (5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the area; (6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. (7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. ;8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 6 of 214 (9) Future Land Use Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the Future Land Use Plan. (10)Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. (11)Recognized zoning consideration. Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD. Findings: As outlined in previous findings, staff finds the proposed PZD to be generally in agreement with many of the factors encouraged in a planned zoning district, as stated above, including land use compatibility and harmony with the tenets of Fayetteville's Future Land Use Plan. The applicant has proposed minimal disruption to the Hilton Creek floodway or floodplain, allocated land for accessible open space, and proposes a wide variety of housing types throughout the proposal. The inclusion of potential parkland dedication, as well as the gridded street network, provision of street stub - outs, and potential secondary emergency access points through both the northern portion of the site and the southern portion of the site also help staff feel comfortable supporting this development, given its intention to not only be walkable with the provision of services within the proposed development, but will provide access and connectivity to surrounding areas as well. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding PZD-2020-000002 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, with conditions. Conditions of Approval: 1. Revise the PZD booklet to reflect the following: a. Accurately indicate 3 proposed Planning Areas, rather than 4. b. The PZD shall require compliance with adopted minimum access management standards as outlined in the Unified Development Code; 2. Proposed parkland dedication must be reviewed by PRAB with associated development; 3. PZD approval does not represent approval of alternative street sections. Additional development variances may be required; 4. Proposed fire apparatus access roads shall meet requirements as stated by all applicable fire codes; 5. Lot width requirements will be reduced to 0' where only alley and parkland frontage is proposed. 6. A flood study shall be completed for this area as a condition of approval for the PZD. 7. Revise Planning Area 2 requiring that no more than 25% of the lot width of the facade facing street right-of-way can be garage door. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 7 of 214 Planning Commission Action: 177 Forwarded O Tabled O Denied Meeting Date: December 14, 2020 Motion: Belden Second: Paxton Vote: 7-1-0 (Commissioner Garlock dissenting) BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • PZD Booklet • PZD Plats • Public Comment • One Mile Map • Close Up Map • Current Land Use Map • Future Land Use Map With conditions as recommended by stain', and adding two additional conditions: -A flood study shall be completed for this prca as a condition of approval for the PZD -Revise Planning Area 2 requiring that no m�:: than 25% of the lot width of the facade facing street right-of-way can be garage door. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 8 of 214 PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT BOOKLET PREPARED FOR: CHANDLER CROSSING ZION ROAD & CROSSOVER FAYETTEVILLE, AR DATE: DECEMBER 2020 PREPARED BY: ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Planning Commission December 14. 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 9 of 214 Table of Contents A) Current Ownership: .......................................................................................................................... . 3 - B) Project Summary: .............................................................................................................................. 3 - C) General project concept: ................................................................................................................... 3 - D) Proposed Planning Areas: .................................................................................................................. 4 - E) Proposed Zoning Standards: .............................................................................................................. 5 - F) Zoning Charts: .................................................................................................................................... 9 - G) Analysis of Site Characteristics: ....................................................................................................... 11 - H) Recreational facilities: ..................................................................................................................... 11 - 1) Reason for Request of Zoning Change: ............................................................................................. 11 - J) Relation to existing and surrounding properties: ............................................................................. 11- K) Projects compliance with Fayetteville Comprehensive Land Use Plan ..........................................- 11 - L) Traffic study: ..................................................................................................................................... 13 - M) Impacts on city services: ................................................................................................................. 13 - N) Conceptual description of development standards, conditions, and review guidelines: ............... 13 - O) Proposals Intent/Purpose............................................................................................................... 15 - -2- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 10 of 214 A) Current Ownership: The 81.89-acre property is currently owned by ECT Farmland LLLP & Robert Eugene Burge Irrevocable Trust but is under contract with Chandler Crossing, LLC. The owners are being represented by Engineering Services, Inc. It is Parcel ID 765-13219-000 (ECT Farmland) and 001-15182-000 (Burge). The Burge property is currently located within Washington County, and a portion of this property has been petitioned to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. B) Project Summary: The proposed development will consist of four planning areas to provide a unique mixture of single-family detached homes, duplex units, multifamily units, open green space, and commercial planning areas. All planning areas will include infrastructure, accessibility, and open space improvements. The intent is to locate higher density planning areas around a main street corridor and a main green corridor while creating a walkable and vibrant neighborhood. Furthermore, lot sizes will scale up as the planning areas move away from the central denser corridors with larger single family lots to the edges of the planning areas. The smaller lots sizes, alley access, and shorter setbacks will promote neighborhood vitality and use of the open green spaces provided within planning areas of the development. C) General project concept: 1) Street and lot layout will consist of a central neighborhood link street section running East and West as the neighborhood corridor with residential link street sections throughout the development to access lower density lots towards the edges. Local alleys will be included for rear access to smaller single family lots throughout the planning areas while lower density will allow loading from street R.O.W. The front of homes will be classified as the side away from alley frontage, and alley ways shall be of a large enough cross section to provide all basic functions to the lots they service. Emergency services (fire, etc.) shall utilize the neighborhood link and residential link street sections. There is one main proposed street connection to serve the property on Highway 265. Stub -outs will be located throughout the development to access future developments in all directions and allow for the connections proposed in Fayetteville's master street plan. There is a proposed residential link street near the eastern property line of the project Area. With preliminary plat plans, this would be requested to be shifted east slightly, to allow for another row of lots, should the property east of this project area ever develop. All East-West streets would eventually connect into this Residential Link. 2) A site and master plan will be attached with this Booklet. 3) A buffer area will be utilized along Hilton Creek. This is a mapped FEMA flood zone and development will be kept out of its limits. Any detention facilities located within this buffer zone will be built as far as practicable from the stream. 4) Tree preservation on site will be located mainly along the Northern and Southern property lines where possible. The canopy on site is not very dense and is typically scattered single trees or small clumps of trees. Tree preservation requirements within the PZD will adhere to the 25% minimum percent canopy requirement as codified in the UDC Chapter 167. Tree preservation areas and amount of canopy to be preserved will be noted on the development plans. -3- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 11 of 214 5) Storm water facilities will consist of several detention ponds located along the North property line, within planning area 4, and along Hilton Creek. Storm water will be transported through a storm system of pipes and inlets. The drainage report will further detail the proposed system by which storm water will be carried through the development. 6) Areas close to Hilton Creek and North of Hilton Creek will remain undisturbed. The flood zone will remain undisturbed so that the natural vegetation and aesthetics of this area will be preserved. Natural areas will be accessible for residents and visitors through the custom master street plan sections and a sidewalk network connecting all planning areas. Green ribbons and pocket parks will also connect open space and undisturbed areas to the central corridor and denser planning areas. 7) Existing utilities around the Proposed PZD include sewer and water mains located at Highway 265. The proposed design will be connected to the East to provide water and sewer services to all proposed lots and dwellings. 8) Development and architectural design standards will be consistent with the Downtown Architectural Design Standards (UDC 166.21). All Unified Development Code and regulations by the City of Fayetteville still apply to the lots and development with the PZD. 9) Building elevations/floor plans are to be included with any preliminary plat or large-scale development at time of submittal. At this time in the Planned Zoning Document application there are no elevations or floorplans. D) Proposed Planning Areas: Proposed planning areas for this development will include: Planning Area 1 (Commercial) — This area will encompass the lots and areas where commercial uses shall be developed. This district shall be designed to provide convenience good and personal services for residents and persons living in the surrounding areas and is intended to provide for adaptable mixed use centers which can connect the more commercial uses and planning areas proposed by this development. Planning Area 2 (Residential 1) — This planning area will encompass residential lots, alleys, houses, and areas where single family, townhomes, and attached homes shall be built or developed. This district shall have a "build -to -zone", which shall not exceed 25' from the street right-of-way. The zoning district is designed to permit and encourage the development of detached and attached dwellings in suitable environments, to provide a range of housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes and to encourage a diversity of housing types to meet demand for walkable urban living. Planning Area 3 (Non -Residential Uses) — This area will encompass all the detention, drainage features, forested areas, natural areas, recreational features, larger estate lots, along with street and alley R.O.W. The zoning district is designed to permit and encourage the minimum amount of development, protect natural features, encompass all common open space, and proposed R.O.W for the development. Open space will be accessible for residents to use through a sidewalk network via custom Neighborhood Link and Residential Link street sections so that residents can use common open space for outdoor and recreational uses. These planning areas will be described within Section E and Section F of this booklet, along with a map delineating the planning areas. The map will be attached as the Zoning -4- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 12 of 214 and Development Standards by Planning Area map concurrently submitted with this booklet. E) Proposed Zoning Standards: • Planning Area 1 (Commercial) The zoning within this portion of the PZD will be based on the exis-ing CS (Community Services) zoning district. This district is primarily for serving surrounding residential areas, convenience goods, and adaptable mixed use. Commercial 1 Zoning District: Permitted uses by use unit: Unit 1: City -Wide uses by right Unit 4: Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 13: Eating Places Unit 15: Neighborhood shopping goods Unit 18: Gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive through restaurants Unit 25: Offices, studios, and related services Unit 26: Multi -family dwellings. Unit 40: Sidewalk cafes Unit 45: Small scale production Conditional Uses by use unit: Unit 2: City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3: Public protection and utility facilities Unit 16: Shopping goods Unit 17: transportation, trades, and services. Unit 19: Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 34: Liquor stores Unit 42: Clean technologies Non-residential Intensity: - Acreage: 6.20 acres, Non-residential SF.: 269,900 Bulk and area regulations: - Lot width minimum: 18' min. for a dwelling, None all other uses. - Lot area minimum: No minimum lot area. - Setback requirements: o Front — 10'-25' Build -to -zone, o Side — None o Rear - 15'* * When Contiguous to a single-family residential district. - Height regulations: 5 stories - Minimum buildable street frontage: 50% of lot width Site Planning: - Landscaping: Landscaping shall be consistent with chapter 177 for any commercial developments and be maintained by owner. -5- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 13 of 214 Parking: Parking shall be associated with proposed use and will conform to Chapter 172 in the UDC. Architectural design standards: Architectural design standards shall conform to building and development requirements within UDC. Signage: Signage allowed with the planning area shall conform to large scale or non -large scale development requirements as stated by the UDC (Chapter 174). Planning Area 2 (Residential 1) This zoning within this portion of the PZD is based on the existing RI-U (Residential Intermediate - Urban) zoning district. This area will permit and encourage the development of detached and attached dwellings in suitable environments, to provide a range of housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes and to encourage a diversity of housing types to meet demand for walkable urban living. Residential 1 Zoninq District: Permitted uses by use unit: Unit 1: City -Wide uses by right Unit 8: Single -Family dwellings Unit 9: Two (2) family dwellings Unit10: Three (3) and Four (4) family dwellings Unit 41: Accessory dwellings Unit 44: Cluster Housing development Conditional Uses by use unit: Unit 2: City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 4: Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 12a: Limited business Unit 24: Home occupations Unit 26: Multi -family dwellings Residential density and/or Non-residential Intensity: - Acreage: 39.63 acres, 1,726,122 SF - Density/Intensity (DU/acre/and or SF/acre): 8.5 units/ acre Bulk and area regulations: Lot width minimum: 18' min for a dwelling. Lot area minimum: None Setback requirements: o Front — 0'-25' Build -to -zone o Side — 0' o Rear (other uses) — 5' o Rear (from centerline of an alley) — 12' - Height regulations: 2 stories/3 stories** ** A building or portion of a building that is located between 0-10' from the front property line or any master street plan right-of-way line shall -6- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 14 of 214 have a maximum height of two (2) stories. Buildings or portions of the building set back greater than 10 feet from the master street plan right-of-way shall have a maximum height of three (3) stories." Site Planning: - Landscaping: Foundation landscaping shall be installed at front of dwellings and be maintained by owner. Landscape design is to be of high quality with preference to native species and materials that enhance the natural beauty of the planning area. Street and lot trees planted at the time of the home's buildout shall also be maintained by the owner of the tract. - Parking: Parking shall be associated with proposed use and will conform to Chapter 172 in the UDC. Parking/garages shall be accessible by alley or from street frontage. On -street parking will be available within certain areas of the district as noted in the attached plans. - Architectural design standards: Architectural design standards shall conform 25%4t4 Downtown Architectural Design Standards (UDC 166.21). Additionally, no more t a Hof the lot width facing a public street right-of-way can be garage door, unless the garage door is set back from the primary architectural fagade a minimum of 10'. - Signage: Non-commercial signage shall be allowed under Chapter 174 of the UDC. No illuminated signs or signs larger than 8 sq. ft. per 174 Planning Area 3 (Non -Residential Uses) This area will encompass all the detention, drainage features, forested areas, natural areas, recreational features, larger estate lots, along with street and alley R.O.W. The zoning district is designed to permit and encourage the minimum amount of development, protect natural features, encompass all common open space, and proposed ROM for the development. Non-residential 2 Zoning District: Permitted uses by use unit: Unit 1: City -Wide uses by right Unit 6: Agriculture Unit 8: Single-family dwellings Unit 41: Accessory dwellings Conditional Uses by use unit: Unit 2: City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 4: Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 24: Home occupations Non-residential Intensity: - Acreage: 36.06 acres, Non-residential SF: 1,570,733 Bulk and area regulations.- - Buildable Lot width minimum: 200' -7- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 15 of 214 Buildable Lot area minimum: 2 acre Setback requirements: o Front — 35' o Side — 20' o Rear — 35' Height regulations: No maximum height limits o There shall be no maximum height limit within the planning area, however, if a building exceeds the height of one (1) story, the portion of the building over one (1) story shall have additional setback from any boundary line of an adjacent residential district. The amount of additional setback for the portion of the building over one (1) story shall be equal to the difference between the total height of that portion of the building and one (1) story. Building area: None Note: There shall be no lot minimum requirements for non -buildable, or detention pond lots. Site Planning: - Landscaping: Landscaping shall conform to all applicable City of Fayetteville Standards. Ex: Detention pond requirements per Chapter 177, Parking lot standards per Chapter 177, or tree preservation areas per chapter 167. - Parking: Parking shall be associated with proposed use and will conform to Chapter 172 in the UDC. - Architectural design standards: Architectural design standards shall conform to Downtown Architectural Design Standards (UDC 166.21). - Signage: Signage allowed in this planning area must conform to UDC Chapter 174 — Signage. -8- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 16 of 214 F) Zoning Charts: • Planning Area 1(Commercial) A breakdown of the proposed Planning Area 1 (Commercial) zoning district within this PZD versus the City of Fayetteville current R-A zoning of the property is provided in the following table. Regulation R-A, current zoning Proposed Commercial Planning Area Density One-half (1/2) units per acre Non-residential SF — 269,900 Lot Width Minimum 200 feet 18 feet for a dwelling, None for all other uses. Lot Area Minimum Residential: 2 acres No minimum lot area Nonresidential: 2 acres Setback Requirements: Front 35' 10 -25' Build to zone Side 20' 0', or 15' if contiguous to single family residential Rear 35' 0', or 15' if contiguous to single family residential Building Height Maximum No maximum height 5 Stories Building Area None None Minimum Buildable Street None 50% of the Lot Width Frontage • Planning Area 2 (Residential 1) A breakdown of the proposed Planning Area 2 (Residential 1) zoning district within this PZD versus the City of Fayetteville current R-A zoning of the property is provided in the following table. Regulation R-A, current zoning Proposed Residential 1 Planning Area Density One-half (1/2) units per acre None. Lot Width Minimum 200 feet 18 feet for all dwelling types Lot Area Minimum Residential: 2 acres No minimum lot area Nonresidential: 2 acres Setback Requirements: Front 35' 0-25' Build -to -zone Side 20' 0' Rear 35' 5' other uses 12' from centerline of an alley Building Height Maximum No maximum height 2 stories/3stories* Building Area None None *A building or portion of a building that is located between 0-10' from the front property line of any master street plan right-of-way shall have a .maximum height of two (2) stories. Buildings or portions of the building set back greater than 10 feet from the master street plan right-of-way shall have a maximum height of three (3) stories. -9- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 17 of 214 • Planning Area 3 (Non-residential uses) A breakdown of the proposed Planning Area 3 (Non-residential uses) zoning district within this PZD versus the City of Fayetteville current R-A zoning of the property is provided in the following table. Regulation R-A, current zoning Proposed Non-residential uses Planning Area Density One-half (1/2) units per acre One -Half (1/2) units per acre. Non-residential SF — 1,570,733 Lot Width Minimum 200 feet 200 feet Lot Area Minimum Residential: 2 acres 2 acres Nonresidential: 2 acres 2 acres Setback Requirements: Front 35' 35' Side 20' 20' Rear 35' 35' Building Height Maximum No maximum height No maximum height" Building Area None None** * There shall be no maximum height limit within the planning area, however, if a building exceeds the height of one (1) story, the portion of the building over one (1) story shall have additional setback from any boundary line of an adjacent residential district. The amount of additional setback for the portion of the building over one (1) story shall be equal to the difference between the total height of that portion of the building and one (1) story. "There shall be no building area lot requirements for open space, non -buildable, or detention pond lots. -10- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 18 of 214 G) Analysis of Site Characteristics: The proposed PZD is located on an 81.89-acre tract that is composed of mainly cattle pasture with some scattered trees and vegetation. The topography is generally flat with Hilton Creek flowing East to West within the Northeast quadrant. Besides a pond and Hilton Creek located on site, the tract is otherwise featureless with a low amount of rolling topography. H) Recreational facilities: The development is a short drive down E Zion from the Lake Fayetteville trails, connections to the Razorback Greenway, Veterans Park, The Lake Fayetteville ballfields and Marina, and the Botanical Garden of the Ozarks. 1) Reason for Request of Zoning Change: The existing site is currently zoned R-A (Residential Agricultural). However, the site is adjacent to many different zoning districts. To the West there are properties zoned C-1 and P-1, to the North and South it is R-A or RSF-4, and to the east it is unincorporated. Within a half mile of the site there is also RMF-24, NC and an RPZD and NS-G. Rezoning this parcel from R-A to a mixed use PZD is well within the zoning of the adjacent properties residential zoning districts and densities. Rezoning this parcel also is in line with the Fayetteville Future Land Use Plan. This parcel's future land use is shown as partly City Neighborhood Area and Residential Neighborhood which this PZD is consistent with. J) Relation to existing and surrounding properties: This PZD proposed is similar in scale to the Lakewood Subdivision and the Woodbury subdivision to the West of the site while lower density on the edges is similar in scale and density to Copper creek to the North. Furthermore, the land use of this development fits well within the residential surroundings currently built along E. Zion Road, all while remaining similar in appearance to the higher density zoning found within '/z mile from the proposed connection to 265 & E. Zion. 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 large estate lots will also be similar in scale to the homes along E Zion rd. The proposed PZD will consist of Single Family, 2-4 family, and commercial planning areas. Residents of the subdivision will exit along the access point to Highway 265. A traffic study will be completed with the preliminary plat plan submittal illustrating trip generation and distribution for this development. Signage for the proposed PZD shall be of a similar nature to the surrounding developments. Monument signs or Subdivision signs of high quality shall be used and constructed so residents and visitors will have definitive markers and signage to their neighborhood. All signage should meet UDC chapter 174 requirements. K) Projects compliance with Fayetteville Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed planned zoning district is in compliance with many of the goals of the City Plan 2040 for the future framework of the city. Below are the six 2040 goals, and how the site fits in with Fayetteville's 2040 plan. -11- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 19 of 214 Goal 1: We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities. 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. Goal 2: We will discourage suburban sprawl. This proposed development is in compliance with Goal 2, discouraging suburban sprawl, as it is % mile from more higher density residential and a PZD, 1 mile from RMF-24, 1.5-miles from the Northwest Arkansas Mall, and 2 miles from the Joyce uptown shopping and the surrounding area of North Fayetteville. Additionally, the development follows objective B by developing a more compact and mixed -use development at the edge of the city. Goal 3: We will make traditional town form the standard. The proposed PZD and development shall be a compact, denser, housing development, with interconnected streets and sidewalks between adjacent parcels. This proposed community would be walkable, and near existing bus stops, promoting public transportation along with mixed use commercial, interconnected streets and sidewalks, street -oriented buildings, and multifamily housing near a major transit route. Goal 4: We will grow a livable transportation network Similar to Goal 2 and Goal 3, the proposed PZD and development will promote walking and public transportation with interconnected planning areas, cyclist friendly roads, and tree lined streets. The development will further expand and interconnect sidewalks and trails in East Fayetteville to more locations and future developments as the city expands. The proposed subdivision also is providing multiple street stubouts to the East, North and South adjacent properties, promoting increased connectivity in this area. Goal 5: We will assemble an enduring green network The proposed PZD and development embodies goal number 5, by creating walkability throughout planning areas, and preserving natural and riparian areas. Canopy will be established on site in more areas than before with the addition of street plantings and sidewalks will connect the development to other neighborhoods and open space adjacent to the PZD area, ex: Botanical Garden of the Ozarks, Lake Fayetteville trail network. -12- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 20 of 214 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, townhomes, duplexes, and cottages. Furthermore, the density of planning areas will range from 4 units per acre to 8 units per acres within Single and Two to Three Family Homes, while providing up to 12 units per acre with denser townhome housing. This will create opportunities for smaller housing lots and create a mix of densities and housing availabilities. 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. A traffic study will work to find the scope and impacts of the proposed planning areas, while finding the correct scope of improvements needed so that there is not a negative impact due to increased loads on Neighborhood Link and Regional Link streets. M) Impacts on city services: Proposed utility within the development are to include 8" water mains that will service all residential lots, with connections at Crossover to a 12" water main. The residential lots will also be serviced by an 8" gravity sewer system that make connections to an existing 10" sewer system along Crossover rd. Preliminary discussions have occurred with Fayetteville Utilities, who stated that sewer capacity, hydrant flow, and pressure in this area should not be a concern. Other city services impacted will include fire, police, and trash services. Emergency services will have access to dwellings from street frontage and alleys. Emergency services will be able to serve the dwellings from either an alley or street frontage. Fire services will have hydrants access from street frontage and alleys to service any emergency event. Where access to a hydrant must be in an alley, bump -outs and a wider cross section is being used to meet the minimum requirements for emergency services. Trash services will all be located at the back of lots on alleys so that trash trucks can easily collect on their service days, where garage and driveway access is from street frontage trash services will use frontage on collection days. N) Conceptual description of development standards, conditions, and review guidelines: The development standards, and conditions for the proposed PZD will be established to promote compatible development, to promote a contiguous development, to foster the attractiveness and functional utility as a place to live, to protect public investments in the districts, and to raise the level of community expectations for the quality of its environment. 1) Screening and Landscaping: Landscaping for the full development shall be consistent with chapter 177. Residences shall have a consistent foundation and high -quality design at the front of the house and throughout the development. Natives and high -quality design are encouraged for new construction of homes. A basic landscape plan will be submitted with building elevations -13- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 21 of 214 and floor plans. Vegetative screening and fences may be erected between homes and planning uses if required by UDC. 2) Traffic and circulation: Traffic calming devices will be implemented in several locations throughout the PZD for safety of pedestrians and to keep vehicular speeds at a reasonable level for the residential areas. This is largely done by the horizontal and vertical design of the proposed streets, which will calm traffic patterns naturally. Also, pocket parks and open spaces with pedestrian crossings are proposed to help slow traffic along the main corridor. 3) Parking standards: Parking standards will meet city of Fayetteville minimums where street parking and parking lots are to be proposed. Parking is to be located within the PZD district it serves. Parking will be available on streets for residents where Master street plan sections will allow. Parking will be available to residents through garages and driveways located on street frontage and at the rear of dwellings where garages will face the alley that gives them access. 4) Perimeter treatment: Perimeter treatments will be judged on a case by case basis for each tract or dwelling. If different zonings or uses are side by side a treatment or other form of screen may be required, similar to the City of Fayetteville standards for screening incompatible uses. 5) Sidewalks: Sidewalks shall follow a standard throughout the development. Typical sidewalk shall follow the Master street plan for each proposed street section (ex: Residential Link, Neighborhood Link). Sidewalks shall all meet Master Street Plan requirements. 6) Streetlights: Streetlights shall be of a uniform type throughout the development. All streetlights shall be full cut-off fixtures and a lighting system shall appropriately light all public areas. All streetlights shall be per Ozark Electric Cooperative and meet UDC code 166.04(B)(3)(g). 7) Water: Water mains and services shall be provided for each dwelling and residence. Water mains shall be per Fayetteville 2017 Water and Sewer Specifications, utilizing an 8" AWWA C900 PVC, DR14 material. Water services shall follow these same specifications for meters and service lines. 8) Sewer. Sewer services shall be provided for all dwelling and buildings. Sewer mains shall be per Fayetteville 2017 Water and Sewer Specifications, utilizing an 8" PVC SDR 26. Sewer services shall follow these same specifications for any meters and service lines. 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. 10) Construction of non-residential facilities: Any non-residential facilities not proposed with this application will follow all applicable Non -Residential Design Standards (UDC chapter 166.24 & 166.25), Large scale development standards, or non -Large scale development standards where applicable Building design must be consistent with Downtown Architectural Design Standards UDC 166.21. 11) Tree Preservation: Tree preservation plans and landscape plans will be required and submitted once development begins on any individual large scale or when a preliminary plat application and development plan is submitted. 12) Architectural design standards: Architectural design standards will be consistent with UDC chapter 166.21. Residences and any other nonresidential buildings must be consistent with the style and look of the Downtown Architectural Design Standards. For non-residential structures -14- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 22 of 214 and commercial areas, the architectural design will not be defined in th s booklet. Any commercial buildings within Planning Area 1 will be submitted by Large Scale Development application and subject to city code, and any non-residential structures shall conform to all city standards with the UDC. 13) Propose signage: Signage will not be allowed except for what is already stated in the Planning Areas section of this Booklet. Any applicable signage to be proposed will conform to all regulations in the City of Fayetteville's ordinances UDC 174. 14) View Protection: View protection shall be considered if any proposed work is to occur outside the scope of the proposed PZD and its master plan. 15) Covenants, trust, and homeowner association: Covenants may be established by a POA board consisting of a majority of property owners. These covenants may be up for review by the property owners and homeowners of the PZD every 5 years. O) Proposals Intent/Purpose The intent of this Proposed PZD is to create and expand the City Neighborhood Area and the Residential Neighborhood within the City of Fayetteville's 2040 Land Use Plan. The proposed PZD wishes to expand the existing infrastructure, while creating a livable, expanded neighborhood district for Commercial, Single -Family, 2 or more -unit homes. While creating this neighborhood the proposal will account for flexibility of design, compatibility with the surrounding uses, harmony with the neighboring developments, variety within the p-oposed district, creating a positive impact on Crossover Rd, and how it fits into the Future land Use Plan. -15- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 23 of 214 TYPE LAND USE DENSITY/INTENSITY UNITS/SF ACRES % 1-C Commercial Non-residential SF — 233,036 SF 5.35 7.6% 269,900/ 6.20 acres 2-R Residential Residential SF — 8.5 units/acre 39.63 48.4% 1,726,122 340 units 3-NR Non -Residential Non-residential SF — 302,878 SF 36.06 44% Uses 1,570,773 / 36.06 acres SUBTOTAL 340 units 81.89 100% 1,726,122 residential SF, 1,840,673 Non-residential SF -16- Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 24 of 214 41•Z;o 3Z 96ed 6l JaIPPE g wall 3pua6 OZOZ'trl jaq (] uolsslwwoo �'U!Il I ,-------------� \\ { I F — -------- - - —- -- --- - - — -- --- i I I I I I I I I I �I I I 1 I I I eee e�eeeee�mme I I I r0 m D II I I — 1 I I II m 'III I — ®m m m O I I -0II e e I I I O D D m m I I I- ----------- t I ; �\ ti EM La La .. ; 0 o oc:� o oC 0 0 ■11�=a aa■ ei 0 0 0 l m;,f• t `, � I e m v m e e D O D D e m 00 e � e :� e - ® q, o Dm o om,o D am m e Doo'000 e, o L i �, a e sl O � e o L ,I I I li MASTER PLAN 1 r CHANDLER CROSSING SUBDIVISION FAYETTEVILLE & WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS arc ah<<p Maya; c2 wNr. 4LZ 10 9Z 96ed 6ulssao aalp 9 wall epua6 OZOZ '4l ja4 I j ao�— - . i I uOlsslwwoO 13uluueld `ice I f I y �___ ---------- STAi --- ---_-- —_ e fI2'Y, ,Q If F qa_ _ - _-----_Vol m I y ------�--- m C671 O° !l� I l �q�$ mOmOOm • O I m om bm L------J m ® ® m ® ° t -----� —T--=—_--�-- I m ° m ° 3I=� ° 7 1.0 o m O ® m ® - rxp•q 7.a — j ° j QD ° m Oim I w., . zilf !4iQj 2 ; ___________________ gf I -. I° ID m m P•; - -- -- -- _• Es his � mqD I 6• O m ® It° m m m O ° m O QD R ® ® p O s t F2$$Z m m m m O m O ----`� —71 I. O O ° m D 0 m o MASTER PLAN CHANDLER CROSSING v FAYETTEVILLE & WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS ENGINEERING - S INC ti LZ to LZ 96ed 6ulsswo Jalp g wall epua6 OZOZ'41ja4 uolsslwwoo - - - - - - a d� t�nle i 1 m ® m ® m I h I h 1 I 1 I I I -- — — — — —— — — ��--T----- — — — — -- ---� — — — —_ I iI I I r�rR g I --------- -- ;I I -60 EIe, I 11 4. Fp 4 -— — — — — — — — — — 11 �I �1E I � I I--�--L 0 < <' m ' •� aR MASTER PLAN r� c" CHANDLER CROSSING W o NCCRING SEFVICCS FAYETTEVILLE & WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS ENCI NCERI pR ERVIC 2 INCI 4LZ;o gZ abed 6ulsso. g wa)l OZOZ 'l uolsslu ir 1,Z 10 9Z 91511?d Bulssojo iialiplIP11.1n Z00131010-oz i A I 9 wall epueB OZOZ'17l, jaq wdo— T - — — — — — - UOISSIWWOO 15uluu8id -- - - - - - - - -5-t- -2 - ------ --------- - - 4— 'Ji! I 1-41 0 (IDm m m S 6 OD till--------------------- - 14 L — — — — — . . . . _j IF Pill 4 lilt --------------------------- j-- &,:*i 1it a- ,- 0 - eg ID m m m m m m OD d) (ID QD o Q) 41) Rif — — — — — — — — — Q) ID ID ii 3 ID @ G QD 40D 0 ID OD 0 C. N 0 GD i lt 0 ID M 0 0 S 4D m M 0 m 4, L51 MASTER PLAN CHANDLER CROSSING FAYETTEVILLE & WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS ENGINE1 —1. -.ERING SERVICES R. INC 1-— 4lZ to LZ abed 6ulsso. g wall OZOZ '1 uolsslu PETITION Date: Nov 21, 2020 Re Requests: Annexation of 3435 E Zion Rd and Rezoning for Chandler Crossing PZD To: Fayetteville Planning Commission This petition is to request a prudent decision to deny the annexation of 3435 E Zion Road and the Chandler Crossi-ig PZD, due to the following issues: 1. Traffic issues and safety concerns regarding school age children, traffic through neighboring subdivisions, blind curves, inferior county roads and connectivity points, and the deteriorating one lane bridge. Jurisdiction on who is responsible for the improvements to the road and one lane bridge. The proposed development would result in as many 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 previously studied by a toxicologist and discussed at the previous planning commission meeting. There is potential for increased lake pollution by adding 267 housing units. 3. The proposed development would create suburban sprawl and not be compatible with the surrounding land or semi -rural neighborhoods. This is sprawl, not infill, which goes against two of the goals of the City of Fayetteville. The annexation also would create an island of county property surrounded by city property. 4. The proposed development would be in the Springdale School district, so a large part of tax millage would go to Springdale School System. Yet, Fayetteville would be responsible for paying for and maintenance 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 Network. The City's stated goal is to protect existing natural areas from development and guarantee green space as the city grows. The proposed annexation and rezoning 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 Fayetteville should lead us to focus on quality as a top priority rather than a disruption by quantity. Signature Printed Name Address p 6, &� Signature Printed Name Address Derr, r 7c;C7 0 &-, 7&"-d-3 Z"::W3 74 rr*'r>IY 7276 3 Z,p'74 !Lov-4 I Cionatiira Print.A I\1— AAA—, Contact Person: Phone M 501 ��sa- 3 -:�) C-:�D 2 0 t._ r V y:- Masters, Jessica From: victoria mcclendon <viktorialeigh@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 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 links or 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 Fayetteville watershed and for the water quality, already suffering, of Lake Fayetteville as a body of water used recreationally and attracting more citizens and visitors to that beautiful area. In my opinion,the city planners considering the change of land use from farming property largely to residential should consciously and publicly address how to ameliorate the large amounts of new impervious 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 many citizen groups contributing to the ecological health and educational building locks as a community grows in a purposeful way. I hope to know of our city's strong contributions, including demonstrating the value 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 suppo~t 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 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 co-itent 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 Northwes= 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 familiar with the 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 other public health issues. I have spoken to the City several times about the enormous potential of Lake Fayetteville as a public amenity. Maintaining it as a pristine jewel is an obligation to future generations. Please give strongest consideration to the water quality impacts of the proposed development. Minimal mitigation 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, Jessica Subject: Annexation on E. Zion Rd. / Burge Property " 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. 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 true for my husband and I, as we are the ones that have struggled with the most financial loss and property damage. We have also fought Mr. Burge the longest, over his Hylton Creek modifications, which continue to damage our property to this day. About 20 years ago, Mr. Burge was approached by the then neighbors, and asked to remove the low-water bridge and the grate that dams the creek and drives flood water out of the creek and on to neighboring properties. At first 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 stream with nothing that immediately raises alarms for the surrounding area. Lnfortunately, when it rains, this stream can go from a nice place to a raging flood in 20 minutes. The situation can be very 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. t-�....n�- �4 I" '�, +•. �� „mow � - Regardless, once the water leaves its banks and travels across properties, i= =an't help but pick up chemicals, manure and other such things that nc 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 floodirg problem increases. The answer seers _o hEve been to update the floodplain and take in 2 more area. Unfortunately, since our home is not within the city limits, we do not get the 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 further 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-nothing 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: Chandler Crossing subdivision CAA T10NI 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 contest is safe. To all Planning Commi3sioners, I am Linda Ferguson and live at 3258 E. Valerie Dr. Fayetteville. I am sending this email in opposition to the planned development of this property. I agree with -he other property owners about the amount of 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 tc consider using this area with the large trees around it as a focal point for this side of the property. In regard to the pond area we all would like to see this saved and used as part of a community gathering point for the homes he is going to build on top of that area. In another aspect this area has wild geese, wild ducks, blue heron, hawks, eagles that make th's their home. I woulc just like to see the beauty of some of this land saved and used as part of their development, and fewer homes built so they would match the surrounding neighborhoods of this planned development. If this project goes forward our subdivision would like to have a green buffer between our property and the development. Thankyou for considering all aspects of the impact on the surrounding land and keeping the wildlife and environment secure and the beauty for the future of Fayetteville. Linda Ferguson Office Manager ���� MILESTONE' 4ii.� CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2CO2 S. 48th Street, Ste. A / Springdale, AR 72762 W:479.751.3560 / C:479.387.7656 / F:479.751.4841 www.mstonecc.com FCLLOW US ON FACEBOOK! www.facebook.com/M ilestoneConstructionCompany 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 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. To Whom it May Concern: We live in the Copper Creek Subdivision near East Zion Road and have been following closely following the proposed annexation and rezoning of the Burge Property as well as plans for Chandler Crossing. Our concerns are as follows: 1) The latest submitted plans are 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 neighborhoods 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 in 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 infilling 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 Fayetteville because we enjoy having a bit of space and a more suburban or rural feel. The population density for Chandler Crossing is too great. Rather than "unique" or "vital", it appears to just be crowded. The mix of what is likely to be rental properties and 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 your time, Seorge and Denise Jones Rockledge Drive =ayetteville Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 28 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: K Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 6:59 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Fwd-. Chandler Crossing PZD - Resubmitted Plans Attachments: Chandler Crossing_vl.pdf , 1ITIC)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, Good morning. I realize my comments may be too late to be submitted with the packet. I did review the attached information. While better than previous submissions, it appears the developer is trying 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 in 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, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I lnstagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYET ARKA NS EVILLE ARNAlISAS Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 29 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Nick Anthony <nanthony@uark.edu> Seat: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:17 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Burge farm annex and rezone CAU—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. Dear Fayetteville City Planning Commission Member (please read all articles included below), This is the 4th letter that I have prepared concerning the Annex and Rezoning of the Burge farm and adjoining property. I live in the corner of the L-shaped acreage and will be one of the current residences in our neighborhood impacted by you- decision. I have sat through your meetings and struggled with the reality of not being in control of my destiny when it comes to this decision. I struggle with the definition of urban sprawl vs infilling. I struggle with understanding why the city of Fayetteville would even want 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:Harchive.curbed.com/202O/2/28/21155997/fayetteville-environment-ozarks-solar-power-sustainability and then consider a proposal that completely goes against the spirit of conservation, green growth and stream maragement. How can assets like Lake Fayetteville 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/local/grand-lake-mares-dying-from-toxic- 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,m and related algae levels, Grand Lake could be dying off as a destination lake and is considered by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to be "impaired" due to "stream channelization, drainage tiles, loss of floodplains and streamside vegetation, manure runoff and untreated sewage flowing from failing home septic systems and small communities without any wastewater collection or treatment." 10 11 Runoff from farmland is one of the greatest 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 -preen algae.LL2, The algae is a cyanobacterium, with Planktothrix being a particularly prevalent and problematic species. The bacteria produce toxic peptides that can be harmful to plants and anirrals.1121 Humans are also affected by the toxins. Microcystin can harm the liver and cause other health problems including mild rashes and sneezing and even severe gastrointestinal ailments.'Z 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 Corr mission December - 4, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 3J of 214 Heavy deposits of silt into the lake also contribute to the degradation of the lake.LL11 Development of homes along the shore has reduced the number of native plants that helped to strengthen the shore and reduce erosion. Development has also increased the level of phosphates entering the lake by over fertilization of lawns. These excess phosphates directly contribute to plant growth, including the algae in the iake.0 The native flora that has been reduced served as a filter to keep the excess nutrients out of the water.14 Here are the facts. Grand lake St. Marys is 13,500 acres of water while Lake Fayetteville is 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 that was only 4 times the size of the Lake Fayetteville Clear Creek watershed. So here is the economic impact of the algal bloom on Lake St. Marys from 2011 to 2017 https:Hnews.osu.edu/algal-blooms-cost-ohio-homeowners-152-million-over-six-years/ 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" which 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 contributing to sprawl". There is one thing for sure, I am not interested in paying more in taxes in the future to save Lake Fayetteville when we could have been proactive today in protecting the lake. I hope that you took the time to read all the attached material. This is a big deal. Sincerely, Nick Anthony 3301 E. Zion Rd 2 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 31 of 214 G7S Lab GTSIn c. 19/S N. Shiloh704 � Fayetteville, AR 72704 G—I—hni—1 a T-6n 9 Services TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAX.- (479) 521-6232 Website: www.gtsconsulting.nei November 17, 2020 Margaret Britain Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Fayetteville, AR 72703 TEL: FAX: RE: Dear Margaret Britain: Order No.: 2011046 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, zey-"-6"w Richard Brown Analytical Laboratory Director 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 Revision v2 Paf 1 of 3 anning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 32 of 214 N N O O 0 0 N a C7 CD 0j �CU D3- n o wn3 N fD N N N O A(c 0007 T G • S, In C. GTS Lab Analytical Report 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 (Continuous) Coofechnical d r,runa se��;�., TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAX.- (479) 521-6232 WO#: 2011046 Website: www.gtsconsulting.nei Date Reported: 11/17/2020 CLIENT: Margaret Britain Collection Date: 11/10/2020 3:45:00 PM Project: Lab ID: 2011046-001 Nlatrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID 1 Bridge -upstream Analyses Result RL Qua] knits 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: 2011046-002 Matrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID 2 South offence Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Prep Date Analysis Date Method Nitrogen, Nitrate -Nitrite 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 H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit RL Reporting Detection Limit R S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery lirdi, Fvlsion v2 Page 2 of 3 to M C- 0 0 N N 7 A (O CHAIN OF CUSTODY Client Name/Address Project Description Billing Information Field Test Information Test 1st Result 2nd Result Analyst Time Margaret Britain Margaret Britain PH: 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 Detection Limits) Method of Shipment Fed Ex UPS Matrix KCV WW-Wastewater GW Groundwater Margaret Britain Date Results Needed Courier ElClient Drop Off DW - Drinking Water S - Soil/Solid 0 - Oil Other P Product M - Mist Project Manager Phone x Project Manager Email Site/Facility loll Purchase Order Number Project Number (479)236-0926 rTirnbritain(a@gmaii.com Preservative Key y A Cool < 10C Na2S203 (Micro Only) G TS! InC 1yet N. Shiloh Drive y > N B Cool <-6C w GOotechnfcal A Testing Services Fayetteville, AR 72704 Phone (479) 521-7645 Y w N = a C H2SO4 Ph<2 D None Required Fax (479) 521-6232 r o E NaOH pH>10 j Unless noted, all containers per x Table II of 40 CFR Part 136. v U a 0 ;� � w z a F HNO3 pH<2 G HCLpH<2 H H3PO4 pH<2 I Cool <=6C Na2S203 www.gtsconsuiting.net START START STOP STOP DATE TIME DATE-J� TIME Sample Identification cL Required Analysis Laboratory Sample Number _ _ D i W B G X J9 ,,may. ref �. tV �n�L. W B G WB G ... �d .. W B G W B G r W B G W B G -+ W B G W B G For Laboratory Use Only Sampled by (Name -Print) Start Flow Reading Final Flow Reading Units nstantareous or Total Flow Reading Lab Comments IceCustody Seals �� ! Gq - e Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Received by: IGNA7UFiE7� ❑ae Time Blank { Cooler Temp Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time ID j Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Date I ime Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time n _ N (p 6 , O d � u A - N Page of E CD W. N O 00 O :D Masters, Jessica From: James Bost <jimilyb@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:09 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Lake Fayetteville Algae 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 Masters Thank you for your response to my earlier mote. 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 a 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 continue to protect the lake to reduce the chances of further deterioration in water quality. J. W. Bost 2718 N. Shadybrook Cv Fayetteville, Ar Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 35 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: James Bost <jimilyb@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 11:28 AM Tc: Masters, Jessica Subject: Lake Fayetteville Watershed Preservation 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 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 confirmed this 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 27_8 N. Shadybrook Cv Fayetteville, Ar 72703 Ph: 479-601-6187 Sen= from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 36 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Jan VanSchuyver <jvanschuyver@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:13 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: development near Lake Fayetteville _A°k .;)', 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. In 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 cuprit. 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 many 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 37 of 214 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 links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Masters: During the summer I was interested in the presentations by the Fayetteville Watershed Partnership done on Zoom. These sessions informed me of the importance of Lake Fayetteville as a recreational area and as part of the source of our water. I was particularly interested in the family farms that border Clear Creek and efforts that are being made to reclaim them. I understand the importance of permeable surfaces and how riparian 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 around Lake Fayetteville and Clear Creek and also the increase in storm water runoff. Despite all the efforts that have been made on Morningside Drive property (as an example), I expect to see some of the houses built on that property flooded when we have any kind of extreme weather. Will the area of the Chandler Crossing Development be looking at similar problems? That is a question that should be addressed 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 of its land and people. Sincerely, Jane Purtle Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 38 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Jay Johnson <jaydouglasjohnson@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:51 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Lake Fayetteville and the Proposed Chandler Crossing Development C , ;Ci: 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, I'm a Fayetteville resident who frequently rows on, runs around, bikes around 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 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? Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 39 of 214 Cheers, Jay One can only "surf the Edge" in this present moment. Virus -free. www.avq_com Planni,ig Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 40 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: John Fritz <johnfritz2052@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 10:41 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing development CAUT!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. 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 Chandler Crossing. And that this development at Chandler Crossing would negatively impact this very attraction, Lake Fayetteville. Non -point pollution from a 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. Fritz. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 41 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Joseph Robertson <joseph.robertson@outlook.com> Sert: Friday, November 13, 2020 102 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 3435 E Zion Rd related items - planning commission meeting 11/9 and upcoming 11/23 CAl 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. 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. Griggs. The only flood catchment pond I know of on this side of Copper Creek is located adjacent to David Lashley park on the Eas. side, and it does not appear to be catching runoff from that neighborhood. It is a separate 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 '.ow -water bridge (and fencing that currently contributes to flooding) 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 property line. 2020-0959 ANX 2020-000001 (3435 E. Zion 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 conservation 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 mostly 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 maps to illustrate which houses would remain County while being surrounded by Fayetteville boundaries. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenca Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 42 of 214 M Morningside 0 of Fayetteville Nelson Berna Funeral Home Elks Lodge wd-O ILMW 13 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 live. 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 already flood prior to any development so I find it very hard to believe they would be sufficient. Flood risk is a primary concern. One solution to other concerns regarding vehicular traffic and the existing road/bridge is to not allow a neighborhood correction 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 rear a hilltop, a 90-degree 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. 3 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenca Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 44 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Kari Griggs <kgriggs@nilfisk.com> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 11:50 AM To: Masters, Jessica; Michele Lang (mlang9669@gmail.com); kellierobe@gmail.com Subject: E. Zion Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged r'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 another flood, the fact that we have asked for help from the City and County for years — but only succeeded in starting a finger 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. Zion 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 owner of the Burge property considers herself 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 flooding does 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 Fayetteville and Washington County refusal to take responsibility to help the situation, we continue to try to stay on top of the new damage. It would be nice to invest 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 dumping 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 intension 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 financially, but she has access to her air- conditioned cab -over John Deere tractor, which could remove the dam. In the past, several neighbors have offered to help rebuild the bridge for the Burge farm animals in a way that does not cause damage to downstream properties. I dare say that helping to prevent further 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 longer a dam. While that was taking place, I see no reason why some regrading and creek bed development on the Burge property could be done as a good neighbor helping others, which would be a great help in protecting the neighbor's properties. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 45 of 214 We believe that the neighbors on E. Zion should be provided with information 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 have to call foul on shortcomings of city design plans. We should not be the experts or the watchdogs, but we are forced to do 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 us. We do not want to be ignored or told that land owners can do what 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 County 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 people 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 urge you to stop letting the tax dollar signs cloud your judgement for long enough to address our problems =irst. There is no way in good conscience that you can move forward with this annexation before ensuring that current, ong term residents are being protected. ,Ne are sincerely asking for your help in getting the City and County Planners to work together and resolve these long- ;tanding issues once and for all. 3est regards, {ari Griggs 3349 E. Zion Rd. =ayetteville, AR 72764 479)466-7756 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 46 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: K Robertson <kellierobe@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:19 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Re: Annexation and development of 3435 E Zion Rd 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. Commissioners and Ms. Masters, Thank you again for taking the tirre to review this proposal carefully. As I have stated previously, we are not anti - development, we are against poorly thought out developments that increase the risk for property damage from increased flooding, increase the risk for damage to our natural resources, and change the dynamics of our neighborhood. One issue not heavily discussed is how 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 situation 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 concerns. 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 ef=ects can be a challenge. The planning team has shown, while not always in agreement, that their intent is for the success of Fayetteville. Please don't let fatigue stop you from following your city goals. Discourage urban sprawl. Infill where it makes sense (not prime farm land). Thank you again for the work you do. Regards, Kellie Robertson 3397 E Zion Rd. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 47 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Kelly Stewart <kestewart@mayborngroup..--om> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:21 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion rd Annex/Rezone Request Questions Importance: High 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 - A couple 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 regulatory authority responsible for enforcement, compliance, and complaints?? Thanks!!! Also, is it helpful for me to send additional flooding videos?? Which is a result of the already insufficient Stonewood Copper Creek water retention and runoff plan.... {elly Stewart Kelly Stewart Category Management Manager - Walmart 479-841-9095 kestewart@mayborngroup.com iw. � W7timplgee I7 you've received this email by mistake, we're sorry for bothering you. It may contain information that is confidential, so please delete it and any attachments without sharing. And if you let us know, we can try to stop it from happening again. Thank you. We may monitor any emails sent or received by us, or on our behalf. If we do, this will be in line with our own policies and relevant law. h.ayborn 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, 8311101 Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne NE12 BEW, England Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 48 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Planning Shared Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 4:06 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: FW: Annexation 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 1 F 479.575.8202 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Irstagram I YouTube -----Original Message ----- From: Kevin Boote [mailto:bootekevin@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2020 11:54 AM To: Planning Shared <planning@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Annexation proposal south of Zion 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 should 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, widening and bridge expansion. A new entrance/exi L road would be better for all involved. Please don't start a large expansion south of Zion until a new road is built. Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Kevin Boote 711-441-0308 Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 49 of 214 O .P-4 -61 � o 4-4 O 4-' o � oCA•� v a • cu o u, CIO c� rr ^^ Vl 4-4 00 V . ^4 u O u u v u cn � v � � O CIO 4 u � .-J Ln � O c v a v o a U _ cu Ln Un 0 v CA 4-J CU v cn eel m U ,.C� ,v cu w Z w CA o v .O Q �o >, � °u U U L I tull �1 �low.„ -,., A-.-gbl • Results of Assessment Work • Streambank Erosion • Natural Areas IRWIN • Riparian • Lake Fayetteville Watershed • Land Use and Impervious Surface • Priority Sites • Invasive removal techniques guide M 7 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) range! ow to extreme x 0 easured Streambank • Height 0 Length Bank ID BEHI NBSS Bank ID BEHI NBSS BEHI NBSS NECC 8 NECC 12 IN FCC 20 IN FCC 33 NECC 56 NECC 73 NECC 81 NECC 106 NECC 110 NECC 115 NFCC 119 NECC 122 SECC 150 SECC 152 SECC 157 SECC-b64 MODERATE Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Very Iligh High Moderate Very High Moderate Low Low 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 MODERATE MODERATF MODERATE HIGH HIGH MODERATE HIGH EXTREME MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE HIGH Very High Low High High High Moderate Moderate High Very High High High High Moderate CC 321 CC 327 CC 328 CC 343 CC 352 CC 355 CC 356a CC 3566 CC 387 CC 388 CC 389 CC 411 CC 412 VERY HIGH EXTREME MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH MODERATE EXTREME EXTREME VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH MODERATE Extreme Extreme High Mode -ate Moderate Extreme Very High Extreme High Very High Moderate High Moderate A HIGH HIGH HIGH MODERATE MODERATE HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH VERY HIGH HIGH LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH Measured Streambank Profile -Osage 14 +2006 Profile 2007 Profile - 6osion Dlrectlon Cir_ k M1lat � Tae Pln - Wale!-S uriace 6 5 a 7 6 t 0 4 3 2 1 0 Horizontal Distance Ift) Riparian and -St -ream- bank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion Streambank Material Sampling Results Used to Calculate Streambank Material Loadings Z!5 41 • Twenty two samples were collected at various locatiJ throughout the Clear Creek watershed • Ten were obtained from streambanks composed of fine material • Twelve were obtained from streambanks composed of coarse material 0 aFn i- A"r a. iF •+ .V PZD 20-000002 Changer c Page 59 of ,yr w � - �� �-: ,� � �. � �� t !� , k _ h � ;'' }� Central Clear Creek N Natural Area~ , r , 'k... i GIS In'wentoned Natural Areas Name;;;- Norm stops AZr4,rJuwo Lt:4npei OpenWBeand Andandoned Chanrtst Pond {� Backwater Channel pond - Spring red Channel Scar Spring Run East Slope 94 Spnng Run to Abandoned Cnanrwe , j FiatwoWs? 96 Watland - Sprtng Fed ,; _ l - - Glade 0 FreWAasee ed Nalura Feature See a take;`spetlev:pe `f.AfB�frnsd West Clear Creek` N Natural Areas u A r w. CIE Invantonad Natural Aiwa. : '+ MvuneJe driu 3wa4es I ', Name K Abandoned Channel `1 Nodri Slop, f `�:% own Vwuno Abandoned Channel por+d ?» Backwater Channel pond - Spring Fed 06 Channel Scar K Spring Run y:;' 14 Fast Slope K Spring Run - in Abandoned Channei 04 Flatwoods9 94 Watland Spring Fed -------- — ade 0 Field Assessed hatural Featwe Sde � take Fayehevlle Wacershed k �-,�---- t ��- _ �-- A11ieS } O A 40 o � a � o vl O O VJ I '- W U 4-1 Qj CA a-+ V a� o � � v v ' ro v 4-J p v �75 3 � o v ;� -4 ' v ; 1 4 00 U � o • • ro � • PEN* @pow O ov -ins) a O • 4-J 4-4 O 4-J v v 4-1 • 4(,u • 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 ft 26.9% 7.0% 40.4% 62.7% Left Riparian < 50 ft, Right Riparian > 50 ft 12.1% 11.7% 32.2% 6.1% Left Riparian >_ 50 ft, Right Riparian < 50 ft 12.1% 0.0% 11.2% 6.7% Left Riparian >_ 50 ft, No Right Riparian 13.3% 40.9% 6.3% 12.5% Right Riparian >_ 50 ft, No Left Riparian 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0%% Riparian Both Sides < 50 ft 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% Left Riparian < 50 ft, No Right Riparian 2.8% 2.2% 1.2% 3.7% Right Riparian < 50 ft, No Left Riparian 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% No Riparian Both Sides 30.3% 32.2% Clear Creek Fast Riparian Assessment fo L Y� a L aep. �9s` ; f 2019 Air Photo, `,Nm UO', Both > 50 ft -a .. t.ldwa'i r,-�` +F Left 2 50 ft. Right < 50 ft >{ . Ww - 0 0 5 1 2' Right > 50 ft.left < 50 ft Left a 50 ft. Right None Right >_ 50 ft, Left None Both < 50 ft Left < 50 ft, Right None Right < 50 ft. Left None No Riparian Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed .ssessment Results Land Use Changes Impervious Surface Sources of Sediment & Phosphorus Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation Recommendations Percent of Percent of Change of Land Use Level 2006 2016 Change Total Total Basin Acres % A—, Ac r- ,. Urban 2895 48.2% 3243 54.0% 348.4 5.8% Agricultural 2184 36.4% 1720 28.7% -464.1 -7.7% Forest -land 425 7.1% 523 8.7% 97.9 1.6% Water 293 4.9% 328 5.5% 35 0.6% Wetlands 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% Barren Lands 203 3.4% 186 3.1% -17.2 0.3% "Total 6001 6001 Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek' - Lake Fayetteville Watershed Impervious Surface Change over 10 years Assumed: Impervious Land Use • Roads • Sidewalks • Dense residential • Businesses Non -impervious • Forests • Farmland • Pastures • Rural housing • Park space Riparian and Strew nk Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed r Impervious Surface Change over 10 years:u 2006 Percent of Basin 2016 Percent of Basin Change Change of Basin Acres '% Acres % Acre,Y„ Imna niinuc land 11— 7F7 17 Rol Q:zF 1r Fo/ 1r,Q 7 R?O/ >..: Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Lake Fayetteville Watershed Sources of Sediment and Phosphorus Clear Creek _.. _.. .._ _.._T _ -- - - _ _ ..._... - �>tcr�tial Water � � � J � ��-.u� � P (duality Impact SOUrces w � 4- Lake Fayetteville Watershed t° 0 0 ;ai2`, o 0 �r 1n5 O A Hsu I'll, '�Fa11e., o o q O 4 O UC@ ri i a b OJ o NPOES Industrial Stormwater Permit o NPOES Construction Stormwater Permit pr O o Chicken Houses �a .4 ! Septic Tanks Springdale 0 Fayetteville O Inventory Streams U 0.5 i crtlloc Lake Fayetteville Watershed Y .. C. a saaanoS jagjo tuoaj uoijanpoid juamipaS ;)jj!A3jj;)Sl9,q a)JU'j 01 ttoij;)nl)0.td )t'JtutpIS IL'IO.L pags.iajvM ajjjAaj ja Vj laajD- jvaj�3 jo juatussassV uoisoj:l 3iuugmua ilS puu ~urupdin 7 7- Phosphorous Source Streamank Erosion Pasture Septic Tanks Urban (w/out construction) Construction Other Sources (Total) Forests Highways Undeveloped Lands Farmsteads Barren Lands Area or Estimated Average Annual Phosphorous Load Length TP (Ib/yr) Percent of Total Loading Rate 2.38 m i 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 1 2626 1 100.0% 777' Prairie � 4 i� ♦ I '► . � yW .k Syorry, W :raeNi-ni of ltm-4,� ` Prairie No mention of brook, f � B,:w+ n _ d o-vo 1 irk, •.Ide 1 � f• a Prairie:1 4.ta"d 8 Prairie Brook mentioned. 6 knks wide •1 r' Cleai Creek m, coned 30 1 tia'de Cwrent Day st vama Open V*1 and sp,ng Run Mounm aria S;%OWS hd(leS Pond: Wet erd Lake rayettevixe Sasn Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Lower Northeast Tributaries Belo Inventoried US Natural Feature Natural Area, Site # C3 Lake Eayetieyihe w Priority Watershed SItearribanks Inventory Otnet Streams Streambanks W"T Spargdate CXY Unritits Fayetteville C4ty I irnits Fayetteville Piannury At ea N Very High H GH. VERf Wry High as VEICYHI Ar (i H ,High fr , 4 of 40' l!')VA MODERATE, Spring Run Vir� High pring I G h H ig4' Ilk Very High MODERATE, very High G, HJ6H,H,Vh 000 t- # HIGH,HijhI,., HIUH.H,gh HIGH, 0A."tRIG FLH�gh 65 ki� 1,000 2.000 =Fee - — — -- ------- - Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville N Upper Northeast Tributaries . , .410 e H1GN,High i HIGH,i igfi .. -^�.,. ' HiGH,NigG�hp lv � w !4. r HIGH,High ,•TM HIGH,High �k'r, ~~^r •.,.� HIGH, .. Very High HJ- V ry High 1-116H,High "j1'. "Y..'6+.VV`•°E".....r ..;•._ .�>• � wr.. „; HIGH,HighV M,.. .-�... t s V'c'� Pnwity 0 Streambanks CIS inventorwo NaturatAroas Springdale cn" Lirrmt •4 '�"'. ''+x*Y' ''e` 'y">'s.. v€ Other Lake Fayettevrile M Fayetteville City +,... —`-' w Streambanks Watershed Limits Jon Tysor, Phr+y Inventory �.—Streams Fayetteville 11 Planning Area {_ L:5:-07() 2000 HIGH, Very High 1e H1r,H, 1,000 fee k4,,4., '. Vt?ry High .« �f HIG H,High C, �JHIGH.High Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Mounds and 5wales - Northeast HIGH Y a. Very Mounds and Swaies ` k - Hlhti, Very N�; h H, High VEF<Y HNiH- � t" ' F fw �� NI( t�,Entreir � f.trwmr lilu{i.I Ly;t, fiiGH High 1 r :3' Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Upper Northeast I .. f — — ---------- - --- — ---- - — ---- Don I son Pkay Open Wetland Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Southeast ----------- "a 265 0 .0� 1'a ;High M A a (,H,H,gh VFRY 14161 Very H 6 f"" 0 1, �V Very, HIGH,CHIGH, gh 10 1 11 1, 0 'lligh High Very High _2 0 NIGH. olliG11,11i Very High L4� a, I • Paonty Cr �.entarred Mrsambanks Nawra, Areas Other LaKe Fayetteville C3 VWIerfineC 4 0 Inventory 2,000 Fee sF,imycaiv (,Aq I routs Fayetteville City UT)"Ib I ayetleville Planning Area JIM- N Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville _..Priority Sites with Open Space Score . 16 V 1.1 Ills 6 ,.. Mounds anti Swale% - rlow ui-.: a+7d Swaies s 0 y r s r� Spring Runt 44 Mounds andSwaies Glide Pondfwettur-,f Open Wetland 65 `eke ay�gvst�} % "� • m Stet. ��-n} ,<, Lake Fayetteville open space °a Fayetteville Master Score UH,. Nbs> City Limits ro Watershed ocher Fayeaevdle , 0 Streambanhs Springdale Planning Mounds and S'watcrs ----•••—� City limits _. �7aWraaAreas Area 0 05 1 2 h9iles ..--- __------------ ._ _ x Em 12 C3 4! cn U w v v C�.y QJ • u u +v V bA b v 4-1 a . v. o v y v � - . -,:% � I � v cr4. v p a% ty p `-� O can V w . 4•� 4 o u ., q O O •� .� Ovu�•�O� v O � u 4J rCS .� 64 "4 bA ft O � 4J E ''fly" Cli o a)� � °� 4' v u rA � rid �" v cu 75 "_' ' r" sa T/� V •� try GJ y cn ,� O O v °cn'= tl3 "O a) vrd c4-'ru i� "O v . v • r vncn C v• O bA 4'-, +� .,, v. k O O • O v O N v .,� 4. cu Cj ro A cu IM-4 O O 4-0 •4—J m U 4-J C) COO 0 u M u cn ft 4-J >1 > 4-J En CU V O 4-J CU ;-4 O O 71 cu 4-� I' m u k E 7 X 4-J En4-1 .. � '� v a o~ 3 v o o of M 4-J O cn w v� �20 o, CA a� U v c n o -C� C o a r v v O rt m .� 'N v V N b4 ci to •� •�'' tU In ° c G� flJ 4-J u cn u u o w v � � � 0 CAP 05 4-J Ln r- 4-J 4-1 a, I) v 0 u • PW 4.� s +' z» ° 4 0 pow Vl O LA WO Ln t .H u as a :CU 75 •� .�cr a Poo pt W 44 �0 rI V V1 00 C� r� H 00 CtS H x u O rt EN N a � i 1 4,4 �QC.Jar • 3 0 CU v L a >~ v o u cu cu ;m. Ln rz -JZ � a a U U W v E- Un wwpm r^ �1 m a o 41 V.! � • o o � u a i CA � a J v o frA a � .0 'zs cn v C -C s� O a Go �I V 00 � O +-' d O rp C va 3 Cl. En QJ O O rC (31 a Cl. 4- "d O E qJ y�cs 3 3 0 ai °' °'aj ~ - o. ro Cl. -C. a MEMOv v G ^� O Q aCA 74 'ti v p E A _ O rxi O y CAScu ra 4.5 4-j t� �� • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • p • • • rd .; • LWM, -J i u • • u • v O O a �• u v n o • � a 3 > 0,4 O O >, 4-+ v v • v, �� v �+'�- b o ° b CU • ,C , 0 b C/� ° o o > � a 71 • C) • • • • • • • • • • • rD cn � � V) r-t ' rl �] n i) CA rD x � $L !y � x � • � Z � N a �' n n � p, O `C rD • "C7 rD 0 �.� Uq rp r�-r O C o" cn V rD QCD ' pu fD O rt a rD O '- p O rD cn rD rD CA UQ r�-. QrD rD o� ao 0 rD M OO nrD rD CU N uq q n rD .d 0 ::rl O rt � UQ O O O ,�,� rD R. rr 11+ )-• • n O rD b � ty ,.3 r+ cn O rD SvrD UQ O `C +* ' rr* G ►� rD rD uq gu cu rD `C �u rr+ O cn cn �:' UrQD � O r* =pir WA ow • �1 MW • rr tfs Masters, Jessica From: Linda Ferguson <Iferguson@mstoiecc.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 2:31 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: RE: 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. _essica, I am at 3258 E Valerie Dr, Fayetteville, AR. I oppose the Chandler Crossing subdivision, I spoke with Bryon Moore today and he assured me that there would not be a-ly duplexes or apartments, which are clearly visible with pictures on your planning commission link. He said it was not low income housing and actually laughed when I suggested it to him. The pictures tell a different story. I am surrounded on 2 sides of my property with the whole development. I called to get an honest answer and was made to visualize a beautiful subdivision. My property was very beautiful and I live on 3 acres and I am now pretty much reined! From: Masters, Jessica <imasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2020 1:15 PM To: Iferguson@mstonecc.com Subject: RE: Chandler Crossing Cood afternoon, Linda, Thank you for the inquiry regarding the Chandler Crossing subdivision proposal. This item will be heard on the November 9 Planning Commission meeting beginning at 5:30 PM. The meeting will be held virtually due to the ongoing health crisis, and the link for participation can be found here. Information is typically posted 24 hours a-iead of time. P ease let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Many thanks, Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planrer Ci:y of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479) 575-8239 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Fccebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube Planning Commission J Decemter 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 100 of 214 CITY OF f EYICLE ARKANSaK,�t�sws From: Linda Ferguson [mailto:lferguson@mstonecc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 1:47 PM To: Planning Shared <pianning@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: 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. Hello, I have some questions regarding the planning of the Chandler Crossing Subdivision and would like to attend -he zocm meeting, can you help me and give me a call? 4793877656 Linda Ferguson Office Manager " MILES ONE. 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/MilestoneConstructionCompan 2 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 101 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Maya Porter <mayaporter479@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 9:02 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing development C,,kUTION: 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 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 quality 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 24 i 8 W. Mary Dr. Fa%etteville, AR 72704 47L387-0030 Click here to oet my memoir wivi .maV,'J47orter.COn� Planning Ccmmission December 14, 2020 Agerda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 102 of 214 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 103 of 214 z Who's Responsible — County versus Citv Economics: The subject property is not only surrounded by property that shall 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 the county road. The county also receives a portion of the millage, but with multiple sections 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 new 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 adjacent 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 connectivity 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 There 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 Schools 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 than 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 104 of 214 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 residential streets. This is one more confirmation it is sprawl. The infrastructure is not in place or at the City's discretion to improve because t-le main ingress and egress points will remain in the county. From Highway 26.5 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 adjacent land owners in the recent public hearing, the proposed entrance from Chandler Crossing to Zion Road is at the top of a blind rill just east of a 90-degree corner with no curb, gutters, or sidewalks. Two large trucks will struggle to pass in addition to the blind entrance exiting the proposed annexed lard. 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandrer Crossing Page 105 of 214 4 Summary: A simple 30 minute site inspection will have each planning commissioner understand and agree that this is sprawl and annexation is not the correct decision for the residents of the City of Fayetteville. The only benefit of the annexation is to facilitate the PZD for 200+ homes for the 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 bridge. The infrastructure and improvements to the surrounding area must 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 Mayor's Box Thanks for your time and consideration. Michele Lang 3322 E. Zion Road Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 106 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Nancy 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 Zion Road development. Thank you, Nancy Vaughn, concerned citizen Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 107 of 214 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) Attachments: Lake Fayetteville Presentation 6-9-2020 - compressed photos.pdf !_ Af,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. 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 developments 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 108 of 214 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 ^< 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 City 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 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 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 109 of 214 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 researc-1 tl-at clearly describes this region and the impact that its destruction would have on the future of Lake Fayetteville? There is a clear dichotomy between the developers proposed plan for urban 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 Clear Creek Watershed. For me the decision is straight forward. I wait to see the science that says buildirg 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 th residents living close to the streams feeding Lake Fayetteville and the Lake Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. Since the developer has ignored the concerns of the people impacted by this decision, he should not be rewarded for the plan. Best Regards Nick Anthony Planning Ccmmission Decembe[ 14, 2020 Agerda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 110 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: shelley buonaiuto <goodhelp@cybermesa.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 121 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 development. 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 111 of 214 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 licks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Flease reconsider, and do NOT develop the subdivision above Lake Fayetteville. As an avid bird watcher, I visit the area f-equently during migration 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. Thanks Stephanie Jordan 206-947-3922 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 112 of 214 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 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, 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. 9th. Ben and Sue Mayes 3266 E Valerie Dr Fayetteville AR Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 113 of 214 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 114 of 214 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 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 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 115 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: victoria mcclendon <viktorialeigh@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 1:25 PM T-:): Masters, Jessica Subject: Concern for water quality impact of proposed development ',111TIO(N: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize tl a 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 Watershed Alliance lake cleanups and invasive plant removal efforts.. I am aware of the posted algae 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 Fayetteville, 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 Fayetteville river development for example, sl-ould not bely the existing underdeveloped natural jewels- Lake Fayetteville the predominant one. I would like to see this long term commitment to improve the water quality and public enjoyment of the Lake in formal ci=y 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 making. Respectfully, Victoria McClendon 1L-6 West Prospect FF-yettevile AR Plagning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 116 of 214 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 --- --- —-------- .____--___-.—-__.._.____.. _.._ _ ... ---- ---- .._. L,,`,;J _ ;t. 