Loading...
12-08-1993 2 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING 8 4 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, , 1993 5 The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, December 8, 6 1993, at 7:30 p.m., in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray B. Luchini, Chairman (Dona Ana County) Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) 8 Herculano Ferralez (City of Las Cruces) Tommy Tomlin (City of Las Cruces) 9 John Haltom (City of Las Cruces) 10 Kenneth Miyagashima (Dona Ana County) 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Southworth (Town of Mesilla) Nelson Clayshulte (Town of Mesilla) 12 STAFF PRESENT: Brian Denmark, MPO Officer 13 Michael Parks, City Planning David Carpenter, City Planning 14 Minerva Sanchez, Recording Secretary 15 CALL TO ORDER 16 While awaiting the arrival of a representative from the Town of Mesilla (in order to have a voting quorum), Mr.. Denmark proceeded to New Business. 17 NEW BUSINESS 18 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, since we do not have a quorum, we'll proceed 19 to New Business, Item A, Tentative Meeting Schedule for 1994. In your packet we have the tentative schedule for 1994. It is essentially the same type of 20 schedule that we've been having for the past few years where the TAC will meet on the first Thursday of each month, and then the Policy Committee will 21 meet on the second Wednesday of each month. If that is okay with the Committee, we will proceed with that same schedule. 22 Mr. Luchini said, before we go on, how does everyone feel about the meeting 23 time of 7:30 p.m.? 24 - Mr. Haltom said, I would like to go back to 7:00 p.m. if Mr. Miyagishima doesn't have any objections. We changed the time at his request. 25 Mr. Miyagishima said, I have no objections to changing the time to 7:00 p.m. 26 Mr. Luchini said, I would like to go back to 7:00 p.m. It was the consensus of 27 the members present to change the meeting time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for 1994. 28 Mr. Denmark said, if there's nothing else on this item, 1'd like to go on to 29 Other/Discussion. Mr. Ronald Montoya is here from NMSHTD. He is the Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator and he would like to make a presentation about 301 the bicycle/pedestrian movement and what is going on within the State of New Mexico. 31 OTHER/DISCUSSION 32 Mr. Ronald Montoya said, I would like to thank you for the invitation. You have very pleasant weather here in Las Cruces. It is still very warm compared to Santa Fe. I'm with the New Mexico State Highway and i i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 Transportation Department. I'm a planner with the department. My other job $ is also Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for the State of New Mexico. Under the provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, each 4 Department of Transportation was required to establish a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator. The job of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator is to help promote 5 the increased use of non motorized modes of transportation such as bicycling, walking, jogging, and roller skating. Other duties of the Bicycle/Pedestrian 6 Coordinator are to assist in the designing process. What I am handing out to you are some examples of what came out of the Albuquerque Bicycle Plan. We 7 are here to assist in the design area also, if you need it. These designs would meet the actual guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Examples of 8 these are in Albuquerque on the west side. These are bicycle paths where new houses have been developed recently. Mr. Parks told me that the building 9 permits are up, here in the Las Cruces area. I would expect something like this in the future for .the Las Cruces area. Here are some examples of the Bosque 10 area, and on the east side, you see some roller blade areas (pointing to slides). 11 Another job of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator is to promote the use of safety for the bicycle/pedestrian facilities. One of the ways we do that is 12 through the Traffic Safety Bureau. This is one example, the New Mexico Bicyclist's Guide. These can be handed out to interested parties, if requested. I 13 also have another pamphlet on order which is entitled, "Bicycle/Pedestrians for Business." I've also handed out a federal pamphlet which deals with 14 federal funding. It outlines how to apply for federal funding for 15 bicycle/pedestrian projects. It also gives the criteria of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator's role in the State. I'll let you all read through 16 that material. I've also handed out a sheet which has my name and address on it. If you have any questions pertaining to a bicycle lane, trail, or any other 17 questions, my address and phone number are listed there so that you can call or write to me. I'd also like to point out that there is a New Mexico Highway 18 Commission rule that prohibits bicycles on the interstates. That is a big issue with pro-bikers or bicycle activists. It is not a statute; it is a Highway 19 Commission rule. I have a pamphlet which outlines it, and the Transportation Enhancement Program guidelines. If you're interested in applying for 20 bicycle/pedestrian enhancement funding, those guidelines are in the white brochure I handed out. More recently, we've been working with the Task 21 Force under the New Mexico Highway Commission. It has already been endorsed by the governor. Other states have the Governor's Bicycle Task 22 Force, but since most funding for bicycle/pedestrian projects come from the Highway Transportation Funds, they felt it would be better under the wing of 23 the New Mexico Highway Commission. The next thing that we're working on is a City Bicycle Map. I want to point this out because it does have some 24 importance. I've talked to the towns of Gallup and Taos. The map can indicate places for tourism such as Mesilla, etc. The Arizona Bicycle Map shows the 25 Grand Canyon as a place to visit. The people from Taos want to add something about their area in the Bicycle Map. This would be used to attract tourism. One 26 thing that we're also working on and we're awaiting information on from the Federal Highway Administration is a Bicycle/Pedestrian Conference to be held 27 in the spring. This conference would be held for two days. It would be kind of like a "New Mexico Day". People would have a chance to get together and get 28 some kind of dialogue pertaining to bicycle/pedestrian funding and possibly lay down some type of ground work. So far, nothing has been done in this 29 I state pertaining to that. So we're going to try and do that within the next year. Now, the topic that everyone is always talking about is money. The 301 funding for the fiscal year 1993-94 for bicycle lanes and trails is roughly five million dollars; for pedestrian facilities it is two million dollars. Now, for the 31 period 1993-94 through 1998-99 is twenty-two million dollars in enhancement money. There is money available for these types of projects if the guidelines 32 are followed. In the meeting this afternoon, we noticed that there's not that much money toward the last few years. That's because we're assuming that toward the end of those years, we'll need these decreased amounts because the I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 majority of the projects will have been completed and therefore decreased funding will be needed. 8 Mr. Luchini said, is this New Mexico money or is it federal money? 4 Mr. Montoya said, it is federal money. 5 Mr. Tomlin said, is it local match? 6 Mr. Montoya said, yes, it is local match? 7 Mr. Tomlin said, is it 10%? 8 Mr. Montoya said, it is a 25% match. Again, the main reason that I'm here is to 9 promote myself as well as providing you with a little information about what is available and how you can benefit from what's available. I'll be glad to 10 answer any questions you might have. As I said, my address and phone number is listed on the pamphlet I gave out. I'm available to come down and 11 talk with you or other groups that you think might be interested. Just call me 12 and we can work out the details. Mr. Tomlin said, on the funding guidelines where you were talking about 13 transportation and other things, I noticed that in the Albuquerque area there's some for recreational purposes as well as transportation-related? Is 14 that correct? So, you don't have to be going from point a to point b? I've been approached several times looking . for recreational bike riding as a form of 15 exercise, health and outdoor activity. 16 Mr. Montoya said, as long as it is intermodal. It can be recreational or 17 enhancement funding but it does have to be transportation-related. 18 Mr. Luchini said, does this apply to just the City or does it include the County? 19 Mr. Montoya said, it would include the County since that's part of your RPO. 20 Mr. Luchini said, are there any other questions for Mr. Montoya? There were no other questions. 21 Mr. Montoya said, thank you for allowing me to make this presentation. 22 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, Item #B is discussion of 1994 Long Range 23 Plan, and the AE/TIP process. We'd like to bring the Policy Committee up to date. First off we'd like to talk about what happened today: that is a 24 coordination/communication type of meeting with the State MPOs, State Highway Transportation Personnel and the Federal Highway Personnel. At 25 this time, I'd like to ask that they introduce themselves. This will give the Policy Committee an opportunity to meet some of the other representatives 26 throughout the state. 27 Mr. Parks said, first, we have: John Baxter from the' State Highway Administration; Janet Stephens from the Highway Planning :and Research 28 Bureau; Ray Mathews from the Highway Department; Roy Cornelius from the I Highway Department; Pat Oliver from the Santa Fe MPO; and . Dan Stover from 29I the Transportation Programs Bureau. 