Loading...
08-02-2001 1 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 Thursday,August 2, 2001 4 City Council Chambers 5 6 7 Following are the verbatim minutes from the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPG) 8 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)meeting held on Thursday,August 2, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. in 9 the City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church Street, Las Cruces,NM. 10 11 Members Present: Bill Fleming, Chair(DAC Flood Commission) 12 Marty Pillar(CLC Engineering) 13 Robert Garza(CLC Engineering) 14 Chuck McMahon for Wayne Grinnell (DAC Planning) 15 Dickie Apodaca(DAC Engineering) 16 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 17 18 Members Absent: Arnufo Castaneda(Town of Mesilla) 19 Ben Woods (NMSU) 20 Tim Sanders (BLM) 21 22 Staff Present: David Carpenter(MPO Officer) 23 Lisa Fuselier(MPO Staff) 24 Tim McAllister(MPO Staff) 25 26 Others Present: Dale Kemp(CLC Transit) 27 28 29 I. CALL TO ORDER 30 31 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Bill Fleming. 32 33 II. ACTION ITEMS 34 35 A. Review and approval of June 7, 2001 minutes. 36 37 Bill Fleming opened the meeting with any comments or corrections to the minutes of June 7,2001. 38 39 Dickie Apodaca stated that his name was not under"Members Absent." 40 41 No other changes were made. 42 43 Marty Pillar moved to accept the minutes as amended. 1 I Mr. Garza seconded. 2 3 All voted"Aye." Minutes were approved as amended. 4 5 B. Review and recommendation for designation of US Highway 70 and its frontage 6 roads on the Functional Classification Map and Major Thoroughfare Plan 7 within the MPO's Transportation Plan. 8 9 There was a brief discussion about the current construction of US Highway 70. It is currently 10 finishing Phase II and has already begun Phase III. 11 12 Bill Fleming stated that the Committee has three options to consider. They can designate US 70 as 13 a major arterial and the frontage roads as collectors or they can make a combined designation as a 14 unit using existing classifications or create a new classification either individually or combined. 15 16 David Carpenter gave a brief discussion. In the previous MPO Transportation Plan,US Highway 17 70 from the 1-25 interchange eastward would be a major arterial and the two frontage roads were 18 each collectors. That's still an option for the Committee to consider. The one thing that does get 19 impacted is the billboard placement. The City and the County uses roadway designation as part of 20 its process and that is an issue for the local jurisdiction to address. 21 22 Bill Fleming asked if the extension of Telshor was considered an arterial andwhat other roads would 23 be considered an arterial. 24 25 David Carpenter stated that Telshor was a minor arterial and that El Paseo,Missouri,Lohman,and 26 Amador are some major arterial roads. Carpenter also stated that staff would like US 70 to be 27 classified as a limited access highway and collectors for the frontage roads. 28 29 Marty Pillar stated that he had just reviewed two billboard permits for Sonoma Ranch along the 30 frontage roads and was wondering if they were going to be affected. 31 32 David Carpenter stated that the billboards wouldn't be affected because of the current status of 33 Highway 70. 34 35 Bill Fleming asked what the difference is between what the present ordinance says about collectors 36 and the use of billboards and arterials and the use of billboards. 37 38 David Carpenter stated that billboards are limited to interstate frontage only or major arterials only 39 and it has to be in a commercial zone. 40 41 Bill Fleming asked if the City has a frontage road classification. 42 43 2 I David Carpenter stated that we did not but we would take the position that any frontage roads can 2 take any of the other classifications that we have defined. 3 4 Bill Fleming asked if billboards could be put up on the frontage road going west by Interstate 10. 5 6 David Carpenter stated that you could in the County, but not in the City. The City has a zoning 7 prohibition by the Industrial Park that prohibits billboards. 8 9 Bill Fleming asked if that would also apply going east on Highway 70. 10 11 David Carpenter stated that it may not be possible. The City Council would have to make that 12 decision. The billboards that are already there would be grand fathered in. 13 14 Marty Pillar asked how Highway 70 and the frontage roads would be maintained. 15 16 Robert Garza stated that the State Highway Department would maintain it. 17 18 Robert Garza asked if US 70 where it's North Main and Picacho components was an arterial. 