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 <jmasters@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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 117 of 214 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 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 all. Members of the public can issue comments to me via email, phone, (or mail!), and you can also provide comments at the meeting. (You can continue to submit comments to me after that deadline, but 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 `Nebsite I Facebook I Twitter I Instaeram I YouTube From: A P <adampinion@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 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 open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 118 of 214 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 a 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 119 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Allen Carney <acarnack@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:41 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: East Zion road zoning 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. Hi, I'm writing to ask the city to contemplate opening the extension of Zion Road 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 120 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: whiterl@cox.net Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:50 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion Road Development "AIJTION 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 121 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Darryl Calvert <calvert42@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 11:22 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 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 consent 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. Fin2lly traffic congestion during and after construction will cause personal and property damage, not to mention increased air pollution. I respectfully ask the City Planning Commission to reject completely this awkward proposa that will spoil the environment and ambience of northeast Fayetteville. Sincerely, Darryl Calvert D 1 Planning Commission Dece nber 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Cha idler Crossing Pz ge 122 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Deborah Ogg <deborahgogg@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 123 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Debra Aasmundstad <dka5065@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 3:46 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. Masters, My name is Debra Aasmundstad and I live at 4701 Copper Creek Drive, Fayetteville, in the Copper Creek Subdivision. I see that the Fayetteville City Planning Commission is, again, having a hearing on the above -noted matter. 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 density and type of housing, and access, is almost comical in its design. Urban Sprawl is generally characterized by discontinuous, haphazard, uncoordinated, 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 the 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 124 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Dennis Graves <denem505l @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, 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 lines. *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 5 ton weight limit (which is currently only a suggestion to heavy traffic.) Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 125 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Planning Shared Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:21 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: FW: Annexation and Rezoning, Patricia Severino property Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mountain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 ai-arrison(afayetteville-ar.gov) T 479.575.8267 I F 479.575.8202 V1 bsite I Fa.:;ebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY 4F FAYETTEVIILLE 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 <dmalcolm.mcnair@gmail.com> Subject: Annexation and Rezoning, Patricia Severino property U UTiON: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize th � sender and know the content is safe. As an 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 Annexation into the City and requested rezoning of the 59 acres. This Annexation and Rezoning request comes before the Planring Commission on November 9, 2C20 at 5:30pm. Thank You for your consideration of our support. ECT Farmland, LLLP D 'Malcolm McNair, Jr. Lucy McNair Jones Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 126 of 214 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 ah_ ar.gov) T 479.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8202 aeecook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF . ,,,"1► 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 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. 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 nfullerl2t@aol.com Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL apr mail. mobile. aol.corn Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 127 of 214 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. write in concern for the development proposal at Zion/Crossover. My concern pertains to drainage. Will this proposal slow water getting out of the neighborhood by increasing flow from the development into Hilton Creek? Several yarjs 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 largely by memberships and fees from activities. The Garden is a big draw to our area from 2 II of NWA and indeed from all over 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 mentioned here. Eent from my iPad Georgia Ross =741 Hearthstone Dr Fayetteville AR 72764 E70 208 3396 Planning Commission Decemter 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing PagE 128 of 214 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 narrow 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 iPhone Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 129 of 214 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; image3 jpeg C_AUT'o:^; 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. Gear Jessie, My name is Jessica Booth and I live on E Zion road. I would like to request that this email be included for the planning commissioners review. Thank you! Planning 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 out 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 to put entrances/exits. Check out our livestock and gardens (although they looked much more alive this summer, the gardens 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 being 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 to the proposed property are a semi -agricultural type community. As mentioned before, many neighbors raise livestock, drive tractors, maintain ponds, and grow gardens to feed their families and neighbors. Most of the homes surrounding the proposed development area are on 1-3+ acre lots, with plenty of distance between neighbors to maintain our hobby farms 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 tons, 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 vehicles will increase and eventually the bridge will fail. We talked about flooding that already damages and impacts our property even without an incredibly dense development upstream. Roofs and asphalt, especially hundreds and hundreds of them will not absorb rainwater. This Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 130 of 214 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 development. 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 chance 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 131 of 214 Punning Commission Decerrmer 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 132 of 214 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 133 of 214 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 135 of 214 Masters, Jessica :rom: Joseph Robertson <joseph.robertson@outlook.com> ;lent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 9:40 AM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing / 3435 E Zion Rd annexation and rezoning CA11 T !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. Ms. Masters and Commissioners, —he 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 before our last meeting. All of the previously voiced concerns still apply. Neighbors have issue with increased traffic on Zion, pedestrian safety, bridge (load and flow) capacity, existing and future storm water runoff, sprawl, emergency services access, and impact 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 attempt 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 cirectly 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 localized 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. F'om: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sint: Monday, August 24, 2020 3:18 PM T:): Joseph Robertson <joseph.robertson@outlook.com> C:: kellierobe@gmail.com <kellierobe@gmail.com> Subject: RE: 8/24 Fayetteville Planning Commission Memo - New Business items 6 & 7 Joseph, Thank you for your input, and again, apologies for the oversight on the email we received from Kellie. I have forwarded both yours and Kellie's emails to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 136 of 214 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) S75-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instaeram I YouTube C17Y OF SYICLE ARKANSiiKAN5A5 From: Joseph Robertson <joseph.robe rtson@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 CAUTION: 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 z 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 wantec 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 withou = 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 a -inexation 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 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? 3. 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 137 of 214 4. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.S.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 the guideline. 5. 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 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 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, wha- 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 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? G. Annex Guiding policy 12.3.5.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to mee- 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 witl- 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? Planning Commission 3 December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chand er Crossing Page 138 of 214 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 139 of 214 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 CAUTIOi`, This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recogn ze tie 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 ii 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 organizing these studies? What is the t_meline for them? Are there any requirements that the studies be completed and someone approve them prior to the development work beginning? What recourse will current property owners have to combat damages from poorly planned developments? Since we moved into our home 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 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, 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 culverts 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 attaching pictures from the f ooding so far in 2020. We can provide pictures from previous years that look very similar. Our hope is that the city a.zd county can find a way to finally address the cause before adding more homes and development in this area. We would very much like to remain in the county and at the very least remain zoned agriculture so we can continue to -ise 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, 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 c-iildren 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? Will current residents be moved to a different school? What emergency support systems will cover this a -ea? 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 d.layed. What will happen if the area doubles or triples in families? How will their services be provided in a timely anc safe manner? t Planning 3ommission December 14, 2020 Acenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chander Crossing Page 140 of 214 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, Kellie Robertson 3397 E. Zion Rd. 479-283-6182 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 141 of 214 .M...[^n� ,y r t 'r.!, a �. ..r� r"' y� .per* �- �. • -•,Ilk .� .. •M. _. (.. a� � s `�� � T � 'dui a• 1 � • 3 b ..� llt. - '-..- - _ i w .. 1r ^�"'r; Inning Commission ecember 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 143 of 214 c o � :' 0... g ..Y rN yyt kR�- 1 _ 4 .q. Masters, Jessica =rom: Kristin Collins <kristin.collins65@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 2:10 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: 3435 E. Zion Rd. 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 Ms. Masters, 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 mention 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. There is too much already! This is not the area for development for many reasons. I have lived in Fayetteville for 20 years and want my local governme-It to continue to listen to its residents. Kristin Collins, B.F.A., M.S. Heritage High Planning Commission Decemoer 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chanc'ler Crossing Page 146 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: mmbritain@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:47 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Chandler Crossing concerns 'AO! it)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. 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 147 of 214 Masters, Jessica F•om: Margret Walker <wmargret09@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 1:03 PM To: Masters, Jessica S.abject: 3435 E Zion rezoning proposal concerns Attachments: Planning Commission Members and City Staff.docx CAU T;ON This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize tFe 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, IVargret M. Walker 3441 Peppermill PI, Fayetteville, AR 72764 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 148 of 214 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 Butterfield 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. 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 149 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Michele <mlang9669@gmail.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 open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Masters, Cur neighborhood has seen the new signs posted at this property, giving notice of annexation and rezoning requests again. As the semi-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 have relating to this subject. R you are able to send all this by email, that would be great. Then I can share it with the others. T-ianks for your assistance. Sincerely, Michele Lang 3 322 E. Zion Rd Mlang9669@gmail.com Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Planning Commission Decemb ar 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 150 of 214 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 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. 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 151 of 214 all. Members of the public can issue comments to me via email, phone, (or mail!), and they can also provide comments at the meeting. (You can continue to submit comments to 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, Arkansas (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: 3435 E Zion Rd annexation and rezoning requests 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. Masters, Our neighborhood has seen the new signs posted at this property, giving notice of annexation and rezoning requests again. As the semi-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 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 MlanR9669@gmail.com Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 152 of 214 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 153 of 214 to pass each other. The number of vehicles using this road already strains safety limits, especially during commuting hours. Adding hundreds of additional 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 a 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 is responsible for performing and interpreting these studies? Will it be an independent and impartial party? When would the results be available to the public? 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 and densities, contrary to this statement in the planning booklet. The 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 development fits well within the residential surroundings currently built along E. Zion Road, all while remaining similar in Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 154 of 214 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 copied 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 155 of 214 To the commissioners, please carefully consider the future of this area. Currently the subject site looks like this: m 4 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandle r Crossing Page 156 of 214 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 157 of 214 masters, Jessica From: Mona Calvert <mjwc82@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 11:08 PM To: Masters, Jessica Subject: Zion road project CAUTIC 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 -driven, low -quality urban sprawl. Recent documentation 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 matter 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. T-ie 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 o- west. 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 weak one -lane bridge on Zion. I know money talks and 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 is 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 Le consistent with the beautiful neighborhoods and acreages that already exist here. Sincerely, Planning Commission 1 December 14, 2020 Age-)da Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 158 of 214 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? Z Planning Commission December 14. 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 159 of 214 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_2426.JPG; IMG_5881 jpg; IMG_ 2424.JPG; IMG_2423.JPG; IMG_5824 jpg; IMG_5792.jpg; IMG_2425.JPG; IMG_5825 jpg; IMG_5823jpg; IMG_5491jpg CAUTION: T'nis 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 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 3s will as Lake Fayetteville. In my worst nightmares did I ever envision a development going on to the Burge farm that totally rejected the passion that he had for the land. In fact, Robert Burge rejected $4.5 million offers for this land because 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 must 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 acdressed. Sure a few detention ponds are proposed and a green space around what is referred to as Hilton Creek. Neither of these suggestions consider what will happen to water flow from the neighborhood through my property. In fact, the proposal considers the land to be flat which is clearly not the case. In the most recent rain event (7 5 inches over 4 days), I estimated that the runoff through my pond was 200K gallons per hour. 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 cone to my house and explore the land in question. They will see that the developers did not consider reality when suomitting the proposed development. The second thing that I want the Planning Commission to consider is if there is a demand for this type of housing project in :his of Fayetteville. Just south of the land that is in question is a small 29 house development that is of the same style as houses proposed in the developers plan. The concrete road running through the neighborhood is N. Rolling Meadows Dr ve. I visited with a resident in this neighborhood and simply asked what she liked about renting in this ne ghborhood. She said that it was quiet. This surprised me since the houses were so close together, so I asked why, and she said that most of the houses in the neighborhood are empty or used as short-term rentals like you would find on Airbnb 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 development that butts up against the Bu -ge 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 wil be impacted. I know that there are other developers interested in the land in question. One of the other develope-s 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 rezoning of this land until a reasonable development plan is presented that is in line with the spirit of Fayetteville's future growth and em,ironmental responsibility. Thank you for your time and look forward to discussing this further on November 9th. 1 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 160 of 214 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 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 161 of 214 Ll 3 Planning Commission December -4, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZC, 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 162 of 214 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 163 of 214 w 'h' 4 1� a• y � �.� 4S \ r' rNi PP i aft+ 11 owe. �. i��Ei%..aTIS,"".•j�'t."°l `sg+g"� M � n"k.M'x+.[ ..fib �y ayx 'F^" tf Yy�h�v��9�MP�Mi�'Y"'nRii. , �+ - r ;r Planing Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 166 of 214 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 168 of 214 Planning Commission December 14. 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 169 of 214 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 170 of 214 - , �• u z� I �'I �c'�t •b'; -ice .. a a ' .. fit• '... �..« r _ . `A 4 . ✓ a 4 X`". T I+rCrT"`Y _ Planning Commission Decemter 14, 2020 Ag �mda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing PagE 172 of 214 i1 1. r fF- ;^ y I r T � Plan-iing Commission Decembe- 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 174 of 214 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 175 of 214 Plasters, Jessica From: birdhs57 <birdhs57@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 3:35 PM —o: Masters, Jessica Subject: EAST ZION ROAD CHANGES 1=A111 €'ON: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recogrr-ze the sender and know the content is safe. Please make sure to keep our neighborhood safe. The proposed changes do not appear to take into account t-ie this adjacent to thus area. We are very concern that all aspects of changes are not to benefit all. Our property values are important too. Safety of runoff, narrow road with increased traffic are several factors. Respectfully T=resa Pace Willard 4568 Rockledge Drive, Fayetteville Arkansas SEntfrorn phone Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandle Crossing Page , 76 of 214 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 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 177 of 214 Learn About Zoom Meetings: Instructions HOW TO FIND At4D JOIN A VIRTUAL 1200M) MEETING: I pold the filetufto it she 2 C ory aria Pacts ft rrm"On q s Z 3cm r fa vio ,mlw w ;x,iw 3 C W" to Me Zoom mooting fogistlaRkm • tffw *40V tO *P**' At 71* MQMing, *Kkoft OW 01M VOU d 400 to $P4kA 40A M14" you fog"l-w - wt jv&mbe tx as mtlewvqrsf A Watch let aAh Zoom wabpbv* dolaw 5 0 so Om "robw f,,.or 14a,.r f, alost-9 in Zwa" to W"k when pk;b#x corw7wf s *V*wwj Get ddvarK* moo" of ad pwft ~o"S by subscftiftv to Ift chy Cleo's pubk wwot*", C&*Odsf I he C4 pubkh" 04ch WOW% sdoAd pubk meow" on ft array pw"15 Zoom Meeting Directions * T,1 refpt" 1w If* =rt tina ck* exr -*-- 206M mftt"Ad* if OW Public basting C AW'd W 45hog lot V* MeWin you wi&* to SMand * VOW pf0Mvl*d �wvw ** moo" 1gt saantwr as PFC10ded in the p;;bk- voecrg CA�rwar woo v" Y"Aw tdj Mw# as ww ftww M p&MkVw ts wO be fftMd wAoffaW&W Ateo ;owwiwq I* ir*0mg R*fnombw � un-mule 1*,v ffiktaphom bAwe S"Swg To join by pix" o0y, toll,freo, dkt *1 WTI n3-5257 or * I ,M; 47644% Wh-pr-r+'*d koyinYET 0vtoo" tOrtlonbw if you do *I hoi* a Pym1k*witKNMOw pasta phom KnIbKS wAd to " in 10 Mwft we be W400d fol pmxv TQCwMww U5e'R4%m rwIrkmaw ~ ww*o for 4m 4&n is fe*ww.4 Fs ptw* rar" t*wnd w be r wM S Planning Commission 2 December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 178 of 214 JwW Tw N, b;K MW wvx * r po6ef GMOr 1v x V"t 24. 20h;. 'V-W AM 14-,30 AM N k, F*,V A.ulu.ns. +�' 1+talN1li'�+�CtI.Lilf f+q{r Atik 2f. 20h1- 5� 3d PY- t#C7ki WI Q 2oom ia+f 4+�wfrrC{kt i'ftpn''MKe++s.{ef+'ret+liw YtytNaa•W!AJCµfif 5?IiTwrlMf G'E�if{Yl"� 2] Y92:t 0F65 *wd s2AC" A44d 24 2620. 600 PM tt:]0 PW a T41xn Woft agora PVRPf:rVW% .. xAa'liMt tglxit�x�4sfp yYf6efur HT 46t 88i6 ttD67 &Va 20 D. Cot ocaov Mffd Us" aoce itepftCw *M Mvust+'K,.2Ai26i 2:06 pM-*40 PM0 yaBFube k_q* tMsf9AVWW.rq{dwisr,C, pvw"[ *w Dom: Apry 20-11_ Lam S*qu yak Boat Dock optwr ARUM 24, M.13. 2:96 PM-1''00 PM * Dw o llmaea w'uw tW tW* af,guw'h+df P CO# COwMA 400nft 14eldp0 `--�-- AwOW vdAa' X2 Mk 4:30 PW -" PII i3' xo�ar'a mMion MADf:z` Mr MAY �ddiaf7gw01uANft*O Y£k+tw jf*f TrwwpwubOA co Muftes " 600 0. wwned wr Agenda LASA+o. Aap st 20. 2M 5;30 PM-19 M PW Q xoan LkeAs : hRpf:Usaxn+ar'wsC+ra. aW+fbr.1NM 2DYtteXz�t9q; AllsuAflN/xw wobvw ; M 670 MS 3 Planning commission December 14, 2020 Acenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 179 of 214 Event Details V- Planning Commission Date: August 24.2020 Monday, August 24, 2020 Time: 5,30 PM -10 30 PM Location: Zoom Link information https.!/zoom. uslwebinadregister/WN_jDI5F Meeting ID# 984 9303 8966 Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479)575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov V1.ebsite I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube Address: Fayetteeiite, AR 72701 Link: Meeg to# 984 9303 8966 f +/ ■ 4 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 180 of 214 clYy OF FAYARKA EVILLE ARKNSAMSAS From: nbooth479@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.con,.> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 8:14 AM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters@favetteville-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 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 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 181 of 214 rezoning passes), once they provide a specific development proposal, staff will evaluate what specific infrastructure mprovements may need to be made on the site that meet the proposed impact. t may be helpful to look into what is available "by -right", or what the developer would have the entitlement to do by ooking 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 -he site that is around Hilton Creek as R-A, Residential -Agricultural to minimize development impact in that floodplain. am happy to answer any additional questions to the best of my ability — I also recommend attending the meeting -hrough the link provided above. Many thanks, -essle Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479)575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website i Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube ��cxr 01: FAYETTEYILLE ARKANSAS 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 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-ello 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 :o irdicate 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. Thanks! N ck Booth N:)ooth479@gmail.com 479-879-5520 From: Harrison, Andy <aharrison@favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:07 PM Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 182 of 214 To: nbooth4791Pgmail.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 jmasters@fayetteviIle-ar.gov Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mountain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 aharr�son{g)fayettevilie-ar,gov) T 479.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8202 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY 4F FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 183 of 214 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 i -Au T iON. 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. F-ey Jessie, Thanks for the answers. As a resident living on E Zion Rd immediately across from one of the proposed e-itrances for this development, I would like to submit some refutations from the developers booklet. I hope tl ese items can make it into the verbiage for review by the planning commission. My responses are in red below the developers statements. J) Relation to existing and surrounding properties: 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 development fits well within the residential surroundings currently built along E. Zion Road, all while remaining similar in appearance to the Lakewood subdivision and the Woodbury Townhomes along E. Zion Road. Le-kewood subdivision is WEST of the proposed property, on the other side of the Highway 265. We should compare this lot to the ones immediately adjacent to it, not on the other side of a major highway. The homes they mention on E Zion Road 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 with this property. This is an upscale neighborhood of homes in the $300-450K range on .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 and developments with its similar lot size, alley fed access, smaller setbacks, and neighborhood character. The proposed PZD will consist of Single Family, 2-4 family, and Multi -Family buildings. As proposed, this PZD does not compare to the surrounding development. There are no multifamily buildings, 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 Zion Road are also available 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 improvements 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 traffic on this road. This road is out of city limits, which means the city will not be making the necessary improvements to support this increase in traffic. In addition, the single lane bridge has a weight limit of 5 tons which will force emergency response as wel as construction vehicles to enter from a different road. Driving on this road is dangerous. I drive a full size Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 184 of 214 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 fayettevile" 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 `hat 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 185 of 214 Annexing this property will make the city/county issue for us residents on East Zion Road even worse. mergency services don't know if we are city or county, and our road will never be improved if it stays in tl-e county. Residents on E Zion road are in the Springdale school district. If this property gets annexed, what will be the assigned school district? —hanks for your time, Nick & Jessica Booth Nbooth479@gmaii.com L-79-879-5520 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 Master Street Plan, and they would be required to build these streets to meet city standards. As far as your question a:)out drainage and traffic, drainage and traffic studies are typically provided at the time of a proposed development. R ght 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 plars (such as a preliminary plat, or large-scale development). Drainage and specific traffic requirements would come into play oice 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, NDvember 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 Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (4-9) 575-8239 www.favetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSRKANSA6 From: nbooth479@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:32 PM To: Masters, Jessica <imasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Su:)ject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone 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. Planning Commission 3 December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandle- Crossing Page - 86 of 214 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 <I masters @favetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:07 AM To: nbooth479@Rmail.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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 187 of 214 Learn About Zoom Meetings: Instructions HOW TO FIND AND JOIN A VIRTVAI. (Z )1 FITTING: t i ood M.C' nweung m are M� - 2 C opy arnd Pas to J a "eon a a Z=xsm r4o M ymuu tfowswt 3 C one 19 Ow Zoom maatfng regta;t OkM - g >pcwe ward to ri r. at dzo SA6 aAiq WO you d ke W apaaAt abcna 064n you ropisw (mot i'mutie fof as maf:t l 3. Mich fo an Baud confk"wion rO Zoom rfw d '.r; 4 S iJ w tho "slaw ", KOMI- leatuuw in zoo" to Simi, ;xs " . 3s v Gat adrsfata nocke of all tntdriic meefiogs by mabstritsing to fM Clay G#eat's f'ubk MCaerings Cdendw _ 'hn cii+t G*k Ntft Vigo sr A} 0 to fnory prqvwm 2otaln Meeting Directions To a fog tree . did on mo cmm meant u k, IN public A6,wq tauftd& ASMI * Ow you wittt /a auanfe W'Mf t wwap%4, aster Ow "g iD Mw- wr as p0 arr 040 YV91If 60 tlwe a iClw n m 0.s pantie pas n rAi lte tmuiee aut0frsalk+ly • 5 mead aq t5gr rt ua- raeg pear minaON" ba "spwdng- TO 10+rt hey #rN"O only, VA brae, dial: -1 iSM 863-5257 of 41 (Wj 47S, 4499 ,At a 6xCrrvlatad'key in yotx V" g iC -r ffbw if you do o ho" a . Y.. r ptom, p81MO MWOWS to U to 10 we be wood * pvkj TOCOMMww_. g. f£� � laafftf' lYlfO!# fat $<t ii8fn i5 r. .. Fix r hand Iis in rac"Heed vwM "3 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 188 of 214 .twat_ Mtirtn�}s ` a one AcN.$p+Tr�,44GOAM t(K�AMQCyyWFygAupat. t m0® ,! '. ® © © ' AVW,WFA, .5,39 PM- M--AFU too"(.* uKw+r-sk4^+MtW:n't4 l:a#+wcawW:rryp�,k+M'M,JLq$f . ... +} f,Yf 9Ypr #" ?• Asrtuai X<. X42�. 5:2tX P4l t1eX4 FMB Zmant tntrrft,efuNa M1W.:mta+�n.as'^,+w+replaae+MM_�'�++sttaSriR- i2au JWTTP TO: iit 9SS SdI'8 tea; fijih1 fAtcu,p bid 000*v• 914 x 69. rCOM-Ir chon - ta.W 3taat Rgv2 ttep+.ctmunf A MOM 2S, 2OXc 2:0 PM-ti,00 PM 0 TMTut,e UN- tNgn.:S`rMw.y-dRwbe.et3a�'�rK 6t _ _ _ _; Rf v 20-11., Stt2apyatk Bart Ohx* Ope W w AvaiM 26.. VI,S, 4-00 PM. V00 PM * Ow m Sopfte .wW W 4y^ f vlpe 9F+jhYv wo f0f4ortme co, COWWA Agermu a+iTf*F w =,O-4;36 RAt-9;ik?OM ru ehi tMw,tu4t4n hv4w;+,twran.LM%wtw•+.t lny46 W%-,vta[7tpWihWNtext6tXCMm ig . Mt-'S,,—V 00 M!� •>�t„y AWrda Rnawn m2w 6;16 pu-t$;30 p%+S twm i. hMPs.-Zn usvet+rsar acpvt0.rYYN 2Wt2eXdBt7ytitiLeW,91lfir„ ":. � tD.F#. G#+sh+'tKCznn -. P.f'rset Awe tkairte(pn Rab..! 6 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 189 of 214 Calendar View 4H Caiendafsj-,the defatit -h-NlSa 5FI r a "-alen,3f to d Pc3 Spacificcalendar subscrib--Lp cate"'dar by a the NotiFy Me1lbuU'r and vou -jt+ amtcenatica!'y be a;ef-d wou. the ialcal evants to our community commL� B T T I.- C EXT E I Event Details A- rwa Planning Commission Date: August 24. 2020 Monday, August 24. 2020 Time: 5 30 PM - 10 30 PM, Jessie Masters S:mior Planner C'ty of Fayetteville, Arkansas (t-79) 575-8239 uww.fayetteville-ar.gov \Plebsite I Facebook I Twitter I Instagrarn I YouTube Location: Zoom U4 Information ht".ffzocm us,webina0registerA/VNjDI5F Meeting ID# 984 9303 8966 Address: Fayetteville AR 72701 Ling: Meeting f 0 7 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Age-ida Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 190 of 214 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE RKA NS ARKANSAS From: nbooth479@gmailcom <nbooth479@gmaiLcom> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 8:14 AM To: Masters, Jessica <Lmasters@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 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@gmaiLcom From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:52 PM To: nbooth479@gmailcom 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 191 of 214 -ezoning 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 N 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. Many thanks, J =ssie Jessie Masters S?nior Planner C ty of Fayetteville, Arkansas (L79) 575-8239 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter f Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS AAKANSAS From: nbooth479@gmail.com <nbooth479@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:52 PM To: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Zion Rd Annex and rezone proposal Cf.UTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize th= sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jessie, M,r 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? I think it would help ease some wcrry from everyone if we had an idea as to what exactly they have planned. Thanks! Nick Booth NbDoth479@gmail.com 479-879-5520 From: Harrison, Andy <aharrison@favetteville-ar.gov> Sert: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:07 PM Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 192 of 214 To: nbooth479Ca)2rnai1.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 .3t (masters@fayetteviIle-ar.gov Andy Harrison Development Coordinator Planning Division 125 W. Mountain City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 ararrson;afia�et'�viile-ar Goy) T 479.575.8267 1 F 479.575.8202 Webs!te I Facebook I Twitter I Instag-am I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS►ASS 10 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 193 of 214 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 area downstream of the proposec Chandler Crossing development. Typically, the design of a storm water drainage system will be most successful with the use of -ield data that support the design parameters. My objective is to collect as much information 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 on Hilton Creek about 180 feet west of the Burge farm's western boundary. Soils in the area are from weathered upper Fayetteville Shale and 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. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 194 of 214 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 the flow predicted by the 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/hr). 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 2-7% sloped terrain consisting of pasture, grass, and/or farmland, all with clay soil. • 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 runoff generated by the proposed development is calculated using this same formula. • The drainage basin is limited to 50 acres. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 196 of 214 Page 4 • The runoff coefficient is set at .6 representing the 2-7% slooed terrain consisting of single family homes on small lots, with clay so I. • 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 u -ideveloped areas, resulting in a Q of 12 cubic feet per second o- 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 density parts of the development will exper ence even more rL noff. Photo 2: Oct. 28, 2020 Average depth is about 12 inches. Planning Commission Decemt;er 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 197 of 214 STORY POLE Photo 3 Story pole, figure for scale. Page 5 Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 198 of 214 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 or 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item S PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 199 of 214 Page 7 STORM HYDROGRAPH 2 Rainfall I 20 10 1 t7 _ 28 27 28 29 30 31 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 the two 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 flood stage. This illustrates how close this event came to flooding, even though the rainfall intensity was low to moderate over a period of about 3 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 200 of 214 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 Commission December 14. 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 201 of 214 Page 9 Photo 5 Water over Zion Id. just east of the bridge flowing into the front yard of 3322 East Zion Rd. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 202 of 214 Page 10 Photo 6 May, 2020 Following the water around the house, the stream runs more wes-erly. 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 maximum. This is a significant volume of water passing through the yard. Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 203 of 214 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 existi -ig storm water runoff system has been demonstrated to work only with low intensity rainfall events and has failed to control flooding at least oncE per year in the last three years. • The proposed development may increase the runoff by up to 60%. The actual runoff is directly dependent on the area covered by streets and housing. High density = High runoff. • The importance of comprehensive field data for the design phase can not be overstated: If the projected runoff is overestimated, the detention ponds will prevent flooding, even with an atypical, extreme rainfall event. However, I the projected runoff is underestimated , flooding will continue to be a problem. Roy L. Lang Registered Professional Geologist License #1426 (Fetired) 3322 E Zion Rd * Applied Hydrogeology by C.W. Fetter, Jr., pgs 44-47 Planning Co-nmission December 14. 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 204 of 214 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 links 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 205 of 214 Masters, Jessica From: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 9:48 PM —o: Masters, Jessica Cc: Curth, Jonathan Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation 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 & Jonathan: 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. 1 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 t-affic patterns to the site shall be burdened by the county or city. Without definitive answers on the 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 /-661 Copper Creek Drive From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 3:05 PM To: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 206 of 214 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.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETARKANS £Yt11£ naK,►Naws From: Scott Hancock <SHanccck@my100bank.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 10:30 AM 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 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? 1 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 207 of 214 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 Linder 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 hilk. 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. Jessie Jessie Masters Senior Planner City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (479)S75-8239 w ✓vw.fayetteville-a r.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instaeram I YouTube °W",.... CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKAN ARKAl/9A5 From: Scott Hancock <SHancock@my100bank.com> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:12 PM Tc: 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 recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jessie & Jonathan, I wanted to follow-up on the question below regarding the partial rezoning. I do nct 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' <1masters@favetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL SENDER] RE: Zion Road Rezoning/Annexation Planning Ccrnmission December 14, 2020 Agerda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 238 of 214 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 <icurthf-favetteville-ar. ov> 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.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube 41; CITY 6P FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS 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 Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 209 of 214 Jonathan Curth, AICP Development Review Manager City Planning Division City of Fayetteville, Arkansas ieurth@fayetteville-ar.gov 479.575.8308 Website I Facebook I Twitte- I Youtube Planning Commission December 14, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 210 of 214 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 211 of 214 PZD-2020-000002 Close Up View RANDAL-PL-p W (A > O' co ZION RD � G I y, RNI1 -24 0 Legend Chandler Crossing Subdivision 1 zl U) F� a W `STONE DR -J— o P- i W > ,O U) U) O U Planning Area ;- - - Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint RSt-4 1---------- I I I 1 1 1 I z 1 _ w w --1 a Y a W �Z-10-&-RD O W 1 Subject Propert4,4111.41 R-A � r v O Ov a a I A& 4 - NORTH Feet 0 180 360 720 1,080 1,440 1 inch = 500 feet Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 RM F-24 Residential -Office C-1 Neighborhood Services - Gen. P-1 Planning Colmission 14.2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 212 of 214 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing Page 213 of 214 PZD-2020-000002 Future Land Use Civic and Private Open Space y� ul F- ci�oy o U) _J C�d'�• T ;ORDON ON Legend 1 1 Planning Area I Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Building Footprint Chandler Crossing A& Subdivision NORTH LADELLE PL JASPER LN� I �c�KSTONE DR - I� ZU I OMNR—HEARTHSTONE DR—X—p wYut o x0 o (0 0 w aw a Z ' U ��\GE ���w 2 110 Q I% ---I--- a 0 :Y.i p V ONE DR- c N W Oa 0 W J U J U----� l I Z10N'RD'------- I- 1 i 1 1 f DIM City 1 Neighborhood I SLLject Property 1 1 Residential Neighborhood —VALERIE DR 1 C I -v 1 1 _ V O �E� L � z r w Z O'a 1 I � Feet 0 255 51) 1,020 1,520 2,040 1 inch = 700 feet Natural City Neighborhood Civi Institutional Civi; and Private Open Space Industrial Natura. Non-MunicipEl Government Residential Neighborhood Rural Resicential Urban Center Planning Co mission 4, 2020 Agenda Item 8 PZD 20-000002 Chandler Crossing image 214 of 214 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 Wa rd Locate Your Ward Number Address* 4131 N Valerie Dr. E:x. ;,," ;, Phone Number 479-601-4204 Email kandyrej@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 dick 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 Fayetteville's unique, quaint, and extraordinary beauty in a controlled manner as it seems developers are running the show with build, build, build and tons of identical subdivisions. 