301 Mr. Luchini said, we appreciate you being here. If we have any questions, we'll direct them to you. 31 Mr. Denmark said, a few months ago Pat Oliver and Mike Parks were discussing 32 some of the concerns that we have down here and what she was experiencing in Santa Fe. We felt that it would be a good idea to begin some systematic process of meeting occasionally like a quarterly basis to improve on some of the communication that needs to happen between the State Highway Z I' LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 Department and the MPOs. Obviously, due to the fact that we're in the process 3 of implementation of ISTEA, there's a lot of rules and regulations that we're going to have to comply with and deadlines we'll have to meet. So, we felt it 4 would be important to get together and begin that process. That's what we started today, down here in Las Cruces. I believe the next meeting will be next 5 April or May in Santa Fe to continue that process. We see it as a very positive note. What we talked about today is the final rule on state-wide and MPO 6 planning and the requirements that we're going to be under. I won't get into too much detail, but essentially, the impacts to our MPO are going to be to 7 expand on our Major Thoroughfare Plan and turn it into a "Comprehensive Transportation Plan". We're going to have to come in with a 20 year plan on 8 how we're going to deal with transit, highway uses, principal arterials, bike path movement, aviation, freight, and anything related to transportation and 9 intermodalism. The projected deadline that we're shooting for initially, as far as draft proposals, is sometime in the middle or end of March or early April in 10 which we will have to present a transportation plan that provides the necessary information as required by ISTEA to achieve that particular goal. At 11 that time it will probably be a parallel process with the state in conjunction with other MPOs and RPOs in meeting the public notification and review 12 requirements. The deadline that we're under is the December 18 deadline of 1994 in which we must have an MPO Transportation Plan. Probably the 13 biggest challenge that we're going to have as a part of that and impact our 14 particular MPO is the financial plan. We're going to have to provide the nexus between the projects that we're trying to promote and backing it up with 15 financing or the means that can achieve or implement that particular project. As you know, the last few years as part of our AE and TIP process we have an 16 overload on our list. Some of us have called it our dream list. We're going to have to somehow come down and really look at the trade-offs that we face as 17 far as what we really see as a priority and what we're probably going to get as far as the financing. That is the process in which we met with the TAC last 18 month to discuss this very issue. Even though we are not required under ISTEA at this point in time to create that nexus between that transportation 19 plan and the AE/TIP, the following year, we believe, we need to begin that process and work our way toward that particular goal. So, the strategy we will 20 be concentrating on this winter and starting tomorrow with the TAC is looking at those numbers and determining what are our priorities and how that relates 21 the projected funding amounts that we are anticipating. We anticipate the Policy Committee beginning that review in January and looking at the 22 proposed AE and the TIP. We're hoping that by March we will have a draft of the Transportation Plan that will include a bike path master plan, a transit 23 plan and also revisions to the Major Thoroughfare to come into conformance with ISTEA requirements. ' 24 Mr. Haltom said, I'd like to ask a question. In terms of funding, are we expected 25 to go beyond the five years? 26 Mr. Denmark said, part of the transportation plan does require a finance plan, and we are required to go to a 20 year time frame. 27 Mr. Haltom said, I wonder how realistic that is? One of the things that we have 28 been interested in doing is plan out to 20 years to indicate the path, for I example, of major thoroughfares and other thoroughfares. Not because we 29 intend necessarily to build them at a particular time but because we find that it is desirable to let people know where the routes are going to be so that when 301 the City is building up, where people are buying property they'll know what is likely to be, in the future, a major thoroughfare. But, expecting 31 municipalities to speak of funding 20 years away or counties, I wonder how realistic that is. 32 Mr. Denmark said, that will be a difficult task. Currently, Albuquerque has completed a Transportation Plan and what was expressed at our meeting today was that the most difficult aspect of the planning process, obviously, is the i A i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER S, 1993 1 2 8 financial package that has to tie to that plan. We feel that should be the major issue here and that's why we feel we need to start tackling that issue now 4 through the AE and TIP process. When we started putting those categories into a different format, it became very clear that what we were asking for was not 5 even close to what we've been historically receiving in past, even if you projected some form of inflationary rate. What we were told today is that the 6 State looks at just a conservative number of two per cent increase of growth every year. Obviously, if you look at that, we still have a dream list that needs 7 to be reviewed and determine what the trade-offs are as far as priorities. 8 Mr. Ferralez said, I realize that we have set our priorities for the foreseeable future, but, I think that in dealing with the funding for five, ten, twenty 9 years, that we shouldn't forget some of the projects that we have gone through that are, and I think we all would agree, are very important. By that I mean, 10 projects such as the south route and the north route away from US 70 to join it with Interstate 10 and 25. As we all know the problems that we're facing on 11 Highway 70 are going to increase. As we go into this coming year and talk 12 about long-range planning, I don't think we should leave these projects dormant. We need to be sure to emphasize that as more time goes by, the 13 greater the problems. We certainly want to look forward to funding some of those projects. 14 Mr. Denmark said, I concur. At the staff level we realize we don't see that as a 15 major problem because we're lucky enough to have the highway aspect of the planning that's been in progress for a few years. So, it's all just a matter of 16 incorporating some of the requirements as a part of ISTEA and presenting that to the public for their review. We don't see that going to the wayside or 17 starting over. The issues that we see as being difficult and which will require some thought and discussion are, obviously, transit because there currently 18 isn't a transit plan saying this is what we want to do 20 years from now. So, we're essentially starting new. There has been some bike path planning in 19 the past but nothing formalized through the MPO or even through the City recently. We do know that the University Avenue Corridor Plan has started 20 discussion and the need to provide some transportation between the college community down University to the city. There's the Triviz bike path issue 21 that's currently being looked at for conceptual design, and so that's something new. But obviously, the financial plan is going to be the big issue because 22 there's a lot of projects that are currently on the TIP that are going to have to be seriously looked at to see if that's a realistic place to put them. Are we 23 really thinking that we're going to accomplish that three years from now when realistically it might be more in the five year to ten year range before 24 we get to that project? We also have projects that might not really belong on an AE/TIP. It's really a local type of project and should be part of that 25 jurisdiction's CIP. That needs to be looked at and determined by the MPO. What staff is talking about is creating some form of an MPO program that takes a lot 26 of those projects that might not necessarily be on the first five year AE or TIP that we just don't discard them or throw them; we keep records of projects that 27 might be eligible for co-op funding or map funding, for example. So that when those issues come up in City Council or the County, we can quickly 28 I provide a list of what has been considered a priority in the past. I think it's just a matter of formalizing a little differently than we have done in the past. 29 Mr. Luchini said, are there any other questions? There were no other 301 questions. 31 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, I have only one last thing. I need to inform you that staff, along with the Mayor of Las Cruces made a presentation at the 32 State Highway Commission meeting to continue to push the efforts of the US 70 Frontage Road process. Essentially what we wanted to do was let them know that we feel that this project is a high priority for the Las Cruces MPO, and we wanted to provide a report to educate them on the fact that we are still experiencing a considerable amount of growth out there. The location of the i I' LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 $ new schools obviously has impacted the area and the projected development 4 has been minimal compared to what has actually been occurring out in that particular area. The reason that we initially began this particular process was 5 under the belief that there was an appropriation of some moneys to be used for final design. It came to be that right before, the meeting, there's a question as 6 to the fact if that money was actually appropriated or not. Several highway people were unable to locate the moneys that Congressman Skeen's office ? claimed was available for the final design project. They are currently in the process of reviewing that particular issue and determining if there is 8 anything that can be done. We know that there are moneys that are currently within the State's STIP for 1994 meaning we will have moneys available to 9 begin that particular process. We are currently in contact with the State Highway and Transportation Department staff to determine what needs to be 10 done currently to continue our efforts in achieving this goal of frontage roads. 