Loading...
09-06-2007 I METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 4 5 Following are minutes from the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held 6 on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church 7 St., Las Cruces, New Mexico. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Maria Hinojos (proxy for Frank Guzman — NMDOT) 10 John-Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 11 Loretta Reyes (CLC Public Works) 12 Dan Soriano (CLC Public Works) 13 Mike Bartholomew (RoadRUNNER Transit) 14 Jon Czerniak (Dona Ana County) 15 Jean Hinsley (proxy for Henry Magallenez— EBID) 16 17 MEMBERS ABSENT: Henry Magallenez (EBID) 18 Debbie Lujan (Town of Mesilla) 19 Robert Armijo (DAC Engineering) 20 Frank Guzman (NMDOT) 21 Orlando V. Fierro (DAC Flood Commission) 22 Henry K. Corneles (DAC Engineering) 23 Tim Sanders (BLM) 24 Terry Coker (Las Cruces Public Schools) 25 26 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) 27 Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) 28 Caerllion Thomas (Las Cruces MPO) 29 Vincent Banegas (CLC — Development Services) 30 Tom Schuster (CLC — Development Services) 31 Dianne Wax (CLC — Recording Secretary) 32 Councillor Trowbridge 33 34 PUBLIC: Klaus Wittern Dora Parker 35 36 1. CALL TO ORDER 37 38 Meeting was called to order at 4:12 p.m. 39 40 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 41 42 2.1 August 2, 2007 43 44 Dan Soriano motioned to approved the minutes of August 2, 2007. 45 Loretta Reyes seconded the motion. 46 ALL IN FAVOR. 1 1 3. ACTION ITEMS 2 3 3.1 Resolution to begin Madrid Extension Study Corridor 4 5 The City of Las Cruces has approached the MPO regarding a proposed project to 6 extend Madrid Avenue over Interstate 25 and the Las Cruces Flood Control Dam and 7 connect it to Sonora Springs. (See attached vicinity map) This proposed project is in 8 response to increasing traffic on US 70 and Lohman Avenue as the city grows 9 eastward. Since the City intends to request federal funds to assist with the project, the 10 project must be included in the MPO Transportation Plan and the Transportation 11 Improvement Program. 12 13 MPO staff has provided the City with an outline of the public involvement process in 14 order to amend the Transportation Plan. This process includes three public meetings 15 with the neighborhoods on each side of the dam to discuss the proposed project and 16 identify other alternatives. The process will also involve a significant amount of 17 assistance from the Las Cruces Public Works Department to determine technical 18 feasibility and engineering estimates for the proposed project and any alternatives. 19 20 MPO Staff has already discussed this proposed project with three major landowners in 21 the area surrounding the dam: Mr. Eddie Binns, Mr. Brett Baker (Northstar LLC), and 22 Mr. Randy Najar. The notes from those discussions are attached to the packet. 23 24 MPO staff also sent letters to the NM Office of the State Engineer and the Army Corps 25 of Engineers regarding the proposed project. Their responses are also attached to the 26 packet. 27 28 If the Policy Committee approves the new study corridor, staff will consult with the 29 advisory committees and Policy Committee throughout the process. 30 31 The purpose of this agenda item is to allow opportunity for public input and receive a 32 recommendation for the MPO Policy Committee. 33 34 Andy gave a brief presentation. 35 36 Mike Bartholomew asked about the letter from the Office of State Engineers that stated 37 they recommended against the proposed extension. 38 39 Andy stated that the Office of State Engineers does not recommend the proposed 40 extension "since it may compromise the safety of the dam and its operation and, 41 therefore, the flood control ability of the dam". Andy stated that that is a serious 42 concern for State Engineers. 43 44 Loretta Reyes stated that what the State Engineers Office needs to be aware that this 45 Madrid extension is going to go over the dam and she doesn't think that the extension is 46 going to extend as far beyond Roadrunner as it is shown. Loretta thought it was going 2 I to be the west of Roadrunner Parkway, but in any case, the State Engineers would 2 need to be informed that the extension is going over the dam, not through the dam. 3 Permits would be needed for any structures that would hold up the roadway itself; 4 pillars, etc. And in addition, it would encourage development dam. 5 6 Andy stated that he believed the State Engineers were informed that the extension was 7 going to go over the dam in a letter that was sent to them. 8 9 Andy stated that the proposed extension is shown to connect with Sonora Springs. In 10 this particular case the purpose of this proposed extension is to provide an additional 11 east/west corridor to compliment US 70 and Lohman Avenue and so it would need to 12 extend across Roadrunner Parkway in order to provide that east/west connection. 