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 ti)r 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 fire (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 rote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment. speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The CitV 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 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* Michele Lang Address or Ward* Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 3322 E Zion Rd Ex. 113 VJ Mountain St Phone Number 501-282-3350 Email mlang9669@gmail.com Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item C-11 and C-12 Annexation and Rezoning (Burge) Number/Subject Please click the link beloev to Navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position Opposed Comments Re: 3435 E Zion Rd (Burge) Annexation request and Rezoning to PZD (Chandler 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 voiced our concerns and our reasons for opposition to these requests. Unfortunately, we feel that our comments have been largely ignored up to this point. We are sincerely 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 hopefully 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. The main culprit is water runoff from the inadequate detention ponds of Copper Creek. There are nhntns in vnur nackPts of several flnnriinn incirient� Annn with a sturiv of �4iltnn 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 does 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 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 sinned 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 fire (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 Nvill only be allowed to speak for three (3) j minutes. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent or majority rote 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: CityClerk Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:14 AM To: 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 Cc: esimpson@uark.edu Subject: FW: Water issues, Chandler Crossing Please see email below. 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.faVetteville-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(7a.fayettevil I e-ar. qov 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. I 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 T-ie City Clerk office is happy to forward emails to City Council Members but wanted to make you aware that you can a so 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. h:tps://documents.fayetteville-ar.gov/Forms/publiccomment Have a nice day! Cffice of the City Clerk Treasurer 113 W. Mountain Street, Suite 308 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.575.8323 cityclerkCa.fayetteville-ar. gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY of FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: Sue Mayes <suem@crosschurch.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 20214:50 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Bunch, Sarah <sarah.bunch@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Scroggin, Sloan <s loa n.scroggin @fayettevi Ile -a r.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 Councilwoman 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 home for the large lots, for the area and for the fact that our neighbors to the east would be cows, donkeys and a llama. Many people come to our he me and call it paradise, definitely not for the house itself, but for the country feel in the city 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 backyards. 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 proceed. 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 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. 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 means 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. Hilton Creek flows through the Chandler Crossing land, and within a very short distance, into Lake Fayetteville. 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 considerable 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/l after a light rain on 11 /10/20 and .25 mg/l after a heavier rain on 11 /25/20. The highest level, .55 mg/l, came from a rivulet flowing over the land headed 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 wastewater 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 I 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 stream -banks restored to protect the water quality. Stream -bank restoration must be done by an entity with 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 more 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, Architect Hailey Young, student, Haas Hall Academy Green Team; frequent rower on Lake Fayetteville Footnotes 1 https:Harkansasdeq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJoumal/index.html? appid=edf6259f9c8840e7b686287bc2c29799 2 See attached water test results. Soerens, S., Fite, E, and Hipp, J. "Water quality in the Illinois River: Conflict and cooperation between Oklahoma and Arkansas, Diffuse Pollution Conference Dublin 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, Inc. Geatechnical & Testing Services November 17, 2020 Margaret Britain Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Fayetteville, AR 72703 TEL: FAX: as Dear Margaret Britain: GTS Lab 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAX.- (479) 521-6232 Website: www.gtsconsiilting.net Order No.: 2011046 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 th.- 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, ��C'ea4 zlezw Richard Brown Analytical Laboratory Director 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 Revision v2 Page] of 3 T Gc ■ V , In C• GTSLab 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 Analytical Report (Continuous) Geotechnical &resting Services TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAY.- (479) 521-6232 WO#: 2011046 Websire: wmw.grsconsulting.ner Date Reported: 11/17/2020 CLIENT: Margaret Britain Collection Date: 11/10/2020 3:45:00 PM Project: Lab ID: 2011046-001 M1latrix: 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: 2011046-002 Matrix: AQUEOUS Client Sample ID 2 South offence Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Prep Date Analysis Date Method Nitrogen, Nitrate -Nitrite 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 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 li R �VlSlon V2 Page 2 of 3 CHAIN OF CUSTODY Client Name/Address Project Description Billing Information Field Test Information Margaret Britain Test Ist 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 ISpecial Detection Limit(s) Method of Shipment ed Ex UPS Matrix KeV WW - Waste Water GW- Groundwater Margaret Britain Date Results Needed Courier Client Drop OB DW - Drinking Water 5 - Soil/Solid O - Oil other P- Product M - Misc Project Manager Phone x Project Manager Email Site/Facility IDp _ Purchase Order Number �— Project Number (479)236-0926 mmhritain na mail.com Preservative Rev j G T Inc. Y ly N. Shiloh Drive o A Cool < 10C Na25203 (Micro Only) B Cool c6C '� Fayetteville, AR 72704 �- v 'N C H2SO4 Ph<Z GeotsehnicAl E Testing Services Phone (479) S21-7645 Y �' 0 ar 0 a D None Required Fax (479) 521-6232 1- i lJ E NaOH pH>10 F HNO3 PH<2 www. tsconsufting net i Unless noted, all containers per x y O — all a .M o u o G HCLpH<2 H H3PO4 pH<2 START START STOP STOP Table 11 of 40 CFR Part 136. m w z DATE TIME DATE TIME y Sample Identification a a V Required I Cool —6C Na2S203 Analysis Laboratory Sample Number W B G /� %C� �x� i� �......-..-. ...--_. 74 W B G W B G W B G W B G P-i W B G - W B G W B G - - W B G Start Flow Reading -- - ForlaboratoryUseOnlys� Sampled by(Name- Print) ,f a -!, r � �/ �c LQ `� 7 Final Flow Reading Unit; nsta ntanecus or Total F low Reading Ice Custody Seals Lab Comments ON / N Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Me Time t�i/O(7t7 Received by: IGNATURF7� `_ Oa�e Time �I (y • /�-, %� 1 - ✓✓V 3t) Blank % Cooler Temp Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Received by. (SIGNATURE) Date Time Relinyuisheti by: (SIGNATURE) Date time Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Page of GTS Lab GTS Inc/9/SN.Shiloh � Fayetteville, AR 7270404 Geotechnica! & Testing Services TEL: (479) 521-1256FAX.• (479) 521-6232 Website: www.gaconsulting.nel November 30, 2020 Margaret Britain Margaret Britain 1931 N. Wheeler Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72703 TEL: FAX: RE: Dear Margaret Britain: Order No.: 2011116 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 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, Richard Brown Analytical Laboratory Director 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72704 Original Page 1 of GTS Lab Analytical Report Gc / 1915 N. Shiloh Dr. T • V , /n C• Fayetteville, AR 72704 (Continuous) Gaotachnical 8 Testing S—i— TEL: (479) 521-1256 FAY' (479) 521-6232 WO#: 201 1 1 16 Website: wmw.gtsconsulting.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 RL 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 B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank DF Dilution Factor H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit RL Reporting Detection Limit S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Original Page 2 of 3 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 Special DetectionLimit(s) Date Results Needed Method of Shipment FedEz SUPS Courier Client Drop Off Other Matrix KeV WW- Wastewater GW- Groundwater DW - Drinking Water S - Soil/Solid 0 - oil P - Product M - Misc Margaret Britain 1 i _ 6 �„ �(fl cll r w �. ,tom S \^0 ! Project Manager Phone a Project Manager Email Eitefracility IDO Purchase order Number Project Number (479)236-0926 rnmbritain@gmail.com GTS, Inc � t,eotecbnica! d Tenting Service: 1915 N. Shiloh Drive Fayetteville, AR 72704 Phone (479) 521-7645 Fax (479) 521-6232 > Y o w a x m y s Iz j i C •`—' N 0 CL a U O — o ,�, a n o a Preservative Kev A Cool < 10C Na25203 (Micro Only) B Cool C H2504 Ph 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.gtsconsulting.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 3 ►•n r� o t�\5t v e a t.,, w B G j�> (► t lib - coo l [ W _ V G ZOII 4 �. 3jt':d�? W B G W B G W B G W B G W B G W B G 4— W B G + W P For Laboratory Use Only Sampled by (Name - Print) 0 -- Q\ 't ei i� i t CA 1 t'1 Start Flow Reading Final Flow Reading Units Instantaneous or Total Flow Reading Ice N Custody Seals (I� Yr�L.�%t"„r"'_'v'd`�,/�,C'r�„y�" Lab Comments Relinquished by: GNATURE) � y Date Time Rec ived`Illy�(SIIG�N,ATTURE) Date Time Blank / Cooler Temp Relinquished : (SIGNATURE) Date Time Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time lV: L Relinquished by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Received by: (SIGNATURE) Date Time Page 3 of 3 Page ) of _1 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 :o the .4gt imli Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position Opposed Comments Attachments Lake Fayetteville Presentation 6-9-2020 - 10.5MB compressed photos (3).pdf letter to Fayetteville City Council.pdf 111.92KB ;F 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. Puhlic conunert at a (.'ity COU11e11 meeting ,hall be allowed tin all members of the audience Who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item thev wish to address being, opened for public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of five, (5) minutes to be broken into segments ofthree and two minutes. Amendments may receive public comments only irapproved by the Citv Council�bv unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowei for an amendment, speakers will only be Jlowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Council may alloNN 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 v olate 3 these standards shall ke 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 �tx W u v u O cn DC 0 :4-J cfi O u 0 N o v a U •u O � o Lr, vA V r ^ v , v � �y c z •u v 0 u a �. v •� Q u v � v � � cu � O '4-J O v v o� � v � CO th v O � 4 v v � c� • Results of Assessment Work • Streambank Erosion • Natural Areas • Riparian • Lake Fayetteville Watershed • Land Use and Impervious Surface • Priority Sites 0 Invasive removal techniques guide C� M W [o � O O u 4-1 � � w 4 � cn v a cn r O v � Ln o . ,� � cn ,�] . a Cn v, o O v cn v o O 4-1 a Econ can W cn 4-' o v n cn ro tOO u rx : W .4 , 4tj cn 4-1 cu ci Z d 0 x0• 0 C!] tom, 1�r�1 �1 O31 Te E 7 � n v v p o c u Ln av b v v W W o v °' t v� 4-1v a v c! En w o o ra ur �' an o v �m�xxV��x.E ra o o ,� 0 v v Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Results: Streambank Inventory and Erosion Streambank Material Sampling Results p � Used to Calculate Streambank Material Loadings '0` • Twenty two samples were collected at various locationsn;`� :. throughout the Clear Creek watershed • Ten were obtained from streambanks composed of fine � material • Twelve were obtained from streambanks composed of Y coarse material Abandoned Channels Backwater Channels Channel Scars East Slopes Flatwoods Glades Mounds and Swales North Slopes Y Open Wetlands Ponds/Wetlands Spring Fed Ponds; Spring Runs Spring Fed Wetlands Spring Runs in Abandoned C 3 9 r., • • Pon* 9z 400 W 4-0 94 O� 4-0 PLO PON" ;-4 4-j cu CA u 4-J CU C4- 4-j N � �cu 64 CU 4-J 4-J C) 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 ft 26.9% 7.0% 40.4% 62.7% Left Riparian < 50 ft, Right Riparian >_ 50 ft 12.1% 11.7% 32.2% 6.1% Left Riparian >_ 50 ft, Right Riparian < 50 ft 12.1% 0.0% 11.2% 6.7% Left Riparian >_ 50 ft, No Right Riparian 13.3% 40.9% 6.3% 12.5% Right Riparian >_ 50 ft, No Left Riparian 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% Riparian Both Sides < 50 ft 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% Left Riparian <50ft, No Right Riparian 2.8% light Riparian < 50 ft, No Left Riparian 2.4% No Riparian Both Sides 30.3% 2.2% 1.2% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 32.2% 8.7% 6.5% _..._-. ...__ Clear 'reek Easy � `x.� s <� 4 Riparian Assessment r, Ma a 4 t i a '!� •� . cif+ ��'� l ... - - !�v .a` *� � �tiC I 2 •. � ky ' `yam � ¢.- ie. { F •� J s _ '°'Headwaters . �. � • � � a. tit ,� _� . �,*. ,� - . r � '' �� Jlp- f 2019 Air Pnoto x s. L.. �'+Ys►r '+ �n Both : 50 ft . w mom.• $ Left >_ 50 ft. Right < 50 ft =+ a4 Right y 50 ft Left G 50 ft e Left z 50 ft, Right None Right ? 50 ft, Left None 1. 7-1 50 ft Both 3'41 Left < 50 ft. Right None Right � 50 ft. Left None 0 0.5 tv i � ;► -� ` .._ �- No Riparian Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed,:",,' - Riparian and Streambank Erosion r yy a�s Assessment of Clear Creek �.. "4y% 4Y^"•ysA4 el8 %:1, ii )1 a i � ,.��,� °. � few. k i IILL *y ,1 —z �. ✓1 h r i n,'; �' Percent of Percent of Change of Land UseLevell 2006 2016 Change Total Total Basin Urban Agricultural Forest -land Water Wetlands Barren Lands 1 Total Acres % Acres .o Acres n, 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 1.6% 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% 60m 6001 u U.� 7j4-4 4 o x Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek "L- Lake Fayetteville Watershed jwwgMgig� Impervious Surface Change over 10 years' - ft"' 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 WatershedY Sources of Sediment and Phosphorus Source ted Streambank Erosion Pasture • Hay Production • Livestock • Cattle • Poultry • Horses, goats, etc. Septic Tanks Urban - Stormwater runoff • Industrial • Commercial • Residential. • Park lands Construction Other Sources • Forest • Roads • Undeveloped land • Barren land • Farmsteads Sediment I Phosphorus --- 4, 1t, N Potential Water Quality Impact Sources Ai Lake Fayetteville Watershed �._ o -Y, I412 0 .„ .. 0 U 4 O 6+ C o NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit C C7 Ra' o NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit ^fir CIi Q Q Q N � _.. < 00 o r r U Chicken Houses O Septic Tanks ..i ,. Springdale Fayetteville Inventory Streams 0 0.5 1 2 Lake Fayetteville Watershed (10 Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear.Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Total Sediment Production to Lake Fayetteville 7 A rcu g-" ,10 -'a IM, IMFIAI-IKIIPMR. "alt z Sediment Production from Other Sources Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation Priority Streambank— Both BEHI and NBSS are defined as High, Very High or Extreme, and if NBSS is Very High or Extreme MI Praute � _ z _ii,..._ :'. ki^'to u, -:� 1\: _ `; �: � .. lNuBu♦=i.;r{ ++€ij - ♦ �'rs �� i ♦ Iq�� Odd - E f�Y-- J -. --- _ Prairie WcUund Prairie V, .k "mitlonpd, 6 1'd" Vd, d tt Ciea. Cr,+� nerlwned JO tt w:d, t - - v _ C N r 1 ,` O : C.0 err ii , haams Open Vw:t—j e RdItE& k:r,l.•P ri•r,:: iako%aYetterkeBa- 0 025 05 1 Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville . Lower Northeast Tributaries �- -- Feld Inventoried GIS Spnngdaie City Natural Feature Natural Areas Units HIGH, Site N Lake fayetlevdle Faycttevilie City Very High ' HIGH, Primly Waterstmd imits - Y e Very H.gh t Slreamlanks Y.Imentory Fayetteville f- Ottter Streams PlanningAteais''ymy�;,. Slrearnbanks VERY HIGH Hgh a, V � .. ---`I JVery Hreh - MODERATE, Very High e, G ti.Hlgi�� ` inGH. Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville N Upper Northeast Tributaries HIG H,H�gh VI. RY - ` HIGH,i igh HIGH,High, z F� 94 Aw H If�f 1, High lH1G /gh HIGH, �"Very HigH 1! C. 'w Phorlty ,.. 61$ N "I'dorled Spnngtlale Giry Streamhanks Natursf Maas Limits C"ne! lake Fayeltevrlle Fayetteville City Sireamhanks Watershed IInVIS Inventory Streams f ayetleville °annmgkca 500 1,000 2,000 Fee;. VERY HIG Ii.High CJ . ` HIGH,High ._ ... Q HIGH, .Very High M.a nds and Swac. Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville- Mnu Northeast : ti iiiLIgg _ N Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville r yfe' Upper Northeast 7> CC ; f `.� O ' �" ' "* �•m -, �,.�;�. hlmmdS and 5—i — WkR � ® r"A • a 9` y t Don Tyson Pkwy ; • Open Wet4"n<! N HIGH,HigI ®HIGH,High i r 4 Lake Fayetteville.A.,, awtr:" • N Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville AI' Priority Sites with Open Space Score lilt- 0 C41 0) 0 Mnund!. and Swaiirs, ' <. 7`y tdoundv d �d Swaies �� Dor Tyson Pkwy --- q� Mounds am1 swat" ; v. Mounds and Swale Spring Run ' JJ £. i Gtada f'.i t • se pon(Pwcttand ' Open Wetland 33 lez. i 265 ettpvdld �gp; , �' Mounda and Jwales ME Mounds and Swates 05 7 U 2 . Miles Streambanks Lake Fayenevdle Fayetteville Open space Mi niter Score City Limits BEH Noss Watexsried Other Streambanks Springdale Fayetteville . planning Natural areas City Limits Area 4 U ro G vv ?u a� a; � 4-4 O � 4-1 cn cu 4-1 U'1 .z� 0" a-J 3 �vi +�.+ v ateJ b 4 ro o4-4 CU 0 POW +-+ u roc"a v �..[ O C �_ cu E 1-4 � O a �+ J p,'� PNOv �+ p v�rG > G J -C: r7 c'u a-� "� O u G M y ft rd CCt O 3 u� o a u o u M 'd rti a +-+ c.� r" v � - — cn � cif ' � a � C� CCU in a .� o O N '� u o A. -O �-+ v u Q cn bA Ln v v 0 '0 va crO +o , v > y v v , p., � v a? � � O 4-J >cu O cni. O �'Z3 , V v "-Iv O m C7 O � , U4 U • U Q U n7d cn u A.• cx � �� v „p0 pow •� p t/� • • • • • • • • • • v • 0 ,..+ 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,2019 Prepared in cooperation with: Watershed Conservation Resource Center, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension, and City of Fayetteville 4 0 Mk7saw 7 - gww-- 0 Poo O 4M4 cn W u ro lu C, a) cn CL) un can 0 Poo v bA (n � W and •° � °' � o � aJ cn 4-J 0 cu ' v v E� 4-J � C/J .41 a +.� v�ft x p, o o b o ., E 4 u "' v v ro �G � Q x v> r v v v rz ? v U u v ° v $:��L aQ�G4 r-r-a IM C� 0 MW U u V v e 0 tt U 775 0•, 4-1 �;.4 G 4-+ v v4-1 b v v V b 0-4 � G� c! CL w N x U • { ^� 'Cd At ra tzcn4Y -.+ - qj r••� v PM•r v v 3 s; 'an 4� a, x V 4 t~ v �~ v v v v U o v J Qj Z5 cz 0 PRIM CC E- cn z R-w e rA z O v CeS O v tn 75 ft an 7 a v O � m O S� O rA rA 4-1 ZZ 00 In in �.y rA rt Cn v ov v Ln v bA v-+ +a 4-J p4-+u4-1 E- v v rG ru � � 3 v Z t bn .c �' v an 0 v u �, v 3 u +� �" °� v o � ft ° - � `� .� v ° a�i v p v a O y CCi Oz Via. �a ur�a¢ L� ¢�V�a.arx LP4 0ping • • •CA0 0 • 0 a • • • • • • • • • p • • • 4= .r 4-4 .-, b cu 4-1 v O t+Fr tap v ft � v G �•r Q � �bA O v •� b � '� O v O -L" n 4-J Cs,rd r. s- rsi cn U 4-, O C� ►� V bhp a O ,� c.� u Kn 3 GOQ O `n O 0. p u M y v' rz 4-1 V ~5 O OV vs O O COO-O ^� r �v 0� ?fz 4-1 v W O u O v ro O v i .O � v � v TJ 4-.O N ''' "tJ �, a)rG t~ bA a-' cJ 'd �`n, E 4� Z xtirb ar° vciU E �w �cn p � • • -•� • • • • • • � . • • • O • • • n cn Q �-, �-, U M �•r 1 ' ID q - e+'�p •dP �' � /� a C I i Gi L Gi C N GC ,-� �' G3 L 1/6/2021 Dear membersofthe Fayetteville City Council, This letter is a •equestforyou to reject the proposed annexation and rezone of the Burge pro pertyon Zion Rd. Over the course of this letter I will try to summarize the contents of4otherletters that I prepared for the Fayetteville Plan ningCommission. I invite you to review these letters because they include mores pecificdetails 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-dersity housing project proposed forth 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 tothe 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 regardingthe current water runoff issues associated with this property and the additional waterthat is being delivered from tVeCopperCreeksubdivision. Theadditionofhigh-density housing, as proposed by the developer, does not seriously considerthe waterchallenge thatthis development would have on the region. I have included a powerpoint presentation that clearly reveals the waterrelated challenges in the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed. I don'tthink anyone can denythat 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 watercontrol 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? NothingthatI have heard through all the Fayetteville Planning Commission meetings has put me at ease regarding water management. In the first meeting the re 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 peop a that live within this doughnut hole and are still in the county are afraid that there will be no support for water management. Waterwill come f rom 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 happei? Again, nothing has been presented by the developertoadd ressthis concern. Is it properfo-the City of Fayetteville to create these awkward doughnut hole situations? Why has nobody reached outto 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 a bridge not capable of supporting the weight of a firetruck. It is fine to say that most of the traffic will exitthe 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 has put little thought into this community concern. The land in question is within the Fayetteville Clear Creek Watershed which means that water fromthis land makes its wayto Lake Fayetteville and beyond. Current concerns regardingthe 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 powerpoint). It would be environmentally responsible to reestablish this region to supportthe 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 describesthis region and the impact that its destruction would have on the future of Lake Fayetteville? Somebodywill 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 waterflow to lake Fayetteville. Contaminants associated with sewer runoff (oil, fertilizer, trash) will be concentrated in detention ponds. Rainwaterfromthe development will be heated by hot roofs, streets and sidewalks and moved to detention ponds where the water will continue to warm before discharge to Hilton Creek onto Lake Fayetteville. Just imagine the algal blooms that warm contaminated water will grow. There is a clear dichotomy between the developers proposed plan for urban 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 Clear Creek Watershed. Forme the 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 understanding that Fayetteville is a city that "can go green in a red state". Please read the following article: https://archive.curbed.com/2020/2/28/21155997/fayetteville-environment-Ozarks-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* Kandy Johnson Address or Ward* Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 4131 N. Valerie Dr E-r. , 13 "J P.lountain St Phone Number 479-601-4204 Email kandyrej@gmail.com Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item B.5 and B. 6. Annexation/PZD Chandler Crossing Number/Subject Please dick the link below to navigate to (he Agends3 Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position 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 not make any sense: Please please please pay attention to the people of Fayetteville"s opposition to this large scale development (AND it is 370 units not 2601..) and the effects 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 06/16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Public comment at a Citv Council meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience wbo leave signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item the- wish to address being opened for public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maxinnun of 19ve (5) minutes to be broken into segments of three and two minutes. Amendments may receive public Com111CIIIS only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed for in amendment. speakers will only be allowed to speak (br 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. Al' 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 Council and Planning Commission meetings. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure yo-jr 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 Locate Your Ward Number Address* Phone Number Email I Meeting Body* i Agenda Item j Number/Subject Address Ward 3301 East Zion Rd Ex. 113 VV Mountain St 4796013271 nanthony@uark.edu City Council B-5 and B-6 Annexation and Rezoning (Burge) f-'!ease click. the !q'k belt _ wa qate ,.o the ".ye xtei Pace Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Con -mission 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 Watershed that you 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 and 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 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 riPvelnner This he¢itatinn by the FAVettP..viIIP. Plannino (-nmmissinn ShnuLi he 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 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 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 woulc 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 Page 9 Photo 5 Wa-er over Zion Road just east of the Hilton Creek bri Jge Page 8 The land south and east of the boundary formed by Zion Road is in effect a crude detention pond. The bridge over Hilton Creek on Zion Road 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, flows over Zion Road, and across nearby yards, as shown in the following photos: Photo 4 Overflow from Hilton Creek across yards on East Zion Road May 2020 Page 7 Figure 1 25 _ 20 10 0 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 the two 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 flood stage. This illustrates how close this event came to flooding, even though the rainfall intensity was low to moderate over a period of about 3 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. Page 6 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 N". 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. Page 5 Photo 3 Story pole, figure for scale. STORY POLE The story pole was constructed and installed a= the gauging .3ite on Hilton Creek to show the following: • The relative depths of several rainfall eventa. 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. Page 4 The main point of this part of the exercise is to show that changing from pasture land to single family homes on small lots show a calculated increase of more than double the previous amount. Because of many unknowns, an estimate of real world results would be least a 60% increase, but probably much more. Photo 2: Oct. 28, 2020 Average depth is about 12 inches. Page 3 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/hr). A - is watershed in acres. • For purposes of the model, the drainage basin is limited to 5J acres. • The runoff coefficient is set at .3 representing the 2-7% sloped terrain consisting of pasture, grass, and/or farmland, all with clay so I. • 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 133,200 gallons. The current runoff with additional runoff generated by the proposed development is calculated using this same formula. • The drainage basin is limited to 50 acres. • 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 Changing the runoff coefficient to reflect the increase in hard surface area and other factors, the new total will be about 12 cubic feet per second or 89 gallons per second. Runoff for the same time period as before is 323,136 ga Ions. More than double the previous calculated amount. Page 2 Photo 1: GAUGING SITE, Hilton Creek, Oct. 26,2020 Average depth is about 6 inches. The main purpose of this exercise is to provide a visual reference for a numerical calculatio-) 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 the flow predicted by the model using the Rational Formula Method. Page 1 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 area 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. My objective is to collect as much information 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 on Hilton Creek about 180 feet west of the Burge farm's western boundary. Soils in the area are from weathered Fayetteville Shale and 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. Recent rainfall provided the opportunity to check the stream depth and flow after a rainfall 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 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. minutes. The City Council may allow loth it 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 displ ay Comments 1 want to open my remarks with a question. Are you, as either an individual or as a group, willing to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions today? I am sympathetic to the situation that the Burge Trust finds itself in — we have this property, now what do we do with it? Not unlike the family in Newton County, who also found themselves with a parcel of marginal farmland. One day a knock at the door or a phone call, and a business with deep pockets is offering a sure-fire way to make an income. This farmland was also upstream, but this time from the Buffalo River. Not adjacent to it, and about seven miles away. This proposal met the criteria for a state permit and so one was issued. We all know how that turned out. We may not know how many man hours and public dollars were spent on this proposal after the fact; but trust me, the cost of both was extremely high. It is public information. What would the reaction be if the Burge Trust decided to contract with a poultry business and install multiple growing houses across this acreage which is just upstream from our Lake Fayetteville? Information and videos have already been prov ded to you regarding the historical floods through Hilton Creek, now averaging at least one per year. The intensive hardscape development of the Chandler Crossing proposal will send not only huge volumes of water through the stream to Lake Fayetteville but carried in that water will be all sorts of people waste — pesticides, he bicides, fertilizers, oils, trash. you name it. The developers will say that they have plans in place to accommodate the runoff. You must only observe what is happening on the North side of Zion Road, also uphill from Hilton Creek. The retention ponds in those developments do not retain water. Who is responsible for maintaining those ponds and making sure they work as required? Apparently. no one. Who bears the cost of cleaning up after each flood? The homeowners, not the city, not the county. Perhaps the Burge Trust could consider alternatives for development, such as Bridgewater Estates, single homes on acre+ lots. Or partnering with a utility company for a solar array installation. There must be something other than trying to cram as many housing units as possible into as little space as possible. while bulldozing as much land as possible. I am not naive enough to believe that this property will never undergo development. I am only pleading that you step back, consider the science -based information provided to you, and evaluate the affordability of -his particular proposal to the future of Fayetteville's natural and financial resources. Future generations must live with the consequences of your decision. Please say no to the Chandler Crossing development as proposed. Attachments 'iilton Creek Storm Water Runoff Study.pdf 2.12MB Chandler Crossing-Geology.pdf 570.9KB Chandler Crossing - Storm Water Runoff 16.33KB Revisited.pdf Chandler Crossing - Shrink Swell Soil.pdf 1.4.3KB 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. Pt blic comment at a City Cuuncil meeting shall he allm� cd for all mCmher; Of the audience who hav C signed LIP Prio - to the heeinnine of the agenda item Lhee N� ish to address heing opened for public comment. Speakers shall he limited to a maXimum olll�c (5) minutes to he brokcn into segments ofthree and two mint.teS. AmendmentS ma} rccci\ c Puhlic comments unly ifapprmed h� the Cite Cuuncil bN unaninu?uS consent or rnajorit; rote. II'PIAMic c.unment is allowed for an amendment. speakers vkill onfy he allov,ed to sneak for Ihrce (3) Received 02/11/21 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* LYNETTE CARTWRIGHT Address or Ward* Address • Ward Locate Your Ward Number Ward* Ward 3 Phone Number 4794220795 Email grandmalwc@gmail.com Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item 2020-1140 PZD-2020-002 3435 E ZION RD/CHANDLER Number/Subject CROSSING Please clink the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position Opposed C� r/ r I I I I W Irp-M LK Population 1 .. �• . . '. : 1 /� ' � -- /�► �I / ' 675 1 ANNUAL COSTS AT BUILD -OUT Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 1 1 Planning Area 3 Overall Total: Estimated Population **1 880 748 - 1,628 Estimated Households per PZD 400 1 **2 1 340 **3 - 740 Police Protection **4 $ 101,850.00 $ 86,573.00 $ 188,423.00 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 Planning Area Total: $ 147,427.59 $ 127,820.99 $ 275,248.57 **1 Estimated population = Residential Addresses x 2.2 (per occupied residence -Census) **2 Estimated by the Department of Economic Vitality. Not based on project specific information. **3 Based on proposed 340 unit density in Planning Area 2 of Chandler Crossing PZD (12/2020) —4 Estimates per Fayetteville Police Department law ongoing enforcement costs and Development Services application of proposal. Annual cost of annexation to law enforcement = Number of Homes * Total Base Cost per Officer Base Cost per Officer includes: Salaries/Benefits - $67,916 PPE/Uniform - $600 Equipment - $2,042 (5-year replacement) Vehicle - $9,031 (6-year replacement) Tech in Vehicle - $2,548 (5-year replacement) _ $82,137 *5 Estimates per Fayetteville Fire Department. Annual cost of annexation to fire protection = Total Cost per Call * Calls per Sq. Km. Total Cost per Call - $109.77 Calls per Square Kilometer 57 (based on 0.31 Km project area) Hours Dedicated to Calls 18:14:24 Total Operational Cost of Annex. - $6,257.17 6 Available data could not be separated by planning area or on a per capita basis. 50 % of the cost was attributed to each planning area. 7 Estimates per Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Department Annual cost of park maintenance per capita = ($2,873,000.00 / 87,590) * Number of residents The $2,873,000 is the Fayetteville park system Maintenance per Capita The 87.590 is the City of Fayetteville population per 2019 Census Bureau estimates "8 Estimates per Fayetteville Public Works Department and based on approximate 1.9 miles of public street proposed in the Chandler Crossing PZD (12-2020). Annual street maintenance cost of annexation = (Miles of Street * ($8,000 + $6,300)) The $8.000 is the current pavement maintenance cost per mile The $6,300 is the current cost per mile for street lights based on 300-foot maximum permitted spacing and $30/month per light Estimate does not include alleys given varying maintenance costs depending on material. **9 Available data could not be separated by planning area or on a per capita basis. 50 % of the cost was attributed to each planning area. ANNUAL BENEFITS AT BUILD -OUT Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Planning Area 3 Overall Total: Estimated Population **1 880 748 - 1,628 Estimated Households per PZD 400 1 **21 340 **3 - 740 Real Property Tax Revenue $ 39,500.00 **4 $ 99,107.00 **5 - $ 138,607.00 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 Estimated population = Residential Addresses x 2.2 (per occupied residence -Census) "2 Estimated by the Department of Economic Vitality. Not based on project specific information. "3 Based on proposed 340 unit density in Planning Area 2 of Chandler Crossing PZD (12/2020) "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 $2,000,000. Retail market value of $3,000,000. The total estimated property lax 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) / 1000 [personal property estimates not included] [Tax district used is the Springdale/Fayetteville district] The 40.5 constant used represents the Springdale/Fayetteville School District tax millage. The 0.2 is the 20 % of the assessed value on which 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' 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/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 **7: Restaurant square feet of 5,000 at $350 in annual sales per sq. ft. [2 % sales and 2 % hmr] "8: Retail square feet of 7,000 at $325 per foot. Per foot sales dervived from a 2017 CoStar 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. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AT BUILD-OUT**1 Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Planning Area 3 Overall Total: Estimated Population **2 880 748 - Estimated Households per PZD **3 400 **3 340 **4 - Washington County Real Property 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 Property Tax Revenue $ 202,500.00 $ 508,082.00 - $ 710,582.00 Real Property Tax Revenue Total: $ 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 -down assuming annexation includes: Washington County: 4.4 mills Fayetteville: 7.9 mills (including 1.1 for roads) Springdale School District: 40.5 mills **2 Estimated population = Residential addresses x 2.2 (2019 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 Planning Area 2 of Chandler Crossing PZD (12/2020) D IVIUMIallllly ItIdl Ket vdiue UT 0/U,000,UUU [Wepollltlellt UT CUUIIUITIIG Vlldllty eStln Rlle UT PDU,000 per UIIII dt 4VU UIIIL5. IteffidUldlll nld[Kel vdlUe UT 0Z,UVU,000. Rerdll mdmel vdlUe U $3,000,000. ((Total Assessed Value) * 0.2) * (X) / 1000 [personal property estimates not included] [Tax district used is the Springdale/Fayetteville district] The 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. **6 Department of Economic Vitality Assumptions: $200,000 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 $100,802.64 per year, as determined by the following formulas for the parcels to be annexed: For parcels with the homestead credit applied: ((Total Assessed Value * 0.2) - 375 + (Personal Property* 0.2)) * ((X) / 1000) For parcels without the homestead credit applied: ((Total Assessed Value+ Personal Property) * 0.2) * (X) / 1000 [personal property estimates included] [Tax district used is the Springdale/Fayetteville district] The X variable reprsents the millage rate as referenced under **1 above. The 375 is the homestead credit. The 0.2 is the 20% of the assessed value on which taxes are paid. FEES & ONE-TIME REVENUE Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Planning Area 3 Estimated Population **1- Estimated Households per PZD **2 1 Undefined 1 3401 Undefined 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. **71 Fs 0.00 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 (1212020) "3 Assuming $150/dwelling and build -out to 340 units (UDC §159) "4 Assuming $162/dwelling and build -out to 340 units (UDC §159) 5 Assuming build -out to 340 units and a range based on $1,311/multi-family unit and $1,843/single-family unit (UDC §159) "6 Assuming build -out to 340 units no parkland dedication, and a range based on $952/multi-family unit and $1,089/single-family unit (UDC §166) 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 multi -family dwellling. (UDC §166) BENEFITS V. COSTS City of Fayetteville Estimated Annual Benefits **1 $ 335,947.00 Planning Area 1 $ 216,440.00 Planning 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 1.22 Planning Area 1 1.47 Planning Area 2 0.93 Fstimated One-time Benefits $ 551,820.00 to $ 1,102,960.00 Estimated Annual Property Tax Benefits (Washington Count $ 77,199.00 Estimated Annual Property Tax Benefits (Springdale School District) $ 710,582.00 1 Estimated Annual Benefits = Real Estate Property Tax + Internet Sales Tax + HMR Sales Tax + Sales Tax 2 Estimated Annual Costs = Police Protection + Fire Protection + Parks Maintenance + Street Maintenance **3 Cost/Benefit Ratio = Costs / Beneifts 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. '° Department of Economic 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. "' https://www.washinotoncountyar.gov/government/departments-a-e/collector/millage-rates PLANNING AREA 1: $216,440 Annexed by Buildout planning areal (staff assumptions) Estimated Population **1 880.00 Estimated Multi -Family Units Planning Area **2 400.00 Real Property Tax Revenue * 3 $ 39,500.00 $ 24,000.00 Internet Sales Tax Revenue from Multi -Family **4 Sales and HMR Tax from Restaurants**S $ 70,000.00 Sales Tax from Retail **6 $ 45,500.00 Sales Tax from restaurant and retail spending from employees on site**7 $ 37,440.00 **1 Estimated population = Residential Addresses x 2.2 (per occupied residence -Census) "2 Estimated by the Department of Economic Vitality. Not based on project specific information. **3 WItifamily market value of $20.000,000 [Department of Economic Vitality estimate of $50,000 per unit at 400 units. Restaurant market value of $2,000,000. 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 follow ng formulas for the parcels to be annexed: :((Total Assessed Value)' 0.2) * (6.8 + 1.1) / 1000 [personal property estimates not included) [Tax district used is the SpringdaleiFayettH. //e district] The 6.8 constant used represents the city property tax mllage. The 1.1 constant used represents the city road property tax milage. The 0.2 is the 20% of the assessed value on w hich taxes are paid. **4 Assumng $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 **5: Restaurant square feet of 5,000 at $350 in annual sales per sq. ft. [2 % sales and 2 % hrrrl **6: Retail square feet of 7,000 at $325 per foot. Per foot sales dervived from a 2017 CoStar report. **7: 150 full time enployees on site, average w eekty 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 ICSCs 2012 study Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age adjusted to 2019 dollars. PLANNING AREA 2: $119,507 Annexed by Builclout phase one (staff assumptions)**4 Estimated Population °t 748 Estimated Living Units Planning Area 2 340 Real and Personal Property Tax Revenue **2 $ 99,107.00 Internet Sales Tax Revenue **3 $ 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 follow ing formulas for the parcels to be annexed: For parcels w ith the homestead credit applied: ((Total Assessed Value' 0.2) - 375 + (personal Property* 0.2)) * ((6.8 + 1.1) / 1000) For parcels w ithout 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/Fayetteville district] The 6.8 constant used represents the city property tax rlrllage. 