11 Mr. Haltom said, I was wondering, since we have some people here from Santa 12 Fe, if it wouldn't be a good time for us to express our dismay at the fact that we carefully prepare our AE setting priorities and then to find out that the 13 department has different priorities on their list of projects. Items that we do not regard important and items that have gotten there not through our action 14 but through some sort of action outside the MPO. I know that makes me somewhat resentful when it happens and I don't think the MPO, as a whole, is 15 very happy about that. I don't know how it happens. There have been suggestions that they have been political considerations and that disturbs me 16 considerably. So, I would like to think that the only way projects involving State and Federal Highways could get approved for funding is that it met the 17 requirements set by law and go through the MPO process. I just wanted the people from Santa Fe to understand that this member of the MPO Committee and 18 the Las Cruces City Council, for one, does not believe that this does anything at all for the credibility of the process that we're following. And if anyone 19 chooses to respond, I would be happy to hear from them. 20 Mr. Luchini said, does anyone wish to respond to Councilman Haltom? Does anyone have any other comments. 21 Mr. Haltom said, I know that staff is not likely to comment about that, but I'm a 22 politician, and I don't give a damn whether the State likes it or not. 23 Ms. Janet Stephens (State Highway and Transportation Department) said, I'll be happy to relay this message. 24 - Mr. Haltom said, including the last statement, if you wish. 25 Mr. Luchini said, in response to this, the County Commission will be 26 introducing a resolution at the next meeting stating they support the efforts of the City and which will go to the Highway Department for whatever it's 27 worth. Any other comments? If not, we do have a quorum, so we can proceed to action on the Minutes. 28 REVIEW OF MINUTES 29 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Minutes as prepared. Mr. 301 Ferralez seconded. Mr. Luchini said, it has been moved and seconded to accept the Minutes. Mr. Haltom said, I have a correction but since it's only a typo, I 31 will call the secretary's attention to it later. Mr. Ferralez said, I have some questions with regards to statements in the minutes but since we're only 32 considering the transcription of the minutes, I will wait for the proper time to bring up my questions. Mr. Luchini said, if there are no other comments, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The Minutes were approved unanimously. I i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 OLD BUSINESS 4 Mr. Luchini said, okay, now we'll y go into Old Business. Item A is Picacho Hills 5 Alternative Access Study: Short Term Plan amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-013. 6 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, if the Policy Committee will recall this 7 particular issue came about when MPO staff became concerned with a proposal by the developers of Picacho Hills in which they were required under the ETZ 8 Subdivision Regulations to submit a sketch plan on any future development. Our concern was the amount of private land that has the potential for 9 development in the area over the long range. As a result, they submitted a master plan and began the process of providing access alternatives or study 10 corridor areas to undergo the review of the MPO. Last time this was submitted to the Policy Committee, the Policy Committee directed staff to make some 11 modifications to reflect a short term and a long term process in which to manage the potential growth that might occur in the area. At this time, I'll 12 turn it over to Mr. Parks, and he will give you some specifics of the two resolutions and some of the comments that we have received from the public. 13 Mr. Mike Parks said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to show some graphics which 14 pertain to the first resolution as instructed by the MPO Committee. We had people in the audience that commented on this. These two resolutions that you 15 have before you tonight are the result of those comments. Basically, as I read the Minutes, staff was instructed to come up with two scenarios. One being the 16 short term scenario and the other being a long term scenario. Resolution 93- 013 is the short term scenario. As the graphic shows, and is written in the 17 resolution and the action form you have before you, this would be a resolution which would widen Picacho Hills Drive when it reaches its capacity in the 18 near future. It simply states in accordance with the adopted master plan, that at the time of the 400th dwelling unit building permit for Picacho Hills, that 19 Picacho Hills Drive will have a study conducted to determine its capacity and its potential widening. This is, we feel, a resolution that reflects what was 20 discussed in that there are no short term plans to build roads around Picacho Hills, but rather the MPO wanted the widening of Picacho Hills Drive first 21 before any other road was implemented. That is the short term plan. 22 Mr. Denmark said, if I can add, Mr. Chairman, this particular proposal has been approved also by the ETZ Commission. What the developer did was submit 23 a master plan that specifically ties future infrastructure improvements to the amount of lots built, depending upon the number of lots that are developed 24 will determine the amount of infrastructure that has to be added to a particular site. That addresses drainage, utility services and road infrastructure. As Mr. 25 Parks indicated, what the master plan reflects, as approved by the ETZ Commission, was this short term scenario. It was there understanding that the 26 MPO would look at the long term needs. So, what we requested from the developer and the ETZ Commission agreed to, was for them to provide access 27 points at the boundary of their development. And so if the MPO felt it 28 warranted to extend those thoroughfares or service routes into some form of study corridor area, the possibility was there. So they gave us all possible 29 I access for all different directions to meet that objective. That is what the ETZ Commission approved. In addition to that, the improvements to Picacho Hills 301 was critical to their approval of the master plan. ' 31 Mr. Haltom said, I would like to suggest that we dispose of this particular short term plan first because I don't think that there's likely to be any significant 32 opposition to it, and too, I don't know what the rest of the plan has to do with this one. What the long term plan has to do with the short term plan and I think we could dispose of it. I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 , 2 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, I agree totally because the long term range is 3 really the one that demands strict consideration. I move for passage of Resolution 93-013. Mr. Haltom seconded. Mr. Luchini said, is there any 4 further discussion? Mr. Cadena said, I'd like to hear a little bit more of a presentation before the vote. 5 Mr. Denmark said, as directed by the Policy Committee, the Committee wanted 6 us to divide the two issues off. This one is essentially what the master plan reflects as approved by the ETZ Commission. As lots continue to be developed, 7 they are going to be required to improve Picacho Hills Drive to meet the capacity. That is dependent on the study that would be done. If they need to 8 add lanes, then that's what they'll be required to do. If it means, add lanes and repave, then that's what they'll have to do. The second issue is a long term. 9 This gets into a whole other issue that was not tied to the master plan nor approved by the ETZ Commission. All they were concerned about was that 10 there was plenty of opportunity or flexibility for the MPO to make a determination on where a regional road system should be in place. That would 11 be the second resolution not this one. 12 Mr. Luchini said, this was discussed pretty thoroughly at the last meeting. 13 Mr. Cadena said, yes, I understand. Your point is that it is completely separate, 14 so that's why you want to vote on this one first and then go on to the long term. That's fine. 15 Mr. Luchini said, is there any other discussion. If not, all those in favor, 16 signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. 17 Mr. Luchini said, okay, the next one is Resolution 93-014, Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Long Term Amendment to the Major Thoroughfare 18 Plan. 19 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, as the Committee may remember from the last meeting that we had, the idea of adopting all at once was not acceptable, which 20 is why we separated the issues. In this plan, you'll notice that there's no connectors to Shalem Colony Trail. I think that was an issue that was fairly 21 evident at the last meeting. Shalem Colony Trail is not designed at this point to handle additional traffic. In it's place we have a collector to the east of 22 Picacho Hills that goes due north. That was not on the previous plan for consideration but that was mentioned by Councilor Ferralez as an appropriate 23 location for that. It also came up in the discussion that the MPO would not like to endorse at this time further development or encroachment towards ' the 24 airport. If you'll recall, there were arrows at these locations (pointing to graphic) to indicate that there would be expansion to the west, encroaching up 25 the escarpment towards the airport. Those have been deleted. Other than that it is essentially the same plan. We had a study corridor on the north side to 26 indicate the option for further study of the 5,000 acres of private land in this area. If that ever becomes an option that the owner would like to develop, we 27 would have something in our plan to show the need for transportation study to be done in that area. We also show along with the master plan,- the perimeter 28 being covered for arterial and collector circulation. It remains unchanged from the original. It would basically skirt the perimeter. All, of these are on 29 section lines or quarter section lines so they are easy to survdy. The right of way from Picacho Hills developers already exists for this one right here 30 (pointing to graphic)--it's 100 feet. So we have essentially followed that line so we wouldn't have to acquire any additional right of way in another location. 