13 14 Dan Soriano stated the only issue that he sees is that when you go beyond east of 15 Roadrunner Parkway, you are in a residential area. In fact, that section of Sonora 16 Springs is being built as a local street. 17 18 Andy stated that he believes it is being built as a major local with 60 feet of right-of-way. 19 20 Dan questioned if there would be direct frontage onto that street. 21 22 Andy stated that he didn't believe so, based on the layout of the subdivision all of the 23 houses front onto either cul de sacs or side streets. There would not be any direct 24 frontage along that stretch of Sonora Springs. 25 26 Loretta asked if it mattered that a portion of that roadway has already been built. 27 28 Andy stated that a 60 foot right-of-way can handle a decent amount of traffic. 29 30 Maria Hinojos asked what was the proposed structure over the interstate. 31 32 Andy stated that 1-25 would be completely crossed by a bridge. There is no proposal for 33 any type of interchange with 1-25. The only other type of access provided preliminary 34 would be something to connect with Triviz. 35 36 Loretta Reyes motioned to recommend amending the UPWP to add the Madrid 37 Extension Study Corridor and to recommend approval to the MPO Policy Committee. 38 John Knopp seconded the motion. 39 ALL IN FAVOR. 40 41 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS 42 43 4.1 Transportation Improvement Program Application 44 45 Every two years the MPO completely updates the Transportation Improvement Program 46 (TIP). The latest TIP is the 2008-2013 TIP, adopted by the Policy Committee in April 3 1 2007. Usually the MPO's TIP contains unfunded projects that are included to advise the 2 Department of Transportation of current needs. These unfunded projects are ranked 3 through an application process as well as input from the MPO's advisory committees 4 and Policy Committee. 5 6 In order to weigh transportation projects through a fair and balanced process, the TIP 7 Application has been revised. After determining whether the proposed project conforms 8 to the MPO Transportation Plan, an applicant is asked to describe the proposed project: 9 10 Providing detailed information about the project 11 Benefits the overall transportation network 12 Conforms to other local, regional, and State plans 13 Enhances the safety and security of the transportation network 14 Creates a complete multi-modal facility. 15 16 Once adopted, MPO staff will distribute the application to the local jurisdictions. Also, 17 the public will be encouraged to use this application to suggest transportation 18 improvements. 19 20 The purpose of this agenda item is to allow further opportunity for public input and 21 receive BPAC input and recommendation to the MPO Policy Committee. 22 23 Andy gave a brief presentation. 24 25 Loretta Reyes questioned and voiced her concern regarding the BPAC's role in this 26 process. 27 28 Tom Schuster stated that this is a new process and that the BPAC is an advisory 29 committee that makes recommendations to the TAC and the Policy Committee. He 30 stated that as the BPAC becomes more involved and as the members begin to 31 understand the broader purpose of the MPO, he was hoping that the past of the BPAC 32 would become history. 33 34 Further discussion continued regarding the TIP application process. 35 36 4.2 Complete Streets Policy and Roadway Design Standards 37 38 Caeri gave a presentation on the MPO Complete Streets Policy and street cross 39 sections design standards that came out of the County Subdivisions Regulations Ad 40 Hoc Committee. 41 42 Loretta Reyes voiced her concerns about a resolution going forward to the Policy 43 Committee that has several cross sections attached to it and the issues it would create. 44 45 Dan Soriano expressed his concerns regarding the lane size within the cross sections. 46 4 1 4.3 Development Review 2 3 Development review process information was included in Committee members packets 4 for their review. 5 6 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 7 8 6. ADJOURNMENT 9 10 Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. 11 12 13 Ch ' person 5