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 w hich 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 —4 Department of Economic Vitality Assumptions: $2D0,000 market value per home. Personal Property of one car at $20.000 market value. 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.D0 Real Property Tax Revenue **3 $ 138,607.00 Internet Sales Tax Revenue from living units **4 $ 44,400.00 Sales and HMR Tax from Restaurants"S $ 70,000.00 Sales from Retail **6 $ 45,500.00 Sales Tax from restaurant and retail spending from employees on site**7 1 $ 37,440.00 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 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 STAFF MEMO DISCUSSION: The Department of Economic Vitality assessed three different components of the proposed annexation: 1. Planning Area 2: 340 Living Units! 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 i auia v i ne assumpuuns in me raore aoove were aeveropea ny the uepartment of Economic Vitality. 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. v"' Mai ing Address: 113 'W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 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 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 impa--t 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 -ees $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/[ -MR 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 Additional information received from Jonathan Curth 02/12/21 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Susan Norton, Chief 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 development details, including types of proposed housing 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 Public Comments. Public comment at a City Council meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience who harc signed u-) prior to the beginning of the agenda item the\, wish to address being opered 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 pt-blic 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 titre 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 ride or derogatory -emarks, 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 Received 2/10/21 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* M LEROY DUELL Address or Ward* •' Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 4017 N Valerie Drive Ex- 1 I3 VV Maw itam St Phone Number 4798412028 Email leroyduell@gmail.com Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item Chandler Crossing Development 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 We expect open land to be developed. It needs to be reasonable if we expect good long-term results. 370 units in such a small area is too dense for the neighborhood social well being and the health of the ecology. This probably means approximately 518 more dogs in our neighborhood. People are encouraged to pick up their dog waste but they don't. Just try stepping off of one our trails. You will be up to your ears in it. It means 600-700 more cars in our neighborhood. The nearby intersections are already near capacity. 740 more people in our neighborhood. More police, fire, ambulance services required. It is a bit much for the small amount of ground available. Twenty years from now; it won't be pretty. Other cities have worked this strategy and it doesn't work well in the end. 240 units would be much kinder and gentler to everyone. M. LeRoy Duell 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: �r i I Q' CAS ' i I t r� 4 Y' 4 tY �. 7 , W-O} t;. 4, } : •tj J Sf `'� •C W M o Uri) x 7 3 w jw x � o { �y r f• wL r V-, Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Natural Feature to be Considered for Conservation Why is this site important? iIMIMIM MIE ITOMWO • • The area between the mounds are hydric soils and often support wetland vegetation. • NativP arirrLinrlc that have mminrlc nrP PcnPrialhi rlivPrcP • �. �.•._ 11...E These sites 1restored• prairie and winningsupport re wet prairie species as s been shown at awai,d -1 • - "WCRC summarized communication with ANHC, February 4, 2021; Information is from `Relict nebkhas (pimple mounds) record prolongged late Holocene drought in the forested region of south-central United States,' C.I .Seifert, R.T. Cox, S.L. Forman, T.L. Foti, T.A. Wasklewicz, A.T. McColgan, Quaternary Research, 2008. mono �y ✓ e • ---i�n.'i�- T G.� p rZ w � U ; N ^v LJ] u +� ro W z o� y cu cj CU E-a v . -G "w 0 E 4-J r ®� CL N •^I �-+ •'""� ro V- to k � 4—J •~ v OCJf1 E •Li r1/ S C ra Ei v �w0z Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Priority Sites a .�. 4� t� Cc F Mnuno, ann Sti.al �" t r r Don P—, k .r �r eL r i # SPn n Run C_ �., Mounds } n• s: Mounts aIIJ S li^<_ and Swales \ '• M open wetland r fey etteville r •-', Pond,wotland lake �t tdo uxtti anvn. Swales+ e - �- Feld Inventoried apnngdale C ti Natural Feature Natural Areas Limits ' Site # Lake Fayetteville Fayetteville City • Priority Watershed Limits Strealn6anksInventory l-ayeltewlle 0.5 2 Other Streambanks Streams -• Planning Area —_ Miles lu ko v bA lZ � v C .—�- a ° L u z O Z ro u 1.4 .d �-, b p �v a 4-J a v •� CIO ° ^c3 i I:*. cu M � O � �vC� �v � 0 C • c'n ' �, 4-j °' aJ N 3 '. - W J U v > W� ro (a)v(n� v C -C.04�u C '0 � Cam, p "—' O v o M Q u d• v(V a C cu CIO v • • 0 . • • Q National Flood Hazard Layer FI RMette 94°7'4"W 36o8'3"N ..r., f i V OF F,kYETTF\1LL.E (, 05021 AREA OF,4MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD Zorfe`X 40�- a T I t +FF s. tot FEMA r a ,s 49 #*r �f. " m 4 a f � Foci -.0 e. I It &, 3fi°7'i4"N 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 I .U,000 Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Legend SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Z.- A. V A99 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth zone AE, AD, AH. VE. AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD 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 Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.: , Area with Flood Risk due to Levee. NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard GENERAL - — - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Levee, Dike, or Floodwall e 2m Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation - - - Coastal Transect —PI— Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary - --- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped The 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. 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, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. M W v u a w Q w w Photo 15. View of Upland Swale-04 (looking eastward). Photo 16. View of OW-1 (looking southward). Photo 13. View of Ditch-03 (looking northward). Photo 14. View of Upland Swale-03 (looking southwestward) Photo 11. View of Ditch-01 (looking northward). Photo 12. View of Ditch-02 (looking southward). Photo 9. EPH-01 (looking southward). Photo 10. View of EPH-02 (looking eastward). Photo 7. View of WET-1 (looking southeastward). Photo 8. PER-01 (looking westward). Photo 5. Partial view of WET-G abutting TNT-01. Photo 6. View of WET-H (looking northward). Photo 3. View of WET-C (looking northward). Photo 4. View of WET-F (looking southward). Photo 1. View of WET -A (looking westward). Photo 2. View of WET-B (looking westward). N 5w F� `� l`' l ' 0 i O s Q. v R C v d L C 6� 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 (incheel Color (moist) % Color Imoist) —% Tye' Loc Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 414 100 clay loom '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 (Al0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Poyvalue 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 (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (FB) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 140) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbdc Surface (F13) (11 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrx (S9) 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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-22 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % ov r 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 Spades 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: - 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheets Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 8. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU spades e0 x 4 = 240 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: e0 (A) 240 (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 s3.0' 10 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5- = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stralu(Plot size: m Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. Sched�nerour orundinaceus 30 V85 FACU - '. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 Cy-d-d-rym, 20 Ves FACU Andro on vir nicus 3 ass m 10 n0 FACU 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. 8. 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 8 In 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. Hydrophytic 1. 2, 3. 4. _---- 5. Vegetation ✓ 6. Preseri Yei 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 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: FayetteviIle/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 ApplicanUOwner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-22 Invastigator(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: 36.13031 Long:-94.11196 _ Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba complex, mounded NIM 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. None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two roouired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is recuired: 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 (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (Bt) _ 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 (CS) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Shallow Aqurtard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ 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 ca illa frinoe)_ 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 SOIL Sampling Point. 5-21 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) %_ Tvicer Loci Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 5/2 70 7.5yr 4/6 30 C M clay loam 'Type C=Concentration, D=Da lotion RM=Reduced Matnz MS -Masked Sand Grains 'Location. PL=Pore Lining,M=Matra. 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) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 crrr 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 (At 2) _ Redox Depressions (FS) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 146) 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 (B 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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-21 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 'A Cover Species, Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species 2. 3. 4. 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ...... ...... _ (A/B) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 8 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = Saplingl5hrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species x 2 = t. FAC species _ x 3 = FACU species x 4 = 3. UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 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) Harp Stralum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. P—i—Penrylvanlca 30 yes FACW — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Ca—annecrena 20 Ves FACW 3 DichonrAeNumscoparium 20 Ves FACW 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. a. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb —AII 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 328 It in 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stralum (Plot size: 30' ) height. 1. Hydrophytic 2. 3. 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 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 Landform (hillelope, terrace, etc.): depression Local rellef (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Lat: 36.13017 Long:-94.11165 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 Area Hydric Soil Present7 Yes ✓ No the Sampled '. 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 reouired, check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (BB) ✓ 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 (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 (83) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1I Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aqurtard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (119) Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 5 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if Positive indicators of wetland hydrology 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 indicator.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist %_ Color (moist) °/ TVPE�c Texture _ Remarks 0.16 10yr 5/1 so 10yr 4/4 20 C M clay barn 'T • e C�GondontraLu'n. D -Oc Wtion. f1MRoduvod Matrix, MO-Muakud SaW 0-1- 'Lvuitiuh. PL-r — Lhdny, M-Magi.. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indlcatore for Problematic Hydric Soils': y Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (AID) (MLRA 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (Sill (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 Foodplain 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 (Fill _ 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 V No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils 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 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1 Absolute Dominant Indicator % ov r Species' Status Dominance Test workshaet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 __- (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67 % (A/B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheets Total % Cover of Multiply by. 6. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, 1. ) -Total Cove OBL species __,._. __ x 1 = FACW species es x 2 = 130 FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 FACU species 20 x 4 = e0 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals, 90 (A) 225 (B) Prevalence Index = BIA = 2,50 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) 'Indicators of hydrie soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ---------------- 8. 9. 10 Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) 1 Caro anneerena 40 yes FACW 2 Schedonernaca.vndinacenc 20 yes FACU 3. Ju"cuec".c 20 VE+s FACW 4. Pm. icasiape lvanica 5 no FACW 5 xa"rFrarnsrtima.ram 5 no FAC Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: I Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DliH), 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. g. 10. 11. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3o' ) 1. 90 = 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 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-20 Investgator(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 Lat: 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. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No ric Soil Present? Yes Is the Sampled Area H yd ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetiand Hydrology Indicators: Secondary indicators (minimum of two reouiredl Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired� check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (1218) 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 (Bt) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sails (C6) Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Atgal Mat or Crust (154) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquttard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Microlopogrephic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neu Val Test (D5) 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 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary hinge) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), it available: Remarks Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2,0 SOIL Samnlin0 Pninr __ S-19 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) 1_ Tvee Loci Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 4/2 100 clay loam 'Type C=Concantratton, D=De lebon, 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 (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, 146) _ 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 (177) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Mangenase Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) Ill 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 (H 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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: S-19 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheek 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: (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Mu Motu by 8. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, } FACW species 2 x 2 = 4 1. FAC spades x 3 = FACU species 5o x 4 = 200 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 52 (A) 204 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.92 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 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. = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Hero Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Sahedoneroua arundiwreua 30 yes FACU - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydrie soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 Cynadondarrylon 20 yes FACU 3. PeY'1°°''1°P-1yi1 i- 2 no FACW 4. Definttions 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 height. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 6 T e. g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 it (1 m) tall. -- _ 10. Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less then 3.28 ft tall. woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 12. 52 = Total Cover Woody Dine Stratum 30' (Plot size: ) height. 1. Hydrophytic 2. 3. 4. 5 Vegetation ✓ Present? Yes No 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 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 ApplicanVOwner: Engineering 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 NVIA 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 n ( 98ded, explain any answnns in Rnmarirs ) 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 ✓ 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 Indicetore: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauiredi Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired� check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (Be) Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (98) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) _ Drainage Patterns (810) 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 Sails (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 (Dt) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) Water -Stained Leaves (BB) _ Miurolopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test IDS) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes ca ills fin Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), it available: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology 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 Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (1`110160 % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-10 10yr 212 100 day loam 10-16 7.5yr 5/4 100 dry loam _'Type. C=Concentration, D-De lotion, etion, RM=Reduced.Matrix, S=Masked sand brains. 'Location. PL-Pine Lln6ry, M_Mavu. _ 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 Preine Redox (At6) _ 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) _ 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 JF12) 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) _ Umbnc Surface (1`13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stnpped 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 VFrFTATION (Four Strata) Use solentlfla mamas of plants. sarnpimg Point' S 18 Absolute Dominant Indicator — Dominance Test workshsst: ' Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover des? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: �(B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are DEL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 2. 3. 4. 5 B. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of. Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = B = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species x 3 - FACU species 55 x 4 = 220 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 55 (A) 220 (a) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indica ll 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' g 10 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) = Total Cover — 1 Cynodon dacrylon 30 VeS FACU — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. -Definitions 2 3chedoneww arundiwceus 20 yes FACU 3 Triifolium prareee 5 no FACU 4. Physolir sp. 2 no N I 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 B 7 height. Sapling/Shrub— Woody plants, excluding vines, less B. 9. 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 —All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in . 10. 11 12. 57 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) height. Hydrophytic Vegetation 2. 3. 4. 5 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 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-18 Investigators) Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19. T17N, R29W Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): none _ Slope 1%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let 36.13191 Long:-94.10995 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg slit 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 Watland? Yea No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ l Remarks None of the three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (Linimum of one is required, check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ 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 (1212) _ 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 (DI) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ 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 ✓ (includescapillsry fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerlal 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 SOIL s'mplma wint: S-17 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix _ Redox Features (inches) Color (rnoisil o/o_ Color {moist) °r, Tvpe+ Loc> Texture Remarks a-12 10yr 3/2 100 Gay loam 12-16 7. Syr 414 100 day loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Raduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosal (A1) _ 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 Suede (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 (Al1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions i _ 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 (SS) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 140) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Metric (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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: SA7 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test workshest: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) ° Covet species Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAQ 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: (A/B) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: My kiply by: 8 = Total Cover OBL spades x 1 = SapjjnqtShrulb Stratum (Plot size. 15, ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC spades x 3 = _ FACU species 57 x 4 = 228 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 57 (A) 22e (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 s3,0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 10 5, = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratu(Plot size: m ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Cynadan dacrylan 40 Ves FACU — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 Schedanerous—dlnaceus 15 Yes FACU 3 Tnfbh m prarenrc 2 no FACU 4. Physalusp. 2 no NI Definitions of Pour Vegetation Strata: S. Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 6 7. 8. SaplinglShrub — 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 ft in 59 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) height.' Hydrophytic 2. 3. 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 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County:...... Feyetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner Engineering Services Inc. AR Sampling Pnint S-17 State: 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 Lot: 36,13102 Long: -94.11024 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg silt loam NWI classification: none Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yearYes ✓ 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 required) Primary Indicators fminimum of one is required check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (614) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ 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) _ Recant Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drill Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Met or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test IDS) 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 cailla fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring —well, aerial photos_, previous inspections), if availabie: Remarks: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology 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 (inches) Color(moistl —% color (moist) may_ Tvoe Texture Remarks 0-12 10yr 2/2 100 clay loam 12-16 7.5yr 6l4 100 clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=Deolstion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'LocationPL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (Ili 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147. 148) _ Coast Praine Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 143) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Cleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) _ 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 (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, _ Stepped 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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-16 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %n Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC _-_ 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: �(B) 3• 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of. Multiply by: 8. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = SaplingiSri ) 61ralum (Plot size: - 15' ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species 5 x 3 = is _ FACU species 52 x 4 = 205 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 57 (A) 223 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.91 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation e. - 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 Cynod- d-tylon 40 Ves FACU - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must 2 s hedonr.�LLr arundinacear 10 no FACU 3 Rananrvlae sardaos 5 no FAC be present unless disturbed or problematic. -- 4. 7"'Mi-P.arence 2 no FACU Dentitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Phyl-1-V. Z no NI Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or mnre 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. Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 1 o. - 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.26 ft tall. 12. woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft In 59 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. Hydrophytic 1. 2. 3, 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 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 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: 36.112972 Long:-94.11009 Datum: NAD 63 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 ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a We9and7 Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Only one of the three criteria for classification as a wetland was 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 (B6) _ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Suede Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) _ Water Marks (131) _ 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 (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 (02) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water-Stainad Leaves (69) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) _ Aquatic Fauna (313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): 7 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No _ _ Depth (inches): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No _Qncludes capillaryhmge�__ 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 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 Features (inches) Color (moist) Cofor (mcis, _ k Type, Loo' Texture 0-16 10yr 6/1 70 10yr6/6 30 C M clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=DeDletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sills': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Histio Epipedon (A2) _ Potyvalue Below Surface (S8) (Ill 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (11 147, 148) 111147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muds (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface _ 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 (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 (1721) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type' Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Prosent7 Yes V_ No Remarks. Positive indicators of hydric soils 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-15 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: 1 (A) 2. ' Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata. 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (AfB) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by B. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = SaplmorShwb Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species 40 x 2 - so 1, FAC spades x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 40 (A) 80 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00 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 53.0' 10 4 - — Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 6, = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Hero Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Ca annect— 40 yes FACW — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. 3 be 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. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 328 It (1 m) tall. 10. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 11 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft in 12. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) height. 1. Hydrophytic 2. 3. 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 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: FayettevillelWashington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner. Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-15 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: 319, T17N, R29W Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (% ). 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Lot: 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 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? Yas ✓ 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 required check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (1218) ✓ 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 (1211) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C8) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aenal Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aenal Imagery (07) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) ✓ FAC•Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes V No_ Depth (inches): 4 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 4 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No inel des capolaky hinge) 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 SOIL Sampling Point: S-14 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches) Color (moiv) _% Color (moist) % WAL LoLoci Texture Remarks , 0-8 10yr 313 100 silty day loam 8-16 7.5yr 513 100 silty Gay loam C=Concentration D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix _'Type. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (All _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalua Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Praine Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) ill 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 146) _ 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 (Al1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remadta) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (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 hydrophytiCvegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) 111127. 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 Vttit I A I IUN (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point 3.14 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Species Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAQ 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: t (6) Percent of Dominant Species 2. 3. 4. 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) - 6. 7 Prevalence Index workshest: Total % Cover of MUNDIV by: 8. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU species an x 4 = 240 UPI -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' 9. 10 - 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Hero Stratu(Plot size: m ) 1 Andropogon virginims 50 Ve5 FACU - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 scnedonerowa,,,ndinare,,s 10 no FACU 3 Planmgo 1-oloro 10 no UPL 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree- Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7.6 am) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 6 7. 8. g 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 10. 11 12. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) height. 1. - - 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 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: FayettevillafWashington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner.. Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-14 Investgator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfoan (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 / 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 Hydnc 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 required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired; check all thatapply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Bfi) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) _ 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 (82) _ 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 (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquttard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) 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 caoilla 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 SOIL Sampling Point: 5-13 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches) Color (mois4 % Color imoist) % Tvoel WE Texture Remarks 0-9 10yr 5/1 90 7.5yr 5/6 10 C M silty day 9-16 10yr 5/1 60 7.5yr 5/5 20 C M silly dey 'Type, C=Concentration, D=Da lehon RM=Reduced Matra MS=Masked Sand Grams. 'Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matru_ Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipadon (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 (At 2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Messes (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 146) 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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 5-13 Absolute Dominant indicator Dominance Testworkshest: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30, ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata, (6) 2. 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: t 00% (ALB) - _ 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7 Total % Cover of: Multiply by B. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = Saplin�C/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species 80 x 2 = 160 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU species 15 x 4 = 50 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 85 (q) 220 (e) Prevalence Index = B!A = 2.32 2, 3, 4. 5. 6, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation e _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % 8 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' -- 10. — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Hero Stratu(Plot size: m ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Cmer o ri-, 80 ves FACW — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 schedonerow—diweeus 10 no FACU 3, Andropogon vrrxini, s 5 no FACU be 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 B. 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 tt (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 ft in 95 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ) height. 1. 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 4. 5 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 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. AR S-13 State: Sampling Point: 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 Lot: 36.12791 Long:-94.10923 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Johnsburg complex, mounded NIM 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, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hyddc Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within is Welland? 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 (BB) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) ✓ 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 (B2) _ 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 (01) _ Iron Deposits (65) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (B13) L/ FAC-Neutral Test (135) Surface Water Present? Yes —,It_ No _ Depth (inches): 1 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No 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 SOIL Sampling Point: S-12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicator:.) Depth Matrix Redox Fears (inchesl Color(moist) % Color moist) % TypeLoci Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr6/1 60 10yr4/4 20 C M Gay loam 'Type, C=Concentration, D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grams. 'Location. PL=Pare Lining_ M=Matrix. _._------------'-_ -------------- Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (1147) _ 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 Suede (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floudplain Soils (1719) _ 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 (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) 3Indicators 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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants, Sampling Point: 3-12 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata. 2 (B) 2. 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 50% (A/g) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: l otal %Cover of Multiply by: 8. = Total Cover OBL species x t = SaolinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) FACW species 85 x 2 = 170 '.. 1. FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 FACU spades 31) x 4 = 120 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 120 (A) 305 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.54 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 - 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % B. 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 10 - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 6. = Total Cover - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Care= an -crew 60 yes FACW - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 Schedonerour arundinaceur 30 yes FACU 3 Jancus egusus 20 no FACW 4 Pecsicarioperuylvanica 5 no FACW Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:5 Xanrhium simmmlum 5 no FAC li Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 am) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, leas 6 7. 8. g than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 R (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 it in 10. 11 12. 120 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height Hydrophytio 2. 3. 4. 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 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: 1/27/2021 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 Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.12643 Long:-94,11275 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 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. Hydrophyttc Vegetation Present? Yns _V No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Welland Hydrology Present? Yea ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (All _ True Aquatic Plants (814) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Bfi) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (61) _ 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 (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) i 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 (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Shallow Aqultard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Microtopographic Relief (04) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observatlons: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 1 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): D 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 SOIL Sampling Point: S-11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (in0m) Q(Qr (moist) Red- ElitiltiMMI color (moial) ^ Tvoe Texture Remarks _(g° _ 0.e 1Dyr 413 100 SIR Imm 8-16 7.6yr 516 100 SIR loam 'Type: C=Conoentretion, D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matnx Hydrlc Sol[ Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SS) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,146) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matra (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 om 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 (Al 2) _ Radox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Mangenese 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 146) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (SG) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydr[c Sall Present? Yes _ No ✓ Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils 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 1 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1. Quercus sretlam Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 20 V95 UPL Dominance Test worksheat: Number of Dominant Species 0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/8) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Prevalence Index workshest: Total % Cover of Multiply by: B SaolinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 1. 20 ) = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = FACW species 5 x 2 = 10 FAC species x 3 = FACU species 75 x 4 = 300 UPL species 20 x 5 = 100 Column Totals: 100 (A) 410 (B) Prevalence Index = B!A = 4.10 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) 'Indicators of s sail and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. B. g. 10. = Total Cover Hero Stratu(Plot size: 5. m ) 1 S-hedoner arundiweeas 50 Ves FACU 2 Goliump-ne 20 yes FACU 3 Ambrosia anemisiifcha 5 no FACU 4 Persia iapensytvanica 5 no FACW 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. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, lass 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 -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. 6 7. B. g.----- -.____ ..___ 10. 11 -- -- 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 1. 