31 There was some discussion, if you'll recall about these collectors here (pointing to graphic) and as to which we would like. We may or may not need 32 them. Basically this section of land here is federal land--BLM land. As you know, with BLM we have the opportunity to get the right of way free of charge to the public. So, we put both of these here in order to make use of that and to show the potential of acquiring that right of way. Several people have A . 1 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 discussed with me the idea of having frontage acquired for the road here on 3 the private side which is the east. It has always been the intent of the MPO to acquire right of way as cheaply as possible. If we can get it from BLM, that 4 would certainly be our recommendation to the Committee. Bear in mind that both of these are on here due to the fact that if and when, BLM ever decides to 5 release this land in addition to the private acreage here, we feel that two routes would be necessary rather than saying one only. Keep in mind that 6 this is a 20 year concept. We're not proposing to build roads tomorrow or even five years from now, but if we do not have an arterial somewhere or a 7 collector somewhere listed it is very difficult for us, as staff, to acquire that land when it becomes time to develop that through the subdivision process. 8 With that, we'll answer any questions the Committee might have. 9 Mr. Ferralez said, basically what this Resolution 93-014 is for the future acquisition of right of way to the extent of 200 feet at least on the north/south 10 connection to Highway 70. This would provide the future more than one accessibility to Highway 70. Referring to the Minutes on Page 11, Mr. Newman 11 properly referred to the accessibility of emergency vehicles, such as fire, ambulances and so forth which I think is very important. My only question at 12 this time is should we or should we not establish a guideline stating at what point of development should this extension to the south onto Highway 70 be 13 endorsed more forcibly by the MPO. The reason being that as more development takes place, there's going to be an increased demand for 14 emergency vehicles assuming that the possibility would exist that Picacho Hills Drive, for whatever reason, one day might be blocked off. That would be 15 a dangerous situation for the community. It would be even now because 16 there's really no secondary accessibility into the area, but as more development takes place, there would be more traffic on Picacho Hills Drive 17 and the possibility of some day some situation developing where it would be blocked off. 18 Mr. Denmark said, Councilor Ferralez, a couple of points on that particular 19 issue. When the master plan was processed through and reviewed, there were a couple of things that needed to be addressed. One was the fact of the right of 20 way being provided by the developers going south. What staff asked for was the maximum amount of right of way that they would have to provide on that 21 master plan with the thought that depending on what the MPO did as far as that, they would have to amend their master plan to reflect your approval. 22 The second thing was the issue of Picacho Hills and access which was the major point of the master plan decision-making process. That was the drive 23 toward requiring them to do a study based on the amount of development that they create to determine if just by adding lanes to Picacho Hills Drive or 24 providing secondary access would be required. So, it's purely a development- driven master plan meaning that the City or the County or whatever 25 jurisdiction would not go in there and purposely build roads. It would be based on the development and the developers would be responsible to do that. So, if 26 Picacho Hills continued to build as projected in their master plan, it would be required to provide that secondary access. The question is where do they do that. That's why it's here. The second thing is implementation. There's two points under implementation. One is, once it's adopted under the Major 28 Thoroughfare Plan it's a part of the Design Standards. With the Design IStandards, if someone develops and they are affected by that, they have to 29 I provide the necessary right of way. So, for example, if BLM releases the land to the southwest and someone comes in to develop, they're going to have to 301 provide that right of way and build the roads. It's as simple as that. The second thing is, as far as implementation, is that the staff would have the authority, if 31 it's on the Major Thoroughfare Plan, if approved, to go in there and contact BLM and get the right of way. Then the right of way would be preserved on 32 that particular point of view. So, we're covering all bases. I , 4 . r LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 Mr. Ferralez said, that's the part that I feel is important, because someone has to have the authority to enforce it if the time comes to make sure that right of 3 way is provided. 4 Mr. Denmark said, the concern we had is that if no development occurs out there, then obviously we don't need these roads, but we do know that 5 surrounding that area is all private land with the exception of the BLM land. So, if you look 20 or 30 years from now, and it's fully developed, there's going 6 to have to be some coordinated effort toward a transportation plan. That was the concern we had when the master plan was brought in because they were 7 raising the density over their previous master plan that was provided about 10 8 years ago. Mr. Haltom said, for the purposes of our understanding this completely. What 9 is the distance between the minor north/south collector and the major? 10 Mr. Parks said, the distance is one-half mile. 11 Mr. Haltom said, but the collector going south, is there a need for that to be a 12 200 foot right of way? Mr. Parks said, according to the Design Standards, a collector road would be a 13 maximum of 80 feet and the major could be the 200 feet. 14 Mr. Haltom said, I heard him mention 200 feet, and I don't see the necessity of 15 a 200 foot right of way a half mile away from a major thoroughfare. Mr. Parks said, let me explain a little further. We feel that this collector would 16 really be for a very limited area and so we don't feel that would need a 200 foot 17 right of way, whereas the major arterial would be getting traffic from this entire region, and so therefore the west side of Picacho Hills would need the 18 larger facility. The other benefit is that we do not need as much right of way here, so it would be a lesser impact. 19 Mr. Ferralez said, I think we specifically noted at the time of the meeting that 20 200 feet would be required on the north/south because acquiring the 200 feet in the middle of the section would be good, since a large portion of it wouldn't 21 cost anything, and we would have control of it. If it's needed, fine, but if 20 years from now we find that only 150 feet is needed, we can always get rid of 22 the excess. But, I feel that 200 feet is not excessive. 23 Mr. Denmark said, there would be no right of way acquisition as far as cost to the government. The reason is that in the master plan for Picacho Hills," the 24 developers had to provide right of way and then we can get the BLM right of way also. 25 Mr. Cadena said, Mr. Parks, on that collector on the east, what is that 26 currently? Is it a road? 27 Mr. Parks said, it's right at the edge of where the golf course exists and the valley. 28 Mr. Denmark said, the master plan currently, as it was approved, reflects it as 29 ( almost a loop street. It's there but it's not classified as a collector. It would be a local road, at the most. 301 Mr. Cadena said, so, Picacho Hills Drive goes how far? Mr. Parks indicated the 31 road on the graphic. 32 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Resolution 93-014. Mr. Ferralez seconded. Mr. Luchini opened the floor for discussion. I � n I' LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 3 Mr. Jack Kelley said, I'm one of the owners up here on this property in BLM Section 19. My question is, this road here right now is going to affect all of the 4 property owners along that area. Since this is going to be into the future, and the one farther to the west impacts nobody. There isn't anybody out there to 5 impact. And, if you went another quarter of a mile out from this, you've got an escarpment. This is a BLM off-road park right now. Part of the reason why 6 I bought this land is because it is backed up against that, but my major concern here is these roads here. Are the developers of Picacho Hills paying 7 for this or are the taxpayers? 8 Mr. Denmark said, that particular collector would be paid for by the 9 developers. It is purely based on the development, but that particular issue is a little different because if the BLM land is never transferred for private 10 ownership or development, it is going to be driven by how much development occurs on the east side. So, for example, if waste water becomes available in 11 that area and densities change and you start seeing the ETZ zoning changing from the ER3 and ER4, that you're seeing on it now, one acre and two acre type 12 parcels, and they start changing to 5,000 square foot and 10,000 square foot lots then obviously that's going to impact the transportation in that area. That's 13 something that would have to be addressed. What the master plan reflects is that once they get to a certain amount of development, they're going to have to 14 determine can they just improve and expand Picacho Hills Drive or do they need to provide secondary access. That's where that particular issue comes up. 15 If that happens; and they have to utilize that road for secondary access, then the developers would be responsible to improve the road. 16 Mr. Kelley said, they would build the road? 17 Mr. Denmark said, according to the master plan, yes. 18 Mr. Kelley said, my question is, which one gets built first? Would it be the 19 major or the minor? 