Appendix F  Technical Memorandum #6 – Public and Stakeholder Involvement, January 2012 Hidden Waters – Final Report Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study: Interstate 10 to State Route 74 Final – Technical Memorandum 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation Prepared For: Prepared By: January 2012 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 Technical Advisory Committee ............................................................................. 3 2.0 2.1 3.0 TAC Meetings ................................................................................................... 3 Public Involvement ............................................................................................... 4 3.1 Outreach Methods ............................................................................................ 4 3.2 Public Open House Meetings............................................................................ 4 3.2.1 Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting ........................................................... 4 3.2.2 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting ....................................... 5 3.2.3 Findings and Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting ..................... 7 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Hidden Waters Parkway Study Area/Preferred Alignment ............................. 2 Appendices Appendix A – Hidden Waters Parkway: TAC Meeting Summaries Appendix B – MCDOT Community Relations: Summary of Public Involvement Report Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation i Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 1.0 Introduction Building consensus between MCDOT, local agencies, jurisdictions, key stakeholders and the public is vital to the success of the Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study. Technical Memoranda 6 documents the general public involvement efforts and stakeholder participation of the Hidden Waters Parkway Study. 1.1 Background The Interstate-10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study) is a transportation planning document completed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) in 2008 that identified a comprehensive roadway network to meet future traffic demands in northwest Maricopa County. The roadway network recommended by the Hassayampa Framework Study is comprised of freeways, parkways and major arterial roads. The Hidden Waters Parkway was identified as a major link in this recommended transportation framework. The Hidden Waters Parkway North (Hidden Waters Parkway) Feasibility Study Area is located west of the Phoenix metropolitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona (Figure 1-1). The area west of the White Tank Mountains within the Hassayampa River Valley has been identified as an area where intense growth is anticipated to occur in the future. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) commissioned the Hidden Waters Parkway North Parkway Feasibility Study in response to this anticipated growth and the future need for a high-capacity roadway within this corridor. The study area includes the northern section of the Hidden Waters Parkway, as shown on the Hassayampa Framework Study, from Interstate 10 (I-10) north to the future alignment of State Route 74 (SR74). The study area is approximately 28 miles long and two miles wide, primarily centered about the Hassayampa Framework Study proposed alignment (baseline alignment) for the Hidden Waters Parkway, except in the area from Northern Avenue to Bell Road where the study area expands to two miles west of the baseline alignment and from the south end of Douglas Ranch to Patton Road where the study area expands to two miles east of the baseline alignment. This results in the study corridor being a total of three miles wide in these two areas (refer to Figure 1-1 for a graphic depiction of the study area). The proposed Hidden Waters Parkway corridor passes adjacent to, or through, several entitled Master Plan Communities (MPC) including: Millennium Ranch, Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch. At build-out, it is estimated that these communities may contain over 187,000 dwelling units. The need for a parkway within the Hidden Waters corridor is based upon projected development and is linked directly to the development of the previously mentioned MPC’s. It is important to identify a recommended alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway during the planning stages of the proposed MPC’s to ensure that adequate right-of-way will be preserved. The Hidden Waters Parkway study is to document conditions along the parkway corridor, identify potential fatal flaws and develop an alignment alternative that meets the future traffic needs identified in the Hassayampa Framework Study. The Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 1 Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 recommended alignment/roadway footprint that may be used as a guide for local agencies and development within the corridor is represented in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1 Hidden Waters Parkway Study Area/Preferred Alignment Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2 Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 2.0 Technical Advisory Committee A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to solicit feedback from partnering agencies and key stakeholders at multiple stages of the corridor feasibility study. The TAC and stakeholder group included representatives from the following agencies and interests:                Arizona Department of Transportation; Arizona Game and Fish Department; Arizona State Land Department; BLM Central Arizona Project; Developers (El Dorado Holdings, LKY Holdings, Harvard Investments, BET Investments); Federal Highway Administration; Flood Control District of Maricopa County; Utility Companies (SRP, APS, Western); Maricopa Association of Governments; Maricopa County Planning and Development; Maricopa County Department of Transportation; Property Owners/Residents; Town of Buckeye; Toyota Technical Testing Center. The TAC met four times over the course of the study to review progress, provide feedback/direction and build consensus on study recommendations. Additional study coordination meetings were held with TAC members as needed to understand concerns and establish consensus. TAC members were also invited to review and comment on all draft technical memoranda and the final report. 2.1 TAC Meetings TAC meetings were held at four key milestones over the course of the study. These meetings discussed the following topics:    April 13, 2011 – The purpose of this meeting was to present the Work Plan to the TAC. This meeting included a general project overview, definition of the corridor limits, key study goals and objectives, identification of study area issues, project schedules, relevant studies, etc. June 1, 2011 – This meeting was held to review the results of Technical Memoranda 1, 2, and 3, which described the existing and future corridor features, environmental overview and drainage overviews, respectively. August 18, 2011 – The third TAC meeting presented the results of Technical Memorandum 4, which discussed the development and evaluation of the candidate parkway alignments. Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 3 Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092  October 25, 2011 – The final TAC meeting was held to present the detailed analysis of the preferred alignment alternative and to develop consensus on the study recommendations. Appendix A presents summaries of the Hidden Waters Parkway TAC meetings. 3.0 Public Involvement The MCDOT RightRoads Program conducted three public meetings to solicit public feedback for the Hidden Waters Parkway Study. The “open-house” public meeting format was chosen because it provided a free, open and accurate exchange of information between area residents with specific issues or questions and the project team. 3.1 Outreach Methods The following outreach methods were used to inform and notify the general public and impacted residents about the study, public input meeting dates and locations and additional opportunities or means for input:       3.2 Media releases Newspaper articles Display advertisements in local and regional publications o Arizona Republic o West Valley View o Buckeye Valley News o Buckeye Star o Tonopah Tribune MCDOT website Partner agency mediums Direct mail flyers to adjacent property owners and previous meeting attendees Public Open House Meetings The open-house meetings were held to address critical milestones in the study process. Over 100 people attended the three public input meetings. Graphics, aerial photography and display exhibits presented corridor alternatives and study information. Study Fact Sheets and Comment Sheets were distributed to all those in attendance. The following sections summarize the input received during the three public open house meetings. The Summary of Public Involvement Report, prepared by MCDOT Community Relations staff, provides additional detail regarding the public open house meeting materials and is included in Appendix B. 3.2.1 Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Meeting Purpose: The first public open house was held during the initial scoping phase of the study to introduce the project to the community and to gather information from the residents about key study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 4 Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 also provided the study team members with an opportunity to discuss and elicit feedback regarding the study purpose, goals and objectives. Meeting Time and Location: 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., June 15, 2011 Tonopah Valley High School Cafeteria 38201 W. Indian School Road, Tonopah, AZ 85354 Attendance: 30 Meeting Comments:         There was a general concern from homeowners regarding how the study corridor would affect their property. The majority of these comments were received from residents of the Whispering Ranch Community. Several residents were excited about the proposed parkway and wanted to find out how soon it would be constructed. One resident questioned the need for the proposed parkway given the lack of existing development within the study area. Another resident commented on the importance of preserving the cultural and environmental resources within the study area. She was interested in learning if additional cultural resources surveys will be completed with this corridor feasibility study. One resident cited drainage issues within the Whispering Ranch community as a reason for needing additional roadways in the area. It becomes difficult/dangerous to drive through the community when the washes are flowing. Several residents were interested in learning more about the proposed roadway width and right-of-way requirements of the Arizona Parkway concept. They also expressed interest in how indirect left-turn/two-phase signal intersections would function. Several residents complimented MCDOT for planning roadway/parkway locations in advance of proposed development. One resident of Whispering Ranch asked if the parkway could follow an alignment between 303rd and 304th avenues, citing that there were fewer residential structures and wash crossing in that area than would be encountered by the Hassayampa Framework baseline alignment. 3.2.2 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Meeting Purpose: The second public meeting was held during the Alternatives Analysis phase of the study. The purpose of the meeting was to present the conceptual alignment alternatives to residents and provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the three Candidate Alternative alignments being evaluated for the corridor. Meeting Time and Location: 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., August 30, 2011 Nadaburg Elementary School Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 5 Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 21419 W. Dove Valley Road, Wittmann, AZ 85361 Attendance: 50 Meeting Comments:                      A road crossing the Hassayampa River is needed. One resident requested that the roadway be located on 299th Avenue through Whispering Ranch. Another resident was frustrated that the road would be built with their tax dollars. They felt that the parkway would not be needed because there is a freeway planned just 2 miles from Whispering Ranch that could be used. One person stated that “Alternative 2 is the alternative we support.” Residents wanted to know when the road will be built. Many meeting participants wanted to understand how their property would be affected and if/how it will be acquired. Another resident expressed strong opposition to Alternative 1. The design team was asked to be mindful of taking existing residents properties. One resident who owns property on 299th expressed their support for Alternative 2. Alternatives 2 & 3 have the least impact to existing residents in Whispering Ranch. This roadway will improve property values in the Whispering Ranch area. The road will make it easier for residents to get out of the Whispering Ranch area. Alternative number 2 seems to be the best option Alternative number 1 is not a good route as is located in the washes and cuts through the middle of Whispering Ranch. The proposed road would result in increased crime and will never be needed. The road should be built soon. Some type of all-weather crossing needs to be built on Patton Road across the Hassayampa River. Access off of the roadway should be provided to the local streets. A couple residents noted that their property is currently worth less than their original purchase price. They were concerned that potential payments from the County to purchase their property would not be enough to cover their mortgage balance. Another resident stated that “Alternative 2 is ok with me and my family”. One resident complimented the design team on how the meeting went. They stated, “We were impressed with the displays of graphs, maps, and the knowledgeable personnel to answer our questions. The planning and consideration of the impact of this project is very impressive. We look forward to the building of the corridor. We are comfortable with any of the proposed alignments. Thank you.” Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 6 Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 3.2.3 Findings and Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Purpose: The findings and recommendations of the study, including the preferred parkway alignment, a right-of-way footprint, and preliminary engineering details, were presented to the public during the final "Study Findings and Recommendations” public information meeting. Meeting Time and Location 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., November 9, 2011 Nadaburg Elementary School 21419 W. Dove Valley Road, Wittmann, AZ 85361 Attendance: 27 Meeting Comments:        Many of the residents were familiar with the project because they had attended the previous public meetings. They were most interested in learning how the preferred/recommended alignment related to their individual properties. Most of the comments received from residents were in favor of the preferred alignment. Several residents complimented the study team on identifying a preferred alignment that was sensitive to existing homes and topography. They also expressed appreciation for the level of detail that was included on the preferred alternative exhibits. Most residents wanted to know when the roadway would be constructed. The general consensus was that they would like to see construction begin sooner than later to improve access to their properties. Residents wanted to know when the County would begin right-of-way acquisition. It was explained that the current project is a long range transportation study, that funding has not been identified for any improvements and there is no current timeline to predict when right-of-way acquisition will begin. Residents were interested in learning more about the level of access that they will have from the proposed roadway. One resident of Whispering Ranch expressed concern about the potential effects of the study (when finalized) on her resale capability in the interim between study completion and construction. One out of state land owner (10 acres in Whispering Ranch) informed the design team of their support for the project. They stated, “I, as well as many other land owners, have long awaited the development of Whispering Ranch and neighboring Douglas Ranch – the parkway would be a welcomed start to the future development of the area, hopefully with utilities to soon follow.” Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation 7 Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 Appendix A  Hidden Waters Parkway: TAC Meeting Summaries Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 AGENDA Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 (proposed) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #1 April 13, 2011, 1:30 pm MCDOT Conference Room 1) Introductions 2) TAC Committee: Roles and Responsibilities a) Stakeholders b) Technical Review Members 3) Work Plan a) Project Overview b) Corridor Limits c) Goals and Objectives d) Key Corridor Issues e) Schedule f) Relevant Studies g) Evaluation Measures 4) TAC Member Input a) Next TAC Meeting (May/June) 5) Other Action Items Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 alignment Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #1 TO: X X X X X X X X X X X Charla Glendening Scott Omer Bob Bott Craig Stegmeier Jim Looney Larry Krueger Bobby Garza Phil Hobday Dana Warnecke Kelly Wolff-Krauter Tab Bommarito Troy Smith Ed Dietrich Gordon Taylor Kay McNeely Manny Patel Mark Edelman Susan Demmitt Jo Ann Goodlow Aaron Ashcroft Linda Chenney Michael Cronin Jeff Klem Elijah Williams Matt Truitt Sharon Gordon Tom Deitering Valerie Swick Chris Cacheris Kimberley Korp Joe Liberty Bill Ring Robyn Calihan Tim Strow Jeanette Fish Al Kattan Denise Lacey Hugh Davidson James Sargent Joe Pinto Nicolaas Swart Roberta Crowe Tom Sonnemanm Wayne Butch ADOT ADOT APS APS APS APS APS Distribution APS Transmission Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD Belmont BLM Central Arizona Project El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas Ranch El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas Ranch Elliot Homes EPS Group Inc EPS Group Inc FHWA FHWA Flood Control District of Maricopa County Havard Investments/ Hassayampa Ranch Havard Investments/ Hassayampa Ranch Liberty Southwest Realty/Whispering Ranch LKY Holdings/Bellmont LKY Holdings/Belmont MAG Maricopa Co. Farm Bureau MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT cglendening@azdot.gov somer@azdot.gov robert.bott@aps.com Craig.Stegmeier@aps.com James.Looney@aps.com Lawrence.Krueger@aps.com baldemar.garza@aps.com philip.hobday@aps.com dwarnecke@azgfd.gov kWolff-Krauter@azgfd.gov TBommarito@azgfd.gov trsmith@azgfd.gov edietrich@land.az.gov Gtaylor@land.az.gov kmcneely@land.az.gov mpatel@land.az.gov medelman@land.az.gov sdemmitt@beusgilbert.com joann_goodlow@blm.gov aashcroft@cap-az.com lcheney@eldoradoholdings.net mcronin@eldoradoholdings.net j.klem@elliotthomesaz.com elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com matt.truitt@epsgroupinc.com sharon.gordon@dot.gov tom.deitering@dot.gov vas@mail.maricopa.gov Chriscacheris@harvardinvestments.com kimkorp@harvardinvestments.com JoeLiberty@cox.net ringeraz@yahoo.com rcalihan@lkydev.com tstrow@mag.maricopa.gov mcfb@qwestoffice.net AlKattan@mail.maricopa.gov deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov hughdavidson@mail.maricopa.gov JamesSargent@mail.maricopa.gov joepinto@mail.maricopa.gov nicolaasswart@mail.maricopa.gov robertacrowe@mail.maricopa.gov TomSonnemann@mail.maricopa.gov WayneButch@mail.maricopa.gov X X X X X Noel Griemsmann John Wood Elijah Lubandi Floyd Hardin Steve Lopez Wayne Darby Paula Atkins Adam Zaklikowski Becky Bratcher Brian Kulina Jackie Meck Paul Ward Ray Strauss Scott Zipprich Stephen Cleveland Woody Scoutten Richard Mayes Jessica Herndon Jo Penunuri Toyota Technical Testing Center SRP - Distribution SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission Maintenance Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye W Holdings WAPA WAPA ngriemsmann@swlaw.com john.wood@srpnet.com elijah.lubandi@srpnet.com floyd.hardin@srpnet.com steven.lopez@srpnet.com wayne.darby@srpnet.com paula.atkins@srpnet.com azaklikowski@buckeyeaz.gov becky@scoutten.com bkulina@buckeyeaz.gov jmeck@buckeyeaz.gov pward@scoutten.com rstrauss@buckeyeaz.gov scott@scoutten.com scleveland@buckeyeaz.gov woody@scoutten.com richardm@wholdings.com Herndon@wapa.gov penunuri@wapa.gov X = Attended Meeting DISTRIBUTION DATE: April 18, 2011 DATE OF MEETING: April 13, 2011 SUBJECT: TAC Meeting #1 Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. 2010-054 TIME/PLACE: April 13, 2011 at 1:30 P.M. MCDOT Conference Room 2901 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 FROM: Elijah Williams, Project Manager, EPS Group Inc. 2045 S Vineyard, Suite 101 Mesa, AZ 85210 Phone: 480-503-2250 Fax:: 480-503-2258 elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com ATTACHMENTS:  Sign-in sheet  Presentation Slides The meeting notes for the aforementioned project are attached for your information and use. If you have any questions, please contact me at (480) 503-2250. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study Page 3 of 3 Introductions The meeting started with introductions of the participants. Purpose of TAC Elijah cited the need to build consensus between MCDOT, local agencies/ jurisdictions, and key stakeholders regarding the direction, goals, and outcomes of this study as the reason for forming this Technical Advisory Committee. Technical review members will be asked to provide feedback on the technical memoranda prepared for this study. Work Plan Elements (refer to presentation handout) Elijah reviewed previous transportation planning studies, including the Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study that identified the need for the Hidden Waters Parkway. This project will be completed in two phases. During the initial planning phase of the study, the corridor features will be described to identify potential opportunities/constraints that need to be considered when developing candidate parkway alignments. The second phase will develop and evaluate potential parkway alignments that are responsive to the study corridor features. The limits of the study area were presented to the TAC, and the goals/objectives identified during the project scoping meeting were also reviewed. Key issues identified during the preliminary investigation of the study area were discussed. These issues included potential impacts to existing and proposed developments, other land owners, utility stakeholders, and drainage and environmental considerations. The relevant design guidelines to be used when developing candidate parkway alignments, including an example of a typical AZ parkway section, were presented to the TAC. Elijah also reviewed the general evaluation criteria that will be used to screen the candidate alignments. TAC members were given the opportunity to suggest additional evaluation criteria to consider. The work plan presentation concluded with a discussion of the project schedule. TAC Member Input Members of the TAC were asked to comment on the proposed work plan for this study. The following bullets capture the feedback that was received:  Floyd Hardin from SRP wanted to be sure that potential impacts to their transmission facilities were adequately identified and addressed. He indicated that there may be additional transmission facilities in the area that were not reflected on the preliminary key issues map. He suggested that Jim Looney, from APS, be contacted to make sure that the transmission line locations were up-to-date.  Adam Zaklikowski (Town of Buckeye) stated that work plan was put together well. He did ask that the basis for the centerline of the study area (i.e. the Hassayampa Framework alignment) be clearly identified to avoid the impression that a recommended alignment has already been selected.  Tab Bommarito indicated that AZ Game and Fish will want to make sure that proposed alignment alternatives do not negatively impact known wildlife linkage zones in the area. He suggested the CAP canal as a potential east-west linkage corridor through the study area that might not have been considered. Next TAC Meeting The next TAC meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 1, 2011. A formal meeting invitation/agenda will be circulated closer to the meeting date. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study: I-10 to SR 74 TAC Meeting No.1 April 13, 2011 AGENDA Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 (proposed) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #1 April 13, 2011, 1:30 pm MCDOT Conference Room 1. Introductions 2. TAC Committee: Roles and Responsibilities a. Stakeholders b. Technical Review Members 3. Work Plan a. Project Overview b. Corridor Limits c. Goals and Objectives d. Key Corridor Issues e. Schedule f. Relevant Studies g. Evaluation Measures 4. TAC Member Input a. Next TAC Meeting (May/June) 5. Other Action Items Prior Studies • Interstate 10-Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, MAG, September 2007 • Interstate 8 and 10: Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study, MAG, October 2009 • Hassayampa Framework Study for the Wickenburg Area, MAG, ongoing. • Town of Buckeye General Plan, Town of Buckeye, January 2008. • Town of Buckeye Preliminary Transportation Master Plan, Town of Buckeye, December 2009. • Other Corridor Studies Project Overview Phase I – Planning Phase Phase II – Develop Candidate and Preferred Alignments Task 1.0 Task 2.0 Task 3.0 Task 5.0 Task 6.0 Work Plan Corridor Features Environmental Overview Candidate Alignments Preferred Alignment •Schedule •Physical Features •Definition of Study Area •Utilities •Purpose and Objectives •Cultural Resources •Develop Feasible Alternatives •Refine Preferred Alignment •Roadway Conditions •Biology •Land Use •Schematic Drawings •Refine ROW Requirements •Right-of-way •Study Process •Access Conditions •Socioeconomic data •Evaluate Drainage Crossings •Implementation Plan •Data Collection •Roadway Network •Visual Resources •Design Standards •Water Quality •Opinion of Probable Costs •Detail Drainage Crossing •Future Land Use •Stakeholder Coordination •Relevant Plans •Hazardous Materials •Key Issues •Evaluation Criteria •Existing Topography •Special Interest Areas •Key Features •Gather GIS Data •Noise Impact •Air Quality Task 4.0 Drainage Overview •Existing Drainage Reports •Concentration Points •Existing Drainage Issues Public/Stakeholder Involvement •Evaluation Criteria/Matrix •Evaluation of Alternatives •Recommend Alignment Task 7.0 Document Public/Stakeholder Involvement Task 8.0 Documentation/ Final Report Work Plan Elements • Corridor Limits • Goals and Objectives • Characterize study corridor • Identify opportunities & constraints • Develop/Evaluate alignments • Recommend preferred alignment • Establish connectivity throughout corridor • Consistency with ongoing studies • Consider MPC circulation elements • Identify environmental issues • Consider impacts to ASLD lands • Minimize roadway development costs • Limit impacts to Whispering Ranch • Maintain Confidentiality of Toyota Testing Center • Identify potential implementation plan Key Issues • Existing/Proposed Development • Hassayampa Ranch • Belmont • Douglas Ranch • Whispering Ranch • Other Issues/Opportunities • ASLD (Access/Developability) • BLM (Wildlife Corridors) • Toyota Testing Center (Confidentiality) • Utilities • CAP Canal • WAPA & APS Transmission Lines • Drainage/Washes • Environmental Considerations Relevant Design Guidelines • Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, MCDOT, August 2008 • Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, MCDOT, August 2009. • Freeway to Parkway Interchange Template, ADOT, October 2010. • MCDOT Roadway Design Manual, Revised April 2004, MCDOT, April 2004. Source: Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, Figure 6-2, MCDOT, August 2008 Evaluation Criteria • • • • • • • • • • • Affected Parcels Consistency with approved Development/MPC Plans Additional Right of Way Required (sf/acre) Estimated Right of Way Cost Buildings Affected Constructability Issues Engineering Complexity Environmental Issues Potential Utility Conflicts Public Acceptability Functionality Project Schedule Correction • The Figure in Slide 7 came from the Hassayampa Framework Study, not the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway Source: Hassayampa Framework Study, Figure 6-2, MAG, September 2007 • The appropriate parkway cross-section per Figure 2 of the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, MCDOT, August 2008 is as follows: AGENDA Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 (proposed) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #2 June 1, 2011, 1:30 pm MCDOT Conference Room 1) Introductions 2) Results of Planning Phase Evaluations (Completed Tech Memos) a) Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Corridor Features b) Technical Memorandum 2: Environmental Overview c) Technical Memorandum 3: Drainage Overview 3) Stakeholder meetings - Update 4) TAC Member Input 5) Next Steps a) Public Open House b) Develop and Evaluate Candidate Alignments c) Next TAC Meeting (August) d) Refine Preferred Alignment 6) Other Items Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 alignment Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #2 TO: X X X X X X X X X X X X X Charla Glendening Scott Omer Bob Bott Craig Stegmeier Jim Looney Larry Krueger Bobby Garza Phil Hobday Dana Warnecke Kelly Wolff-Krauter Tab Bommarito Troy Smith Ed Dietrich Gordon Taylor Kay McNeely Manny Patel Mark Edelman Susan Demmitt Jo Ann Goodlow Aaron Ashcroft Linda Chenney Michael Cronin Jeff Klem Elijah Williams Matt Truitt