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 WET[ ANn nFTFRMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: FayetteviIle/Washington Sampling Date: 1/27/2021 Applicant/Owner. Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-11 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). mounded hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope 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 I-INDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling puinl lucaliuns, transacts, Important features, etc. Hydrophylic 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 Indlcalore: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reduired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reguiredcheck all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (Bfi) _ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) _ 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 (C8) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) _ Algal Mal or Crust (114) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquftard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturatinn Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Prosont? Yes No ✓ (includes capillary hinge) _ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections)if ava , ilable__ Remarks Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not 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 Redoxeatures Fi _Loc— (lnehesl Color (moist) % Color (moist) woe, Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 511 W t0yr 4/6 20 C M silty cidy oem _ _Type_ C=Concentration, D=De_plehonLRM _Reduced MatrizMS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location PL_Pore Lining, M=Matrix____ Hydric Soil Indlcatons: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (Ill 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Po"lue Below Surface (S8) it 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 (At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark 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) _ 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 Matenal (F21) (11127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Depth (inches). Hydric Soil Present? Yes y No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils 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 worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Speciesl Status Number of Dominant Species 1• That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata. 2 (8) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 2. 3. 4. 5' 6. 7 Prevalence Index workaheat: Total % Cover of: MllhiDly by: 8. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = SaolingiShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1s, j FACW species 80 x 2 = ts0 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU species 10 x 4 = 40 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: go (A) 200 (Bj Prevalence Index = BIA = 2.22 2. 3. 4. 5. 8 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: L/ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 - 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 9. 10. - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratu(Plot size: 5 m ) = Total Cover - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Ayllmgap-d. 50 Yes FACW - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Dichunrheliumsropari- 30 Yes FACW 3' 4' Dennitfons 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. SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 8. 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall. Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 R tall. woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 it in 10. 11 12. 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) height. 1. 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 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 (hillslope, terrace, etc.): 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, 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 Wettand Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reguirngd: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Bfi) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Suede Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) i ✓ 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 (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (CO) _ Drift Deposits (133) Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (54) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquttard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) Microtopographic Relief (134) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 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? Yas ✓ No includes capillary fringe) _ 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 SOIL 3-1pkuy Fuint. s-no Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matr,x Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moistl -L Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0.16 10yr 5/4 100 sikloem 'Type C=Concentration. D=De leuon. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location. PL=Pore Lmin M=Matrx Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histasol (A1) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (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 Suede (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 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 (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) _ 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 Matr,x (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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants, sampling Point: 5-09 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheets Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species Dnu roa vir niana t. Y., in 20 yes FAC 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 2. 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are DEL, FACW, or FAC 50 % (AfB) 6. 7 Prevalence Index workshest: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv'. 8. 20 = Total Cover DBL species x 1 = Saolin VShrub Stratum (Plot size: 75 ) FACW species 10 x 2 = 20 1 r°^PQ1 , °irs'niona 5 ves FACU FAC species 20 x 3 = 50 FACU species 15 x 4 = eo UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 45 (A) i40 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.11 —I 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 s3.0' 10 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 5 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Hero Stratum (Plot size: ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Schedonerow n,,,ndinncers 10 yes FACU — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. Dichonrheiiumscoparium 10 Ves FACW 3 be 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 (Di regardless of 6 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub —woody plants, excluding vines, less B. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb —AII herbaceous (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 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. 1. Hydrophytic 2. 3. 4. 5 Vegetation ✓ 6. Present? Yes No = Total Cover tterri (include photo numbers here or on a separate areal.) Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation 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-09 investlgator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landforn (hillsbpe, terrace, etc.): mound Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope 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 I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology wgnificenty disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation _, Soil , or I lydrology naturally problamatic? (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 ✓ la 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 reouired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Surface Water (All) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (86) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CII) _ Drainage Patterns (19110) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (13116) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ 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 (Di) Iron Deposits (1915) i Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches). Water Table Present? Yes — No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): gauge, monitoring Remarks Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed. Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ✓ 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 indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) fir— Tvoe Lac Texture Remarks 0-10 10yr 5/1 90 10yr 018 10 C M z,try day lonm 10-16 10yr 511 70 10yr 6/8 30 C M silty day I. — 'Type C=Cnnrsnnahnn 11=0pr inn RM=Rndurwd Matrix W=Maxkad Rand (;rain% 11 nratinn PI =Pnrw i ining M=Matriy Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils _ Histosol (Al) _ 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, 143) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Cloyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ SVatiBed Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (FB) _ _ 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 (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N. MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbdc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (SS) _ 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: s Positive indicators of hydric soils 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. 8. yi@gpnar5hrub Stra um (Plot size: _ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' 1, va."opumilo 2 Persicariapenryl-ire 3 schedoneroa arvadina­ 4. Carer lurida 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: _ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sampling Point: S-08 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheets % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: _ 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67 % (A/B) Total % Cover of: Multiply by OBL species x 1 = FACW species 20 x 2 = 40 FAC species 45 x 3 = 135 FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals, 85 (A) 255 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00 = Total Cover 15' ) "-" 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 hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover 40 yes PAC 20 ves FACW 20 ves FACU 5 no FAC n.fi bfinn. of F-" v... Wi- sfrat. 85 = Total cover = 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 hoight (DBH), regardless of height. SaplloglShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall. Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.26 it tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No 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: Fayettevi I le/Washi ngton Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-OB Investigators) Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): sw'ale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.130 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 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No li the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. I L HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired check all that aoolv) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1114) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (198) High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1916) 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 (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible an 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 (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna 13) _ FAG -Neutral Test (D5) - Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 6 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth(inches), 0 Saturation Present? Yea ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes __ r!,_ , No Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 SOIL or sampling Point. A-n7 Depth Matrix Redox Datum finchesl Color lmoisn �_ Color (moistl �_ �ypg_ Texture Remarks ate 10yr312 100 clay loam 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, 146) 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 (Al t) _ 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 147,14111) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F1 g) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix (Se) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Type: Depth (inches): Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ 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: 15' ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 Schedoneraas a diwceus 2 Dichonehelium.ccnparium 3. Juncus interior 4. Serariapumi/a 5 Cynadon dacrylon 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 _ 11 12 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 5' ) 30' ) Sampling Point: S-07 Absolute Dominant Indicator 'A Cover Species? Statue Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species, That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (13) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index workshest: Total % Cover of Muftioly bv: = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = FACW species 2D x 2 = 40 FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 FACU species 55 x 4 = 220 UPL species x 5 = ____ Column Totals: K (A) 275 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.44 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic 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 hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover 40 Ves FACU 20 Ves FACW 10 no FACU 5 no FAC 5 no FACU 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 - Al 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. 80 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ Present? Yes No = Total Cover l 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 WFTI Ai nFTFRMINSTInN i FORM — Eastem Mountains and Piodmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayettev i I I ofWa sh i ngton Sampling Date: 1/26/2021 Appllcant/owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-07 Investlgator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfonn (hillslope, 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 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) EUMMARY Or I-INDINGS - Atli situ nrap showing sampling pulyd IUCatlUfta, 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 very Indicators (minimum of one is required: ch Surface Water (All) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Saturation (A3) _ Water Marks (131) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Iron Deposits (135) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Water -Stained Leaves (139) Aquatic Fauna (B13) all that sooty) True Aquatic Plants (19/4) 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 (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Drainage Patterns (810) Moss Trim Lines (816) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aqutard (133) Microtopographic Relief (134) FAC-Neutral Test (05) Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (Inches): Wotland Hydrology Present? Yea _ No ✓ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), it available: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were not 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 confine the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) may_ Color (moist} % Tyce Loc Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 511 90 7.5yr 414 10 C M clay loam 'TVpe. C=Concentration, D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Send Grams. 'Location. PL=Pore Lining M=Matrix. _ Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (MLRA 147) _ Hislic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (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 (Fli) _ 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 (H 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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-06 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species 2. 3. 4. 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67% (All 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by 18. = Total Cover OBL epeciee x 1 = Sa m /Shru Stre um (Plot size: _ 15, ) FACW species 40 x 2 = e0 '.. 1. FAC species 35 x 3 = 105 FACU species 20 x 4 = so UPL species x 5 = Column Totals'. 95 (A) 265 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.79 2. 3. 4. 5. 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) m Herb Stratu(Plot size: ) 1 Dichnnrhe/iumscoparium 40 Ves FACW — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 Schedunerous arundircaceus 20 yes FACU 3 Ronuncvms.rmdous 20 Ves FAC 4 Seruriopumda 15 n0 FAC 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. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 8. g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless lo- ll. 11. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. woody vine- All woody vines greater than 326 It in 12. 95 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ---- _ 30) height. 1. - Hydrophytic 2. 3. 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 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. Stale: AR Sampling Point: S-06 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 Lat. 36.12910 Long:-94.11493 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Lind Name: Samba silt loam NV1A 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. 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: pheckall that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ✓ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (218) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturat,on (A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhaospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (816) _ Water Marks (Bt) ✓ 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 (133) _ Thin Muds Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aqultard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (813) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes i No_ Depth (inches): 1 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No _ Depth (inches): 10 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: D-OG Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Ccior (moist) %_ Redox F Color (moist) �— Twe Texture Remarks il,a ioyrW 100 silt loam &te 10yr4/4 100 sift loam 'Type: C=Concentration lotion RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Mesked Sand Grains. 'Localion: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : _ Histosol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Poyvalue Below Surface (Sil) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) _ Strablied Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (FB) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ 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) 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 (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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use sclentlfic names of plants. Sampling Point: S-05 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) %Cover SpeciesStatus 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 12. 3.. 4. 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A!B) 6. 7 Prevalence Index workshest: '.. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 8. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = Sliglrng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) FACW species x 2 = t. FAC species x 3 = FACU species _ 70 x 4 = 280 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 70 (A) 280 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation B. _ _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 9 10 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) m Herb Stratu(Plot size: ) 1 srhedonerovs orundmor 40 yes FACU — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 Andropogonvirg-rus 30 yes FACU 3 be 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. Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less 8. 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28It (1 m) tall. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28It tall. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 it in 10. 11 12. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine ' e Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. Hydrophytic 2. 3. 4. 5 — Vegetation Present? Yea No ✓ --------- 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 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastem 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-05 Investigator(s) Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range S19, T171 R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): mound Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Li N Lat 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 ✓i Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Welland 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 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 (Bfi) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (Cfi) 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 (131) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microlopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ 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 ce ilia frin e _ 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 SOIL Sampling Point: S-04 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 (moist) %_ TvttcLo�9 Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 511 95 10yr 616 5 C M silty clay 'T e: C=Concentreticn_O=De lotion, RM=Rsduced Matrix, MS=Mas_kad___S_and (;rains '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 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) L/ 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 (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147,146) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Fig) (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): Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes �_ No Remarks Positive indicators of hydric soils were observed. i US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: S-04 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworkshest: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Diospyros vireniano 30 ves FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4(B) Percent of Dominant Species _ 2. 3. 4. 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (Afe) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of, Multiply by: 8 30 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = SaplinatShnrh Stratum (Plot size' 15 ) FACW species 50 x 2 = 100 1 Juniperus virginiana 10 ves FACU FAC species 50 x 3 = _ 1SO FACU species 10 x 4 = ao UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 110 (A) 290 (B) Prevalence Index = BIA = 2.64 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: - 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ' 8. 9. - 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.d 10 _ - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 10 5 = Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Hart Stratu(Plot size: m ) 1 Dichand eiiumscoparium 40 Yes FACW 'I - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hyoric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. Ranunculussordous 20 ves FAC Carat lurida 3. 15 n0 OBL be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4 Persicorrapensylvanica 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. g. 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 R tall. woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in _ lo- ll. 12. 85 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. L------- - -------- Hydrophytic Vegetation 2. 3. _ 4. 5. 6. Present? Yes ✓ No _ = Total Cover Kemarxa: (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 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Chandler Crossing Subdivision City/County: Fayetteville/Washington Sampling Date: 10112021 Applicant/Owner.. Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-04 Investigator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (% ): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.13057 Long-94.11520 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Samba silt loam NWI classifiratlon. 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. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yea ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes —3�_ No Remarks: All 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 reouired� check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ✓ Surface Water (At) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) ✓ 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 (131) _ 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 (83) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ,V 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 (133) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (134) Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes —� No _ Depth (inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): 7 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches): U Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary frin e) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available: Remarka: Positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 SOIL Damplhiy rued. R-ns Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix (incheal Color (moktl % Color (molatl �_ TYDB Texture Remarks 0-10 1Dyr6r1 90 7.5yr 5r6 10 C M day 10-16 1Dyr 5r4 95 10yr 4l6 5 C M day 'Type: C=Concentration D=De letion RM-Reduced Matra MS=Masked Send Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Unln M=Matra. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : _ Histosol (A1) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (At0) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (Ale) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplsin Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136,147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (FS) _ _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (178) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Messes (1`12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 140) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matra (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 (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydrle Soil Prosent7 Yes ✓ No Remarks: Positive indicators of hydric soils 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 workshest: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %cover Specles9 Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Que. si'lla1a --- 5 yes UPL That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: _ 3 (13) 2. 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index workshest: Total % Cover of: Multiply by 8 5 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = $aphr l5hrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) FACW species 96 x 2 = 190 1. FAC species 10 x 3 = 30 FACU species 5 x 4 = 20 UPL apeuies Column Totals: 115 (A) 265 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.30 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation B. - 2 - Dominance Test is >50 % 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10, - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 = Total Cover _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Hdrb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Kyllinga pumila 80 yeS FACW - Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation' (Explain) '.. 'Indicators orhydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 Dichanrhehumscopo ium 15 yeS FACW 3. Sermr°pr'mrl- 10 no FAC q Schednoorus araodinaceus 5 no FACU Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (Di regardless of 6 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less 8. than 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 it tall. 12. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 110 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) height. 1. Hydrophytic 2. 3. 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 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-03 Invesligator(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (% ): 1 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Lat. 36.13046 Long -94.11615 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Una 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, transects, important features, etc, FHydri rDphytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area c Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland Yea ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yea ✓ No Remarks: All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired chsdc all that aoplyl _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) ✓ 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 (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (82) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ 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 (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 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 _(mdudes caplllary 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 SOIL Sampling Point: S-02 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) % TvoeLor° Texture Remarks 0-16 10yr 516 100 alit loam 'Type C=Concentration. D=De lotion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 1Location. PL=Pore Lining M=Matnx. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (AID) (MLRA 147) _ Hisric Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (11147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Radox (Al6) _ 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 (AID) (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 Ira) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N. MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gkyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (FI3) (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? Yea No ✓ Remarks: ----------- Positive indicators of hydric soils were not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Easters Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point S-02 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworkshest: Tree Stralum (Plot size: 30' ) % Cover ecies� 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: (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by 6. = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = SaplinWSnrUb Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species 2 x 3 = s FACU species 80 x 4 = 320 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals. e2 (A) 326 (B) Prevalence Index • B/A = 3.98 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' 6 g 10 — 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5, Total Cover — data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Hero Stratu(Plot size: i, m ) 1 Andropogon virgininc: 60 Yes FACU — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) i 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 schedanorus a.undinaceus 20 Ve5 FACU 3 Semrrapumda 2 no FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic. l 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. Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, lass 6. 9. 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 10. 11 12. 82 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) height. 1. Hydrophytic 2. 3. 4. _— 5. Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ 6. = Total Cover Kemarxs: (incivae pnoto numbers nere 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 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-02 Investigator(s) Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Lendform (hillslope, terrace, etc): mound Loral relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (% ): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Lat: 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, transacts, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hyddr Rrid Prs—t? Yes._._.__... Nn.._ ✓ elJrhr a WaUauJT Yu No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yea No Remarks: None of the criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: 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 (Cl) _ 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 (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 (132) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (133) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Microtopogrephic Relief (134) Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test (135) 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 ✓ OnGudes ca�lllary fringe) __ ____ _ Describe Recorded 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 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 (inches) Color (moist) °! Cobr(moiat) Texture Remarks 0-12 10yr 6/1 60 clay 7.5yr 5/8 40 red clay Foreign red day fill materiel 12-16 10yr 6/1 Bo 10yr 516 20 C M clay 'Type, C=Concentration. D=De lotion. 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 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) _ Stratifled 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 (F6) _ 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) _ 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 Sol[ Present? Yes ✓ No 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 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: S-01 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )Cover Soecies, Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant 2. 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) - -- 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7. Total % Cover of: Mulboly by 8 = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = Saotino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: t 5' ) FACW species x 2 = 1. FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. _ 4. 5. 6. FIVdroDhytic Vegetation Indicator: 7 L/ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8 2 - Dominance Test is -50% 9. - 3 - Prevalence Index is 93.0' 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 Dichanrheriumscoparium 50 Vey FACW -Problematic 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 Juncos ejjusus 30 Ve5 FACW 3 be 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. 8. 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 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size. 30' ) height. 1. _ - - 2 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 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont ProjectlSite: Chandler Crossing Subdivision C' 1Coun Fayetteville/Weshington 1/26/2021 _..._ rty ty: __ Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Engineering Services Inc. State: AR Sampling Point: S-01 Investigalor(s): Kagan Davis Section, Township, Range: S19, T17N, R29W Landform (hillalope, terrace, etc.): flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N Let: 36.13021 Long-94.11738 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map UnR Name: Johnsburg silt loam Nwl 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 — Attarh 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 All three criteria for classification as a wetland were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary indicators fminmmum oftwo reouired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reguired; check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) J( Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants IS14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B6) High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ 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 (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (CB) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (114) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aqusard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ M'icrotopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatin Fauna (B13) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (135) 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 E""'� 5W F-1 E� E-+ v a s R i CC y bA C a U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SONOPLAQUADRANGLE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A A. — ocean aer.E.aa..w MUSGS*OS'—To,po MINUTE SERIES �A LOV61LL H.,ght, f I t IA 7 -AW j 7r: P NG mtGDAL� A 91 eo. ,Ywl NGT C. 14 1, vq !l,,z2l Az j 7 /2 77, L A 6, _0 FAATTt\ALE 41- y .......... SCALE 1:24 W SONORA AR 2011 - k J ` s U a 0 U 4 --. ...Now S-18 PER-01 S-17 Urtch-Q1 S-1 C WET-E S 22 ` S-21 0° •N �� C y WET-G S 16 0 Chandler CrossingSubdivision = N O Project .Area .. Ditch (man-made) — 200 0 Sample Points • `_• Ephemeral Channel W E Feet Open Waters 1i Perennial Channel ° ` Project Wetlands �_, Upland Swale (w/oOHWM)—_XssocialesLtd S C:\Projects\05223-2E39-001igis\doc\map\delin\figure_4.mxd Background: Arkansas GIS Office Figare 4.3 Ma:) showing project area details overlaid on 2017 Arkansas Digital Orthophotography Program imagery. S-17 0 U Ditch-01 p S-10 WET-E S-22 S-21 WET-G JQv ?p> S-16 0 t Q UPI.04 S-12 WET-F S-19 Go S-20 < WET H 0 S-15 S-14 S-13 S-11 WET-1 Qo�ZN Chandler CrossingSubdivision --- N Q Project Area Ditch (man-made) 200 0 Sample Points Ephemeral Channel �V�E Feet Open Waters ^,# Perennial Channel Project Wetlands �_. Upland Swale (w/o OHW M) 7�sltd S D:\Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\delin\figu,e_4.mxd Background: Arkarsas GIS Office Figure 4.2 Map showing project area details overlaid on 2017 Arkansas Digital Orthophotograpl-y Program imagery. Randal PI tat EP _0 S 03 S-0-1 , _ o' WET -A 2 U S-02 K i Zion Rd WET-C 1i Chandler Crossing Subdivision ectArea •�„ O Pro� Ditch (man-made) 200 0 Sample Points • `.• Ephemeral Channel r t n W+E Feet Open Waters O%i Perennial Channel sociatesLtd, Project Wetlands Upland Swale (w/o OHWM) D:\Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\delin\ficure 4.mxd Background: Arkansas C IS Office Figure 4.1 Map showing project area details overlaid on 2017 Arkansas Digital Orthophotography Program imagery. Manor ■ ■ S-18 ■ r .16 PER-01 1 :. �S-17 1.1�. co U Ditch-01 p S-10 r'T—Ea S-22 L S-21. `• O • , N ,(n'O WET;G S-16 Chandler CrossingSubdivision == N O Project Area ''.. Ditch (man-made) — 200 Sample Points • •�• Ephemeral ChannelW�E Feet Open Waters ^,i Perennial Channel r ud, S Project Wetlands ^ Upland Swale (w/o OHWM) 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). WETS= t % S-22, I ' J LO o' L � U. so S-19 ' f S-11 ■r Chandler Crossing Subdivision 200 Feet D:\P raiects\05220-2539-001 re 3.mxd S-17 �9 S-16 i i i i i i �p \� WET-H, \\ S-15 S-14 � .. • WET -I N O Project Area , Ditch (man-made) Sample Points Ephemeral Channel M W E Open Waters �i Perennial ChannelA-IMLtiProject Wetlands ".. Upland Swale (w/o OHWM) round: Arkansas G S Office Figure 3.2 Map showing project area details overlaid on the USGS topographic quadrangle Sonora, AR (1994) (7.5-minute series). S-04 S:09' -77-7fEpH`_p2 S-03 WET-B �S-05� 1' WET-D- S-01 , WET -A CN ' o• • S-02 • S-07 0+ 2 s• �• S-06 p i WET-C !f • o � j• OW 1 � ; a ■ a 01 M Chandler Crossing Subdivision Project = N � Ditch (man-made) 200 0 Sample Points • `.• Ephemeral Channel �� W�E Feet Open Waters �i Perennial Channel _ Project Wetlands "I.. Upland Swale (w/o OHWM);�� 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). _ ........... 1. Tr ... - _ 1• � I �•• r� .. �- "..�,. , r ,. ?,_ , .. s Sip • � . � .. . rig •'�. _ �' Sc �.. �� _ J,1, _ � • O at .se'ar aq�- Jam,..`'-^`.: •- \1_�lyr 4-Cede:- .. , �h• lam„/� -, f -`- •, • • - t . i •. , t�Jd�K�T . .�'�.. _ 1 Fndette� I Lake ,:3 aoo Pa nel: 3 on h \ 24 Panel: 1 Panel:2� «t•.. .. 4 n, s I / 25 4 �r- r. f r Stca�ex Came Cr eX / , �.- �`y u. 0 29 o, t} ; I ♦ IN ^, +. :.` •`_..•..,pit , ,•� ,0 : •I r: '\\ -._ �.$u%zr1�!d mat L Y� t • r� t�� a •��, �v �t ���L o i' Chandler Crossing Subdivision = N 2.000 j Panels - w+ Feet ® Project Area _7=Lsociatesud. S D:\Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\de in\figure_2.mxd Background: USGS 1:24 000 DRG Figure 2. Map showing overvie✓v of project area overlaid on the USGS topographic quadrangles Elkins, Fayetteville, Sonora, and Springdale, AR (7.5-minute series). Spring OAKNILLS A Po Mark Twain VIRDEN "ILLS B"S to lie EST Uor I�cForest Caterton w' A"' Udtle Flock "Yet. r WiNDSONG Prairie Creek Rogers ovtof m AND ;nlilth Mason Valley Fort Sffft MON I a �41 R.";'1VwLe P k rot i t View Extent Springtown Highfill Cave Springs Colville Hoover pC�isoGlHiLI 1, oR Bethel Heights A Aw fgerp ARL L- Em Springs ------- -- ----- Springdale Tontitown iington Wildlife Management A,.-.. Ozark Natio— Site Location Johnson Wheeler OUTH VOLLINIG HILLS Hindsvw( Fayetteville Prairie Greelr�h�liand Skins Jlapto- lrtOln atiFork Cane Hill tp bing Chandler Crossing Subdivision = N 5 0 Site Location An w+E I Miles MOW% Ltd, S D:\Projects\05220-2539-001\gis\doc\map\de.lin\figure—l.mxd Background: Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers Figure 1. Vicinity Map February 1, 2021 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 provided 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. 0 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. 0 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). area. Table 3 provides a summary of non -wetland aquatic features observed within the project 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-OI 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 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 1994 USGS 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 ephemeral, EPH-02 is not subject to jurisdiction as a WOTUS under Section 404 of the 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 7 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 described 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 USGS 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 6 February 1, 2021 water, high water table, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres along living roots, crayfish burrows, saturation visible on aerial imagery, and positive FAC neutral 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 Survey 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 stream terraces. Enders -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 Table 2. Summary of nine wetlands features. Wetland Vegetative Communi Type Area in Acres Jurisdictional Wetland Photo(s) ID WET -A herbaceous 0.76 No l 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 1 0.28 No 6 WET -I 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 (Kyhinga pumila), Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica), yellow bristle grass (Setaria pumila), hairy buttercup (Ranunculus sardous), and broom rosette grass (Dichanthelium 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 M February 1, 2021 3.2 Wetlands Nine 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 Hydmloty 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 Yes Yes S-14 No No No No S-15 Yes 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 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 List and Map Units 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 ;enerally 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 .he 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 information regarding the ponds and channels within the project area. OA February 1, 2021 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-265) and East Zion Road in Fayetteville, 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 36.129150N, - 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 Mountains and Piedmont Region 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 LIST OF TABLES Table I Summary of findings at each of the 22 sampling pointlocations ........................... 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. M February 1, 2021 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 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 Received from Jonathan 2/10/21 n Associates Ltd. water resources i environmental consultants DELINEATION OF POTENTIAL SECTION 404 ISSUES PROPOSED CHANDLER CROSSING SUBDIVISION PROJECT, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS FEBRUARY 1, 2021 APPENDIX D Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling (Electronic) LEGEND loot Triangulation Station 05o1 Instrument Station 3---- ORIL Sediment Range Crest Contour(Elev. 123C.0) 0 Segment Number Surveyed Sept. 27 to Oct. 9,1950 Chief of Party James A. Og4e Complied FRX. scak: r'= 300fee} Como— 1Merva/-4" ;URVEY OF LAKE FAYETTEVILLE TMENT OF AGRICULTURE SERVATION SERVICE H.H. BENNETT— CHIEF REGION 4 DIRECTOR LOVISP. MERRILL REFERENCE CARTOGRAPHIC APPROVAL _ — — — TECHNICAL APPROVAL COMPILED TRACED CHECKED DATE F R.K. EA.T. J.A.O. 10-13-50 ------ 4-R-7895 )\ /!S )■ �! .: 2 'le '��` `:'fin '�e�il il�Ii'11 �����3�=��5�_.: � �� �•-a, � -$,� c .la��== ��=F�'.