19 20 David Carpenter stated that it was. 21 22 Robert Garza then asked if the classification was changed from an arterial to limited access highway, 23 would it be east from I-25. 24 25 David Carpenter stated that it would be and it's only the portion from I-25 eastward. 26 27 Robert Garza asked if the City's design standards has different paving section requirements for 28 collectors versus arterials or is it by pavement design. 29 30 Marty Pillar stated that when you go collector and above,the City asks for pavement design during 31 the review process. 32 33 Bill Fleming asked if the County has the same requirements on pavement requirements as the City 34 does. 35 36 Dickie Apodaca stated that it did. 37 38 Robert Garza moved that US 70 would be classified as a restricted access highway and the frontage 39 roads as collectors. 40 41 Marty Pillar seconded. 42 43 All were in favor . None opposed. Motion passes unanimously. 3 V I IV. OTHER DISCUSSION 2 3 David Carpenter stated that at the September meeting, they will be discussion on the 4 Quesenberry/West Picacho area. There also may be discussion and recommendation of the Short 5 Range Transit Plan. 6 7 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS 8 9 None. 10 11 VI. ADJOURNMENT 12 13 Garza made a motion to adjourn the meeting. 14 15 Pillar seconded. 16 17 All voted"Aye." 18 19 Meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 4 L A S C R U C E S D O N A A N A M E S I L L A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION P.O.BOX 200001 LAS CRUCES NM 188004 PHONE(505)528-3222 j FAX(505)528-3155 AS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING; ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) ACTION FORM FOR THE MEETING OF August 2, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Review and recommendation for designation of US Highway 70 and frontage roads on the Functional Classification Map and Major Thoroughfare Plan within the MPO's Transportation Plan. ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to the MPO Policy Committee. SUPPORT INFORMATION: I . Proposed cross section of US Highway 70 and frontage roads 2. MPO Transportation Plan policies for street design standards DISCUSSION: The US 70 reconstruction project is currently underway. Once completed, US 70 will be a six-lane, limited-access freeway with continuous two-lane, one-way frontage roads on both sides of the highway extending from Interstate 25 to NASA Road. Interchanges at major intersections will provide the only access to the main highway. As it presently exists, US 70 is a four-lane roadway. It is shown on the Functional Classification Map as a major arterial and is unclassified on the Major Thoroughfare Plan. However, once it is reconstructed its function and classification will change. MPO staff is asking that this designation be made now. Options for designation of US 70 and frontage roads are as follows: 1 . Individually designate US 70 and the frontage roads using existing classifications, for example, designate US 70 as a Major Arterial and the frontage roads as Collectors; 2. Make a combined designation of LIS 70 and the frontage roads as a unit using existing classifications, for example, designate the US 70/frontage road combination as a Major Arterial; 3. t: ,-eate a new classification for US 70 and the frontage roads, either individually or ombined. t I 1 , 1 1 1 1 Y. of 7 f ' " 5 11 � 1 � 1 Z S „w,s F a Lai g s O cz 1 I R I 2 �3slus 3dtlls t0 LLI z c I U W 3d14s y I � n 1 ^ 1 Ci LL g i Z O U F U W D N R R o � ' d W u 1 W 3dtlls � u o _ +� 1 g ID S 1 lQE{� 11yQ�� 1 3d s s s"WE Z , 0 STMK � � I d" E g e ' lag, a 1 I , i , e 1 N / / / al a �1 s f 1 I proposed either adjacent to or to be traversed by the potential alignment of the roadway, requires that the developer approach the MPO for coordination of efforts to complete the study. This may include: a) collecting necessary data, b) assisting in technical analysis, c) creating independant public notification and participation, ind d) adoption of proposed alignments and roadway designation, i.e., major local, collector, or arterial. Additionally, the area to be defined for inclusion in the study corridor should be determined by the MPO and the study should include the coordination of land use and transportation planning between the developer, the local jurisdiction, and the MPO. Completion of the study may preclude the development until the roadway designation and alignment are adopted by the MPO. OBJECTIVE 3: Establish site, right-of-way, and street design criteria such that roadway and thoroughfare corridors operate In a suitable optimum, and d attractive manner. i POLICIES: 3.1 Encourage the utilization of a graduated system of street