20 Mr. Denmark said, that would be based on the future development--where they develop. They're claiming that most of their development will occur on the 21 southwest corner of that parcel and then gradually develop to the north. However, that's going to be dependent upon the market that they're trying to 22 achieve. Supposedly, they're coming in with a slightly less expensive product than what they have out there, but it's still considered high in marketing. 23 Growth could be far slower than what they're projecting. They believe that they're not going to impact the need for secondary access. Based on their 24 studies, it's going to be a peripheral development that might occur and that they would be forced to plot it out meaning the land to the north and to the 25 west. That hasn't been answered, and that's why they were required to provide a study at that time depending on the amount of development. 26 Mr. Kelley said, but, at this time, you're still going out for these BLM right of 27 ways for road construction. What I'm asking is, okay, I end up with a lien on my property for whatever; last time was half, now it's 100 feet. What I'm 28 saying is 100 feet, you've got it as well as the house...the whole works. My house is within 100 feet of that BLM boundary along with 3 or 4 others out 29 there. 301 Mr. Denmark said, right of way preservation is what we're looking for in preparation of potential future development. In this particular case, all of the 31 right of way would be obtained from BLM. There would be no acquisition on the east side. It would be all on the west side. 32 Mr. Kelley said, that's what written on the plan? i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 Mr. Denmark said, that could be approved by the Policy Committee, requiring staff that when they implement the plan, to obtain all of the right of ways as 8 part of it. 4 Mr. Tomlin said, so moved, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haltom seconded. Mr. Haltom said, it would not make sense for us to buy and take your property when we 5 can get BLM property for free. 6 Mr. Kelley said, my question too is, this plan is pretty detailed. Which road will be built first when that time comes. Will it be the minor or the major. Mr. Parks said, common sense would probably dictate that. This is already 8 owned as dedicated right of way. It would be cheaper in everybody's mind to develop what has already been given for the road than to go and study a new 9 location. It's no guarantee, but .... 10 Mr. Luchini said, as the area develops, that's what's going to determine which one is built. It seems like that other area will develop before your area is 11 developed. 12 Mr. Kelley said, can you put that in the plan? 13 Mr. Haltom said, we don't know where the development is coming first. That's 14 the problem in saying which one will come first. If there's more development to the major, then that's the one that would be developed. Since the developers 15 are going to have to pay for it, then where they develop will determine which of those two places will come in first. If I may add, the reason why this smaller 16 collector nearest to your property is where it is located, is because that's as far apart as you should get between through streets in order to serve as many 17 people as you possibly can. 18 Mr. Kelley said, two more quick comments. If this one is built, these people are still going to short cut it. The other problem is that this road is going to 19 come out by the water slide and then we're creating the same problem that we've got over here on the east side. I drive that road every day and it's a 20 death trap. This one looks like it's going to be pretty close to the interchange where it can tie into that interchange where you don't have these people 21 darting in front of you all of the time. Of course, right now, out in this area the traffic is not as heavy. I hope you'll take that into consideration, too. If 22 you look at the water slide down here, you'd have to come into east bound lanes uphill and your blind. Thank you for your time. 23 Mr. Tomlin said, I was going to comment about the phasing of the property' and 24 a lot of it having to do with the development aspect. Staffs point is that if it began in this area where you live, if it stays the way it is, and BLM doesn't 25 clear the land to the west of you and try to dispose of it, then I don't see any reason why you would have a collector being built there at all. Nobody is 26 going to build it because there's no development in that area. The thing that you don't know is that there's some large tracts of land where you live and if 27 things change and the people who own that land start coming in with subdivisions and start subdividing and creating additional traffic, then that 28 would drive the need to build a street of that nature in order to help service Ithat area. If you had development north of there, you sure want to build the 29 major road first instead of that one because that's where you'd have all the people go that live north of you. My question would be to staff is on this road 301 that we have to the west. Can we get the right of way set aside even if BLM does not declare that land for disposition. (Mr. Parks said, yes) Because then 31 what that does in that westerly area and you pointed out some topography problems that are out there, you have to remember that line might shift 32 because of those problems just for the construction of it to go. So, if we have it there, and that's where the priority would be to go to serve the land north of you, that is in your best interest, then you don't have them trying to come down and bring a major street there, do a turn there on the minor and come I t � LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 8 down to a street that would be next to your property trying to access Highway 70. You'd want all of that traffic generated off the site, out of your 4 neighborhood, way away from you, to take that street and stay away from you. 5 Mr. Kelley said, well when the time comes, I hope that whatever developer is supposed to pay for that road, actually pays for it, because I think it's going to 6 cost millions, and I don't think they're going to want to pay for it. 7 Mr. Tomlin said, you'd be surprised. They built Roadrunner Parkway, and North Telshor. The City and the taxpayers had nothing to do with those roads. 8 They built it, turned it over and said here it is. All of the utilities are there. All 9 the curb, gutter and sidewalks are there. They were all built by the developer. Mr. Kelley said, are they leaving it up to the Planning Department. 10 Mr. Denmark said, if it's adopted in the plan, it's our responsibility to 11 implement that plan. We're usually dealing with two different distinct issues. One is a master planning type of concept or advance planning which is what 12 this is where you don't have development. You're planning for roads in certain areas. When the developer comes in to develop, they're going to have 13 to provide a final design and address some of those issues, like you were referring to down there as far as access. But in other cases, we get into a 14 different type of planning where we're already in an existing developed area such as the Missouri/Boutz issue in town where we've got residential 15 neighborhoods that are in the area that we have to address. It's a different type of planning. Obviously the jurisdiction is going to have to step in and try 16 to achieve some federal moneys or local moneys to accomplish that particular thoroughfare. In this particular case it is different. It's a master planning 17 type of concept and that's what happened on the East Mesa behind the dam and why Roadrunner was built by developers. It didn't serve any purpose to the 18 City. We didn't need a road out there. There weren't any people living out 19 there. If someone wants to develop, then they're going to have to build the road. And that's why North Telshor was built and Roadrunner was built and 20 eventually you'll see another thoroughfare built called Las Alamedas. 21 Mr. Tomlin- said, you mentioned the road that runs over to Quesenberry and the fact that it's underdeveloped. Because it is a dedicated road way, I assume that 22 the County has the pleasure of maintaining it, if there's some improvements that need to be made out there in order to facilitate transportation movement 23 to that road because you say its got problems, then that's when the taxpayers would pay, because that was allowed to develop with a road network that's not 24 adequate to handle what is finally being built out there. Taxpayers are having to pay for improving that road. When Quesenberry was out there and they 25 didn't plan for anybody moving out there, and so nobody was concerned about making sure that we had adequate roadways, and then low and behold, people 26 did move out there and now that roadway is not adequate. So, we don't want to have to go back and then have the taxpayers improve it because we didn't 27 require the developer to provide adequate right of way and we, didn't have him build the infrastructure, and somebody has to pay for it. Maybe the County 28 will have to do an improvement district like the City does. When they do I assessment districts, not only are the taxpayers paying, but specifically the 29 property owners along that roadway will have to pay and tltat really has an impact on the people living there. So, the planning process is trying to get 301 those people to build the roads and provide the right of way and build that infrastructure that are going to directly have a benefit from it. It's going to 31 make their development more marketable, and transportation is needed. One of the problems, I think, that has plagued Picacho Hills from the very 32 beginning as an outsider looking in has been that cock-eyed Picacho Hills Drive. We have neighborhoods in the City of Las Cruces where we have streets that need to be widened and improved to handle traffic flow from one area to another and the neighborhoods don't want to do that because it means increased traffic and increased traffic speed. They don't want to do that. We 1 , z Ij 111 1 , LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 3 understand those things happen. You find people that even though Quesenberry does not have an adequate right of way, would not want anything 4 done with that because they don't want any more people using it. They want to be able to have it maintain the lower speed because you don't want to drive fast 5 on that road because it's not safe. So, there are advantages and disadvantages. I think this master plan provides you with a kind of protection you need with 6 the amendment that's on the floor to make sure that all of that right of way is taken to the west and does not affect your property. It is being responsive to 7 your concern. 