- � , �Jjy s�'M1 Es .= ,`.`�l6'..I�I`Iµ111�y �l'\ay =- g� -__�3�a_� , ' �c r ^•�, -,-,-`-Ati_'•y�j'� aEY +� Fi"- • 'il 1 l'4H 113 +�'\- ��� .' .a .L q q x Vr.'2 '-;c. &.-: 19'�+ •chi�� i a a 1!I \. ��5.�-.== sle�x s S"sE.- , 'r. �' s�3i•' 't �(i,kr s g„ �31, s; F-_� I •,q� riypq�lS:� I3✓f'f. \ `R _ I I I I � ' e 1 � I � l'- r g�� �r r�i �p.c ,� a ��E � ^ r�' A�I q IS �q�S"9�yi:',�"Q �f��• 1�"r���'r/: sf ,d. gg � yqqy��,�I R E R IQ � IG l 1 =I x\) •g,5'v' ' _ �5$' i � , � r .t 1`sa�r���l�li'1 "-;\` 5`_' „-' 9 >J•A r� 1�1��4`I I ihl'ix ji p I N6 1 I � ' ql-/ // 1��,�dr /^\`\C�, �.��put1 �/�♦<tl M�il6 `III '1111\\1,�, g I^ a JN,FI i 111Ihll,llgl/r� % i:,, `\�• @ ••, y c £h` J I1,1, .` a1. ij /•� , IW 1 11191111/I ri'lN"' 1.c\`Eyl-_Y�I: ap II,\` IIIIII d1 1 \\y4' I� Ixll yqE,\l►/ \\!�, III�INI hilll/'lllr i p\` . F •'!I \ .$ I_ \\1.g! Iq-FKj' Oull ll�l,l 1411111'ii; \P\E'q 9' a A,-IL-,\P, 11 j1i1� 1"`\\ I.� p I I,II I \ I1 11111111 II'1 l i�� aV31E ate\' A e 6 A\ `\,1 \\`1`11\,C � .p�\\J`1`` � ')' ^\A ,}t II�•{� 1 I,q i`,121 �II�M'dl �/�r� �1,i _ ? FFF P \ �i Vtii II ��T 1II�II �` 1'I�Il'igI TTII�tiI "ll,lq I` , qg :•' E/ r'q •tlU 1�\P\J\\, I (/r'§ i�i l°\'i ii�il'°i Ii,Ill lilig4ljh Aa"'x SiA i \h@04\, �l� f�l II ICI III�A �d Ihlil �illiilll,ll�lry\1\1\\ \ i-• I / N l l II, I, I,1 nq�„II�llp,ll u,41 '� y� p � ' � ,3-' •:. �\�, \\\P\ \\\n IAl/l"I a�I�I�I IIII'iWl /33/ I I II 1 III III IIII I'll'IILa a i F /RrlIII,IIII�yll�l�!IIII,�II�'ll��b /'/' a lI� lI 11[[/I 1111111 IIIIIII'I IIIII'Iillll'Ill 111 / 9 G � $ � ` /l \ /I��1� • ,9, 11\IIII ull'i II�III,�l11IlI Iallll ll \\�-. /. .�y �a p �J/�ra- pn' '\�`�\\\1\\\\\\\Ma d dlymlq� Will,� Pl�l�l �'II I Idi✓,gIIIIiM1ii11iild \�� � ,.'_aa a � � s /' \r\M\I\i,'1\1 ;ce-���Jl ' I .•Jlpl (IIIIII IIfIIIiIIIIIIIIillll �\ %r• / 'I��,,,l11�lil\';'\'d, .f le@ 9 �I a 1il� ' I,I IIII I u'I° 7 a •• q � � \�P1, (IIIIl'liil ° A ^�•- a!' � i `\R ``0 �� -'�. gg •-6- I JJ hI�hllPn.l il,.yi lni $ �� 3 e. '_ S3��Q��`, Y 1 - '�' 11 1 � 1I ii I @ l�I _�.J'I�ipIi�FIAu:�4� �.a��' a.- • F�, ` \Ooi1� �' � \` IIIIII P 1 1i ll �• �I� I' Ml ll I I II x �,. ." .= -•° 6 \.� �I _ a ' 1°I I II II�II,I III�II�IIIIx t .. ,, fi g r'A \\ id; ` I1R1 II loll ill 1/III,I�II! 1 `9_' - J(n Ilhl `16 ly S NI i.` _ ' `• •5 It 11 (Il��'1/'hrgy� ,�H phld,1111 +a `d_' ,'g�'--^S_'?•- ' rM`�gaA`ill� I 1\IN.`I .k- a .- N1 I I r 11 L1 ` I'II (IIII +PIII' �\\\. \\`,qp" • ' q 7 _ q 1 R \ I I I II 11 'IIII\'`" N°N•�- a py 8l s;p a.F I1a 31` 5 @ qq 1 \�l MI 1 %i A'j lllll'j��1\ q�• a Y, 4`�_ A iA B z g1,8 ?l @ # . / �'-SI%h I � =�hlp �`�\ JrR` � a �° 9 • ' , \f � \ g " •III I' / I 1 Tll� ,III i'I , q I >i h l �i`Ri' ll II 9'••/ IR\, / Ily l ll'II �Olhtll }�11 \\\\\��ras1 \a l�ry• Y F l ` I h l�j` I` 1�1+`g fir'^ • � A � �� � •.�? I c iA F ,� Pa'�' � �'� � °' IIII� mum,a. aarrt �' I II 4Y li4P'i i`" Ij- 4 \ II01 f, •_ d �' • F r Ry/ •__\ - - - Sy.9l IIII/' 1 (IIII/IlhllIIIIIII 1■IIII,( III q l IIyp PIll�ll gulp 1 II III IIc � ',� .S� II 15z- L AI V'illnll Ill' '1I11,illll f - �. IIP '.9 9':�Oa'` y� � �� r_����-�}�'"•Y_�Yii.�i�4 �i' IIII+IIII IIIW °F&R '�1'lll'1'1 • ��� •- M M a f/ ��%,, IIII /r riy fa = ,s• ' ;, '3 �.":::� °ntl �_"� 1 gill 7 ^lad r,'�[�ri/rihlyl :Ila s•-q ',�lllIlk '!�, '� , Il sil �_?G=- ff :- d�•1�y��-5= 4-='S:-�.� 'I� ;I,Ii l,lk=x, : ,11�� �i �� ♦ .g .f� ,II 111Ya a�\�t1 \\1 lit, q.dC1 q_q IIIIII �Icr g i!!l!""""i=•IIIIII =sc'sz s �y�, �,; �' '-"l ililh191i �11WA141ryi'�''M `'ri' l ' � ' � •+�' ` i4jlii ?tea =' _ - ih.hhPolAP I,Iylq _- I Ad II (IIII i t5,,'Q"IR7YWN�V �N �•�'v___ � � " ��lilil'ii _ -' � _ :�' �����\` •17","lily 1 /r I ,���/�/'/lH'�. -„_ „��=;fit, o,, ,' � ri l`��\ I i 1 i1u' � ` w \ - i'^__v' *•' ��n'�iirS : w _ 4- low I S Ia`� r/r r'Hr r g4 "I'I i 1 1 11 I 111 I1I111I11i�r �.`�%�.`� ..ill. 1 WS :. x. �Ag a" a b,Jn� N i 3 Qava .WQ�� a'a;as: \I 1'1 1 11 II 1 ! IIIII,,IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111py1 1 IIIIII IIIIIIIII/Illllll \\ a 1 11 1 1` II�II,I,IC I I'lll 111 lllll ll.11. _ 11111111,II� -1 i\______ � I � 1 1 k 11 1 '1a ��1111!1'll Ill lll'lll'Il111111II IIII1111111111111111'l 1\- \1151111/11 1_____ / { j111;1111 llll'llll,///�I iN \ 'III lll,llllllll,l I I I1 �1l, llllllllli 4 1 I I \ Ip1111111111111111i1111QI1V ,111111111h1�1�11 `, `.f'.ea �- -_ MEMOIIIIII/'11,04°iIyA�, Il,1,r' `Ililiyili lll�jl�IliliAlilll'Ilrl III1��jI'Iu�O�Pi411ailllu I I 1\ � I � I �I\�11111IIIIIIIIIIIII111'1I111I11 1 I,/A'.+9r;t' ```` ` `'S �rr!!_' I I I II4Iryl11l11,11l11I j111R1\11\1\11I1I1I1I11I�III111l"Ii, II I 1 IL \__ I,j^��I,��IIIII,IIIilllll'111I1111111111111'1/!/ �'' / /,i'.'�''/' I'S \ I � 1 1 ! / I{ IIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I„I 11 "/ / ,♦/ ! I ol1111111111'111%,11,1111,11111111111 ' I I I I ' ' ____ IIIAIIIaI��I�I11111j11,1�111111,1111 !�•I 1, ���, �/ ��'� I ' I 1 I I i 1 111111111 IIIIII,1,11111111111 IIII I! /, /'i r'/ 81 IIIIj�IIliI1�II�lI��1��I11il�,lj1 1�1a1111111111 3''�' � `1,� I 1 1 ',\ \` 1` ' I 1 111111'IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllll 11 R I I I I / I/ / i/� /� /-w2,2 I 1 ' \ \\ •\ 1\ �% / �IIII�III I�II�IIIIIIIj I1j II11111\///'/ryf "il"'/'i''/ al f 6¢ g1 • 11 i II i \ \\1 \\ 11 11 1'1 1\ \ ill IIII IU`\"� `�\�`!�4'': aiil'1 i:l �i d _ II II I � 1 `\\\ `\\ I \\ 11 , 1 J'aj 4\ \ \\`\\`\\\``\\``> i"' '• � / � 1 p Yy�/P 1 I I 1 \ \ 1 1 1 j �1 \`J� \\\�\�J ' �•'r ' � art 11j14"� , I , 1 \ \ to � •� `\\\. / Ill'1 ,T! I 1 I I P I l i1l`I I11„ q I , w i 1• ���', I 1 I .11 1 1 `M IIn 14- p/ 1 v� 1Vyd1A� \119x A �+ 3\ A l 1, 1 1 1 1 1♦ 1\ '�8�\ \r I/ 1\1111�\111\11111®II_- i9 IY�11` Ski#' Z /, k!5 1 i.s it \US M1, 0 -a___-' 1 // \ ` \ 11\\'1 ill, d. \�` ` 'e�iii � �\\\\\ . II 188llllii°�; `\ \`'':rrr` , 1A -/ %• „/!. 1 f' �I I III I ,/�JG L''�.'::����:.'\ ` \\ . I �., ��._ —' i i iil'� 1•'-I ii'illlliiip .'. .h��j1� \ \ .� ,/, ' is - Pill, /� %r iil/ �,/,yI 141i1ii IIIIII] ,1 lll'll'lT'ill,l�\`�111M /I ■ / �l "/I'II IIIIII \ �\\\\C��` __ r i,", /' I11 1 - n'' /F \/ / 19111� l 1�j�11 \ ` :,'\\\`� ` �\`�\�"\•\ ` �/I r, �'"i. /' 111, ' I I !/ III\I 111 _ ``�\\\\• "''. (�''.'. TL � II II I, ' I !/% 1111, ``,11 `�.�'\�\,y4\`•``\\``>�� :�'/'Fv•'••��/�'%/:'�,''•:",�:'i �'�: �_ aly 1\ k 1 II 1 � t� r ''' "' 'om 'i/�'i','ii/ e u qq s W ,may ' I l 1 I I I I - \� I "iii' •' I I. 1',1' III, y G a Inn. @ 1 f 4{ , I l l l l l l \ I \� '' I'4 \\ \• I L I I I I I I al I alI gl!'.1 '.liz $�yYp�^� e s Win ' I ` 1 ASKS � i ' � � A � � a § � i i i I � \\;; ;;\` \ ,B Ilri'%////.♦� `\ k`: Ri I,1\,11,111,11' I11\,I`I,1W�Y a>�� i// I '/ 1 e �f rI III ,� I'� � IgildiV JI IIII,iiII�hI�I��III IIIII�q �il� vY/ �I tllill��`°li °�ii�iuilil li ii ilihli�m� � AIA .�v�. �.. I �liy�4��1v iil 11 y II+ 11 \ I,klu�+i4V Vli II vv liu \�`� _ M u� �1 Tti4p l �IIIhINVl1 %I. _ I �1� 1 { 4I �I�III11j� II�II II II III , I/I,hll III III II:I I �21,w� IV \ I 1 j� / -�/ � fOY. � 11I III II\�� I ICI I1 1 / III'ill'llllllll�ll l! / -- f�+�����, I I 1 Jalllillll lQ qll � ' I ` 119111 ��14lllll�l lr. i �<�6w 608,5 8 S �_Yys��b.os as APPENDIX C Topographic Survey 5�/IL'69S ntllJ P,I[�S'(I4w �� NLW _'wP<H�IPIr Pa]iLE,- �11YJGr ;I4l+GT1.Y�L � +�• � Lk5!'E. NYORC t-F -. Sul I � T�.M .aPLLwcr 6R1YT/G •L t {yBl� IZ24 (b '�"I'..- WeYS' �23LTo L��c / �GG a �d°��6nK PLyv SEll�W) GLErfY <'3r a�:<FLL � ' �t �\, �� s4 aIZ' yrF}I41ci5 4T=IZ'O.G. k41'.h14Ys. -+. +b¢aIO GL. �1. P�1GYG S'xlr i d0'rVMNrS 4W�c'O.r_ SYpisTHlcna.+.r 4, Felt -G' �'-M4st Gq-,C[..�LtVCI-Ii6 GGaL i�+C. •.. .�-�. e._ Y='4s'Fl�llfwxi�8-..c�OCz �ICies"'S.K.�TS. %s,lw(bK t�a�:.'Y'�i w+LRIrFL�/es�G�fLFG'tYb l6-A Ca/K6 A,6,G TG IGED N a .IYTU 4bW, Ta W-:�C� Pi 7%6 r .71eEstTt-� n zB c�`6 /.L_ H1d..1.h 6.'� IEY� '�Y4.LNAY <-PyIGT1,pE All �EN1=CeGIN6 of f THE E -L rt W l FYpFir�WE�? 4U+I�i AL-_ `S LCNG. iD '�=-6�Pa± TCiT sT2ETKT1-1 n �g l%AY`� L ! =•s•x�-�ssx� McCLELLAND CONSULTING Ott I n`( CFF7`2 ENGINEERS INCORPORATED �w - F I810 north college avenue ,a _:.•ter: E. Hera uas fayef+eville arkansas V I . . . . . . . . . . szcgjojv 22 ELEVA nn2v: ^47-6rrl-51-'Z1,-, 4., � .4441,fs Ipp-J, Az�l C j:--,"), -- "T :,,: -- z - SPILLWAY REPAIR LAKE FAYETTEVILLE City of Fayetteville, Arkansas McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. Fayetteville , Arkansas V h 1914 hi Ma 14-100 APPENDIX B Spillway Repair Drawings oP rq ow So -:1 t TYPICAL SECTION S'TW.. 0,00 TO 7+00 SECTl071 AT 7+00 TYPICAL SPCTIOAr STA 7+AO 7`0 /8+00 SF'CTION.4T /8r0O _.. _. I P ! bkhEe I-tv'rArvy a/su / QB E, S v �F1n.L !ha rhw ,. i f/ev Is_if - _ _�,__ 1 ! G re/ o/ante.• � m{virM by nc� ergil is= ' — �-LRlI�__ I MAXIMUM SGC7MAr ins ,rin. /-3aµrim .v!-W/m..M-r b aw.tno !'J`ai;'avuro,Q a. �,- JL_7iT t f cSE'CT_/OIP THpU it OF OUTLF,T CONDUIT .Nonhoe :ro..,. and Er/en'it0"4.bwppe mrer•�b.r F•,Ygl 1A can ,4/ewfh Map A`Bv i n�roo� �a.! g°e mn°cf sw-. P7 L6"[. PGale .v/rar IS`%/orq.e M fe// r'c6e/ ✓v-0'npr ninrozW cmc.rfc 0. d=0v �z /va !/ .Ar dab./ !hm cheer. � p• C h �x4e! e bmnlcvrd "{b � �4!/ with h isv/!o how arr area o! OT ejov� aq. { Lcv A9>< .x w' �_ slope c n srphly /o vnfer s.'a6. m ina'/cvl fh glrovl enliv em- __ev_. /19? l 4n�msni 4loreg7v':r p'arw: E C.POYYIY DZTAIL i fmban�men! !e ee -' m..:ed.paner /y - 4/A raEs Fcal� . 4 T'J•mi� 3'F" CTI01I7 _ _CUT-OFF t-3fILL Y,4LVE UJIUI,T_ Slrucluro/ c hi/s soma for -,/, wull W fl HOLWANTS 6 HE ENGTE5 CONSULTANTS TO THE fNGINEfflS bw CLEAR CREEKWATER SUPPLY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CLEAR CREEK DAAA SECTIONS DAM,CONDUIT AND VALVE VAULT in�.vii nr n MEHLBURaC0. s �[l.-:N�Ye...Pu Li1Tlf: 0.06t, PAIWIS45 _HCCfliot�OF'S L —_ ___ /y -- ---- � !}©w {! 'O.P)° {k - , � ----- --------» � -- —=� , /} ~ q$ � } k\ Eƒ� «W ■ � °° « © �` 0: u,La §/d -i ym . z ®/ } x \{ p � ]� . .% : . »® z \ ( § �« \{ \] .* § ) d I W.R.HOLWAY S ASSOCIATES _ _ MON9.1.�HLBURGER T a9 CONSULTANTS TO THE ENGINEERS °°� ° tJTi LL ,0Gc,MRINSPS SNF{T No, SOF g '" *'' ^' .�� ``°�� ` , - --r-�r - -�------- -~~ ~ I CLEAR CREEK WATER SUPPLY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CLEAR CREEK DAM 1949 I POW€LL M. RHEA MAYOR J.W.M°GEHEE CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL lT E.WHITE ALDERMAN ORADY DALE KENT ALDERMAN RWILLIAMS HUGH KINCADE f -IE L.M.Mc000DWIN { EATHERS DAVIS P RICHARDSON , j i PRICE DICKSON ATTORNEY APPENDIX A Original Dam Design Drawings 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 iI/software/hec-geohms/download.htm 1. 2019. US Army Corps of 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 of Engineers (USACE). CorpsMap — The National Inventory of Dams (NID). Available at https:Hnid.sec.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=l05:1:::::: Retrieved on October 7, 2020. US Army Corps of Engineers. (March 2020). Retrieved from https:Hnid.sec.usace.army.mil/ords/Pp=105:113:8446889078345::NO: 113,2:P 113_REC 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 2011 (NLCD 2011). Available at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd20l I .php.2011. 7-1 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 (T(, min) Lag Time (TLAG, min 1996 Analysis 81.84 49.1 Current Analysis 170.9 102.5 T, represents the time it takes for runoff to travel from the hydraulically most distant point within the watershed to the outlet. This parameter depends on the slope, flow path, and other characteristics of the watershed. Therefore, a longer T, 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 T,, 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 Table 6.3. Discharge from Dam and Spillway. 10 h, 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) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Spillway 1369 1.678 1671 3.090 1,683 4.153 4 S60 064 5,508 6,03t, 8,019 8,591 Dam N\ N A N A N'A N;A NIA \\ \-\ N A N/A N A N/A Local PMP Event General PNIP 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) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Spillway 22,537 22,689 19,171 19,462 23,873 23,995 10,998 11,086 14,429 14,548 Dam 1,752 1,955 10 17 3,910 4,025 N/A N/A N/A N/A Table 6.4. Elevation at Dam and Spillway. 50 % Annual Chance (2yr) 10% Annual Chance (10-yr) 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, NAND 88) Existing Condition (ft, NAVD 88) Future Condition (ft, NAND 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 1,240.48 1,241.32 1,241-64 1,242.06 1,242.38 1,242.64 1,242.95 1,243.22 1,243.53 1 244 60 1,244.89 Approach Channel Elevation 1,240.14 1,240.43 1,241.26 1,241.57 1 1,242.66 1,242.30 1,242.87 1,242.87 1,243.14 1,243.44 1,244.51 1,244.80 Outlet Channel Elevation 1,229.07 1 L229A4 1,23050 1,230.92 1,211.69 1 1,231.90 1,23267 1,232.67 1,233-03 1 1,2_1,3.44 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) (ft, 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, NAV D 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 1,250.61 1,249.36 1,249.46 1,250.99 1,251.06 1,246.04 1,246.08 1,24752 1,247.57 Approach Channel Elevation 1,250.45 1,250.50 1,249.25 1,249.36 1,250.90 1,250.94 1,245.94 1,245.98 1,247.41 1,247.46 Outlet Channel Elevation 1,243.10 1,243.17 1,241.31 1,241.54 1,243.69 1,243.75 1,236.78 1,236.84 1,238.76 1,238.83 6-7 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 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, the 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), which 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 listed 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: • Increasing dam height to consistent elevation, • Increasing 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 El 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 impacts of lowering the lake level, as it was outside the scope of work for this M. 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 Table 6.2. Future Conditions Summary of Discharges FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION: Drainage Area (sq. miles Peak Disc har esleft) Local PMP General PMP Tro icaI PMP HMR 52 50 % Annual Chance 2 r 10 % Annual Chance 1 r 4 % Annual Chance 25 r 2 % Annual Chance 5 r 1 % Annual Chance 100 r 0.2IV. Annual Chance 500 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 0.14 121 199 250 292 335 439 449 375 189 494 255 N/A 4t Horn L❑ 0.31 191 320 411 486 563 755 972 811 413 1,070 554 N/A 4t Habberton Rd 0.46 276 464 603 713 827 1,107 1,443 1205 613 1,588 822 N/A Approx. 450 ft upstream ofH Iton Rd 0.70 326 552 725 867 1,016 1383 2,138 1,778 920 2,355 1,223 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 1,499 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 Geor a Anderson Road 2.40 952 1,659 2,173 2,590 3,015 4,067 7,216 5,934 31104 7,966 4,097 N/A At George Anderson Road 2.78 1,093 1,912 2,511 2,997 3,495 4,724 8,353 6.866 3,595 9,223 4,748 N/A At Clear Creek Dr 3.94 1,600 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 1,606 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 A rox. 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 Favetteville 9.27 3,615 5,847 7,425 8.711 1 10.073 1 13,606 26,345 22,000 11,899 29,651 15,610 N, A Clear Creek Tributary 2 At Hylton Rd 0,30 247 381 471 543 616 793 947 793 404 1,041 541 N/A Approx. 300 ft upstream of Don Tyson Pkwy 0.33 246 386 480 555 632 822 1,036 866 442 1,139 592 N/A At Don Tyson Pkwy 0.47 343 540 670 769 874 1,132 1,468 1,227 629 1615 840 N/A Approx. 800 ft downstream of Don Tyson Pkwy 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 0.66 387 641 816 956 1093 1,399 2,054 1,694 876 2,267 1,167 N/A Approx. 2150 ft upstream of Zion Rd 0.67 536 860 1,080 1,258} 1,438 1,878 2,119 1,772 898 2,331 1,206 N/.4 At Zion Rd 1.28 800 1,326 1,701�2,618 2,010 2,328 3,126 4,022 3,357 1,704 4,423 2,286 N/A At Hi wa 265 Crossover Rd 1.05 731 1,201 1,5261 794 2,064 7,730 3,316 2,770 1,404 3,648 1,885 N/A A rox. 1500 ft downstream of Highway 265 Crossover Rd 1.63 1,063 1,739 2,221 3,028 4,042 5,145 4,296 2,179 5,659 2,924 N/A 6-3 December 11, 2020 Table 6.1. Existing Conditions Summary of Discharges. FLOODING SOURCEAND LOCATION: Drainage Area s . miles Peak Disc har es efs Local PMP General PMP Tro icaI PMP HMR 52 50% Annual Chance 2 r 10 % Annual Chance 1 7 4 % Annual Chance 25 r 2 % Annual Chance 5 r 1 % Annual Chance 100 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 I loin Ln 95 166 216 258 300P3,275 444 370 187 489 252 435 At Horn Ln 155 277 364 437 513 963 801 409 1,061 549 963 At Habberton Rd 221 396 526 634 746 1429 1188 607 1575 814 1,430 A rox. 450 ft u stream of H lton Rd F0.46 266 471 633 771 917 2116 1754 911 2336 1,211 2175 At H lton Rd 455 794 1047 1265 1492 3307 2744 1422 3648 1,893 3,388 Immediate) u stream ofconfluence ofClear Creek Tributa 2 445 801 1,064 1,272 1493 3,871 3,185 1,658 4,269 2,179 4,009 Confluence of Clear Creek and Clear Creek Tributa 2 and At Butterfield Coach Rd 726 1,295 1,720 2,059 2,413 5,875 4,834 2,515 6,480 3,319 6,061 -Approx. 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 1 3,084 7,917 4,070 7,457 .At George Anderson Road 2.78 927 1,676 2,252 2,731 3,230 4,460 8,283 6,767 3,567 9,158 4,712 8,632 At Clear Creek Dr 3.94 1,350 2,380 3,152 3,793 4,467 6,141 11,531 9,487 5.044 12,733 6,652 12,235 -Approx. 1200 ft Upstream Highway 265 Old Missouri Rd 4.06 1,358 2,383 3,151 3,778 4,46 6,190 11,802 9,726 5,191 13,099 6,839 12,607 At Highway 265 Old Missouri Rd 6.30 2,350 3,971 5,153 6,121 7,158 9,812 18,186 15,114 8,080 20,354 10,647 19,585 -Approx. 800 ft downstream of Highway 265 (Old Missouri Rd) 6.89 2,494 4,225 5,483 6,517 7,622 10,476 19,903 16,461 8,821 22,232 11,613 21,416 Outlet at Lake Favetteville 9.27 3,143 5,276 6,795 8,068 9,396 12,925 26,125 21,755 11,816 29,441 15,503 28,819 Clear Creek Tributary 2 AI H Itou Rd 0,30 165 286 1 372 442 516 697 931 775 397 1,026 532 932 -Approx. 300 ft upstream ofDon Tyson Pkw 0.33 164 1 290 381 454 529 722 1,018 847 435 1,123 582 1,025 At Don Tyson Pkwy 0.47 238 417 544 645 748 1,007 1,444 1,201 619 1,594 827 1,461 -Approx. 800 ft downstream of Don Tyson Pkwy 0.56 273 482 634 752 873 1,174 1,718 1,429 737 1,901 984 1,740 -immediately upstream ofconfluence with Clear Creek 0.66 293 516 685 824 970 1,288 2077 1,667 866 2,245 1,154 2,052 H Itoa'Branch -Approx. 2150 ft u stream of Zion Rd 0.67 475 787 1003 1,179 1,360 1,803 2,107 1,759 893 2,320 1,199 2,074 At Zion Rd 1.28 697 1,194 1,560 1864 2,I82 2,975 3,998 3,330 1,693 4,401 2,272 3,971 At Highway 265 Crossover Rd 1.05 635 1,075 1,397 1,662 1,930 2,593 3,295 2,746 1,395 3,629 1,873 3,256 Approx. 1500 ft downstream of Highway 265 Crossover Rd 1.63 925 11567 2 037 2,426 2,834 3,852 5,114 4,261 2,165 5 630 2,90G 5,073 6-2 December 11, 2020 6.0 RESULTS As part of the 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 time. 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 along 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 increasing 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 becoming 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. 6-1 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 1 % 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 PMP Scenario (2019 PMP Study) Tropical Storm I Existing / Future (24- & 72-hr) 1 Tropical PMP Scenario (2019 PMP Study) HMR-52 I Existing (72-hr) I Historic PMF (HMR 51) Scenario 5-4 December 11, 2020 5.1.2 Hydraulic Parameters For the hydraulic model, Manning's "n" values (roughness coefficients) were developed based on National Land Cover Database (NLCD) land use type, aerial imagery, 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 channel 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 development 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 71B. 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 from the 12 separate subbasins. Two of these subbasins include the drainage areas of Clear Creek and Hylton Branch. Additionally, one of the subbasins also accounts for direct rainfall onto Lake Fayetteville. All hydrologic data was linked to the hydraulic model directly as flow hydrograph curves taken from the HEC-HMS model output files. 5-3 December 11, 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 5.0 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 existing 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 the project with 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 1-D HEC-RAS can be used as an unsteady flow model, it cannot model the spread of flow (i.e., flow in both the longitudinal and lateral directions) because it uses a series of cross sections to represent the terrain surface and roughness characteristics, and it is assumed that velocities only vary in the longitudinal direction. Between these cross sections, the 1-D model interpolates based 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 I -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 hydraulic model, the system is modeled using a computational mesh rather than a series of cross 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 regions at each cross 5-1 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. 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 - Tropical Event 31.19 33.05 33.14 4-13 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 the three Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) rainfall events 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 can be evaluated. These storm types are: Local, General, and Tropical. Local: storm events that consist of local thunderstorms/Mesoscale 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 have accumulation characteristics similar to the general storm type. 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 the Lake Fayetteville spillway and potential future modifications. Therefore, for this PMP analysis, a sensitivity analysis was performed using the three storm events described above to determine 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 Table 4.2. Subbasin hydrologic parameter summary. Basin ID Subbasin Area (sq mi) Cumulative Area (sq mi Curve Number Existin) Curve Number Future Time of Concentration T, min Lag Time Tt,d, min CC B1 0.140 0.140 76.4 82.0 37.3 22.4 CC B2 0.170 0.310 78.3 81.8 64.2 38.5 CC B3 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 B5 0.390 1.090 79.4 80.8 66.5 39.9 CC B6 0.200 1.290 79.4 79.4 73.0 43.8 CC B7 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 B9 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 1313 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 B 15A 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 B 15E 0.100 0.100 79.8 79.8 11.0 6.6 HBTI 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 131 0.412 0.412 83.1 84.7 50.5 30.3 HB B2 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 B4 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 13513 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 B2 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 B4 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 99.0 1.0 1.0 ME VICINITY MAP Protect Location ■ smnb Little Rock Figure 4.4 Lake Fayetteville Dam Future Conditions Land Use Map Legend OV Major Streams Subbasins Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity 04 Developed, Medium Intensity K Developed, High Intensity 0 Deciduous Forest Aerial Imagery: 2017 Statewide Aerial Imagery N w+r c Feet 0 1,000 2,000 Mn Map Created - October 30 2020 4-10 December H, 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. 4-9 VICINITY MAP ion Project Location et F it SmOh I Llitle Rock .. Pine Blunt. Figure 4.3 Lake Fayetteville Dam Existing Conditions Land Use Map Legend iS� Major Streams (3 Subbasins 10'- Open Water Developed, Open Space 04 Developed, Low Intensity 04 Developed, Medium Intensity K Developed, High Intensity 96 Barren Land 04 Deciduous Forest •i Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Grassland Pasture Aerial Imagery: 2017 Statewide Aerial Imagery AN w�r Feet 0 1,000 2,000 to Map Created - October 30 2020 u.p LovCrnue s�rc �,i n,x.,.,., srerc ram.. 4-8 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 .ione.l Project Location ■ F ' Sm" Little Rock Pine Bluff T. arkana Figure 4.2 Lake Fayetteville Dam Hydrologic Soils Map Legend ^i 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+ S Feet 0 1,000 2,000 Map Created - October 30 2020 4-6 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 Additional Notes Soil Grou A B C I D l 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 1 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 Intensity 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 1 81 89 81 Pasture Pasture (Good) -- 39 L61 74 80 * Some Values used differ from those in the 2014 Fa%ette,iIIc Drainage Criteria Manual. 4-5 VICINITY MAP onesbi Project Location ■ F d Smith Little Rock Pine so" T. arkan Figure 4.1 Lake Fayetteville Dam Hydrologic Work Map Legend 11� Major Streams W Subbasins Aerial Imagery: 2017 Statewide Aerial Imagery n+ Feet 0 1,000 2,000 MW n Map Created - October 70 2020 4-4 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 mi2 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 December 11, 2020 database for Washington County, with an Antecedent Moisture Condition Type 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 Number 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 Tc assuming that water moves through a watershed as sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, open channel flow, or some 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 T, calculations were based on aerial photography and engineering judgment. Upon calculating the Tc for each subbasin, the lag time (TLag) was calculated as 0.6*T,. This relationship between TLag and Tc 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 in 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 overbank 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 HEC-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. While 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 4.0 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 mi2) 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 Table 3.1. Survey Control Points. Control Point Northing Easting Latitude Longitude Elevation 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 36.1334° -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 Cooperating 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 existing topographic data developed as part of the Arkansas CTP study to reduce the data gathering 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 1-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 potential of the lake and how it plays a role in potential spillway modifications. 3-2 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 11, 2020 Table 2.3. Spillway Design Flood for Dams. Hazard Classification Size Spillway Design Flood I.o%v 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 PMF Large PMF Note: Where ranges are given in this table, the spillway design flood shall be determined by straight line interpolation, based upon the effective height 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 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 Category 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. High I.eS Excessive (Extensive public, industrial, commercial, or agricultural development); over $500,000. SOWS: • 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 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 the spillway, the removal of large diameter trees that had started growing on the upstream face of the dam, the addition of riprap material to the upstream face to address minor erosion concerns, 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 spillway capacity is determined based on two criteria. These criteria are size and 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 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 perfonned. 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 NICE drawings related to these modifications. 2.3 Current Dam Configurations 2-2 December 1 I. 2020 2.0 LAKE FAYETTEVILLE DAM INFORMATION 2.1 Original Dam Design The Lake Fayetteville Dam is an earthen dam located on Clear Creek in 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-inch 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 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 will be developed after approval of the Phase 1 Study. M December 11, 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION Lake Fayetteville was formed in 1949 when the City of Fayetteville (the City) completed construction of the Lake Fayetteville Dam (the dam); thus, creating the reservoir to serve as the City's water supply until the development of the Beaver Water District in 1957. 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) and the agency in charge of regulating dam safety in Arkansas, performed its annual inspection of 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). Based 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 It, 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 the 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 phase was to determine the current inflows to the lake that the watershed is producing and then determining the current discharges capable of being released through the spillway without overtopping the dam. This phase also included performing an updated topographic survey for a portion of the darn embankment, the entire approach channel, exit channel, and spillway structure, and December 11, 2020 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Size Classification................................................................................................2-4 Table 2.2 Hazard Classification...........................................................................................2-4 Table 2.3 Spillway Design Flood for Dams......................................................................... 2-5 Table 3.1 Survey Control Points.......................................................................................... 3-? Table 4.1 Land Use Types and Curve Numbers.................................................................. 4-5 Table 4.2 Subbasin hydrologic parameter summary.......................................................... 4-1 1 Table4.3 Precipitation Data............................................................................................... 4-13 Table 4.4 Probable Maximum Precipitation Data.............................................................. 4-13 Table5.1 Manning's............................................................................................................ 5-3 Table 5.2 Lake Fayetteville Scenarios................................................................................. 5-4 Table 6.1 Existing Conditions Summary of Discharges...................................................... 6-2 Table 6.2 F.iture Conditions Summary of Discharges......................................................... 6-3 Table 6.3 Discharge from Dam and Spillway......................................................................6-7 Table 6.4 Elevation at Dam and Spillway............................................................................6-7 Table 6.5 Time of Concentration Comparison..................................................................... 6-8 LIST OF FIGURES 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................... 2.0 LAKE FAYETTEVILLE DAM INFORMATION ............. 2.1 Original Dam Design ............................................... 2.2 Dam Modifications.................................................. 2.3 Current 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 ........................... 5.1.1 Structures .................................................. 5.1.2 Hydraulic Parameters ................................ 5.1.3 Boundary Conditions ................................ 5.2 Model Runs........................................................... 6.0 RESULTS................................................................... 7.0 REFERENCES................................................................. LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Original Dam Design Drawings APPENDIX B: Spillway Repair Drawings APPENDIX C: Topographic Survey APPENDIX D: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Output (Electronic) I ................... 2-1 ................... 2-2 ................... 2-2 ................... 3-1 ................... 4-1 ................... 4-1 ................... 4-3 ................... 5-1 ................... 5-1 ................... 5-2 ................... 5-3 ................... 5-3 ................... 5-4 ................... 6-1 ................... 7-1 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 Received from Jonathan 2/10/21 tin � ASSaciates Ltd. water resources! environmental consultants CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE LAKE FAYETTEVILLE SPILLWAY MODIFICATION PHASE 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A(J'% ���I ARON AS' r FTN REG113T R = w- Associates, Ltd. - p_ F R AL ER No. 63 a,�, o.129�42 SESVOII I t %2o2fl DECEMBER 11, 2020 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 Qi 1✓ 0 AfrPhoro20,i Clear Creek Assessment - N Lower Clear Creek - Priority Eroding Streambanks wy f � � �1."111 I Z ; • .. �, '� � � L•, ''kT ��S�S�` -Vill •a"r� �" �� • Recommended Area for Master Planning �` x�! 1 112 \ \" - ! t�valley'Rd' • Clear Creeks CC2901-- '�. � �' :+fit. �'� • � CC281 tl,. ;i w e\�dr GC�294 CC287 CC344 • �„ • -• " • 338 CC332 I} ' Confluence with IIIhoK River c,,,CC403 y/r 988 0 }M 6G38 Priority Conservation Areas Priority Level (Annual Sediment Load) ,, ' - Highest (>5.000 Ib/yr) r Higher (1,000 5,000 Ib/yr) -- -�t 0 05 • High (inn - 1 ,nnn lh/yr).,�`� P9i�e� =1= — Figure 6-7. Priority Streambank Restoration Sites in the Lower Clear Creek Watershed Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Southeast ,31S41 "f """��¢ c- •.� , i2!'� r .vim sr'' ° ' ti : is 265 : HIGH,Highv�'`1 1 9 s �° ,•, fC+ Mounds and Swales. a H Piiurity Banks GIS Inventoried Springdale City BEHI.. NBSS Natural Areas t Limits ® other c3 Lake Fayetteville Fayetteville City Streainhanks Watershed 10i Limits r: `h .n..-Inventory Fayetteville 500 1,000 2.000 f Streams ] Fee 1` n ' Planning Area Figure 6-6 . Lake Fayetteville Watershed — Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Southeast Portion of Clear Creek Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville yt} •'�4; Kr # � . �.. i HIGH,High Upper Northeast mn �HIGH,High�`p � �- 0.1 $ O Mounds and Swales «„ to q(Y) AN- " - '. � ' 4Cd'i yr ._ .r^ Dui• � ! . �. , } Don Tyson Pkwy • '��,�._a Fop--Wetland g� s` ._' -- -- HIGH, HIGH,High Mounds and Swales Very High (; Field Inventoried Natural Feature GIS Inventoried Springdale City Natural Areas `Limits Site# �, Lake Fayetteville Fayetteville City A; Priority Banks BEHI, NBSS Watershed Limits it Other Inventory Fayetteville Streams 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 rn v Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Mounds and Swales ' ! Northeast ,k/, r a i� ,HIGH, ¢ P i mot$ Very Hig w Mounds and Swales y���'`^a; ! 'HIGH,High.� lint — Mail HIGH, HIGH,High HI@ High M x MODERATE, ' C* ` k Ve` Y 6h 1. e � M-ODIRRATF, HIGH, *WHIGH,High® Very High` Very High . HIGH, A Very High HIGH High HIGH Extreme r HIGH,High T cra it �^ "�4' �iFh"• t 0O • .moo. .. ,-.-7r y;�_V ! ta♦ MAL t PondlWetland elf r�war!t (ter 07 r` U Q I - tomr-' •-. _� ., Field Inventoried GIS Inventoried Springdale City Natural Feature Natural Areas Limits Site # C3 Lake Fayetteville Fayetteville City Priority Banks Watershed Limits BEHI, NBSS Inventory Fayetteville 500 1,000 2,000 Other Streams Planning Area Streambanks Fee t, a - w Figure 6-4. Lake Fayetteville Watershed — Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Northeast Portion of Clear Creek , Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Upper Northeast Tributaries �HIGHHrgh s ". 6 f' *9a.. "{ g'p�ay'..tt - .., • t t �)'kt * % y VERY •�# i' ' It �tHIGH Hrgh w*y z +z HIGH ht s Hig.{ ALI ,, if •.. '"t ffik �'""ti { r� AR M HIGH High *,: +� HIGH,Highi,. u HIGH, `"�i�m.+_v_�►• e a/n Very High-'-'.+ •' HI -r+ rita -C ,.,=.� _ M - V yHigh r r s,!,•-o; v►-o.� ®fir �c 'v!-�t �i:..�t._r. - _,HIGH,HHiigh ?- •iCt r'' .��,!3'.1_y+�.?+C..�.elti.�'3.e�.r1• ,_' ,., 'frir HIGH,High` �►` r,- --- �.� _.,_ y_ g -S. - \•�'V`O �.�i.a�. 'g' �► V, �7,ap_�r jam'-- �! r• ' .n'*'�,1 # �v ;o "iS-'1�-'�.a4i' ,! s ' t �� Y +''�F: t �+M` 9�' .•yfN y,�`�C �'?C-`#'-AY •Yjy ��� AT ';. Priority Banks BEHI, NBSS GIG Inventoried Natural Areas Springdale City Limits` Other 0 CS Lake Fayetteville Fayetteville Gity Streamt�anks Watershed Limits Dovwy6on Pkwy - —InvPntnry Fayetteville � 3hednls {' planning Area ,° , �'. x THIGH,; 500 1 ,000 2,000 Very High' HIGH, Fee - W Vc- kgh Figure 6-3. Lake Fayetteville Watershed - Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Upper Northeast Tributaries n HIGH,High HIGH, Iigh F� n aw6 g m Ln a r. Figure 6-2. Lake Fayetteville Watershed — Priority Sites for Restoration and/or Conservation in the Lower Northeast Tributaries Clear Creek Lake Fayettevillei. Priority Sites �I L`�r LM unds and Swale� Mounds and Swales �s r .y! ds an ' Mounand Swales P, 3 l �+ Mou ds and Swales �_ •--=3k'', d �✓�eyille ? '�' ce •---i—_ r _ 7 Pond Y/ U nd Moundsand Swales Mounds and Swales .• 2.: �� i. ` .'�"" Fuel tl Invenlonec GIS I-t-d Springdale Clly Natural Nees ti � hlalurat Fea.ure Limps Sile a lake Fayetleville Fayetteville Cay '„v' II r �I� It 1 Pnonry a Watemried limas i s StreamWuke ImeMory Fayetteville Other r"Sueame Planring Area Q. b 2 She—wnks Miles Figure 6-1. Priority Streambanks Overlaid with Natural Features Developed in the Ecological Analysis in the Lake Fayetteville watershed. 6-4 ■ 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. ■ 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 are developed. These sites are shown in Figures 6-1 through 6-6. o Search for a funding mechanism to conserve working farms where there is landowner interest. • Improvement of Riparian Areas o Partners work together to increase the width of healthy riparian along the tributaries in the watershed. • Cities, NRCS, IRWP, and other conservation oriented entities 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 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. ■ Promote native vegetation along the tributaries in the watershed by removing invasive plants and enhancing with native shrubs, trees, and grasses. • 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 and 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 runoff contributed 45% and pasture areas contributed 24% of 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 stormwater 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 consider 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 Illinois River that generate the preponderance of sediment and nutrient loads to the stream. The average 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 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 6-1 a — historic prairie in the headwaters of Clear considered for conservation before the areas Creek that is a uniquefeature that should be protected. 6-1 Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas: A Field Management Guide Example Tree Species: Tree -of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) ,77 • Status 1 • Introduced ornamental c. 1784 from Europe , • Originated in China , . . %, V F. • 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 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 VIANAGEIVIENT GUIDE JAL A practical, educational guide for land mangers, st:wanis, homeowners, and volunteers for the removal and replacement of invasive plants in natural spaces REVISED: De:—bm ,, 2019 Pmp—d in .00p—i— with: Watershed Coon:—ivn Resource Center, University of Mk.— C.,operstiee ,.0 City of F'ayo—i& �e UA 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 Section 5. Transfer of Results & Outreach Project Outreach The WCRC formed a project team with partners after the project was initiated. Representatives 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 project 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 being 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 rural 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 Fayetteville, 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 WCRC 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 available 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 trash 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 the 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 invasive 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 to manage them, raises awareness, and promotes the use of native alternative species. Species were selected based on a federal 5-1 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 lb/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 Area or Estimated Average Annual Phosphorous Load Phosphorous Source 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 2750.4ac 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 lends an estimated 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 land 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 11 and Level III land use analysis for the Lake Fayetteville watershed 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 Table 4-2. A total of 1,170 Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Load Load Load Residential Ib/ac/yr Ib/ac/yr Ib/ac/yr Ib/yr m/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 construction 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 1.3 171.1 171.1 171.1 study of construction sites Public Park 123 0.03 0.25 1 0.14 3.7 30.7 17.2 and typical sediment Total 911.5 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 discussed 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. 1b/ac/yr Ib/ac/yr Ib/ar/yr (Ib/yr) (Ib/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 0.1 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 tss ssz zap to 332 Ib/yr with a median value of 241 Ib/yr. 4-2 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 0.21b/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 of Annual 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 Total developed from a previous stud conducted on Area p p Y 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 similar land use and various average pasture 3 - 4% 0.36 522.0 187.94-5% 0.66 186.6 123.2 slopes (ADEQ, 2004). These coefficients were >S% 0.66 275.6 181.9 based on published phosphorous export coefficients determined from similar watershed Total 1567.0 717.6 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 sources produces 93 tons/yr, 5.5% of the total. Sediment production from other sources ranged from 2 tons/yr for farmstead land use to 36 tons/yr for undeveloped land use. Table 3-10. Total Sediment Production Estimates to the Lake Fayetteville Watershed Sediment Source Area or Estimated Average Annual Sediment Load Length Sediment (tons) Percent of Total Loading Rate Streamank Erosion Pasture Urban (w/out construction) Construction Other Sources (Total) Forests Highways Undeveloped Lands Farmsteads Barren Lands 2.38 mi 879 52.0% 369.23 1567 ac 217 12.81/. 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 Urde.4"p ` 27 7 SonsLa 3bk Total 1 1690 1 100.0% Estimated Total Average Annual Sediment Load 5naartura Etonian 879mM 9 i trnt� gat m:.fnds Ir1 tons = cads 896 Uxh-a 36.3 tons 349t Estimated A-,egr A-,u i ;,ddr -t I-d f.om 9,- Sect. rs Figure 3-6. Sediment Sources in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed 3-9 Estimated Sediment Loading from Construction Areas under construction has almost no vegetation and sediment is exposed to rainfall events. Without proper management practices 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 rg/L mg/l mg/l mn/yr mn/yr con/yr "Mean Load" of 98.2 1-year 132.3 9.4 36s u,217 680 1 51.4 1 1580.1 1 95.8 ton/yr, was developed to 6-months 6.7 9.4 36s 11,z17 680 1 1.3 ao.o 2.4 quantify sediment Total I 52.7 1 1620.2 98.2 production for this watershed due to construction. Table 3-9. Sediment Production Coefficients and Sediment Production for Other Land Estimated Sediment Load Uses in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed from Other Sources Land Use Area Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Other land uses evaluated Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Load Load Load for this study were forest acres 'h/ac/yr Ib/ac/yr Ih/ac/yr (ron/yr) (ro./y,) (ton/yr) Forest 523 23 130 77 6.1 34 20.0 lands, major roads, Roads/Highways 163 250 643 447 20.3 52 36.3 undeveloped land, Undeveloped Land 182 92 519 305 8.3 47 27.7 farmsteads and barren land, Farmstead 14 92 519 305 0.7 4 2.2 determined from the level 2 Barren Land 47 92 519 305 2.1 12 7.2 and level 3 land use analysis Total 1 38 1 tas 1 93 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 Sed1ment 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 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 in 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 3-451. 