design standards that outlines specific requirements for the design and construction of new roadways and the land uses these roadway serve: a) Major arterials should be designed to have a targe multi-modal carving capacity, providing long distance, cross-town movement, within a minimum right-of-way of 120'. Direct property access should be limited and shared among commercial and regional uses and on-street parking should be prohibited. b) Minor arterials should be designed to have a medium multi-modal carrying capacity, providing traffic movement rather than direct property access within a minimum right-of-way of 100'. Direct access should be limited or shared and on-street parking should be prohibited. c) Collector streets should be designed to transition the requirements of traffic movement and property access while providing a connection between arterial and local streets within a minimum right-of-way of 85'. Residential access should be discouraged and on street parking prohibited. d) Major local streets should have optional designs that facilitate safe ' and direct access to properties that have industrial or commercial uses on either or both sides and with access to or connecting collector or arterial streets. No parking should be allowed within Its minimum right-of-way of 60' t 46 e) Local streets should have optional designs that facilitate safe and direct access to individual properties, especially in residential areas. On-street parking should be allowed in most Instances within the range of right-of-way width between 40' and 50'. Streets should be designed to encourage neighborhood Identity and discourage through traffic. 3.2 Redevelopment of existing and/or established thoroughfares and/or corridors should be reviewed with various agencies at the time the proposal is submitted for reconstruction. a) The scope and design of the proposed thoroughfare reconstruction should be based on a consensus of all local, state, and/or federal agencies having jurisdiction concerning the project. b) The MPO will work to establish a right-of-way policy governing the reconstruction of thoroughfares in developed areas either urban or rural, especially those areas in which construction of the roadway to the established design criteria will be impacted by or provide Impact to existing buildings. 3.3 The MPO will work with local entities to establish a right-of-way acquisition and improvement policy for future roadway needs in urbanized areas where the development or redevelopment of property is proposed and these development projects can limit right-of-way acquisition and further the need for immediate or short-term future improvements. 3.4 All access, with collector streets or above, should have the intent to maximize traffic flow. Access should be shared to reduce curb-cuts; therefore necessitating the consideration of acceleration and deceleration lanes, or bus Pull-off lanes so that an efficient balance between property access and traffic flow is realized. 3.5 Street construction or reconstruction should be sensitive to applicable historical guidelines and to the attractiveness and character of adjacent land uses. 3.6 Local government landscaping standards should be adopted and followed at time of implementation or reconstruction of roadways and "Adopt a- Highway/Medlan" programs of local and state government supported In an effort to maintain an attractive corridor and reduce maintenance costs. 3.7 Sidewalk, landscaping, street lighting, intermodal, and bicycle facility placement projects should be Included in the construction and reconstruction of most thoroughfare projects. Landscaping projects may be completed as a 47 L A S C R U C E S D O N A A N A Rt E S I L L A Tina Eck METROPOLITAN TACPKT PLANNING ORGANIZATION ,qqqmn W— P.O.BOX 20000 LAS CRUCES NW 88004 PHONE �i =>2%?-1222 FA.X(505)528-3155 AGENDA LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) The following is the Agenda for a meeting of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Technical Advisory Committee for August 2, 2001 at 4:00 p.m., in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability who wishes to attend this public meeting. Please notify the City at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528- 3222 (Voice) or 528-3157 (TTY). This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. 1. CALL TO ORDER If. ACTION ITEMS A. Review and approval of June 7, 2001 minutes. B. Review and recommendation for designation of US Highway 70 and its frontage roads on the Functional Classification Map and Major Thoroughfare Plan within the MPO's Transportation Plan. 111. OTHER DISCUSSION IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS V. ADJOURNMENT