Sharon Gordon Tom Deitering Jennifer Brown Valerie Swick Chris Cacheris Kimberley Korp Ted Lehman Joe Liberty Bill Ring Robyn Calihan Micah Henry Tim Strow Jeanette Fish Al Kattan Denise Lacey Hugh Davidson James Sargent Joe Pinto Nicolaas Swart Roberta Crowe ADOT ADOT APS APS APS APS APS Distribution APS Transmission Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD Belmont BLM Central Arizona Project El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas Ranch El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas Ranch Elliot Homes EPS Group Inc EPS Group Inc FHWA FHWA FHWA Flood Control District of Maricopa County Havard Investments/ Hassayampa Ranch Havard Investments/ Hassayampa Ranch JE Fuller Liberty Southwest Realty/Whispering Ranch LKY Holdings/Bellmont LKY Holdings/Belmont MAG MAG Maricopa Co. Farm Bureau MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT cglendening@azdot.gov somer@azdot.gov robert.bott@aps.com Craig.Stegmeier@aps.com James.Looney@aps.com Lawrence.Krueger@aps.com baldemar.garza@aps.com philip.hobday@aps.com dwarnecke@azgfd.gov kWolff-Krauter@azgfd.gov TBommarito@azgfd.gov trsmith@azgfd.gov edietrich@land.az.gov Gtaylor@land.az.gov kmcneely@land.az.gov mpatel@land.az.gov medelman@land.az.gov sdemmitt@beusgilbert.com joann_goodlow@blm.gov aashcroft@cap-az.com lcheney@eldoradoholdings.net mcronin@eldoradoholdings.net j.klem@elliotthomesaz.com elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com matt.truitt@epsgroupinc.com sharon.gordon@dot.gov tom.deitering@dot.gov Jennifer.brown@dot.gov vas@mail.maricopa.gov Chriscacheris@harvardinvestments.com kimkorp@harvardinvestments.com ted@jefuller.com JoeLiberty@cox.net ringeraz@yahoo.com rcalihan@lkydev.com mhenry@azmag.gov tstrow@mag.maricopa.gov mcfb@qwestoffice.net AlKattan@mail.maricopa.gov deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov hughdavidson@mail.maricopa.gov JamesSargent@mail.maricopa.gov joepinto@mail.maricopa.gov nicolaasswart@mail.maricopa.gov robertacrowe@mail.maricopa.gov X X X X Tom Sonnemanm Wayne Butch Noel Griemsmann John Wood Elijah Lubandi Floyd Hardin Steve Lopez Wayne Darby Paula Atkins Adam Zaklikowski Becky Bratcher Brian Kulina Jackie Meck Paul Ward Ray Strauss Scott Zipprich Stephen Cleveland Woody Scoutten Richard Mayes Jessica Herndon Jo Penunuri Jeffrey Kracht Mary Kracht MCDOT MCDOT Toyota Technical Testing Center SRP - Distribution SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission Maintenance Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye W Holdings WAPA WAPA Whispering Ranch Whispering Ranch/Arizona Pacific TomSonnemann@mail.maricopa.gov WayneButch@mail.maricopa.gov ngriemsmann@swlaw.com john.wood@srpnet.com elijah.lubandi@srpnet.com floyd.hardin@srpnet.com steven.lopez@srpnet.com wayne.darby@srpnet.com paula.atkins@srpnet.com azaklikowski@buckeyeaz.gov becky@scoutten.com bkulina@buckeyeaz.gov jmeck@buckeyeaz.gov pward@scoutten.com rstrauss@buckeyeaz.gov scott@scoutten.com scleveland@buckeyeaz.gov woody@scoutten.com richardm@wholdings.com Herndon@wapa.gov penunuri@wapa.gov kracht@azmag.gov mary@arizonapacificrealestate.com X = Attended Meeting DISTRIBUTION DATE: June 8, 2011 DATE OF MEETING: June 1, 2011 SUBJECT: TAC Meeting #2 Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. 2010-054 TIME/PLACE: June 1, 2011 at 1:30 P.M. MCDOT Conference Room 2901 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 FROM: Elijah Williams, Project Manager, EPS Group Inc. 2045 S Vineyard, Suite 101 Mesa, AZ 85210 Phone: 480-503-2250 Fax:: 480-503-2258 elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com ATTACHMENTS:  Sign-in sheet  Presentation Slides  Public Open House Notification Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study Page 3 of 4 The meeting notes for the aforementioned project are attached for your information and use. If you have any questions, please contact me at (480) 503-2250. Introductions The meeting started with introductions of the participants. Results of the Planning Phase Evaluations (refer to presentation handout) The initial planning phase of the study is drawing to a close. The existing and future corridor features have been characterized in Technical Memoranda 1-3.  Tech Memo No. 1 Existing and Future Corridor Features  Tech Memo No. 2 Environmental Overview  Tech Memo No. 3 Drainage Overview The corridor features were characterized to identify potential opportunities/constraints that need to be considered when developing candidate parkway alignments. Elijah reviewed previous transportation planning studies, including the Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study that identified the need for the Hidden Waters Parkway. The Hidden Waters Parkway is located within the jurisdictional limits of the Town of Buckeye and unincorporated Maricopa County. Roughly 78% of the study area is privately owned. The remaining portions are owned by ASLD (12%), BLM (9%), and the BOR (1%). Existing and future land uses were presented to the TAC. There are localized regions of residential parcels near the southern and northern limits of the study area; otherwise the majority of the land is undeveloped. The future land use includes several master planned comminutes (Belmont, Millennium Ranch, Hassayampa Ranch, & Douglas Ranch). These planned communities include over 187,000 entitled residential properties. The TAC also discussed the existing topographic and drainage features, including delineated floodplains, within the study area. Drainages generally flow from north to south/southeast through the study area. Over 84 proposed wash crossings were identified through the approximate center of the study area. An overview of the existing and proposed utilities was given. A special interest area was identified near the center of the study area where two Western overhead transmission corridors converge and cross the CAP canal in the vicinity of a proposed APS overhead transmission corridor. It was noted during a discussion of environmental considerations that only ~15% of the study area has been surveyed for cultural resources. These previous surveys identified one lithic scatter (near the CAP) and one historic road (Indian School Rd) that were considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. There is no previously identified suitable/critical habitat for endangered species within the study area. Certain environmental justice populations (including the elderly and disabled) occur in greater numbers within the northern half of the study area (compared to Town of Buckeye and Maricopa County averages). Existing and Future traffic conditions were presented to the TAC. The future traffic projections, which identified need for the Hidden Waters Parkway, were taken directly from the MAG Hassayampa Framework Study. The special interest areas identified in the planning phase of this study were summarized in graphic and tabular form. The proposed evaluation criteria to address the special interest areas were also reviewed. Roberta Crowe circulated the meeting notification for the Public Open House to be held June 15th at 5:00pm. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study Page 4 of 4 TAC Member Input Members of the TAC were asked to comment on the material presented during the meeting. The following bullets capture the feedback that was received:  Mary Kracht asked how individual land owners will be allowed to provide feedback on conceptual parkway alignments. Denise stated that the public will be given the opportunity to provide feedback during three separate open houses to be held in the future. The second of these scheduled public open houses will specifically solicit public feedback on conceptual parkway alignments.  Micah Henry from MAG asked for clarification on the dashed linetypes included on the proposed development exhibit. Elijah explained that the dashed lines highlight the parkway and freeway alignments as they are proposed in the approved development master plans (Belmont, Hassayampa Ranch, and Douglas Ranch).  Joe Liberty, representing the Whispering Ranch community, want to know how best to communicate study information to existing/potential land owners. Roberta stated that it would be appropriate for him to forward copies of MCDOT’s public meeting notifications to land owners provided that no alterations are made to the material. Denise also noted that a web page will be set-up on MCDOT’s web site for the Hidden Waters Parkway North corridor feasibility study to convey project information to the public.  Gordon Taylor stated that ASLD will wait until conceptual alignments have been developed before commenting.  Jim Sargent from MCDOT’s traffic department commented on the proximity of the Hidden Waters Parkway to the proposed Hassayampa Freeway. He noted that there may be challenges to accommodate access to both facilities so close to each other.  Paul Ward asked about the clearance requirements between the proposed parkway and existing overhead transmission towers. Western has indicated to EPS on two occasions that they will require 50ft of clearance around their existing towers. Next TAC Meeting The next TAC meeting is tentatively scheduled for early August. A formal meeting invitation/agenda will be circulated closer to the meeting date. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study: I-10 to SR 74 TAC Meeting No.2 June 1, 2011 AGENDA Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 (proposed) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #2 June 1, 2011, 1:30 pm MCDOT Conference Room 1. Introductions 2. Results of Planning Phase Evaluations (Completed Tech Memos) a. Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Corridor Features b. Technical Memorandum 2: Environmental Overview c. Technical Memorandum 3: Drainage Overview 3. Stakeholder Meetings: Update 4. TAC Member Input 5. Next Steps 6. a. Public Open House b. Develop and Evaluate Candidate Alignments c. Next TAC Meeting (August) d. Refine Preferred Alignment Other Items Prior Studies • Interstate 10-Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study, MAG, September 2007 • Interstate 8 and 10: Hidden Valley Transportation Framework Study, MAG, October 2009 • Hassayampa Framework Study for the Wickenburg Area, MAG, ongoing. • Town of Buckeye General Plan, Town of Buckeye, January 2008. • Town of Buckeye Preliminary Transportation Master Plan, Town of Buckeye, December 2009. • Other Corridor Studies Project Overview Phase I – Planning Phase Phase II – Develop Candidate and Preferred Alignments Task 1.0 Task 2.0 Task 3.0 Task 5.0 Task 6.0 Work Plan Corridor Features Environmental Overview Candidate Alignments Preferred Alignment •Schedule •Physical Features •Definition of Study Area •Utilities •Purpose and Objectives •Cultural Resources •Develop Feasible Alternatives •Refine Preferred Alignment •Roadway Conditions •Biology •Land Use •Schematic Drawings •Refine ROW Requirements •Right-of-way •Study Process •Access Conditions •Socioeconomic data •Evaluate Drainage Crossings •Implementation Plan •Data Collection •Roadway Network •Visual Resources •Design Standards •Water Quality •Opinion of Probable Costs •Detail Drainage Crossing •Future Land Use •Stakeholder Coordination •Relevant Plans •Hazardous Materials •Key Issues •Evaluation Criteria •Existing Topography •Special Interest Areas •Key Features •Gather GIS Data •Noise Impact •Air Quality Task 4.0 Drainage Overview •Existing Drainage Reports •Concentration Points •Existing Drainage Issues Public/Stakeholder Involvement •Evaluation Criteria/Matrix •Evaluation of Alternatives •Recommend Alignment Task 7.0 Document Public/Stakeholder Involvement Task 8.0 Documentation/ Final Report Hidden Waters North CFS Study Area/Jurisdictions 78% 12% 9% 1% Note: Roadway alignments shown are approximate based on the Hassayampa Framework Study and may be revised based on further, more detailed study. Data source: MCDOT GIS: Elec_Cities.shp, alris_own.shp & Town of Buckeye Planning GIS mpa.shp Hidden Waters North CFS Existing Land Use Note: Roadway alignments shown are approximate based on the Hassayampa Framework Study and may be revised based on further, more detailed study. Data source: MCDOT GIS: MAG_genplan_landuse07.shp, mag_landuse2009.shp & Town of Buckeye Planning GIS landuse_2009 1008.shp Proposed Development • • • • Belmont • LKY Development • Date of Approval June 2008 • 24,800 acres • 78,370 Dwelling Units Millennium Ranch • BET Investments, Inc. • Date of Approval: June 2010 • 773 acres • 3,186 Dwelling Units Hassayampa Ranch • Harvard Investments • Date of Approval: January 2007 • 2,078 acres • 5,707 Dwelling Units Douglas Ranch • El Dorado Holdings • Date of Approval: February 2010 • 33,800 acres • 100,000 Dwelling Units Hidden Waters North CFS Delineated Floodplains 84 identified drainage crossings through the center of the study area Data source: MCDOT GIS: fpznfcd.shp, fpznfema.shp, elvln_1280.shp, Existing/Prop Utilities • • • • • • • • • AT&T • Two transcontinental FO lines near Indian School Rd ADOT • 8 drainage structures along I-10 APS • 69kV along Indian School Rd, switching yard, 12kV distribution • 69kV and 12kV within Whispering Ranch, + substation • Proposed 500kV along CAP CAP • Main Canal & associated electrical and FO facilities Qwest • Data Requested Sprint • FO line along Indian School Rd Western • 230kV (Liberty-Parker double circuit) • 345kV (Mead-Liberty) • 500kV (Mead-Phoenix) Zona Communications • Overhead FO in Whispering Ranch ADWR Well Sites • 139 registered sites Environmental Considerations • Cultural • ~15% Study Area Surveyed for Cultural Resources • Five cultural resource sites identified (3 not eligible for NRHP) • Indian School Road and one lithic scatter recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP • • Natural Resources • No suitable/critical habitat for endangered species • Northern study area contains suitable habitat for Sonoran desert tortoise & California leaf-nosed bat • Wildlife Linkage Corridors Land Use and Socioeconomics • Environmental justice populations (elderly and disabled) occur in greater number within the northern half of the study area. Existing Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Road Segment 2640' north of Thomas Road 3545' north of to Thomas Road 3865' north of to Thomas Road Thomas Road to 2640' north of Thomas Road 3545' north of Thomas Road 3865' north of Thomas Road 339th Avenue Indian School Road/ Tonopah-Salome Hwy. West/South East/North of Total of Centerline/ Centerline/ Width Sectionline Sectionline to Indian School Road 40' 40' 80' 0' 40' 40' 40' 40' 80' 0' 40' 40' 65' 0' 65' 2640' north of Indian School Road to Indian School Road 3960' north of 2640' north of to Indian School Road Indian School Road 3960' north of to Camelback Road Indian School Road Bethany Home Camelback Road to Road Bethany Home to Northern Avenue Road 65' 32' 97' 65' 65' 130' 0' 0' 0' 75' 75' 150' Northern Avenue to Olive Avenue 0' 75' 75' Olive Avenue to Peoria Avenue 75' 75' 150' 20' 20' 40' 55' 55' 110' 5280' west of 339th to Avenue 5280' east of 339th to Avenue 339th Ave 339th Ave Existing Traffic Conditions