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 >5% 1.28 275.6 67.0 30.9% entering Clear Creek from pastures in the Lake Total 1567 216.8 1 100.0% Fayetteville watershed is 216.8 tons/yr. Estimate of Annual 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 loading 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/yr 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 53 303 178 26.2 150.0 88.1 Commercial 358.8 215 1 1218 716 38.6 218.5 128.5 Industrial 131.6 670 1 860 765 44.1 56.6 50.3 Public Park 123 3 1 3 3 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 Total 149.7 F 655.E 402.4 3-7 Table 3-5. Impervious Area for Various Land Uses for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed in 2006 and 2016. Coefficients presented are from WCRC 2008. Change of Change of IAC or Percent Impervious Cover Land Use 2006 2016 Basin Basin Coefficient 2006 Imperviousness 2016 Imperviousness of Basin of Basin Commercial Acres Acres Acres % % Acres % Acres % Low Impervious High Imperviois 183.3 252.8 69.5 1.2% 44.4% 81.4 1.4% 112.2 1.9%. 72.9 106 33.1 0.6% 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 109.2 1 114.6 5.4 0.1% 90.5% 98.8 1.6% 103.7 1.7% Residential Low 312.8 394.3 81.5 1.4% 15.7% 49.1 0.8% 61.9 1.0% Medium 452 542.9 90.9 1.5% 35.0% 158.2 2.6% 190.0 3.2% High 73.9 77.8 3.9 0.1% 50.6% 37.4 0.6% 39.4 0.7% Multi -family 119.3 132.2 12.9 0.2% 40.7% 48.6 0.8% 53.8 0.9% Rural Home 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 1.2% 107.7 1.8% Paved Highways 43.1 54.9 11.8 0.2% 100.01% 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 0.0°% 2.5 0.01% Total 767 12.78°% 936 15.60•% Streambank Ma terial 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 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 categories 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 changed 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 restoration as there is significant undeveloped land use where BMPs can be implemented to mitigate and restore loss of groundwater infiltration within the watershed. Figure 3-3. Land Use Types Identifying Areas with Imperviousness for 2006 and Additional Areas with Imperviousness in 2016. 3-5 Table 3-4. Level III Residential Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed for the Years 2006 and 2016 Percent of Percent of Change of Residential Level III 2006 2016 Change Total Total Basin Low Medium High Multi -family Rural Home Mobile Home Acres % Acres % Acres % 313 5.2% 394 6.6% 81.S 1.4% 452 7.5% 543 9.0e/ 90.9 1.5% 74 1.2% 78 1.3% 3.9 0.1% 119 2.09/. 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 0.00/0 S E- 3 I � Mi185 0 025 0.5 1 1.5 Figure 3-2. Level I Analysis Completed for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed in 2016 I i� � Urban Landow 2016 Agncuh-1 Landow 2016 F—t L..— 2016 Water 2018 Wetlands 2018 � Barren Lands 2016 �� l \ Lake Fayetlevllle Basin Determination of 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. 3-4 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 Highlands 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. Soils 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). Agricultural land use decreased by 7.7% of the basin as farm land and open space became developed (Table 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) 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 5.89/o 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% 1 0.0•0 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 203 3.491. 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 Percent of Percent of Change of Urban Levelll 2006 Total 2016 Total Change Basin Acres Residential 1986 Commercial 256 Industrial 140 Transportation 128 Industrial and commercial 70 Open Urban Lands 1 314 % Acres % Acres % 33.1% 2156 35.9% 170 2.8% 4.3% 359 6.0% 102.5 1.7% 2.3% 132 2.2% -8.6 -0.1% 2.1% 187 3.1% 59.6 1.09/. 1.2% 70 1.2% 0.4 0.01/. 1 5.2% 339 5.6% 1 24.6 1 0.41/. 3-3 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 s u rvey. 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 mi' covering land within Springdale, Fayetteville, and Washington County. Clear Creek had two main tributaries identified in this study, one in the Southeast OrJb �.'� (ry - ..fw1w,41 _ .....s i '4 J „v► Praine _ `` t7.e ° a 4 W 1Fe{Hrn fir VSF0.V4TnV a: ♦ H Pralne # --? -- Nc mention of brwks. ' _..,.. — -- -- — Praise, ` • -_ 4 - _ 0 w Wetland ,r I _ iZ Brook rnenuonkxJ, 2 Inks wido. 1.3 ft wetwnd Prairie / `�� - _ i Brr auk entwned 6 imks aide 4 fl Clear Creek awnboned, 30 R wide Mounds d S.&I. 1 0 0.25 +rwl :t rake layenevi9e Haain Figure 3-1. Lake Fayetteville Historical 1834 Survey Map Overlaid with Shapefile Features from the Natural Area Inventory. 3-2 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 monitoring 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 for the 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 Curves and physical Accelerated Stream Bank Erosion • Length monitoring 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 Way 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 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 Riparian Analysis A riparian buffer analysis was performed utilizing ArcGIS and 2018 Air Photos. The 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 GIS 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% 40.4% 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 nven:oried Nadxal Area MCunds and wales W91 s K S 'k Name K Noru� S'IPpe p . " .r,, K Alain—d Ch,—1 K Open wenand K A andoned Channel K pcM pg P 13—water Chanel K pond - Spring Fed Channel Scar K SPrng Run. ,. K Eel Slope « Spring Run - In AOandoned Channel Ski` K Fw—de7 K weaaM- springF� 2K !'Made Field Aeeeased Nabral Feature She» Mtles I, I - W Lake Fayede,lle V!9te,enec 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 dL ring 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 Lister SGCN, Least Darter, at One of the Identified Natural Areas of Interest Along Clear Creek. 2-10 summary report that includes a description of the 16 assessed sites can be found in Appendix 5 and maps showing the 98 sites and 16 assessed sites can be found in Appendix 6. East Clear Creek N . �,�—� u_ Natural Areas T" 1:>IXe F � y. 17 "._. :1 GIS Irrverdoned Natural Areas K Mounds and Shales ' Name - N.,T Slope Abanticned Channel ,Jxn Vverand _ K Abdandoned Channel « Pond K Backwater Channel Pond - Sp Fed y~ K Channel Scar Spnrg Run { ••\ „ K East Slope « Spnng Run 'n Abandoned Channel d V, _ A.1 I r_F.alWoods7 «'A'eaand-Sp gFed ' �'0 K Glade Fled Assessed NBWral Feaklre Sie9 05 2 Mlles C3 Lake Fayetteville V,atend— Figure 2-8. Natural Areas Inventoried in the Eastern Area of the Clear Creek Assessment Central Clear Creek' Natural Areas - t ;. CIS Invenlonetl Natural Areas McwKis and Svrelss Name « North Slope .. K Abandoned Channel K Open Welland ..and.. Channel K Pond K Backwater Channel K Pond -Spnrg Fed ' K Channel Scar K Spring Run K Eael Slope K Spndg Run - in Abandoned Channel _ !t Flatwoods? K W.U.-- Spmy Fed Glade M held Assessed Natural Feature Ste a W Lake FaVene, le'/AI—hed .* Miles Figure 2-9. Natural Areas Inventoried in the Central Area of the Clear Creek Assessment 2-9 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 ton/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 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 1 10.9 1,334 1 320 573 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 1 353 191 487 CC385 I High High 180 5.5 3.3 204 67 146 High Priority Bank Total 36,653 13,075 29,308 Low Priority Bank Total 11,678 3,758 8,041 Lake Fayetteville Wateshed Total 879 208 388 Clear Creek Watershed Total 49,210 17,041 37,737 Ecologica/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 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. 1000 1.00 0,10 raissr Streambank Erosion Prediction Curves Clear Creek Assessment Lake Fayetteville Watershed ■Nil, Fr9eme - ._.W...�....,._... —ym� a N0.5 Very H gh-H p — --- • NSS Modwale •NBSLow .._.... ........_.. a__.__. ..___ _ _ m...,.. p_..._ ® -- - = 0051lM r rr 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30-0 35.0 40.0 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 calculated. Sediment load was determined by multiplying the average annual erosion rate, the bank height, 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 process 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 contribute 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 of total nitrogen each year. Based on these numbers, approximately 75% of all sediment and nutrient loads come from these "Highest Priority" banks. All data discussed 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 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 Hours Above Bankfull Max Date of Max Average Annual River Bankfull Discharge Gauge Bankfull Discharge Discharge Discharge Hours cfs cfs 071948095 Mud Creek 62 550 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 Illinois River 36 5360 11800 2/24/2018 24 07194800 07048495 Town Branch 115 407 2850 5/3/2018 106 07195000 Osage Creek - Elm Springs 26 4200 1 9500 1 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 Highly 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 Streambank Materials Analysis Samples of the streambank materials (Figure 2-6) were collected at twenty-two different banks throughout the $` watershed and their locations are shown in Figures 2-3 s - 2-5. Sampling sites were selected to provide ` representation of the bank materials typically found r 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 only of sand and soils of various textures. Coarse 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 lb/ton ton/yd' 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 toe 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 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 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 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 356a CC 356b CC 387 CC 388 CC 389 CC 411 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 streambank locations accounted in the inventory, toe pin locations and soil samples 2-3 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 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 survey rod is placed vertically on top of the toe pin or bolt and another is held level horizontally from the profile of the bank (Figure 2-2). 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 years 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 Section 2. Inventory of Streambank, Wetland, other Natural Features, and Riparian Streambank Erosion Inventory Between April 4th and May 15th 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 collected 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 entry. 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 Height Ratio d. Bank Angle e. Surface Protection f. Bank Material g. Bank Stratification 2) Near Bank Shear Stress (NBSS) was Evaluated = `' 3) Bank height and length was measured M 4) The soil horizons were categorized and t 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 Inventoried 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 0.5 14.0 202 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 all 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 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 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 entire 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 natural features • Provide outreach to watershed residents Figure 1-1. Map of Clear Creek Basin and Adjacent Parcels 1-1 Clear Creek Assessment Project 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 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 Figure 2-3. 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............................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 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............................................................................................ 2-10 Figure 2-11. Collarboration with Other Natural Resource Organizations Resulted in Finding a State Listed SGCN............................................................. 2-10 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.................................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-14. Riparian Condtionis for the 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 for the 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 2016....................................... 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 for the Land Use Analysis.................................................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-6. 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 5-3. 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 Table 2-3. Soil Type, Sediment, and Nutrient Analysis.................................................................................................................................................. 2-5 Table 2-4. Bankfull Flow Data for Various Gage Stations in Proximity to Clear Creek..................................................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-5. Annual Loading from GIS Monitored Highest Priority Banks.......................................................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-6. Riparian Conditions for the Clear Creek Watershed...................................................................................................................................... 2-11 Table 3-1. Sediment Sources, Data, and Methods Conducted to Estimate Sediment for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed ............................................. 3-1 Table 3-2. Level I Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed for the Years 2006 and 2016.......................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3. Level 11 Urban Land Use in the Lake Fayetteville Watershed for Years 2006 and 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 for the 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 for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed from Other Sources..................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-4. Annual Total Phosphorous from All Sources Evaluated in this Summary ........................................................................................................ 4-3 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 Discoverythrough Collaboration............................................................................................................................... 2-10 RiparianAnalysis........................................................................................................................................ 2-11 Section 3. - Sediment Evaluation of the Lake Fayetteville Watershed................................................3-1 LandUse Analysis............................................................................................................................................................3-2 Determination of 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............................................................................. 4-1 OtherSources of Total Phosphorous................................................................................................................................ 4-2 Annual Total Phosphorous Summary for the Lake Fayetteville Watershed....................................................................... 4-3 Section 5. 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 � r fi $ 0 'a_L .- 0 3312 E Zion Road Fayetteville, AR Development Review Manager City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (47S)575-8239 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube cirY 4f ARKANSHVILLE dRNANSdS From: Mona Calvert <miwc82@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:40 PM To: Masters, Jessica < masters @fayettevilie-ar.gov> Subject: Development on Zion Road 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 161h, 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 ruroff 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 res.ilt in sprawl? Is it absolutely necessary to do this on an environmentally sensitive wa=ershed, in a location that will negatively impact Lake Fayetteville and the Botanical Garden? Sincerely, Monetha Calvert 2 Mona Calvert 2/9/21 CityClerk From: CityClerk Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:43 AM To: 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; Kinion, 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 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 @fayettevil le-ar. qov Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: Masters, Jessica <jmasters@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 20214:37 PM To: Mona Calvert <mjwc82@yahoo.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 comment regarding the proposed annexation and PZD along Zion Road and N. Crossover. I have forwarded this information to the City Clerk, who will help disseminate this comment to the City Council ahead of their meeting on February 16. The meeting, as you are likely aware, will be held virtually, and 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 Comments To City Council Members -- Regarding Unfinished Business --Chandler Crossing annexation Please consider * The city should not be in the business of private business. The negotiation of annexation in exchange for stream repair is participation in a business transaction/business venture. * This is a false economy notion (an action that saves money at the beginning but which, over a longer period of time, results in more money being spent or wasted than being saved). * The portion of the stream the developer would "fix" is just a small segment of a longer creek. If annexation and development is going to be the mode the city uses for watershed repairs, then more county land will need to be annexed on up the stream to the watershed's headwaters. * This watershed repair is a public works project, not a one -off -and -done fix; and should be publicly bid by experts in watershed restoration. Unless the city is in control of who's hired and inspects the work being done. the results could be too piecemeal to protect the Botanical Garden and Lake F'ville on downsteam. * DENSITY-- Hundreds of people and cars on impervious surfaced streets and tightly packed housing on top of Fayetteville shale and clay soil, which has expansion and contraction characteristics and near a flood plain, might put water control beyond engineering magic. Streamside ordinances, etc. lose their effectiveness if land near streams is coated in concrete surfaces, so judging that the county's one house per acre restrictions, which would allow 39 houses on 39 acres as inferior to the city's regulations makes no sense. The city allowing 370 units on 39 acres vs. the county restricting to 39 units on 39 acres hardly makes the city's regulations better for the environment. Thank you, Fran Alexander 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 Citv Council meetin' shall be allowed for all members ofthe audience who have signed up prior to the beginning ofthe agenda item they wish to address being opened for public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of tive (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 tier 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 Received 02/02/21 4-02 PM 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* Fran Alexander Address or Ward* Address Wa rd Locate Your Ward Number Address* Phone Number Email 1946 Fox Hunter Rd. (county) 479-442-5307 fran@deane-alexander.com Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item Chandler Crossing on Unfinished business Number/Subject Pleas ,I dick h , iwn ¢afto w,qate It,, the a Flage Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position Comment Only Received by Mike Wiederkehr 01/29/21 9:24 AM To the Fayetteville City Council: After review and discussion of the proposed Chandler Crossing Annexation and Rezoning request to the City of Fayetteville, the Environmental Action Committee at it's January 25, 2021 meeting by a majority vote made the following recommendation: "The Fayetteville Environmental Action Committee discussed the Chandler Crossing Annexation and PZD at our meeting on January 25, 2021. While neither supporting nor advocating against the proposed development itself, the Environmental Action Committee recognizes the positive environmental benefits that the City's development regulations will provide over development in the County, therefore we support annexation of this property into the City of Fayetteville. Further, we recommend that the development should prioritize stormwater management and quality in a way that provides maximum protection of, and benefits to, the downstream water quality of Lake Fayetteville. Additionally, we support the permanent creation of open spaces in this development to provide ecosystem services whether through the dedication of City Park land or through private open space dedications. And finally, the Environmental Action Committee recommends that the developer provide a flood plain and wetland delineation during the preliminary plat process." Thank you for your consideration, ell Mike Wiederkehr, EAC Chairperson January 29, 2021 CIA i a i . CCU � Ln y p cn � � c *PM4 c, CCi 4.0 cv 404 s CC a _' t Cv V V ` //�� t � uitt � 2•� i gut l 43 N " PIZ LA O v �i +4 V `n to °J MO CIO C1 O W LI) p O u ��., .O cn O cu Ln cn b ° v `� ° .� •a as 3 475 G cn a� o °� 4-JMEMO con 4-J v ^ ro s+ U can R3��4C.) �C7 ��fJ� .� 4-J • •^�" • 0 i • • • 75 • • • • • U • • • v ct 4-4 tZ o bA r•�c� ocuLA � v a rt o � x x o u v p �+ bA v ~ v CAft TJ ate+ can b v O 0 v QJ a T� v Z a G 3u v 3 tn (�I O U GJ v O w cn m x c� V r t� v ra a rG 'ti O �" > G�J O RS Z RS �' �Ox�cawa �r�a `� y J E� Q G V as -� 4-J rx cA Q • • • • • • • s • 0 • • 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 • • u Q N 411 y v p U p --- o . v � � o ° v ' • � a �� rc a �QUaa.+ �Cn • • • • • v 3 C 4-1� b v . v Ln �n v O v u 4 Z E fl• v v � v s v o � u v U v 4-J v o y 3 r F � { { u E Cn•. { -O .cz N _ O ��.aa°� vQQ� �UUw E•� v� 4.� Or ^c'J b�A v W v 4-J w v w ^' `� p o 0 0. ro --q ;-o ,t v , y b CA rz rt v u - ° .75 G w' m n. r v v v x o 0 o o Lr)Ca., .a . -. .x ro �. v v C'� v b �? a� G � v � .� � CL IM. QA U v • • • • • • • d • • • • • • • • ~ Ul u O � O o cn v c� V J Q Pic "� 4-4 rq v b � b7 bQ. �+ � ' ^' rG s_ ^� rd • � to � ^y . � � cry • G�cu} cn Piz ~ CJ Gay fib �` 4-J C�J � 4-1 tU b to o Qi .v u rn u +.+ CU v +; 0. (n .,� v 'b a 4� bA o o ��� v o~ O� w�v��o. o p.. ~ u a �Acno"ww 4.5 • • i Prepared in cooperation with: Watershed Conservation Resource Center, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension, and pity of Fayetteville 0 Gri O �.; a E v o , O 0 E� ° v rA41 v O v +J4010 o G U v o rd . u A '� G4.4 v R3 cu Ncu r/1 V1 v O s. w v O rCS -, TJ1 v� ,� O o rCi �O" �aoO1 �QJ wa4.r.. vc 4-4 � 4v pU ,_. OJ m °� z v .." 4- 4-1 o • �" Q., o v 44 ft ft v a , v t cn a-' v 4 [ CU CJ ro > v v-j-- o a v, E O> v o Lr- U cu rLi v U ' ix U Q U P4 U P4 cn 4..r 4.1 • POO . POO Oj Qj T I� I � Qa •PMO POO Poo Op" or � r f Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Priority Sites with Open Space Score a 41 l0J ,Don Tyson Pkwy Wnq Run i Glad* Mound, and Sins Mounds and Swalvs —A4 Mounds and Sal 5 Mounds anti Swales 41 PondriiiNfelland t Open Welland Mounds and Swaies jr pnomy - -------- - Lake Fayetteville Open Sip — BE Hi , Nt),s V!ev'lle Wa,t wshed City Limits M.W., s—, 4-Rher Stfeambanks Springdale Fayetteville Mounds and City Limits Planning NwIxat Oveds Area O 05 1 2 Miles -ir Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Southeast -u -- - • �. �. *Itvsw IA .� If..�_ #� w v IGH,High VERY HIG d oVery M' Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Upper Northeast Mounds and Swales a hnn Tvenn U4un� - t t HIGH,High ®HIGH,High r �* sm *t Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Northeast 1` ery Hight r MOC t • Very �MOC � 7- ,,HIGH,Higho Very HIGH 0' VeryH,gh J HiGH,H,gh ' Q 4 Mounds and Swales w ,}S, , " ,�4'0Z p + rr3.44 t �I"�i, ♦+r W , .� -Very High !►, vim' i'S' >� � � . - � , ° � �.� s artd Swaies VERY HIGH H1 very High HIGH Higli' H E t. , HIGH,Hrgh {H16H, Frlgl f ilc High T a. 1- eld ii,te,tc,wj c I o�d_��«..r 56Hrngedie tatty �^+� V Natural Feature Natwa; Arras bmrts Site Priority I axe Payettevme Watersheu Fayetteville City Lrm[s ° d �,,,�* } t?' Streamhk ans inventor „�,,.. y Fayetteville DO Other Streams PlawimgArea Fee Streambanxs Si Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville N Upper Northeast Tributaries :� HIGH,High ".HIGH,High " .3 y.,,vEav ° ". a✓ HIGH,i igh e �7. HIGH,H gh a r HIGH High hn � E" ®HIGH,High HIGH, �� Very High .. N r; ` 'p ". a 40 Prairie ." Ir I , c - :� o } Praise t No mention of brooks tPrairie," I .. _. Q d!Jc•: � Lori„ :,f 0',t.; ,yl,I� 1 - Pr nrne i..uld ;.. Prairie. - i• E?rnc�k menUcned 6 rinks w,de 4 h .-� mrt',.j Ic 't- " 4 y + Cacenr Day su-- Qpen Wcland +--- ., 5prMg Flan w—ds and Swales X,... AA�.A� .......««... .,. PondwVellarc LAM �8Yette lllle ba- 0 025 05 1 1,5 Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed 'Dotal Sediment Production to Lake Fayetteville Sediment Production from Other Sources - N Potential Water (duality Impact Sources Lake Fayetteville Watershed C a- C o O y ��, 6-. x, ■1 '� t- -- 1. • 4 Hh gill e 3L � F © O O O , _. +, o b O O 080 08 o NPDES Industrial Stormwater Perm,? Q 0 O NPDES Construction Stormwater Pormit q C Q o Chicken Houses o Septic Tanks o Springdale 0 Fayetteville p Inventory Streams 0 1 2 Miles Lake Fayetteville Watershed 7,,0 — - Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville Watershed Sources of Sediment and Phosphorus , 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 NVatersheds, Center for Watershed Protection 2005 The Lake Fayetteville Watershed falls under the "Impacted" category based on the Schueler Index xvith 15.6% Impervious Land Use in 2016, u F-r � a o � tr O O •- t 3-I cc 3-{ Land Use Level I Urban Agricultural Forest -land Water Wetlands Barren Lands Total 2006 Percent of 2016 Percent of Change Change of Total Total Basin 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 1.6% 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°%a 6001 6001 Riparian and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek Lake Fayetteville "'watershed ---- _- -------- Riparian and and Streambank Erosion Assessment of Clear Creek 1 • t ~4 7,� ! / �" _ _ ...____.._._ ....._�._.-_-_. � uwn 1 Y,tl� C.ItautCi 51 r.Yn« Lr n �,. •.•. Riparian Condition North East Clear Creek % of basin South East Clear Creek Scull Creek Clear Creek % of basin % of basin % of basin Riparian Both Sides >_ 50 ft 26.9% 7.0% 40.4% 62.7% Left Riparian < 50 ft, Right Riparian >_ 50 ft 12.1% 11.7% 32.2% 6.1% Left Riparian >_ 50 ft, Right Riparian < 50 ft 12.1% 0.0% 11.2% 6.7% Left Riparian _> 50 ft, No Right Riparian 13.3% 40.9% 6.3% 12.5% Right Riparian >_ 50 ft, No Left Riparian 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% Riparian Both Sides < 50 ft 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% Left Riparian < 50 ft, No Right Riparian 2.8% 2.2% 1.2% 3.7% Right Riparian < 50 ft, No Left Riparian 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% No Riparian Both Sides 30.3% 32.2% 8.7% 6.5% V `•1�1 �1 rY^� • t� }� 'v'J11 T AO cu v v, N Utd ate—+ . r+ rj� v • rM O O 11 �11;'IMM �t cu '35, 4-J 4-4 O 4-j 4-J ,� K"00 bo cu ;z 0 U ft 42 Ci 4-j cu 4-J V 4-J ft 03 (v rt 4-j cu R 4.J AF 4-J cu 00 t- WOW, • East Clear Creek Natural Areas 265i 93-W GIS Inventoried Natural Areas , Mo-nds ar,o Swalcs Name 4ftlfi Nort,. Slopo 04 Atrandoned Ghannei me Qpen Wetland Abdandloneo Crianrw4 Pried Backwater Channel Pond - spring red Channel Scar Spring Rur, East Slope 44 Spring Rur, - in Abandoned Channei Flritwoodri� 04 Welland Spring Fed Ali Udoe 0 Field Assessed Natural Feature Site If Lake Fayette,fle Watershed 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 .,... K �p K Bank ID BEHI NBSS Bank ID BEHI NBSS BEHI NBSS NFCC 8 MODFRATF Low CC 186 NECC 12 HIGH Moderate CC 196 NECC 20 HIGH Moderate CC 204 NECC 33 HIGH Modelite SC 208 NECC 56 I MODERATE Low SC 213 NFCC 73 MODFRATF Low SC 214 NECC 81 HIGH Moderate SC 227 NECC 106 HIGH Very High MC 249 NFCC 110 HIGH High CC 2.54 NECC 115 HIGH Moderate CC 260 NECC 119 VERYHIGH Very High CC 280 NFCC 122 HIGH Moderate CC 231 SECC 150 LOW I Low CC 283 VERY HIGH Very High CC -121 CC 327 CC 328 CC 343 CC 352 CC 355 CC 356a CC 356b CC 327 CC 388 CC 389 CC 411 CC 412 1 VERY HIGH Extreme MODERATE Low EXTREME Extreme MODERATE I li rh MODERATE High MODERATE High HIGH Moderate HIGH High VERY HIGH Moderate HIGH Moderate MODERATE Fxtreme MODERATE Moderate EXTREME Very High HIGH High EXTREME Extreme EXTREME Very High VERY HIGH High MODERATE High HIGH Very High MODERATE High HIGH Moderate MODERATE High HIGH High 1 HIGH Moderate MODERATE I Moderate SECC 152 HIGH Low SECC 157 11IGH Moderate SECC 164 HIGH Low Measured Streambank Profile -Osage 14 t 2006 Prcflle _ 20D7 Prafle era... o�re�oon 6 5 4 3 2 1 Horizontal Distance (ft) �m 5 4 0 3 m t 2 > 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 Low BEHI & NBSS v Q v � o '� V •� U tJy ..� rtt m au a'' u v .., -� '� -m 'O •O v 3 v '� 4-1 C • > p a� can ;..o " v' °J � a v � sue, v u� v ft z ft u� a� '� �-► 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 discharge 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 develope•s proposed plan for urban 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 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. 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 understanding that Fayetteville is a city that "can go green in a red state'. Please read the following article: https:l/archive.curbed.com/2020/2/28/21155997/fayetteville-environment-ozarks- 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 beyond the flooding concerns of every person in the path of Hilton Creek (including the Botanical Gardens). There has been significant evidence from multiple unrelated sources that Lake Fayetteville is in trouble. Pollution of Lake Fayetteville has reached the point where we are limiting access to the water because of the levels of blue green algae blooms secreting microcystin toxins. Again; if you stop and think about your role on City Council, how can you even consider this proposal? Sure, can 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 the 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 informaticn about the impact blue green algae had on Grand Lake St. Marys in Ohio. I grew up in Ohio. I am very familiar with this Lake. The first lake shutdown was in 2009. Between 2009 to 2015 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 mind that the lake waters are still closed. and they are still spending money on clean-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 out 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 the shore has reduced the number of native plants that helped to strengthen the shore and reduce erosion. Development has also increased the level of phosphates entering the lake by over fertilization of lawns. These excess phosphates directly contribute �.. .. �....� ........ dL. :....1..it.... sL... .. �...... :., t{... 1., �... r TM.. ....16 ... A..... a1. ,.♦ 1..... L....... w 1"""'j—v ', nwwwny I- myac m I- ianc.t , — —1- nuia u— .— -- 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 up 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://Iakeimprovement.com/video-fish-die-off-water-quality-update/ Clearly. I do not support a high -density housing development on the Burge Farm. think it is foolish. When I had the opportunity, I moved from an urban environment to the country. I wanted the privacy and quiet a rural setting provides. I am just one person. 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. I 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 systern. 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. PuhliC comment at a Cite Council mcetim-, shall be alloyed for all members oI'the audience who have si-ned up prior to the he,,innim, oFthe agenda item they wish to address being opened tin• public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maeinnun of live (5) minute; to be broken into segments of three and two minutc;.:Amendments mae rccciec public comments only if approved h;, the Cite Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment. speakers will only he allowed to speak Ibr three (3) minutes. [-he 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 I 0 Page 10 Photo 6 May, 2020 Following the water around this 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. A rough estimate of the flow, based on observed flow velocity and t-le estimated cross section of the channel, would be around 4 to 5 cubic feet per second at the maximum. This is a significant volume of water passirg through the yard. 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 control flooding at least once per year in the last three years. • The proposed development may increase the runoff by up to 60%. The actual runoff is directly dependent on the area covered by streets and housing. High density = High runoff. • The importance of comprehensive field data for the design phase cannot 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) * Applied Hydrogeology by C.W. Fetter, Jr., pgs 44-47 Chandler Crossing Geology- A Quick Look What is it? The geologic formations and structures exposed at the surface and directly under the subject property. Why is it important? The geology of the site has a direct bearing on the suitability of the site for development. Surface Geology At the surface the site appears to be ideal for building development being relatively flat with gentle slopes. The site is mostly covered by weathered Fayetteville Shale to the south of the White River fault that cuts across the site near Hilton Creek. The weathered shale is known to have high shrink/swell potential causing considerable to damage to homes, roads, sidewalks and other infrastructure built on this unstable material. Subsurface Geology The shale south of the fault is underlain by the Boone limestone formation that is known to have the typical features of karst topography. These karst features (sinkholes, caves, dry valleys) may or may not be present at the surface, but caves and sinkholes are present in the subsurface. Removal or penetration of the overlying clay/shale layer, caused by construction, will open the limestone aquifer directly to surface water infiltration and contamination. A direct connection between the aquifer in the Boone and Lake Fayetteville is extremely likely. North of the fault line the Boone is also covered by a layer of clay rich soil that is hydric in local areas. Surface water tends to stand for up to two or three days after significant rainfall. Shrink/swell clay soils act as a barrier reducing the flow of surface water into the underlying Boone limestone. White River Fault This fault cuts across the property in an approximate east -west orientation. Typically fault zones are not a sharp boundary, but are composed of crushed fragments of the rock units involved. These zones may be either a barrier or a passage for water, depending on the porosity of the crushed material fault zone. My opinion is that the weathered shale on the surface currently forms a barrier to surface water infiltration. With removal of the surface material, the fault zone could be transformed into a conduit for surface water into the Boone aquifer. Satellite Image The included image shows the subject property with the geologic information marked in the approximate positions as taken from the geologic worksheet of the area. Additional information can be made available to interested parties. I feel it is important to review all of the known information, because the Chandler Crossing development will have an impact not just on the local neighborhood, but also on Lake Fayetteville for years to come. Roy L. Lang Registered Professional Geologist (Retired) #1426 Proposed Chandler Crossing Site - Storm Water Runoff Revisited This is a summary of my original report, which was done over a two -week period last October, and is included in your packets. The rainfall during this time was used to provide some basic information about Hilton Creek channel capacity. Time and equipment constraints means this information should be taken to show trends, not absolute volumes of water. However, the elevation markers for previous rainfall events shown on the story pole photo in the report are reasonably accurate representations of the actual water level. The process of quantifying water movement over and through a natural watershed is difficult at best. The measurable runoff in a watershed is less than the rainfall total. To quantify maximum runoff precisely requires measurement of the flow draining the watershed over a minimum time period, ideally the annual peak of the rainfall cycle. Measuring rainfall is easy, measuring the runoff is much more complex and time consuming. The highlights from the report are as follows: • Runoff will increase with any housing development compared to the present condition. Runoff is conservatively estimated to increase by 60% or more for a high density development. • Hilton Creek has flooded at least once per year for the past 4 years, with overflow across Zion Road and neighboring properties. • Detention ponds from Copper Creek increase flooding, instead of helping to control flooding, due to insufficient detention time. As a final point, much of the land for the proposed development appears to be wetlands because of its location at the bottom of the watershed and the presence of standing water for days after rainfall. Mound and swale topography also serves the function of cleaning the water before it enters streams, lakes, and rivers. They have been compared to our own kidneys that filter out impurities. Chandler Crossing will be removing those kidneys and putting Lake Fayetteville on dialysis program, which will be designed by the developer... And finally, do we have any examples of the developer's past work dealing with similar flood control and water quality issues that are successful? Roy L. Lang Registered Professional Geologist #1426 (Retired) Proposed Site of Chandler Crossing Shrink/Swell Soil What is it? Shrink/swell potential is measured by the change in volume of the soil when there is a change in moisture content. If the soil cracks as it dries out, it has a higher potential as compared to soil that doesn't crack when dried. Why is this important? The site for proposed Chandler Crossing is entirely on soil that has weathered from the Fayetteville Shale, which is known for having high shrink/swell potential. Since the site is on the lower elevation of the Hilton Creek watershed, it will be subjected to wet and dry cycles each year for the life span of the development. The site will provide many challenges for the builder. Failure to meet these challenges will mean years of expensive repairs to homes, streets, sidewalks, and utility lines. At this point, my conclusion is that the site has just two redeeming qualities: • Flat • For Sale This link to a video shows what can happen in high clay soils with high moisture content, very much like the Chandler Crossing site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTPr53rcbrk Roy L. Lang Registered Professional Geologist (Retired) #1426 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* Charles Edgley Address or Ward* Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 2E44 E Frontier Elm Dr Ex. 113 W Mountain St Phone Number 4792953961 Email chuckedgley@gmail.com Meeting Body* Ciy Council and Planning Commission Agenda Item Chandler Crossing Development Number/Subject Rease click the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning CommissiDn Agenda Item Position Opposed Comments I am opposed to the Chandler Crossing Development for reasons that have been well -articulated by others. Thank you. 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 tcu all members of the audience who have signed up prior -o 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 il'approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed tier an amendment, speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Council may alloy 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 a I 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. 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* Susan Raymond • Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 3052 N.Hughmount Rd, Fayetteville 4 i 1 Phone Number Email Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item B 4 2020-1140 PZD-2020-002 (3435 E. ZION RD./CHANDLER Number/Subject CROSSING SD): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A REST Please dick the Sink below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position Comment Only Comments I am also concerned about a large PZD polluting Lake Fayetteville. This proposed subdivision is part of an ongoing larger problem for our city and the surrounding planning area. Recently there has been concern about the Fayetteville Industrial Park building in ways that threaten the middle fork of the White River (as well as a historic cemetery there). In the neighboring city of Centerton, a new "Links" proposed subdivision would threaten a bird and fish preserve. I know we have a "streamside ordinance" but perhaps this protection needs to be stronger. In the new st-bdivisions in my neighborhood (west Fayetteville) the reliance on sod grass (Bermuda grass) yards treated with herbicides seems so destructive to our fish, birds, pollinating insects. Yes, there is demand for housing, but can't the yards,. roads, parking lots have more limits, guidelines to protect our precious natural resources and wild areas that remain surrounding cur city. 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 I6r all members of the audience who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda itern they wish to acch-css being opened for public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of fiN e (5) minutes Io he hroken into segments ofthree and two minutes. Amendments may receive public comments only it approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. Ifpublic comment is allowed for an amendment. speakers Naill onlr be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The Cit- 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 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 6421 Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: April 4, 2021 Publication Charges: $77.52 &4& _s, Brittany Smith Subscribed and sworn to before me � This 6 day ofa, 2021. �4� ViL Cathy Wiles Notary Public Benton COUNTY My Commission Exires: ?�L�1 NOTARY PUBLIC—ARKANSAS p ?'`�' My Commission Expires 02.20.2024 Commission No,12397118 **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. Ordinance:6421 File Number: 2020-1140 PZD-2020-002 (3435 E. ZION RD./CHANDLER CROSSING SD): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED R-PZD 2020- 0002 FOR APPROXIMATELY 81.89 ACRES LOCATED AT 3435 EAST ZION ROAD 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 approves R-PZD 2020-0002 as described in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attached to the Planning Division's Memo which allows the development of 6.2 acres for commercial and multi- family uses, 39.63 acres for 340 residential units, and 36.06 acres for low -density residential and agricultural Uses. Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby approved to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section I PASSED and APPROVED on 3/162021 Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Attest: Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer 75399557 April 4, 2021