8 Mr. Ivan Taylor said, Mr. Chairman, we own property adjacent to Picacho Hills to the east, do you happen to know where the sewage disposal plant would be 9 shown on that. (Mr. Parks indicated the plant area on the graphic). Mr. Taylor said, has any consideration been given to what effect, if any, this 10 development will have on this plant. That's going to have to be increased in size. Our concern is about the sewage disposal plant because it is affecting the 11 value of our property. I wondered if any consideration has been given at all in that connection. I know that's not part of the road corridor layout but I 12 wondered if any discussion had been given on that. 13 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, yes it has. It was not part of the MPO process but it was part of the ETZ process. The master plan does reflect that alignment. 14 The difference is that it doesn't reflect a continuation of that alignment or corridor to the north. As part of that they had to consider the waste water 15 facility that they had to expand based on the number of lots being developed. 16 Mr. Taylor said, then apparently according to this the waste water plant will be 17 between the corridor and these property lines of Picacho Hills. Mr. Denmark said, that is correct. There's two things that they've got to do. 18 One is to make sure it is in compliance today and then when future 19 development occurs, they've got to expand that facility. Mr. Taylor said, probably three or four months ago, I requested a public 20 hearing from Santa Fe from the Environmental Department and to this date, I Zl haven't heard a single word from them. Apparently, I've been ignored completely. I thought at least they could have answered and said, we're 22 considering it or we're not going to consider it or something. But there was absolutely no response. This is of utmost concern to us, and I wanted to find 23 out if it had been discussed. 24 Mr. Denmark said, that's a good point and that was a major issue along with the Picacho Hills Drive secondary access issue as far as the master plan. What was 25 required by the ETZ Commission through staffs recommendation was creating benchmarks, meaning they wouldn't be allowed to obtain a building permit or 26 a future subdivision approval until they satisfied those requirements. 27 Mr. Taylor said, having been out there since the inception of Picacho Hills, we do know that there never was a hearing at all on the establishment of this 28 particular sewage disposal plant. We weren't notified it was going to be done, consequently before we realized it the thing was in. Thank you. 29 ! Ms. Sharon Bowling said, one question, please. I also live in a house along the 301 collector road. Since we have your assurance that you don't want our property ' now to put the road on, my question is could we convince you to move it 31 slightly further to the west? This is a residential section. Most of the time, you have your houses back yard to back yard with a street on either side. Instead 32 of putting a street on my back yard with nobody behind me, I'd just as soon you move it to the left, you know if you have acre lots, you assume an acre width to move it slightly further. Because that entire collector is going to be on the right on BLM anyway. i 1 I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 8 4 Mr. Tomlin said, would you prefer to have houses backed up to you than... 5 Ms. Bowling said, yes, I'd rather have somebody's back yard next to mine than a highway. 6 Mr. Tomlin said, the only alternative that I could see in doing that Mr. 7 Chairman would be that any development that would occur in that land should it be made available for development by BLM, would be to have some kind of 8 road network that would go backed up into there with a minor pattern of collecting of residential streets so that basically I was thinking you'd have a 9 local street between them that would be going in there and collecting through there. The major street would be a series of cul-de-sacs or something. Those 10 are generally design problems. I think that the point is that it's not necessary depending on what kind of development configuration would be presented 11 that street would ever be built. They could come in during the subdivision approval process because they would be notified of a plan to do development in 12 the area. Then you'd come in on the process and try to influence, if it's still with the ETZ, of making sure that street not be built where the allocation is but 13 to be changed and those things can happen. 14 Ms. Bowling said, basically you'd be asking the BLM just to tell you, yes we'll give you this right of way somewhere between here and here, whenever you 15 decide you want to build your road. 16 Mr. Tomlin said, what we're instructing staff to do, for that collector, on this plan which again, could be modified, set aside the right of way from BLM and 17 make it available. It doesn't mean that it's going to be given to us at any period of time until we need it or it's requested to be transferred. Can they transfer it 18 now to the County? 19 Mr. Denmark said, yes, in an easement form reserved for future use. 20 Mr. Tomlin said, we have several of those easements. We have some land set aside on the east mesa for easements. There's no plan to build, but they are 21 there in case we do need them. Some of them are never used. We had one subdivision that came in and it was there, and they asked that it be modified, 22 and moved. The MPO approved the realignment of that location based on what the specific development in the area that was being proposed they were 23 modified. That's where you, as a property owner, have another say in exactly how it's developed and how the configuration is. 24 Mr. Haltom said, the BLM prefers to give rights of way on section line or 25 quarter sections or half sections. That doesn't mean that the person who buys 26 that wouldn't be agreeable to move it one way or the other. The topography will often dictate that it be moved because it is cheaper for them to build the 27 road, so this is a general location not a specific location. If someone buys this property, they will have the option of changing it somewhat. 28 Mr. Luchini said, we have two motions on the floor. 29 Mr. Haltom said, I think, Mr. Chairman, I don't remember the statement of the 301 amendment but I think we should add it as Section 4 to Resolution 93-014. Mr. Tomlin how did you state that? 31 Mr. Tomlin said, what we want to do is instruct staff that any right of way 82 that's needed from BLM on that eastern quadrant as indicated on the plan be acquired from BLM rather than from the private sector. That is the amendment restated. Mr. Haltom said, I'll second it as restated. Mr. Luchini said, we'll vote on the amendment first. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Luchini said, now I 1S r e LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 8, 1993 1 2 3 we'll vote on Resolution 93-014 as amended. All those in favor signify by 4 saying aye. Any opposed? The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Luchini said, we don't have anything else on the agenda. I just want to add 5 that I'll be attending a Transportation meeting. ISTEA is going to be discussed and they asked me to sit on the panel. I'm still hoping that Secretary Pena will 6 help us out a little bit since he's from the west to have moneys come directly to the counties instead of the Legislatures. There's still quite a bit of money 7 coming to the state and we're on the short end of it, especially the county. I think we need to change that around a little bit so we get a little bit more. S We're in need of roads in the county. It's a big problem for us. We'll keep 9 trying. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned. 10 MINUTES SUBMITTED BY: 11 12 13 Minerva Sanchez, Recording Secretary 14 Las Cruces Planning Department 15 MINUTES APPROVED BY: 16 17 i8 Ray B. Luchini, Chairman Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 19 20 21 22 d 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 I 30 81 32 1 LAS; CR CES MEMOPOLITAN PLANNIAG ORGANIZATION MESILLA DORA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AGENDA The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, December 8, 1993, at 7 :30 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church St . , Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces will make every effort to provide reasonable accommodation (s) for people with disabilities who wish to attend a public meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the meeting. Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number, 526-1222 . I . CALL TO ORDER II . REVIEW OF MINUTES III . OLD BUSINESS A. Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Short Term Plan amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-013 . B. Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Long Term Plan amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-014 . IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Tentative Meeting Schedule for 1994 . V. OTHER/DISCUSSION A. Presentation by Ronald Montoya, NMSHTD Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator. B. Discussion of 1994 Long Range Plan, Annual Element, & Transportation Improvement Program. VI . ADJOURNMENT FILE COPY MPOPK PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS CRUCC5 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORCIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: December 8 , 1993 A'7ENDA ITEM: F'WIEW OF MINUTES A:7TION REQUESTED: R:view and Consideration of Minutes - Policy Committee Meeting on October 13 , 1993 . S°IJPPORT INFORMATION: P:>licy Committee Meeting Minutes for October 13 , 1993 . D:CSCUSSION/OPTIONS: N >ne 12 - y-q3 ell VD (vjyo(\Apr � 3 V\peg — 52,11 fV011-ef 4. L(, , tq 6 t ra 42 YI Ii Y) h, 14W 14W LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: December 8 , 1993 A;37ENDA ITEM: F _cacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Short Term Plan amendment to tie Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-013 . A'".TION REQUESTED: R !view and Consideration of Resolution 93-013 , amending the Major T loroughfare Plan SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 Resolution 93-013 2 Map of proposed amendment D]'SCUSSION/OPTIONS: A,r, a result of the October 13 , 1993 Policy Committee meeting, Staff was d..rected to provide the Policy Committee with alternative planning scenarios for the Picacho Hills Area. Long and short term plans for P_.cacho Hills have been provided to the Policy Committee in the form of Rfsolutions 93-013 and 93-014 . R(:solution 93-013 reflects the Policy Committee' s directives with rFgards to short term planning (0-5 years) . As discussed, Picacho Hills D ive would be widened in its present alignment when development wirrants as according to the approved Picacho Hills Master Plan. R(;solution 93-014 reflects long term (20 years) planning goals and d:i.rects staff to being the ROW acquisition process from BLM for a future c(:nnection south to US 70 . Together the resolutions provide the framework for an effective transporation system in this area. A public notice was published in the Sun News on Sunday, November 28, 1593 and signs posted on Monday, November 29, 1993 informing the public o- the proposed amendments to the Major Thoroughfare Plan. OPTIONS : 1) Approve Resolution 93-013 , amending the Major Thoroughfare Plan and providing short term direction to public and private sectors for the widening of Picacho Hills Drive . 2) Modify Resolution 93-013 , modify as per Policy Committee direction. 3) Deny Resolution 93-013 , the Major Thoroughfare Plan would not indicate any short term roadway designations for Picacho Hills Drive . Transportation Planning would only exist as a result of the Picacho Hills Master Plan. LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION NO. 93-013 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDICATING A SHORT TERM ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE PICACHO HILLS AREA. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee is informed that: WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the Major Thoroughfare Plan on December 11, 1991. This document can be amended as directed by the MPO Policy Committee, and; WHEREAS, the FY 1993-94 Unified Work Program outlines a work project to analyze potential corridors in the Picacho Hills area with this resolution being the result of that work, and; WHEREAS, land owners, developers, and the public have participated and have had the opportunity to comment on this action. MPO Staff has reviewed the action and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning organization's Policy Committee hereby resolves, determines, and orders as follows: 1. THAT the Major Thoroughfare Plan be amended to show the short term goal of widening Picacho Hills Drive as warranted by approved development plans and as shown on the attached map. 2. THAT staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 8th day of December 1993. "e-�> Z- ATTEST: hairman Luchini VOTE: Chairman Luchini: Ave Moved By: Ferralez \'� Councillor Haltom: Ave Councillor Ferralez: Ave Councillor Tomlin: Ave Saconded By: Haltom Commissioner Miyagishima: Ave Mayor Clayshulte: Absent Trustee Southworth: Absent 1PP O S TO "RM Trustee Cadena: Ave I aorney 7' MOM 15021K ills INTOEM, t. Ell tat R16" 1� ►'ill®�1�1==;%� % _�� _�=� ^_.-^.���f JJWAU SEEM mi 11 r- ■ LAS CRUC METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORG IZATION OLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FO RV FOR MEETING OF: December 8, 1993 A;3ENDA ITEM: P .cacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Long Term Plan amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-014 . A::TION REQUESTED: R !view and Consideration of Resolution 93-014 , amending the Major T ioroughfare Plan S;JPPORT INFORMATION: 1 , Resolution 93-014 2 Map of proposed amendment Dr'SCUSSION/OPTIONS: A , a result of the October 13, 1993 Policy Committee meeting, Staff was d:_rected to provide the Policy Committee with alternative planning scenarios for the Picacho Hills Area. Long and short term plans for P::cacho Hills have been provided to the Policy Committee in the form of R.�solutions 93-013 and 93-014 . R:asolution 93-014 reflects the Policy Committee' s directives with r:�gards to long term planning (5-20 years) . As discussed, Picacho Hills Di-ive would be widened before this plan would be considered. Resolution 9 .1-014 reflects all previous long term (20 years) planning goals with tie following exceptions : a Staff is directed to begin the ROW acquisition process for future connections south to US 70 through BLM land. A Collector would extend northward from Picacho Hills Drive to the Study Corridor being situated east of current the developed area. The Collector proposed to connect Picacho Hills Drive with Shalem Colony Trail is not a part of this resolution and amendment . Together Resolutions 93-013 and 93-014 provide the framework for an efffective transportation system in this area. A public notice was published in the Sun News on Sunday, November 28, 1393 and signs posted on Monday, November 29, 1993 informing the public o: the proposed amendments to the Major Thoroughfare Plan. 01?TIONS : 1) Approve Resolution 93-014, amending the Major Thoroughfare Plan and providing long term direction to public and private sectors . 2) Modify Resolution 93-014 , modify as per Policy Committee direction. 3) Deny Resolution 93-014, the Major Thoroughfare Plan would not indicate any long term roadway designations for the Picacho Hills area. Transportation Planning would only exist as a result of the Picacho Hills Master Plan. 4 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION NO. 93-014 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDICATING A LONG TERM ROADWAY LOCATIONS AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE PICACHO HILLS AREA. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee is informed that: WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the Major Thoroughfare Plan on December 11, 1991. This document can be amended as directed by the MPO Policy Committee, and; WHEREAS, the FY 1993-94 Unified Work Program outlines a work project to analyze potential corridors in the.Picacho Hills area with this resolution being the result of that work, and; WHEREAS, landowners, developers, and the public have participated and have had the opportunity to comment on this action. MPO Staff has reviewed the action and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee hereby resolves, determines, and orders as follows: 1. THAT the Major Thoroughfare Plan be amended to show the long term goals of the Picacho Hills Area as shown on the attached map. 2. THAT these goals are to be implemented after Picacho Hills Drive is widened. 3. THAT all ROW for the roadways extending south to US 70 through Sections 18 & 19 as shown on the attached map will be acquired from BLM and not from private land owners. 4. THAT staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 8th day of December 1993. ATTEST: thairman Luchini 12 1 VOTE: Chairman Luchini: Ave Moved By: Haltom Councillor Haltom: Ave Councillor Ferralez: Ave Councillor Tomlin: Ave Seconded By: Ferralez Commissioner Miyagishima: Ave Mayor Clayshulte: Absent Trustee Southworth: Absent APPROVED AS TO FORM: Trustee Cadena: Ave "it �� Attorney T • t�i►. zz MUNI Jm1111 i,� • �� 1 �'��I:•uuuiarr 1 I Jill u , U,�i•��'11111 �, fANN II J•� lii• 'T,��l'1 • 40 ME LAS CRUCES ME100POLITAN PLANNG ORGANIZATION MESILLA DORA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AGENDA the following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning )rganization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, )ecember 8, 1993, at 7 :30 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council 7hambers, 200 North Church St . , Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces will make every effort to provide reasonable accommodation (s) for people with disabilities who wish to attend a Dublic meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the neeting. Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number, 526-1222 . I . CALL TO ORDER II . REVIEW OF MINUTES III . OLD BUSINESS A. Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Short Term Plan amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-013 . B. Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Long Term Plan amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-014 . IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Tentative Meeting Schedule for 1994 . V. OTHER/DISCUSSION A. Presentation by Ronald Montoya, NMSHTD Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator. B. Discussion of 1994 Long Range Plan, Annual Element, & Transportation Improvement Program. VI . ADJOURNMENT 1� �tie. v^ �� � 'J PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS CRUC METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: December 8 , 1993 A';ENDA ITEM: T, ntative Meeting Schedule for 1994 . Al'TION REQUESTED: N( ne. SU'''PPORT INFORMATION: S- hedule of Meetings for 1994 . D:'::SCUSSION/OPTIONS: S- aff has prepared a calendar in order to secure the meeting places and t.. mes . Generally, the Policy Committee (PC) meets on the second (2nd) Wu::dnesday of each month at 7 : 30 p.m. ; the TAC on the first (1st) Tt.ursday of each month at 4 : 00 p.m. All meetings are to be held at the Lr::s Cruces City Hall in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted on t:` .e agenda. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 199 TAC meeti are at 4:00 p.m. PC meetings& at 7:00 p.m. Al n- al Wto be held in the Las Cnxes qty Cared Chwbws(too K Churoh St)Ls*n otherwise noted. i, .99YPLANattttttttaA � YEAR /99Y wrOl. lnMp.M IuhOU Y•,('lY •.f/ri'u. rr..ASJw SIr.MJI f.NPh •/!v/fM- _ __ _- __ 1 1 2 8 4 5 11. 2 .1 4 TAC TAC 8 4. 