Full Text
MINUTES COMPLETE STREETS ADVISORY GROUP MEETING April 16, 2014 MEMBERS/ATTENDEES Linda Barbeau City of Farmington Downtown Association & MRA Commission Joyce Cardon San Juan County Homebuilders Association & City of Farmington Planning & Zoning Commission Larry Hathaway San Juan County & Alternate on MPO Technical Committee Virginia King City of Farmington Public Works Lopez City of Farmington & MPO Technical Committee Nick Martin Optum Health Christa Romme Four Corners Economic Development David Sypher City of Farmington Public Works Director Anngela Wakan Safe Routes to School Coordinator Mary Holton City of Farmington Community Development Director & MPO Officer Fran Fillerup Acting MPO Planner Duane Wakan MPO Associate Planner June Markle MPO Administrative Aide WELCOME Mr. Wakan welcomed the members and thanked them for participating in today’s Complete Streets meeting. MARCH 19, 2014 MEETING Mr. Wakan recapped the March 19 meeting held in the East Classroom Complex at San Juan College to allow the Advisory Group access to the computer lab facilities. At this meeting, the Advisory Group looked at design guidelines using Streetmix.net. They began to develop their own preferences in terms of how they might like to see certain roadways designed. Emphasis was not placed on combining the land use context areas and road types, but rather to simply consider some visioning for future roads. Mr. Wakan stated that before moving ahead with the design guidelines, the Advisory Group needed to look again at their list of road typologies and context areas. Mr. Wakan stated that the meeting today would ask the Advisory Group to consider consolidating their list of context areas and road typologies. Ms. Lopez said that the Advisory Group had discussed the issue of having a combination of 72 road types and land use context areas where most other communities are at a combined total of 35. She recommended that the Advisory Group re-consider the list of road typologies. A collector could have many looks depending on the land use context area it travelled through. This would allow for the roads defined as different types of collectors to all be combined under the name of collector. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Wakan asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the March 19, 2014 meeting. Ms. Lopez moved to approve the minutes. Ms. Romme seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE – BEFORE & AFTER VIDEOS – THE NETHERLANDS Mr. Fillerup presented several videos from Den Bosch, Netherlands which depicted the before and after images of the changes the town made to road surfaces to better serve bicyclists. Some of the highlights Mr. Fillerup noted were: • Bike cam used to capture overall route • Resurfaced path/cycle route • Cycle route also used by cars at different intervals for parking • Pavers added/cobblestone resurfaced to provide smoother travel surface • Cycle path parallels road • Use of different paving materials, markings (inexpensive), raised medians • Painting bike paths green and bus lanes red is standard in the U.S. It was noted how important it was to capture before and after images of road segment changes to provide the needed education for the community. Mr. Hathaway said it would be interesting to know the time frame of these changes. The Advisory Group split into two groups: Group A Group B Mary Holton Cindy Lopez Anngela Wakan Christa Romme Nick Martin Linda Barbeau Joyce Cardon Larry Hathaway David Sypher Virginia King COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDELINES DISCUSSION Mr. Wakan reviewed the four document themes for developing the design guidelines. They were: • Adoptable – the desire to have the document eventually adopted by all the local entities; • Resourceful – provide a usable resource to the entities, developers, and others; • Flexible – provide for multiple options for developers and entity staff; • Simple – develop principles and guidelines that are easy to navigate and understand. Mr. Wakan stated that the design guidelines will be driven by the road typologies and the land use context areas. The current list of road typologies and land uses, however, is too large and consolidating these lists needed to be considered. Consolidating the lists will help to make the guidelines less prescriptive and, eventually, more adoptable by the entities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Wakan said Staff had provided comparison sheets showing how the Advisory Group road typologies compared to Roanoke, Charlotte, Chicago, PennDOT, and Burlington, VT; and how the land use context areas of the Advisory Group compared to Roanoke, Charlotte, Chicago, and PennDOT. Road Typology Comparison Mr. Wakan compared the Advisory Group’s list of road typologies to five other communities and discussed the differences (see chart on next page). Mr. Wakan commented that the use of “arterial” and “collector” for the road typologies was very traditional, rigid, and reflected the functional classifications that might be given to roads by a state’s department of transportation. Ms. Holton stated that MPO Staff would like the Advisory Group to consider backing away from the rigid approach to road typologies. Mr. Wakan said that