Road Segement 339th Ave. 5962' North of I-10 to Indian School Road Indian School 347th Avenue to Road 331st Avenue 299th Avenue to Patton Road 5280' East of 299th Avenue Patton Road to 299th Avenue Peak View Road 299th Avenue to Peak View 5280' West of 299th Road Avenue Length Existing Facility (Miles) 1.0 2-lane minor arterial Width (Feet) Surface Type Pavement Condition Year Built ADT (2010) 30 Asphaltic Rubber Very Good 1982 941 Not Reported Not Reported 213 2 2-lane minor arterial 28 Not Reported 1 2-lane major collector 28 Penetration Chip Good 1989 500 0.5 2-lane local road 28 Asphaltic Concrete Excellent 1991 466 1 2-lane local road 28 Asphaltic Concrete Excellent 1991 411 Future Traffic Conditions Hidden Waters Parkway North Segement From To I‐10 Thomas Rd. Thomas Rd. Indian School Rd. Indian School Rd. Camelback Rd. Camelback Rd. Bethany Home Rd. Bethany Home Rd. Glendale Ave. Glendale Ave. Northern Ave. Northern Ave. Olive Ave. Olive Ave. Peoria Ave. Peoria Ave. Cactus Ave. Cactus Ave. Waddel Ave. Waddel Ave. Greenway Rd. Greenway Rd. Bell Rd. Bell Rd. Union Hills Dr. Union Hills Dr. Beardsley Rd. Beardsley Rd. Deer Valley Rd. Deer Valley Rd. Pinnacle Peak Rd. Happy Valley Rd. Pinnacle Peak Rd. Happy Valley Rd. Jomax Rd. Jomax Rd. Patton Rd. Patton Rd. Dixileta Dr. Dixileta Dr. Lone Mountain Rd. Lone Mountain Rd. Dove Valley Rd. Dove Valley Rd. Carefree Highway (alignment) Carefree Highway (alignment) Black Mountain Rd. Average Daily Traffic 2030 Build‐out 15,000 65,000 13,000 68,000 10,000 67,000 12,000 59,000 13,000 63,000 10,000 34,000 10,000 34,000 11,000 30,000 12,000 51,000 7,000 34,000 7,000 34,000 11,000 47,000 4,000 49,000 4,000 41,000 3,000 47,000 3,000 47,000 2,000 45,000 1,000 67,000 1,000 45,000 1,000 45,000 < 1,000 43,000 < 1,000 43,000 < 1,000 31,000 < 1,000 32,000 Proposed Functional Class: Arizona Parkway Parkway Typical Section (Urban 6-lane section) Special Interest Areas # Opportunity/ Constraint 1 2 3 4 5 6 Drainage 7 8 9 10 11 Ownership 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Utility Existing Commercial Existing Residential Proposed Residential Description Opportunity to avoid numerous wash crossings by locating alignments on adjacent ridgelines Centerline of study area aligned with long stretch of existing wash Bridge likely required to cross Jackrabbit Wash CAP siphon beneath Jackrabbit Wash Daggs Wash Flume over the CAP canal Study area passes through complex braided floodplain area Opportunity to avoid numerous wash crossings by locating alignments on adjacent ridgelines Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Land Management Numerous existing well sites Overhead 69kV and 12kV Transmission Lines (APS), Buried fiber optic lines (AT&T, Sprint) APS Switching Station Overhead 230kV Transmission Lines, Double Circuit (Western) Overhead 345kV Transmission Lines (Western) CAP canal Proposed Overhead 500kV Transmission Lines (APS) Overhead 69kV and 12kV Transmission Lines (APS) Overhead fiber optic lines (Zona Communications) Overhead 500kV Transmission Lines (Western) Numerous existing well sites Existing Sand & Gravel Operations Toyota Arizona Proving Grounds Existing Large Lot Residential Parcels Existing Large Lot Residential Parcels Existing Community of Whispering Ranch Proposed Millennium Ranch Development Proposed Hassayampa Ranch Development Proposed Belmont Master Planned Community Proposed Douglas Ranch Community Master Plan Evaluation Criteria • • • • • • • • • • Affected Parcels Consistency with approved Development/MPC Plans Right of Way Required Buildings Affected Constructability Issues Engineering Complexity Environmental Issues Potential Utility Conflicts Public Acceptability Functionality Project Schedule MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION We Need Your Input Public Open House Hidden Waters Parkway (North) Corridor Feasibility Study Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Tonopah Valley High School 38201 W. Indian School Road Tonopah, AZ 85354 (west of Wintersburg Road) I-10 to future SR74 Alignment Public “Scoping” Meeting The Maricopa County Department of Transportation’s (MCDOT) RightRoads Program is conducting the first in a series of three public input meetings being conducted through the course of this long-range transportation study to gather community feedback about future roadway improvements along the Hidden Waters Parkway corridor between I-10 and the future SR74 alignment. The study area includes the northern section of the Hidden Waters Parkway from Interstate 10 northward to the future alignment of State Route 74 as depicted in the 2008 Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study. alignment except in the area between Northern Avenue and Bell Road, where the study area expands two miles west of the Hidden Waters Parkway alignment, and from the south end of Douglas Ranch to Patton Road, where the study area expands two miles east of the alignment, for a total study area width of three miles in these two areas. The primary purpose of this Corridor Feasibility Study is to identify the optimum corridor for the future Hidden Waters Parkway alignment In order to preserve sufficient public right-of-way and protect the future roadway corridor from development and encroachment. Community input is one of the first steps in the roadway development process and an important component of this long-range transportation corridor study to identify and protect a continuous future Hidden Waters Parkway roadway corridor that will safely accommodate ultimate traffic demands within the study area (projected build-out Year 2050+). This first Public “Scoping” Meeting will provide area residents and other impacted study stakeholders with an opportunity to inform study team members about existing conditions and issues within the study area and future transportation needs. This meeting will also serve to elicit your feedback regarding the study’s purpose, goals and overall objectives, as well as the Arizona Parkway roadway design concept. Study information, maps and exhibits will be available for viewing during the meeting to aid in the evaluation and identification of a “preferred Alignment”. Your input during this early phase is an integral part of the MCDOT study process and will contribute in the selection of the future roadway corridor. Please stop by anytime between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. to speak with MCDOT study team members. About the Study Sun Valley Pkwy Johnson Rd 323rd Ave 339th Ave 355th Ave The Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study area is approximately 28 miles long and is two miles wide (extending one mile each side of the Hidden Waters Parkway 371st Ave The Hidden Waters Parkway (North) Corridor Feasibility Study is one of several long-range transportation studies currently being conducted on future Parkways identified in the recently completed Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study that recommended a comprehensive roadway network of freeways, parkways and arterial roadways designed to meet the future traffic demands for the build-out (Year 2050+) for the area west of the White Tank Mountains. District 4 Supervisor, Max Wilson www.mcdot.maricopa.gov Note: The content, design, tone and writing style of this document is solely-owned by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Duplication or copying of the content, design, tone and/or writing style of this document, without permission, is strictly prohibited. All inquiries must be directed to Roberta Crowe, MCDOT at 602-506-8003. The Arizona Parkway For More Information This innovative design alternative generally focuses on the provision of simple twophase traffic signal operations at the intersections by eliminating left-turn movements. The Arizona Parkway includes a distinct intersection treatment that uses a simple The Arizona Parkway intersection configuration green/yellow/red traffic signal control and provides additional travel capacity without prohibits left-turns at cross-street intersecemploying full grade-separations (underpasses or tions. Instead, all left-turn movements are overpasses) at intersections with arterial cross made using an “indirect” left-turn crossover streets. It also provides the benefit of increasing immediately beyond the crossroad intersection capacity while maintaining the intersection. potential for direct driveway access to each corner of an intersection. For more information, contact Denise Lacey at (602) 506-6172 or write to Lacey at: MCDOT, 2901 W. Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009, or e-mail at: deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov or contact Roberta Crowe, Public Information Officer at (602) 506-8003. The MAG I-10 Hassayampa Transportation Framework Study identified the need for non-freeway roadways with restricted access able to offer significantly greater travel capacity than that provided by traditional six-lane surface streets. MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Safe Driving Tips: Inoperative Traffic Light/Power Outage • Treat the intersection just like a four-way STOP! Flooded Roadway and Washes • Don’t Risk It! • Never cross a rain-swollen wash • Do not drive around roadway barriers • Never underestimate the power and force of water • A vehicle is NOT a flotation device! Dust Storms • Turn your headlights on and slow to a prudent speed • If you pull off the road, get as far to the right as possible. Turn off the car and headlights, and set the parking brake • Keep your foot off the brake pedal – other drivers may think you’re a car in motion Si desea recibir esta información en Español, favor llame (480) 350-9288. Con adviso de setenta y dos horas o más, es posible obtener plans reasonables para personas con discapacidades; lo mismo para representantes que hablan Español. Si quiere más información, llame (480) 350-9288. Make More Clean Air! • Drive less Car zpool, van pool or use public transit • Don’t Wait Avoid waiting in long drive-thru lines. Park your car and go inside • Gas Up at night or early morning • Make every trip count (because every breath counts) Consolidate errands, appointments and shopping trips Learn more ways to reduce ozone pollution by visiting www.maricopa.gov/aq. Maricopa County Green Government Initiative AGENDA Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 (proposed) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #3 August 18, 2011, 1:30 pm MCDOT Conference Room 1) Introductions 2) Technical Memorandum 4: Candidate Alignments and Evaluation a) Conceptual Alignments Candidate Alignments b) Qualitative Analysis c) Planning Level Cost Estimate d) Initial Recommendation 3) TAC Member Input 4) Next Steps a) Public Open House (August 30th, Wickenburg) b) Select/Refine a Preferred Alignment c) Next TAC Meeting (October) 5) Other Items Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 alignment Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #3 TO: X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Scott Omer Bob Bott Craig Stegmeier Jim Looney Larry Krueger Bobby Garza Phil Hobday Dana Warnecke Kelly Wolff-Krauter Tab Bommarito Troy Smith Ed Dietrich Gordon Taylor Kay McNeely Manny Patel Mark Edelman Susan Demmitt Larry Yount Jo Ann Goodlow Aaron Ashcroft Linda Chenney Michael Cronin Jeff Klem Elijah Williams Matt Truitt Sharon Gordon Tom Deitering Jennifer Brown Ed Stillings Valerie Swick Chris Cacheris Kimberley Korp Joe Liberty Bill Ring Robyn Calihan Micah Henry Tim Strow Jeanette Fish Al Kattan Denise Lacey Hugh Davidson James Sargent Joe Pinto Nicolaas Swart Roberta Crowe ADOT APS APS APS APS APS Distribution APS Transmission Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD Belmont Belmont BLM Central Arizona Project El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas Ranch El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas Ranch Elliot Homes EPS Group Inc. EPS Group Inc. FHWA FHWA FHWA FHWA Flood Control District of Maricopa County Harvard Investments/ Hassayampa Ranch Harvard Investments/ Hassayampa Ranch Liberty Southwest Realty/Whispering Ranch LKY Holdings/Belmont LKY Holdings/Belmont MAG MAG Maricopa Co. Farm Bureau MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT somer@azdot.gov robert.bott@aps.com Craig.Stegmeier@aps.com James.Looney@aps.com Lawrence.Krueger@aps.com baldemar.garza@aps.com philip.hobday@aps.com dwarnecke@azgfd.gov kWolff-Krauter@azgfd.gov TBommarito@azgfd.gov trsmith@azgfd.gov edietrich@land.az.gov Gtaylor@land.az.gov kmcneely@land.az.gov mpatel@land.az.gov medelman@land.az.gov sdemmitt@beusgilbert.com Lyount@LKYdev.com joann_goodlow@blm.gov aashcroft@cap-az.com lcheney@eldoradoholdings.net mcronin@eldoradoholdings.net j.klem@elliotthomesaz.com elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com matt.truitt@epsgroupinc.com sharon.gordon@dot.gov tom.deitering@dot.gov Jennifer.brown@dot.gov Ed.stillings@dot.gov vas@mail.maricopa.gov Chriscacheris@harvardinvestments.com kimkorp@harvardinvestments.com JoeLiberty@cox.net ringeraz@yahoo.com rcalihan@lkydev.com mhenry@azmag.gov tstrow@mag.maricopa.gov mcfb@qwestoffice.net AlKattan@mail.maricopa.gov deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov hughdavidson@mail.maricopa.gov JamesSargent@mail.maricopa.gov joepinto@mail.maricopa.gov nicolaasswart@mail.maricopa.gov robertacrowe@mail.maricopa.gov X X X X X Tom Sonneman Wayne Butch Scott Moore Noel Griemsmann John Wood Elijah Lubandi Floyd Hardin Steve Lopez Wayne Darby Paula Atkins Adam Zaklikowski Becky Bratcher Brian Kulina Jackie Meck Paul Ward Ray Strauss Scott Zipprich Stephen Cleveland Woody Scoutten Richard Mayes Jessica Herndon Jo Penunuri Jeffrey Kracht Mary Kracht MCDOT MCDOT Millennium Ranch Toyota Technical Testing Center SRP - Distribution SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission Maintenance Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye W Holdings WAPA WAPA Whispering Ranch Whispering Ranch/Arizona Pacific TomSonnemann@mail.maricopa.gov WayneButch@mail.maricopa.gov smoore@betinvestments.com ngriemsmann@swlaw.com john.wood@srpnet.com elijah.lubandi@srpnet.com floyd.hardin@srpnet.com steven.lopez@srpnet.com wayne.darby@srpnet.com paula.atkins@srpnet.com azaklikowski@buckeyeaz.gov becky@scoutten.com bkulina@buckeyeaz.gov jmeck@buckeyeaz.gov pward@scoutten.com rstrauss@buckeyeaz.gov scott@scoutten.com scleveland@buckeyeaz.gov woody@scoutten.com richardm@wholdings.com Herndon@wapa.gov penunuri@wapa.gov kracht@azmag.gov mary@arizonapacificrealestate.com X = Attended Meeting DISTRIBUTION DATE: August 23, 2011 DATE OF MEETING: August 18, 2011 SUBJECT: TAC Meeting #3 Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. 