5 8 ll7 8 e 7' 8 9 10 ` 11 12e 7 8 9 10 11 12 TAC PC PC 10 11 12 19 14 1s to 14 '15 to ''' 17 18 19 19 14 15 to 17 18 /9 PC ie 17 is 19 20 121 22 ' 20 21 22 28 24 25 2e 20 21 22 29 24 25 28 Ta 24 25 2e 27 28 2927 28 — 27 28 29' »0 »1 APRIL HAY !ll10rB qwr arra« •rmrlar nwfm rMm f.rws� ruon raon nsw. .torso. rgwfn./ nwo flrwe. 1gY1 /rosoi/ rg1glY •n.[ftr Iwrav rrrrn a•n+e.. 1 2 1 2 A 4 5 8- 7 1 2 » a TAC TA 4' 5 8 xl 7 9! 8 a 10 11 12 1 18 14 5 e 7 B '9 10 11 TAC PC PC 12 18 /4 15 1e 15 to 17' 1 18 4' 19 120 -21 12 18 14 15 1e 17 18 x 18 19 20 21 22 28' 22 -23`'-..24 25 28 < 27 28 19 20 21 22. 2» 24 25 I4 25 20 27 ' 28 129 AO 29' 80 81 I 20 27- YB 29 80 MLY All EST .SEPTEMBER ,. nw.wfar nhalr mwa« tura• MMJM r.lty. ,rxrc.. rw./su. r./wl. rllwalr hMJI. raver rgron •rawnl. rrwfsM rssr wwa.1 �.. ' 1 2 1 2 a 4' 5 e 1 2 a TA TAC 4 5 8,- 7 8 9' �7j 8 9 10 11 12 1a 4 5 8 7' 8 9 10 TAC PC - PC lit 11 12 18 14 18 Is 14 1s to 117 1 18' 1 19 20 11 12 19 114 15 fe 17 PC 18 19 20 21 22 28 121 YY 28 24 125 Ye 27 18 /8 20 i 21 2Y 28 24 27 28 29 80 281 29 80 81 25 126 27 128 1211 80 3i /V10M MlfNr rMNr fi•On llar'aY IIr lOA rlhrlrnl h•Mrwl IA/lY f/IwalY ln0� Yasalr Igral •rW1a•' /IIIISY /Ir.I SIIwJ•. 1 2 a v..4 5 1 2 a TAC TAC ... 8 4 5 e_ � 8I 8 7F s' p rto 11 12 4 5' g' 7 x g 9 10 I TAC 1 PC; I PC 10 11 12 x 18' 14 15 Is* 141 'i 15 Ia., 17 - 19 119 - 11 12 1» 14 15 18 17 PC I I, I 17 to 19 20: 21, 22: 20 x11 pp. 29 24' 125 Y8 /9' 19' 20 Yt 22' 28 24 i I I i i 2.a 2a25 28 ' 127 28 29 27i 28 29 ' 80� - I'- �" 25. 2e 27 - P8 29 90 Al Policy Committee Mailing List Revised: November 30 , 1993 AGENDA (29 Agendas) HAND DELIVER BRANIGAN LIBRARY MPOAG, CITY HALL MPOAG, COUNTY COURTHOUSE MPOAG, Mayor Smith MPOAG, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Mr. Jerry Trojan MPOAG, Assistant City Manager, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Mr. John Keith (8 copies)MPOAG, Public Information Officer Mr. Mike Medley MPOAG, Airport Manager TOWN OF MESILLA MPOAG, ---------------------------------- MAIL Mr. John Baxter MPOAG, FHWA, 117 US Courthouse, Santa Fe, NM, 87501 Mr. Pleas Glenn MPOAG, State Land Office, P. O. Box 1148, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. Ron Forte MPOAG, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. Lalo Torrez MPOAG, Acting DAC Road Dept. Director, 2025 E. Griggs St., Las Cruces, NM, 88001 Mr. Ben Woods MPOAG, NMSU-Physical Plant Dir., Dept.3545; Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 88003 Mrs. Martha A. Durrenberger MPOAG, P.O. Box 1655, Las Cruces, NM, 88004 Dr. C. Quentin Ford MPOAG, NMSHTD Commissioner, 1985 Crescent Dr., Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Ms. Elaine Cundiff MPOAG, Engler Road Issue, 125 San Ysidro, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Mr. Woody Jenkins MPOAG, SCCOG Transportation Planner, P.O. Box 7385, Las Cruces, NM, 88006 Mr. Leroy Salazar MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Const. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 Mr. Tony Sayre MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 Mr. Andrew Martinez MPOAG, Dir. - NMSHTD Trans. Prog. Div, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 88504 Mr. George Herrera MPOAG, NMSHTD, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 88504 Mr. Larry Shannon MPOAG, DAC-Planning, 430 S. Main, Las Cruces, NM 88001 PACKET: (19 Packets, 11 w/ Minutes) HAND DELIVER ................................................................................................................................... :::::: .. .:::::::::::::::::::. ... :........... ....................:...:..::......... ....::. :.....:::. ....................................:.......... cYlkt..C3.�..tY .:2 .. £fi@Y3+3 � �! t3£C.'.: GhSfSi3fkY `> IL' :::r:::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::.<:::::::::::.:::::.:..:.:::.::......:........::.: tjcv CoiIia... ................................................... ...... ... f??mec�.. 4.........s!+ ..�.....: :::::::::::::: :.:::::::. :::::::::................ ::::::•::.:::::.......................................:::::�.....................X::::::::::::::......:......:................................... CltL2C :�zY;:Haig „,:.ice :... >7Fc i?sii.£#?`.;s> ?sp4#:tree>£4e#i? z' I ... ::::+. J. au38.>:C >: 3�?G#£t''?»>:>: D'mast :: atti er;r:::: ...................................................................:....................................................... TTO no A1z e +&: .....................................:::::•::::::::::.::::::::.*::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. :.::.... ...................................... ; ::::::::::::.:::::::.::::::::::::::...........::...:::::..:..........:..................:.......................................... .......... :::::::::::i?]3?Lt£t: ....X;:.W`;:3+fi33�....�X::%t?�a:::�E�.:�I`C�:: :: :::::::..:..::• ::::::::::: ........... D... .......................... >:'>:s: M <::::<:<;:DC3ut:: fi ::L'3O' .:;:: @x y >34i#eft:'::::::>?><e'. #ar:>:< 1fi ''<=' :.' :: :x. ::..:: :::•>:•::::::::...................................................................................... ..............:............................................................. MAIL Mr. Dan Stover MPOPK, NMSHTD (fax agenda 827-0431), P.O. box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. Richard Montoya MPOPK, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Commissioner Ken Miyagishima MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee, 225 E. Idaho, Suite 3, Las Cruces, NM 88001 Commissioner Ray B. Luchini MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee, 1737 Foster Road, Las Cruces, NM, 88001 Trustee Edward Southworth MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee Member, 335 Capri Arc, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Mayor Dyke Clayshulte MPOPKH, MPO Policy Committee Member, P.O. Box 10, Mesilla, NM, 88046 Trustee Michael Cadena MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee Member, P.O. Box 968, Mesilla, NM, 88046 Policy Committee Mailing List Revised: November 30, 1993 AGENDA (29 Agendas) HAND DELIVER _._.......__ ......... ................................................................................. _._....._......................................................... ...................................................................... QE tf1 E LiS a::=:>:»>':?::>:>:»z:>:>:<. ................................................................................. 'G •`:> «<s:i3:s.::.. ......i: !Sf?L BC;r>:>:>::; ;:,',',�k#i,C„$:::;:CF'E:S;:;:t F;io ...............::.. .. Y: @� 24T.:::::::::::::::.::::::::::: QAf%: itl3 s t3 & x .......... 3 ::F ...::�" T3 &5.:: 7CT;`•. .............................. ..:::::::::::::::::::::::....:...::::::: M3E::::i? 1 1::iC 8 '00 $� 3 4?553}:?;`:?;:;?tF} £;:;Z l #3E3tfct k 1O i:;: @K ::..:.....::.::.:...:::.:::.....:...::................. ::.:::::::::..:....:............. ...........:.......... .....:.... .:. .. ............................: 3 t :: ::`i :>: PE3AG.>>:> A Y...................................:.::.:..:........................................... .................................................................................... ---------------------------------- MAIL Mr. John Baxter MPOAG, FHWA, 604 San Mateo, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. Pleas Glenn MPOAG, State Land Office, P. 0. Box 1148, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1148 Mr. Ron Forte MPOAG, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. Lalo Torrez MPOAG, Acting DAC Road Dept. Director, 2025 E. Griggs St., Las Cruces, NM, 88001 Mr. Ben Woods MPOAG, NMSU-Physical Plant Dir., Dept.3545; Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 88003 Mrs. Martha A. Durrenberger MPOAG, P.O. Box 1655, Las Cruces, NM, 88004 Dr. C. Quentin Ford MPOAG, NMSHTD Commissioner, 1985 Crescent Dr., Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Ms. Elaine Cundiff MPOAG, Engler Road Issue, 125 San Ysidro, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Mr. Woody Jenkins MPOAG, SCCOG-RPO Transportation Planner, P.O. Box 7385, Las Cruces, NM, 88006 Mr. Leroy Salazar MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Const. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 Mr. Tony Sayre MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 Mr. Andrew Martinez MPOAG, Dir. - NMSHTD Trans. Prog. Div, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. George Herrera MPOAG, NMSHTD, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. Larry Shannon MPOAG, DAC-Planning, 430 S. Main, Las Cruces, NM 88001 PACKET: (19 Packets, 11 w/ Minutes) HAND DELIVER Brian Denmark MPOPKK, Planning Director Councillor Herculano Ferralez MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee Member, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Councillor John Haltom MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee Member, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Councillor Tommy Tomlin MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee Member, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Commissioner Ken Miyagishima MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee, 225 E. Idaho, Suite 3, Las Cruces, NM 88001 Commissioner Ray B. Luchini MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee, 1737 Foster Road, Las Cruces, NM, 88001 Trustee Edward Southworth MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee Member, 335 Capri Arc, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Mayor Dyke Clayshulte MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee Member, P.O. Box 10, Mesilla, NM, 88046 Trustee Michael Cadena MPOPKK, MPO Policy Committee Member, P.O. Box 968, Mesilla, NM, 88046 FILE COPY MPOPK, JAE/David Carpenter MPOPK, DSD/Asst. Planner - CLC Michael A. Parks MPOPKK, Planner - CLC Minerva Sanchez MPOPKK, MPO Transcriber Mr. Bruno Zaldo MPOPK, City Manager, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Mr. Donald Brooks MPOPK, Dona Ana County Manager Ms. Judy Price MPOPK, c/o Larry Shannon, County Planning Department PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE MPOPK, City Hall ------------------------------------- MAIL Mr. Dan Stover MPOPK, NMSHTD (fax agenda 827-0431), P.O. box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. Richard Montoya MPOPK, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504