2010-054 TIME/PLACE: August 18, 2011 at 1:30 P.M. MCDOT Conference Room 2901 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 FROM: Elijah Williams, Project Manager, EPS Group Inc. 2045 S Vineyard, Suite 101 Mesa, AZ 85210 Phone: 480-503-2250 Fax:: 480-503-2258 elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com ATTACHMENTS:  Sign-in sheet  Presentation Slides Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study Page 3 of 4 The meeting notes for the aforementioned project are attached for your information and use. If you have any questions, please contact me at (480) 503-2250. Introductions The meeting started with introductions of the participants. Reviewed the Results of Working Paper #4 Candidate Alignments and Evaluation The TAC briefly reviewed the general tasks of the Hidden Waters Feasibility Study. The purpose of TAC meeting No. 3 was to review the results of the development/evaluation of the candidate parkway alignments. Conceptual alignment alternatives were initially developed in response to the opportunities and constraints that were identified during the planning phase of this study, which fall into the following categories:       Existing/Proposed Residential Communities Existing Commercial and/or Employment Centers Current Land Ownership Environmental Resources Existing/Proposed Utilities Existing Drainage Patterns The design team consolidated the conceptual alignment alternatives into three candidate parkway alignments for further evaluation. The three candidate alignments were described as follows:    Alignment 1: Based upon the Hassayampa Framework Study alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway. Alignment 2: This alternative was developed to be responsive to stakeholder feedback including the approved development master plans. Alignment 3: The third candidate alternative was developed to be responsive to the geomorphology, drainage patters, utilities, etc. The three candidate alignments were qualitatively evaluated in 10 separate categories to determine which alternative would be recommended for further evaluation. Schematic drawings of the three candidate alternatives were presented to the TAC. The results of the qualitative analysis are summarized in the following table. Evaluation Criteria Proposed Development Environmental Impacts Utility Impacts Drainage Impacts Engineering Complexity System Functionality Buildings/Property Impacts Stakeholder/Community Feedback Right of Way Requirements Cost (in millions) Recommended for Further Evaluation Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Build 686 ac $236.5 717 ac $215.6 695 ac $203.6 N/A N/A No Yes No No Next Public Meeting The next public meeting is scheduled for September 30th at the Wickenburg Elementary School. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study Page 4 of 4 TAC Member Input Members of the TAC were asked to comment on the material presented during the meeting. The following bullets capture the feedback that was received:  Aaron Ashcroft stated that the CAP would likely require a bridge over the Hassayampa River Siphon to allow them access to the pipe should they need to maintain it in the future. The proposed bridge would have to be large enough to accommodate construction/repair of the siphon plus an access road (similar to that which was done on the loop 303 and New River). They prefer alignment alternative 1 that crosses the CAP canal on less of a skew. He also noted that the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) may require additional mitigation measures across their property on the north side of the canal. The BOR property along the north side of the canal was provided as a “Green-up” area to help offset the environmental impacts of the CAP. Aaron agreed to provide the design team with any BOR guidelines on the “Green-up” area to help identify potential mitigation measures for the candidate alternatives.  Adam Zaklikowski from the Town of Buckeye wanted to see how the candidate alignment alternatives relate to the approved circulation elements of the CMPs. The design team presented a slide to illustrate the relationship and noted that a similar graphic would be included in Technical Memoranda 4 when it is distributed to the TAC. He asked for a copy of the candidate alignment shapefiles for city staff to review. Adam also questioned who would be responsible to construct the portions of the Hidden Waters Parkway within Town’s limits that do not fall within the Douglas Ranch Planned Area Development. It was noted that the scope of this feasibility study does not address funding responsibility.  MAG did not have any comments on the presentation materials.  Ed Stillings, stated that FHWA did not have any specific comments on the presentation materials. He was pleased to see the level of agency and stakeholder participation on this transportation planning study.  Tom Sonneman was in favor of the candidate alignment (Alt 3) that was most responsive to the geomorphological features of the study area. Although he has no real issue with Alternative 2, he expressed concerns with the alternative because it parallels the CAP and crosses the canal on a skew  Jim Sargent asked to see a graphic illustrating how the candidate alignment alternatives relate to the other proposed parkways of the Hassayampa Framework Study. It was stated that this graphic is included in Technical Memoranda 4, which will be distributed to the TAC in the next few days.  Kim Korp, representing Hassayampa Ranch, wanted to know if the county would consider an administrative amendment to a development’s circulation plan should the recommended Hidden Waters Parkway alignment differ from the approved MPC circulation element. Denise responded that a change to a MPC circulation element would likely be considered too large to qualify for an administrative amendment.  Tab Bommarito, from AGFD, stated that the CAP canal acts as an east-west wildlife linkage zone through the study area between the Hassayampa River and Jackrabbit Wash. He was concerned that candidate alignments two and three will constrain the existing wildlife linkage corridor on the south side of the CAP canal. He would prefer to see more space between the proposed parkway and CAP canal to preserve existing wildlife movements.  Valerie Swick with the FCDMC wanted to know if the three candidate alternatives represented the only options that will be considered going forward, or if the final recommendation might include a combination of elements/segments from each alternative. The design team is currently considering recommending alternative 2 as it is represented. It was noted that the recommended alternative may be modified during the detailed evaluation of the alignment in Technical Memorandum 5. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study: I-10 to SR 74 TAC Meeting No.3 August 18, 2011 AGENDA Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 (proposed) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #3 August 18, 2011, 1:30 pm MCDOT Conference Room 1. Introductions 2. Technical Memorandum 4: Candidate Alignments and Evaluation a. Conceptual Alignments Candidate Alignments b. Qualitative Analysis c. Planning Level Cost Estimate d. Initial Recommendation 3. TAC Member Input 4. Next Steps 5. a. Public Open House (September 30th, Wickenburg) b. Select/Refine a Preferred Alignment c. Next TAC Meeting (October) Other Items Project Overview Phase I – Planning Phase Phase II – Develop Candidate and Preferred Alignments Task 1.0 Task 2.0 Task 3.0 Task 5.0 Task 6.0 Work Plan Corridor Features Environmental Overview Candidate Alignments Preferred Alignment •Schedule •Physical Features •Definition of Study Area •Utilities •Purpose and Objectives •Cultural Resources •Develop Feasible Alternatives •Refine Preferred Alignment •Roadway Conditions •Biology •Land Use •Schematic Drawings •Refine ROW Requirements •Right-of-way •Study Process •Access Conditions •Socioeconomic data •Evaluate Drainage Crossings •Implementation Plan •Data Collection •Roadway Network •Visual Resources •Design Standards •Water Quality •Opinion of Probable Costs •Detail Drainage Crossing •Future Land Use •Stakeholder Coordination •Relevant Plans •Hazardous Materials •Key Issues •Evaluation Criteria •Existing Topography •Noise Impact •Air Quality •Special Interest Areas •Key Features Task 4.0 •Gather GIS Data Drainage Overview •Existing Drainage Reports •Concentration Points •Existing Drainage Issues Public/Stakeholder Involvement Conceptual Alignments Opportunities and Constraints • Existing/Proposed Residential Communities • Existing Commercial and/or Employment Centers • Current Land Ownership • Environmental Resources • Existing/Proposed Utilities • Existing Drainage Patterns •Evaluation Criteria/Matrix •Evaluation of Alternatives •Recommend Alignment Task 7.0 Document Public/Stakeholder Involvement Task 8.0 Documentation/ Final Report Candidate Alignments Alternative 1 • Based upon the Hassayampa Framework Study Alternative 2 • Responsive to stakeholder feedback including approved development master plans. Alternative 3 • Developed in response to the geomorphology, drainage patters, utilities, etc. Qualitative Evaluation Criteria • • • • • • • • • • Consistency with Proposed Development Environmental Impacts Utility Impacts Drainage Impacts Engineering Complexity System Functionality Right of Way Requirements Buildings/Property Impacts Planning Level Cost Estimate Stakeholder and Community Feedback Strong Disadvantage Disadvantage Neutral Advantage Strong Advantage Schematic Drawings 1 Schematic Drawings 2 Schematic Drawings 3 Schematic Drawings 4 Schematic Drawings 5 Schematic Drawings 6 Schematic Drawings 7 Schematic Drawings 8 Schematic Drawings 9 Schematic Drawings 10 Schematic Drawings 11 Schematic Drawings 12 Schematic Drawings 13 Schematic Drawings 14 Summary of Qualitative Analysis Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Build Right of Way Requirements 686 ac 717 ac 695 ac N/A Cost (in millions) $236.5 $215.6 $203.6 N/A No Yes No No Proposed Development Environmental Impacts Utility Impacts Drainage Impacts Engineering Complexity System Functionality Buildings/Property Impacts Stakeholder/Community Feedback Recommended for Further Evaluation Project Schedule Questions? TAC Meeting No.3 August 18, 2011 AGENDA Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 (proposed) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #4 October 25, 2011, 9:00 am MCDOT Conference Room 1) Introductions 2) Technical Memorandum 5: Detailed Preferred Alignment a) Design Considerations b) Special Interest Areas c) Detailed Drawings 3) TAC Member Input 4) Next Steps a) Distribute Draft TM 5 to TAC for review b) Public Open House (November 9th at Nadaburg Elementary in Wittmann) c) Draft Final Report 5) Other Items Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 alignment Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #4 TO: X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Scott Omer Craig Stegmeier Jim Looney Larry Krueger Paul Herndon Richard Stuhan Bobby Garza Dana Warnecke Kelly Wolff-Krauter Tab Bommarito Troy Smith Ed Dietrich Gordon Taylor Kay McNeely Manny Patel Mark Edelman Susan Demmitt Larry Yount Jo Ann Goodlow Aaron Ashcroft Linda Chenney Michael Cronin Jeff Klem Elijah Williams Matt Truitt Tom Deitering Jennifer Brown Ed Stillings Valerie Swick Chris Cacheris Kimberley Korp Joe Liberty Bill Ring Robyn Calihan Tim Strow Jeanette Fish Al Kattan Denise Lacey Hugh Davidson James Sargent Joe Pinto Nicolaas Swart Roberta Crowe Tom Sonneman Wayne Butch ADOT APS APS APS APS APS APS Distribution Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish Arizona Game & Fish ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD ASLD Belmont Belmont BLM Central Arizona Project El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas Ranch El Dorado Holdings/ Douglas Ranch Elliot Homes EPS Group Inc. EPS Group Inc. FHWA FHWA FHWA Flood Control District of Maricopa County Harvard Investments/ Hassayampa Ranch Harvard Investments/ Hassayampa Ranch Liberty Southwest Realty/Whispering Ranch LKY Holdings/Belmont LKY Holdings/Belmont MAG Maricopa Co. Farm Bureau MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT MCDOT somer@azdot.gov Craig.Stegmeier@aps.com James.Looney@aps.com Lawrence.Krueger@aps.com Paul.Herndon@aps.com Richard.stuhan@aps.com baldemar.garza@aps.com dwarnecke@azgfd.gov kWolff-Krauter@azgfd.gov TBommarito@azgfd.gov trsmith@azgfd.gov edietrich@land.az.gov Gtaylor@land.az.gov kmcneely@land.az.gov mpatel@land.az.gov medelman@land.az.gov sdemmitt@beusgilbert.com Lyount@LKYdev.com joann_goodlow@blm.gov aashcroft@cap-az.com lcheney@eldoradoholdings.net mcronin@eldoradoholdings.net j.klem@elliotthomesaz.com elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com matt.truitt@epsgroupinc.com tom.deitering@dot.gov Jennifer.brown@dot.gov Ed.stillings@dot.gov vas@mail.maricopa.gov Chriscacheris@harvardinvestments.com kimkorp@harvardinvestments.com JoeLiberty@cox.net ringeraz@yahoo.com rcalihan@lkydev.com tstrow@mag.maricopa.gov mcfb@qwestoffice.net AlKattan@mail.maricopa.gov deniselacey@mail.maricopa.gov hughdavidson@mail.maricopa.gov JamesSargent@mail.maricopa.gov joepinto@mail.maricopa.gov nicolaasswart@mail.maricopa.gov robertacrowe@mail.maricopa.gov TomSonnemann@mail.maricopa.gov WayneButch@mail.maricopa.gov X X X X Scott Moore Jeanette Fish Noel Griemsmann John Wood Elijah Lubandi Floyd Hardin Steve Lopez Adam Zaklikowski Jackie Meck Paul Ward Ray Strauss Scott Zipprich Stephen Cleveland Woody Scoutten Richard Mayes Jessica Herndon Jo Penunuri Millennium Ranch Qwest Toyota Technical Testing Center SRP - Distribution SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission SRP - Transmission Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye Town of Buckeye W Holdings WAPA WAPA smoore@betinvestments.com mcfb@qwestoffice.net ngriemsmann@swlaw.com john.wood@srpnet.com elijah.lubandi@srpnet.com floyd.hardin@srpnet.com steven.lopez@srpnet.com azaklikowski@buckeyeaz.gov jmeck@buckeyeaz.gov pward@scoutten.com rstrauss@buckeyeaz.gov scott@scoutten.com scleveland@buckeyeaz.gov woody@scoutten.com richardm@wholdings.com Herndon@wapa.gov penunuri@wapa.gov X = Attended Meeting DISTRIBUTION DATE: November 1, 2011 DATE OF MEETING: October 25, 2011 SUBJECT: TAC Meeting #4 Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study MCDOT Project No. 2010-054 TIME/PLACE: October 25, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. MCDOT Conference Room 2901 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 FROM: Elijah Williams, Project Manager, EPS Group Inc. 2045 S Vineyard, Suite 101 Mesa, AZ 85210 Phone: 480-503-2250 Fax:: 480-503-2258 elijah.williams@epsgroupinc.com ATTACHMENTS:  Sign-in sheet  Presentation Slides The meeting notes for the aforementioned project are attached for your information and use. If you have any questions, please contact me at (480) 503-2250. Introductions The meeting started with introductions of the participants. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study Page 3 of 4 Reviewed the Results of Working Paper #5 Detailed Preferred Alignment The TAC briefly reviewed the general tasks of the Hidden Waters Feasibility Study. The purpose of TAC meeting No. 4 was to review the detailed preferred alignment and the factors/design criteria that contributed to its development. Conceptual alignment alternatives were initially developed in response to the opportunities and constraints that were identified during the planning phase of this study. These alignments were narrowed down to three candidate alignments. A preferred alignment was selected based upon a qualitative analysis of the candidate alternatives (described in Technical Memorandum 4). The preferred alignment was refined based upon design criteria defined in The Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (MCDOT, August 2008) and the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual (2004). The design team reviewed the design criteria and the general access management guidelines for the AZ Parkway with the TAC. Scroll plots of the detailed preferred alignment were presented to the TAC along with a discussion of the two special interest areas identified during Technical Memorandum 4. Construction of the Hidden Waters Parkway will be driven by development and will likely progress from south to north. The northernmost portion of the parkway (north of Jomax Rd) will likely not be needed until the future SR 74 freeway is built. Phasing options, including two-lane/full-width implementation and half-street implementation were discussed with the TAC. The design team also presented a planning level cost estimate for the preferred alternative and phasing options. TAC Member Input Members of the TAC were asked to comment on the material presented during the meeting. The following bullets capture the feedback that was received:  Adam Zaklikowski and Paul Ward did not have any additional comments on behalf of the Town of Buckeye.  Scott Moore, representing Millennium Ranch, did not have any comments at this time.  Aaron Ashcroft had no further comments on behalf of CAP.  Kim Korp, representing Hassayampa Ranch, did not have any comments at this time.  Gordon Taylor stated that ASLD did not have any comments at this time.  Jim Sargent did not have any comments on behalf of MCDOT Traffic.  Valerie Swick noted that the preferred alignment traverses several parcels on a diagonal through the Whispering Ranch community. She question whether or not this will lead to larger property acquisitions within Whispering Ranch. The design team reported that they considered the number of impacted parcels during the qualitative analysis of the Candidate Alternatives. The preferred alignment had the lowest impacts to existing parcels of the three candidate alternatives. The preferred parcel was centered along parcel lines whenever possible to more evenly distribute the right-of-way burden amongst the property owners.  Noel Griemsmann, did not have any further comments on behalf of Toyota.  Tim Strow stated that MAG did not have any comments at this time.  Richard Stuhan, with APS, wanted to make sure that the design team was aware of the proposed 500 kV transmission line along the north side of the CAP canal. The design team noted that they were aware of the proposed transmission line and that efforts were made to orient the preferred alignment perpendicular to the future transmission corridor in order to minimize the potential for conflicts with future transmission towers. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study Page 4 of 4  Dana Warnecke, from AGFD, reiterated that the CAP canal acts as an east-west wildlife linkage zone through the study area between the Hassayampa River and Jackrabbit Wash (based upon the best biological data available at this time). She expressed the concern that the preferred alignment’s proximity to the CAP canal will deter large animal movements (including deer and mountain lions) through the study area. They would prefer to see a greater separation between the CAP and proposed Hidden Waters Parkway. AGFD is also concerned that the proposed roadway network conflicts with existing animal crossings over the CAP Canal (i.e. the Daggs Wash Flume, the bridge at station ~636+70, the Jackrabbit Wash Siphon, etc.) that are in use today. The design team noted that future coordination will be required with AGFD to incorporate appropriate wildlife crossing features into the final design of the Hidden Waters Parkway.  Mike Cronin complemented the design team on the level of coordination and general responsiveness to landowner’s concerns during the development and selection of the preferred alignment.  Robyn Calihan echoed Mike’s sentiments regarding the level of coordination between the design team and land owners. Project Schedule A draft version of TM 5 will be distributed to the TAC for review in the upcoming week. The next steps of the study will be the final public open house followed by a draft Final Report. The TAC agreed that there would be no need to hold a 5th TAC meeting provided that there were no surprises from the upcoming public meeting. Next Public Meeting The next public meeting is scheduled for November 9th at the Nadaburg Elementary School. Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study: I-10 to SR 74 TAC Meeting No.4 October 25, 2011 AGENDA Hidden Waters Parkway North Corridor Feasibility Study I-10 to SR 74 (proposed) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #4 October 25, 2011, 9:00 am MCDOT Conference Room 1. Introductions 2. Technical Memorandum 5: Detailed Preferred Alignment a. Design Considerations b. Special Interest Areas c. Detailed Drawings 3. TAC Member Input 4. Next Steps a. Distribute Draft TM 5 to TAC for review b. Public Open House (November 9th at Nadaburg Elementary in Wittmann) c. Draft Final Report 5. Other Items Project Overview Phase I – Planning Phase Phase II – Develop Candidate and Preferred Alignments Task 1.0 Task 2.0 Task 3.0 Task 5.0 Task 6.0 Work Plan Corridor Features Environmental Overview Candidate Alignments Preferred Alignment •Schedule •Physical Features •Definition of Study Area •Purpose and Objectives •Study Process •Data Collection •Design Standards •Stakeholder Coordination •Key Issues •Evaluation Criteria •Utilities •Cultural Resources •Develop Feasible Alternatives •Refine Preferred Alignment •Roadway Conditions •Biology •Land Use •Schematic Drawings •Refine ROW Requirements •Right-of-way •Socioeconomic data •Evaluate Drainage Crossings •Implementation Plan •Opinion of Probable Costs •Detail Drainage Crossing •Access Conditions •Roadway Network •Future Land Use •Relevant Plans •Existing Topography •Special Interest Areas •Key Features •Gather GIS Data •Visual Resources •Water Quality •Hazardous Materials •Noise Impact •Air Quality Task 4.0 Drainage Overview •Existing Drainage Reports •Concentration Points •Existing Drainage Issues Public/Stakeholder Involvement •Evaluation Criteria/Matrix •Evaluation of Alternatives •Recommend Alignment Task 7.0 Document Public/Stakeholder Involvement Task 8.0 Documentation/ Final Report Preferred Alignment Opportunities and Constraints • Existing/Proposed Residential Communities • Existing Commercial and/or Employment Centers • Current Land Ownership • Environmental Resources • Existing/Proposed Utilities • Existing Drainage Patterns Qualitative Evaluation Criteria • Consistency with Proposed Development • Environmental Impacts • Utility Impacts • Drainage Impacts • Engineering Complexity • System Functionality • Right of Way Requirements • Buildings/Property Impacts • Planning Level Cost Estimate • Stakeholder and Community Feedback Design Element Design Criteria Design Basis GENERAL a) Functional Classification b) Design Vehicle c) Design Speed (by terrain) TRAFFIC DATA AZ Parkway WB-50 55 mph (level) / 50mph (rolling) / 45mph (mountainous) Hassayampa Framework Study 2030/ Buildout Hassayampa Framework Study a) Design Year CROSS SECTION a) Roadway Width b) Number of Lanes c) Standard lane Width d) Right-of-way Width e) Median Width f) Median Type g) Clear Zone (55mph) HORIZONTAL a) Minimum Curve Radius (without superelevation) b) Maximum Superelevation % c) Minimum Curve Radius (with 4% superelevation) d) Transition taper length VERTICAL a) Maximum Grade b) Minimum Grade c) Algebraic difference in grades requiring a verticle curve 162 feet 6-lanes 12 feet (11 feet minimum) 200 feet (minimum) Varies, depending on number of lanes Curb and gutter per MAG Detail 220-1, Type A; single curb allowable along median 22-32 feet in fill conditions, 16-24 feet in cut 1833ft 4.00% 1190ft *DGRAP p. 7 DGRAP, Table 3, p. 7 DGRAP, Figure 2, p. 4 DGRAP, Figure 2, p. 4 DGRAP, p. 5 DGRAP, p. 5 DGRAP, p. 3 DGRAP, p. 5 DGRAP, p. 7 MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Page 5-19 DGRAP, p. 7 MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Page 5-19 Taper = offset x design speed Taper with reverse curves MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Page 5-41 DGRAP p.24 5% +/- 0.25% 0.3% or greater MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Table 5.5 *Design Guidelines Recommendations for the AZ Parkway (DGRAP) MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Page 5-31 MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Page 5-31 Access Management • • • • • • • • U-turn directional crossovers restricted to a maximum of eight per mile. Left-turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections (full median break). Left-turns from a side-street or driveway onto the Parkway are prohibited. Left-turns from the Parkway to a side-street or driveway are discouraged due to conflicts between U-turns and rightturns. However, this can be accommodated by aligning the U-turn crossover with the side-street or driveway in order to facilitate left turns and U-turns. Intersections (full median breaks) preferably restricted to one-mile spacing and a minimum spacing of half-mile. No on-street parking Full median openings are only recommended at intersections with arterial or major collector streets. For a low-volume driveway, a 165’ minimum spacing (from centerline to centerline) is recommended. For a high-volume driveway, a 330’ minimum spacing (from centerline to centerline) is recommended. Special Interest Areas Detailed Preferred Alignment Special Interest Areas Special Interest Area 1 • Minimum 50ft Buffer Around Western Transmission Lines • Multiple Cell Box Culvert Downstream of Daggs Wash Flume • Additional Class III Cultural Resource Survey Recommended Prior to Design • Realigning to Provide Wildlife Buffer Along CAP Canal Would Require Additional Coordination With Stakeholders Special Interest Area 2 Phasing/Cost Estimate Implementation Plan • Timing of the Hassayampa Framework Traffic Projections is uncertain due to the downturn in the economy. • Construction will be driven by development of the Master Planned Communities. • The southern portions of the Hidden Waters Parkway (adjacent to I-10) should be constructed first. • As development progresses to the north, so will the construction of the parkway. • The northernmost portion of the parkway (North of Jomax Rd.) will not be needed until the future SR 74 is constructed. Phasing Considerations • Two-lane/Full-width Implementation (outside curb constructed with extra wide median) • Half-Street Implementation (Construct half of parkway and operate as a tradition 3lane arterial) Cost Category Factor Construction Design (10% TO 15%) 12% Construction Management 15% Right-of-Way Structures Utility Relocation Administration (8% TO 10% 13%) Total Preferred Alternative $95,200,000 $11,400,000 $14,300,000 $104,900,000 $21,500,000 $100,000 $9,500,000 Phased Option No. 1 $84,700,000 $10,200,000 $12,700,000 $104,900,000 $21,500,000 $100,000 $8,500,000 Phased Option No. 2 $60,100,000 $7,200,000 $9,000,000 $104,900,000 $10,800,000 $100,000 $6,000,000 $256,900,000 $242,600,000 $198,100,000 Project Schedule Questions? TAC Meeting No.3 August 18, 2011 Appendix B  MCDOT Community Relations: Summary of Public Involvement Report Hidden Waters – Final Tech Memo 6 Corridor Feasibility Study Maricopa County Department of Transportation Public and Stakeholder Participation January, 2012 EPS Job No. 10-092 MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement December 22, 2011 Hidden Waters (North) Parkway Feasibility Study I-10 to Future SR 74 Alignment Maricopa County Department of Transportation MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 2 Maricopa County Department of Transportation _________________________________________________________ 2901 W. Durango St. Phoenix, AZ 85009 Phone: 602-506-4608 Fax: 602-506-4882 www.maricopa.gov MCDOT RightRoads Program Summary of Public Involvement Hidden Waters (North) Parkway Feasibility Study I-10 to Future SR 74 Alignment TT005 FINAL REPORT PURPOSE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This study evaluated planned corridor development and the resulting projected 2030 traffic volumes along the Hidden Waters (North) Parkway corridor between Interstate 10 and the future SR 74 alignment to develop the most cost-effective improvement plans that include a recommendation for establishing the future roadway type, alignment, access management strategies, future drainage structures, network connectivity and prioritized construction phasing plans. The participation of stakeholder public and multi-agency involvement aids in the development of a consistent roadway and the resolution of conflicting agency requirements; facilitates ultimate regional traffic flow; and preserves the interests and rights of area residents and adjacent development. Gaining consensus among the agencies and impacted public stakeholders is critical to the success of this transportation study as well as the future implementation of its recommendations to provide a safe and efficient roadway for the long term. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Maricopa County Planning and Development Department, Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Central Arizona Project (CAP), Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the Town of Buckeye, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Center MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 3 for Desert Archaeology, the Sonoran Institute, local school and fire districts, Maricopa County Farm Bureau, area developers, impacted irrigation and utility companies, affected businesses, property owners and residents are all major stakeholders of this parkway feasibility study. STUDY OVERVIEW Background The Hidden Waters Parkway (North) Corridor Feasibility Study is one of several long-range transportation studies currently being conducted on future Arizona Parkways identified in the 2008 Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study that recommended a comprehensive roadway network of freeways, parkways and arterial roadways designed to meet the future traffic demands for the build-out (Year 2050+) for the area west of the White Tank Mountains. The primary purpose of this Parkway Feasibility Study is to identify the optimum corridor for the future Hidden Waters Parkway alignment In order to preserve sufficient public right-of-way and protect the future roadway corridor from development and encroachment. Corridor Description The Hidden Waters Parkway (North) Corridor Feasibility Study extends north/south between I-10 and the future SR 74 alignment. The study area includes the northern section of the Hidden Waters Parkway, as shown on Hassayampa Framework Study, from Interstate 10 (I-10) north to the future alignment of SR 74. The study area is approximately 28 miles long and two miles wide, centered about the Hassayampa Framework Study proposed alignment for the Hidden Waters Parkway. Except in the area from Northern Avenue to Bell Road where the study area expands to two miles west of the Hassayamapa Framework Study alignment and from the south end of Douglas Ranch to Patton Road where the study area expands to two miles east of the Hassayamapa Framework Study alignment. This results in the study corridor being a total of three miles wide in these two areas. Study Need The 2008 MAG Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study demonstrated the need for the future Hidden Waters Parkway. Although today's land development and travel demands do not warrant any major new high capacity roadways in the near-term, the "build-out" forecast (Year 2050+) for future land development and resulting travel demand within the study area warrant an entire network of future Arizona Parkways. Plans are already underway within the study area to convert vacant lands to land uses that will generate increased traffic volumes. In order to preserve sufficient public right-of-way for the future Hidden Waters Parkway and protect the future roadway corridor from development and encroachment, the planning process needs to start now to identify roadway rightMCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 4 of-way requirements for forecasted build-out conditions. This current feasibility study is the first step in the roadway development process and is meant to aid agencies and the local jurisdictions in defining and protecting a continuous future roadway corridor that can accommodate build-out traffic demands in the project study area. To this end, the Hidden Waters Parkway study is needed to: Address regional and local growth and development (2.8 million population projected at build-out in the I-10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework study area) Preserve and protect sufficient public right-of-way for high-capacity (non-freeway) transportation corridors Ensure future parkway compatibility with existing/future land uses and environmental conditions Identify potential connectivity issues with other future planned parkways and freeways Study Goals The main focus of this parkway feasibility study is to investigate, map, and analyze corridor constraints and opportunities to arrive at a recommended alignment for the proposed Hidden Waters Parkway based on the Arizona Parkway indirect left-turn intersection design within a 200-foot-wide right-of-way corridor. The Arizona Parkway is a hybrid between a freeway and a major six-lane street. It includes a distinct intersection treatment that generally focuses on the provision of simple two-phase traffic signal operations at cross-street intersections by eliminating left-turn movements. It employs a simple green/yellow/red traffic signal control and all left-turn movements are made using an "indirect" left-turn crossover immediately beyond the crossroad intersection. The parkway intersection configuration provides the additional benefit of increased travel capacity without employing full grade-separations (underpasses or overpasses) at intersections with major cross streets while maintaining the potential for direct driveway access to development at each corner of an intersection. Study Objectives Achieve roadway network continuity and connectivity  Determine the preferred corridor alignment from a regional transportation corridor perspective  Protect and preserve right-of-way for the preferred corridor alignment to maintain its long-term viability  Provide future connectivity with primary and regional roadway facilities  Provide crossings of alluvial fans, drainage washes, and rivers MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 5 Enhance traffic flow (capacity) and safety  Preserve functional integrity of the Arizona Parkway by recommending segment-specific solutions to address identified opportunities or constraints  Identify areas that may require additional right-of-way or easements, especially at crossings with other parkways, alluvial fans, and utility corridors  Enhance traffic operations while maintaining reasonable access for developments Preserve the environment  Comply with governing environmental regulations for new roadway development  Minimize adverse impacts to the study area environment, including wildlife corridors and archeological sites  Enhance important environmental features (e.g., habitat areas)  Minimize adverse impacts to disadvantaged population groups as provided in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding environmental justice Develop consensus-driven improvement alternatives  Work with the Technical Advisory Committee and key stakeholders in developing feasible alternatives  Develop cost-effective roadway improvement alternatives  Conduct public outreach to obtain input on alternatives and build consensus  Ensure consistency between the study's transportation actions and regional transportation plans Key Issues and Challenges Early in the study process, a preliminary list of study issues and potential challenges was compiled. This list expands as the study progresses and input is obtained from public participation. Major issues identified include: Evaluation of drainage structures across major washes Identification of the most feasible location for a bridged crossing of the Central Arizona Project Canal Identification of ultimate alignment and access management strategies to maximize revenue-generating potential for developable lands Consideration of environmental impacts (including existing agricultural operations, cultural resources, and wildlife habitat linkages) Socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts on study area residents and businesses Coordination and compatibility with existing and planned land development MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 6 Connections with existing and planned freeways and parkways Mitigate potential adverse impacts to existing and proposed utility corridors Study Milestones Study Kick-off February 2011 PHASE I: Data Collection/Issues Identification February - June 2011 Technical Advisory Committee #1 April 13, 2011 Technical Advisory Committee #2 June 1, 2011 Public Input Meeting #1 Introduction and Data Collection June 15, 2011 Technical Advisory Committee #3 August 18, 2011 PHASE II: Alternative Alignments Analysis and Evaluation Development and Evaluation June - December 2011 June - August 2011 Public Input Meeting #2 Evaluation of Candidate Alignments Preferred Alternative Alignment Evaluation August 30, 2011 August - October 2011 Technical Advisory Committee #4 October 2011 Draft Final Report October - December 2011 Public Input Meeting #3 Preferred Alignment November 9, 2011 Study Completion/Final Report January 2012 STUDY APPROACH This corridor feasibility study is considered "long-range" transportation planning and is the earliest phase of project development. The outcome of a corridor feasibility study is an "agreed-upon plan" for the preservation of the right-of-way footprint for the future parkway corridor. To accomplish this goal, the study is broken into two phases. Phase I is a planning-level evaluation of the study corridor and consists of gathering data on existing and future study area features, assessing and evaluating the surrounding corridor conditions to aid in potential issues identification, and preparing constraints maps and base maps that will MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 7 allow the study team to make well-founded recommendations for possible parkway corridor alignments within the study area. Conceptual corridor alignment alternatives are developed only to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful comparative analysis/fatal flaws analysis. Conceptual alignment alternatives are evaluated for technical feasibility as well as public acceptability as part of this process. Based upon Phase I "fatal flaw" evaluation and outcomes, up to three candidates for alternative alignments are advanced to Phase II for a more detailed preliminary engineering analysis. A "Preferred" Alignment is selected and implementation strategies are developed. This analysis addresses engineering feasibility, environmental compatibility, economic viability, compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and community concerns. Once a Preferred Alignment alternative has emerged and has general consensus, preliminary plans are prepared to delineate the corridor alignment, future parkway crosssection and potential public right-of-way requirements. Both Phase I and Phase II are conducted in consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) representing agency and constituency interests. The TAC assists in the identification and resolution of issues or differing jurisdictional requirements to build as broad-based a consensus as possible regarding the selection of the Preferred Alternative alignment for the future parkway. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT Identification of Conceptual Alternatives Conceptual alignments for the Hidden Waters Parkway were developed in response to study area features, opportunities and constraints identified during the planning phase of this study, which include Existing/proposed residential communities Existing commercial and/or employment centers Current land ownership Environmental resources Existing/proposed utilities Existing drainage patterns Evaluation of Candidate Alternatives Based on the findings and outcomes of the conceptual alternatives analysis, the study team selected and advanced three Candidate Alternatives that were most responsive to the study area features for further evaluation: Candidate Alternative 1- This alternative is based upon the Hidden Waters Parkway alignment as it was defined in the earlier MAG Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study. This alternative begins at the 339th Avenue/I-10 interchange and continues north for seven miles along the 339th Avenue alignment. The alternative follows a MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 8 curvilinear path through the proposed Douglas Ranch development and continues northward along the 302nd Avenue alignment between Dove Valley Road and the northern limit of the study area. Candidate Alternative 2 - Alternative 2 was developed in response to stakeholder and community feedback received during the planning phase of this study. This alignment begins at the 339th Avenue/I-10 interchange and continues northward along the 339th Avenue alignment following the proposed Hidden Waters Parkway alignment depicted in the Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch community master plans. This alternative runs along 229th Avenue between Jomax Road and Lone Valley Road, and then shifts west to the 302nd Avenue alignment. At this point, Alternative 2 generally runs along the east side of an unnamed wash to the proposed future SR 74 extension Candidate Alternative 3 - This Alternative has been developed to be responsive to the existing landforms, drainage patterns, existing utilities and other area features identified during the planning phase of this study. This alternative begins at the 339th Avenue/I-10 interchange and then curves to the west along an existing ridgeline between McDowell Road and the Glendale Avenue alignment. Alternative 3 follows the same path as Candidate Alternative 1 between Glendale Avenue and Olive Avenue, then turns east to cross Jackrabbit Wash near a narrow point in the floodway. It then continues northward along an existing ridgeline to the Central Arizona Project Canal and traverses through the Whispering Ranch community in the vicinity of 301st Avenue and 302nd Avenue. The alignment continues northward generally along the west side of an unnamed wash north of Black Mountain Road to the proposed future extension of SR 74. No Build Alternative - The no-build alternative considers how the existing roadway network would function if the Hidden Waters Parkway were not constructed. This alternative provides the necessary comparison baseline in the evaluation of the other Candidate Alternative alignments. Selection of a Preferred Alternative The application of the evaluation criteria has resulted in the selection and identification of a Preferred Alternative (recommended alignment) to be used for future land development planning. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 9 Candidate Alternative 1 was not recommended for further consideration because it presented the greater impacts to proposed developments, existing utilities, drainage features, and existing buildings/properties. In addition this alternative is the most costly of the candidate alignments and was opposed by several key landowners/stakeholders. Candidate Alternative 3 was rated favorably in several qualitative categories including drainage impacts, engineering complexity and system functionality and also has the lowest estimated cost to construct. However, this candidate alternative was not recommended because it was the least compatible with the approved development master plans within the study area and was opposed by several key landowners/stakeholders. The No-build Alternative was not recommended for further consideration because it does not address future traffic demands or the regional connectivity needs of the study area. Candidate Alternative 2 was recommended as the Preferred Alternative because it received the greatest support from key landowners/stakeholders and the public. In addition it is consistent with the approved development master plans and no special engineering or constructability challenges were identified with this alignment. Description of the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Candidate Alternative 2) is centered along the section line of 339th Avenue between the I-10 traffic interchange and Camelback Road. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 10 Continuing northward, it generally follows the approved parkway alignment for the planned communities of Hassayampa Ranch, Belmont, and Douglas Ranch. It then parallels the west side of Jackrabbit Wash, through the proposed Belmont Master Planned Community and then turns to the east along the south side of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal. The preferred alternative crosses the CAP Canal approximately 500 feet west of the Hassayampa River siphon, then runs along the east side of the proposed Douglas Ranch development to Jomax Road. Between Jomax Road and Patton Road, the preferred alternative follows a northeasterly alignment. Then generally follows the 299th Avenue alignment between Patton Road and Lone Mountain Road. Between Lone Mountain Road and the future Carefree Highway, the alignment shifts west to 302nd Avenue. North of the future Carefree Highway, the preferred alternative alignment runs along the east side of an unnamed wash to the northern limit of the study area (i.e. potential location for the future SR 74 freeway). PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Through the course of this study’s process, the MCDOT RightRoads Program conducted a total of three public input meetings to discuss and gather public comment on future improvements and recommendations for the Hidden Waters (North) Parkway between Interstate 10 and the future extension of SR 74. All public meetings were conducted in an “open house” format which provided a free, open and accurate exchange of information between area residents with specific issues or questions and the project team. Approximately 30 area residents and other study stakeholders attended the first Public Input Meeting (June 15, 2011). This initial "Scoping" phase public meeting provided area residents and other impacted stakeholders with an opportunity to inform project team members about the study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting also provided the study team members with an opportunity to discuss and elicit feedback regarding the study purpose, goals and objectives. The second "Alternatives Analysis" public meeting (August 30, 2011) provided the community with the opportunity to comment on the three Candidate Alternative alignments being evaluated for the corridor. Approximately 50 area residents and other key stakeholders participated in this meeting. The findings and recommendations of the study, including the preferred parkway alignment, a right-of-way footprint, and preliminary engineering details, were presented during the final "Study Findings and Recommendations” public information meeting (November 9, 2011), attended by 27 people. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 11 Public Meeting Participants MCDOT Planning Denise Lacey Roberta Crowe Mike Pavlina eps group Matt Truitt Elijah Williams Outreach Methods The following outreach methods were used to inform and notify the general public and impacted residents about the study, public input meeting dates and locations and additional opportunities or means for input: Media releases Newspaper articles Display advertisements in local and regional publications  Arizona Republic  West Valley View  Buckeye Valley News  Buckeye Star  Tonopah Tribune MCDOT website Partner agency mediums Direct mail flyers to adjacent property owners and previous meeting attendees Public Comment Over 100 people attended three public input meetings conducted through the course of this study. Graphics, aerials and display exhibits presented corridor alternatives and study information. Study Fact Sheets and Comment Sheets were distributed to all those in attendance. The following information is representative of discussions that the project team had with meeting attendees and written comments received by MCDOT. Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding the study area, existing conditions, current corridor deficiencies, future transportation needs and public review of overall Study Goals and Objectives 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., June 15, 2011 Tonopah Valley High School Cafeteria 38201 W. Indian School Road, Tonopah, AZ 85354 Attendance: 30 Comments/questions received by Project Team during discussions with meeting attendees: MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 12 There was a general concern from homeowners regarding how the study corridor would affect their property. The majority of these comments were received from residents of the Whispering Ranch Community. Several residents were excited about the proposed parkway and wanted to find out how soon it would be constructed. One resident questioned the need for the proposed parkway given the lack of existing development within the study area. Another resident commented on the importance of preserving the cultural and environmental resources within the study area. She was interested in learning if additional cultural resources surveys will be completed with this corridor feasibility study. One resident cited drainage issues within the Whispering Ranch community as a reason for needing additional roadways in the area. It becomes difficult/dangerous to drive through the community when the washes are flowing. Several residents were interested in learning more about the proposed roadway width and right-of-way requirements of the Arizona Parkway concept. They also expressed interest in how indirect left-turn/two-phase signal intersections will function. Several residents complimented MCDOT for planning roadway/parkway locations in advance of proposed development. We have lived in Whispering Ranch for some time now and enjoy the life style that an area like this provides. We have also made several improvements to our place in that time. We have always paid our taxes on time and kept up on the debris that seems to pile up on property out in areas like this. While I understand the reasons and need for building the road, I am asking you to consider or reconsider the route originally told to land owners in the area over ten years ago by both MCDOT and APS officials who were planning utilities with this in mind. The route was also suggested to us by Joe Liberty who I believe is on your board. The projected roadway south of Whispering Ranch would be unchanged. As the Parkway heads north to SR74 it would follow a relatively straight and easy path somewhere in the range of 303rd and 304th avenues. The areas between these two roads and beyond allows for a much wider Parkway (over 1000 ft ROW) if necessary and very minimal wash crossings. All development in this area has been abandoned for some time except for two homes which are on the very flanks and can be easily bypassed. There are no power lines in the entire area except for a very short span from Peakview Rd south to an abandoned home under construction. As the Parkway crosses Peakview Rd it can continue unchanged in a relatively straight path to SR74. I believe this route will provide a roadway with considerably fewer obstacles to overcome. It would also put the Parkway a little farther from Toyota Improving Grounds fence, instead of along it, and keep it on the same side of and away from the large wash out here called Daggs Wash. I also believe the cost of this more direct route would be considerably less than dealing with paralleling or building in a large wash and having to acquire more owner occupied MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 13 parcels, due to the roadway bending one way and then back the other way up to SR74. Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding preliminary study findings, traffic analysis and corridor alignment alternatives and future roadway options. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., August 30, 2011 Nadaburg Elementary School 21419 W. Dove Valley Road, Wittmann, AZ 85361 Attendance: 50 Comments/questions received by Project Team during discussions with meeting attendees: We need a road crossing the Hassayampa River. Put the roadway on 299th Avenue through Whispering Ranch. This road is not needed because there is a freeway planned just 2 miles from here and we can use that. This road will be paid for by OUR tax dollars. Alternative 2 is the alternative we support. It would be nice to know when the road will be built. Would like to understand how my property will be affected and how the property will be acquired. Do NOT choose Alternative 1. Be mindful of taking existing residents properties. I have property on 299th and I support Alternative 2. Alternatives 2 & 3 have the least impact to existing residents in Whispering Ranch. This roadway will improve property values in the Whispering Ranch area. The road will make it easier for residents to get out of the Whispering Ranch area. Alternative number 2 seems to be the best option Alternative number 1 is not a good route as is located in the washes and cuts through the middle of Whispering Ranch. The proposed road would result in increased crime and will never be needed. The road should be built soon. Some type of all-weather crossing needs to be built on Patton Road across the Hassayampa River. Access off of the roadway should be provided to the local streets. A couple residents noted that their property is currently worth less than their original purchase price. They were concerned that potential payments from the County to purchase their property would not be enough to cover their mortgage balance. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 14 The Alternative 2 “color purple” plan is ok with me and my family. We all live at 30515 W. Redbird Rd. but I Sharyl Ann Gill own this property parcel 503-90-929. We were impressed with the displays of graphs, maps, and the knowledgeable personnel to answer our questions. The planning and consideration of the impact of this project is very impressive. We look forward to the building of the corridor. We are comfortable with any of the proposed alignments. Thank you. Findings and Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Purpose: Gather public comment regarding study findings and “Preferred Alternative”, recommended access management strategies and guidelines, and an improvement phasing timeline. 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., November 9, 2011 Nadaburg Elementary School 21419 W. Dove Valley Road, Wittmann, AZ 85361 Attendance: 27 Comments/questions received by Project Team during discussions with meeting attendees: Many of the residents were familiar with the project because they had attended the previous public meetings. They were most interested in learning how the preferred/recommended alignment related to their individual properties. Most of the comments received from residents were in favor of the preferred alignment. Several residents complimented the study team on identifying a preferred alignment that was sensitive to existing homes and topography. They also expressed appreciation for the level of detail that was included on the preferred alternative exhibits. Most residents wanted to know when the roadway would be constructed. The general consensus was that they would like to see construction begin sooner than later to improve access to their properties. Residents wanted to know when the County would begin right-ofway acquisition. It was explained that the current project is a long range transportation study, that funding has not been identified for any improvements and there is no current timeline to predict when right-of-way acquisition will begin. Residents were interested in learning more about the level of access that they will have from the proposed roadway. One resident of Whispering Ranch expressed concern about the potential effects of the study (when finalized) on her resale MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 15 capability in the interim between study completion and construction. I am an out of state land owner (10 acres in Whispering Ranch) and wanted to inform you of my support for the project. I, as well as many other land owners, have long awaited the development of Whispering Ranch and neighboring Douglas Ranch – the parkway would be a welcomed start to the future development of the area, hopefully with utilities to soon follow. FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT As the preferred alternative becomes better defined through more in-depth phases of project development, additional elements will be incorporated and considered that will address the needs and impacts of future projects within the context of both the current and future settings along the Hidden Waters Parkway corridor. The following are capsulated key issues identified during this study’s Stakeholder Advisory Committee and public involvement process that should be taken into consideration by individual jurisdictions as the recommendations of this study are carried forward through design and construction: Project Funding. There is currently no funding programmed for construction. It can be anticipated that area developers will participate as part of project requirements. Access Management Strategies. MCDOT and local jurisdictions have specific expectations regarding roadway access. These strategies should be implemented to ensure a seamless roadway with efficient traffic flow, safety and good access to local land uses. Environmental Impacts and Noise Mitigation. Specific impacts on the local environment will require further evaluation in future project development. New Right-of-Way Requirements. Final roadway configuration will determine how much land will need to be acquired. Landscaping plans. Final project design will specify the type of landscaping to be used. Drainage Structures. Because the future roadway corridor crosses a number of washes and lies partly in a flood zone, it will be critical to ensure the roadway is designed to provide “all weather” crossings during major storm flows. Bridges along the new roadway will be designed during final roadway design. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Access. Future projects will be designed to accommodate alternative modes of travel and provide access to trails and neighborhoods in the area. Corridor Traffic Management. ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) will control operation of traffic between jurisdictions and differing intersection configurations. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 16 Jurisdictional Coordination. As with the overall traffic control, implementation of different corridor improvements and access management concepts will need to be coordinated to ensure a safe, seamless and efficient transportation facility. CONCLUSION It is recommended that future project development along the Hidden Waters Parkway corridor build upon the public involvement program established during this study and continue as a comprehensive program progression. For more information about the study, contact Denise Lacey, MCDOT Planning at 602/506-6172 or Roberta Crowe, MCDOT Public Information Officer at 602/506-8003. MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 17 Exhibit A: Public Meeting Notification & Newspaper Display Advertisement Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Buckeye Star West Valley View Tonopah Tribune MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 18 Scoping Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 19 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Tonopah Tribune Buckeye Star West Valley View MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 20 Alternatives Analysis Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 21 Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Newspaper Advertisement Arizona Republic Buckeye Valley News Tonopah Tribune Buckeye Star West Valley View MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 22 Findings & Recommendations Phase Public Input Meeting Mail Notification MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 23 Exhibit B: 1. Public Meeting Handouts, Exhibits/Graphics MCDOT RightRoads Program/Public Involvement Summary/Hidden Waters North FS/I-10 to SR 74/ December 2011/RJCROWE 24