of all the communities researched, the fewest number of road typologies identified was four from Roanoke. Mr. Wakan noted that the road typology titles developed by Charlotte were not tied to functional classifications. Their titles provide a visual, aesthetic interpretation of the roadways and did not address the traffic volumes of those roadways. Mr. Wakan commented that the term “avenue” was typically found in a city established pre-WWII with a road system built on a grid. He added that the look and feel of an avenue was different than a main street in that it was more residential. Mr. Wakan added that a “boulevard” was another roadway treatment that might be for a longer stretch than an avenue. In the traditional sense, a boulevard focused on aesthetics and would have a landscaped median and trees along the sides of the road as well. This type of roadway also typically would have one lane of travel in each direction and would connect different communities. Mr. Wakan explained that Charlotte’s “Parkway” looked very similar to the roadways here between Farmington and Aztec and between Farmington and Bloomfield. This type of roadway is two lanes in each direction with green space in the middle. Their Local Residential Street was what we have as neighborhood streets. Ms. Lopez noted that the terms used by Charlotte were historic planner terms and suggested that the definitions for these roadways be provided to the Advisory Group for clarification and better understanding. Mr. Wakan briefly also reviewed the titles developed by Chicago and Burlington, Vermont. He stated that MPO Staff wanted to present some other terminology to be considered for our road typologies and to think about moving away from traditional functional classifications. He said that by keeping the traditional nomenclature in the Complete Streets design guidelines, local engineers would continue to think about traffic volumes and not the Complete Streets designs being proposed. Ms. Romme said that the simpler the language, the less confusing it was and the easier it was to understand. Mr. Sypher stated they were two very valid views; one was from the technical side taking into account real traffic concerns, while the other view would be from a more colloquial or common viewpoint. Mr. Sypher gave the example ---PAGE BREAK--- of a medical doctor speaking to a patient in terms the patient would understand and not using technical language, but knowing that the doctor did understand and know the medical technology. He added that he thought the more common language would be preferable. Mr. Wakan suggested the Advisory Group review and discuss the current list of road typologies and try to cross-pollinate the titles between those developed by the Advisory Group and those developed by other communities. He pointed out that bypass, principal arterial, and service way might be consolidated into one road typology. Mr. Wakan added that the word “collector” was found in several of the road typologies as well as two road types with the word “local” in the title. He thought there might be some consolidation possible and then possibly consider re-naming some of these road typologies. Land Use Context Area Comparison Mr. Wakan stated that Staff had also compared the Advisory Group’s list of land use context areas to four other communities and discussed the differences (shown on chart on next page). Mr. Wakan commented that the Advisory Group’s list of context areas was similar in size to that of the other communities, but hoped the Advisory Group could scale back somewhat on this list as well. Mr. Wakan said the Roanoke list of context areas was a good option because the names were simple and easy to understand. Ms. Holton stated that some of the titles shown could be found in the local cities, but were not necessarily ones found in the county. She agreed that consolidation was needed so that the list was reflective of the major groups. Mr. Wakan commented that land use context areas developed by Charlotte seemed confusing and were difficult to understand. The context areas developed by Chicago were also simple and easy to understand. Mr. Wakan noted that their context area of “mixed use” had not been used by the Advisory Group, but thought it might be a good title especially for areas of the county. Mr. Wakan suggested setting an initial goal of reaching six road typologies and six land use context areas. Mr. Sypher asked if there might be some appropriate uses for NMDOT classifications. Ms. Holton explained that the Advisory Group had addressed this and determined that the functional classifications were too rigid for the Complete Streets guidelines. She said there could be recommendations within the guidelines based upon that functional classification system of how a newly named road typology title would fit in with that system. Ms. Holton said this could be included in an appendix to the guidelines document and be determined by each entity. Mr. Wakan said most research has showed the need to move away from the typical functional classification nomenclature. He noted that in the description for a road typology, a description can be included that would explain that the roadway might function similar to a traditionally named road. ---PAGE BREAK--- ROAD TYPOLOGIES FMPO PennDOT Roanoke Charlotte Chicago Burlington, VT 1. Bypass VDOT Freeway Thoroughfare Complete Streets 2. Principal Arterial Regional Arterial Parkways Connector Transit Streets 3. Service Way Bicycle Streets 4. Community Arterial Community Arterial Arterial Street Boulevards Main Street Slow Streets 5. Commercial Collector Community Collector Avenues Truck Routes 6. Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collector Collector Street Main Street Neighborhood Street 7. Neighborhood Local Local Local Local Residential Streets Service Way Neighborhood Streets 8. Rural Local Pedestrian Way LAND USE CONTEXT AREAS FMPO PennDOT Roanoke Charlotte Chicago 1. Rural Agricultural (RA) Rural Places Downtown Transit Station Areas Residential 2. Heavy Industrial (HI) Village Center Centers Mixed Use 3. Regional Commercial/ Light Industrial (RCLI) Suburban Neighborhood Recreation-Open Space Corridors Commercial Center 4. City Commercial (CC) Suburban Corridor Traditional Non-Residential Uses Downtown 5. Suburban Neighborhood Suburban Center Suburban Industrial Institutional/Campus 6. Traditional Neighborhood (TN) Town/Village Neighborhood Local Neighborhood Residential ≥5 dua (gross) in wedges Industrial 7. Local Neighborhood Commercial (LN-C) Town Center Regional Commercial Residential ≤5 dua (gross) in wedges Parks 8. Central Business District (CBD) Urban Core Industrial ---PAGE BREAK--- Ms. Holton added that recommendations or comparisons for the nomenclature could be made within the appendix to the document. She noted the importance of remembering that one size would not fit all and that the specifics within the document should be left up to each entity to determine. Mr. Sypher clarified that any new titles or language identified should correlate to something already known and understood. Ms. Lopez thought that the Advisory Group had given careful consideration to identifying the land uses in the area. Once this was developed, the Advisory Group had added the road typologies to fit what was seen as the way this community used its land. She agreed that there could be some consolidation of the land uses. Mr. Wakan asked the Advisory Group to first discuss and consider what could be consolidated or what they might like to see combined. The next step would be to look at what nomenclature the Advisory Group would like to see given to the road typologies and context areas. Mr. Wakan said that whatever the Advisory Group developed can then be submitted to Mr. Dan Burden and the Walkable & Livable Communities Institute (WALC) for their feedback and recommendations. Mr. Wakan suggested the Advisory Group first begin discussing the list of current road typologies and consider what titles, if any, they might want to see consolidated. The groups worked independently to develop their recommendations. GROUP DISCUSSION – ROAD TYPOLOGIES Following the independent discussions, the entire Advisory Group reconvened to discuss their suggestions. Ms. Lopez presented the combined road typology categories developed by Group A: 1. Local - Slow moving traffic - Narrower street - More access points (driveways in a neighborhood setting or parking lots in a commercial context) - Sidewalks 2. Connector 3. Arterial 4. Highway/Freeway Ms. Lopez said this list was how Group A saw the roads as functioning and added that the actual names could change. Mr. Sypher presented the road typologies developed by Group B. Their list included titles that were more reminiscent of past designations and more iconic. The list from Group B actually reflected the nomenclature that thought was appropriate. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Lane Replaced #8 from the FMPO list 2. Street Replaced #7 from the FMPO list 3. Avenue Replaced #5 & 6 from the FMPO list 4. Boulevard Replaced #3 & 4 from the FMPO list 5. Parkway Replaced #1 & 2 from the FMPO list Group A reduced the road typologies to five and the land use context areas to four giving a total of 20 possible design combinations. Shown below are the recommendations from Group A for the land use context areas: 1. Rural Replaced #1 from the FMPO list 2. Neighborhood Replaced #5 & 6 from the FMPO list 3. Downtown (Urban) Replaced #8 from the FMPO list 4. Commercial Replaced 4 & 7 from the FMPO list 5. Industrial Replaced #2 & 3 from the FMPO list The Advisory Group briefly discussed these preliminary suggestions and whether they could be applied to all areas of the county. Mr. Wakan said he was pleased that the Advisory Group was able to so quickly and significantly reduce the lists of road types and land uses. Mr. Wakan said these ideas can be shared with Dan Burden and the WALC Institute to get their feedback on the Advisory Group’s direction. The meeting with them will be at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May 12 at the Civic Center. Ms. Holton commented on the expertise and enthusiasm of Mr. Burden. He will also be making presentations before each of the local councils and commissions while he is in town. The public Complete Streets workshop was scheduled for Tuesday, May 13 at the Civic Center beginning at 10:00 a.m. CONCLUSION The next regular meeting was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, June 18 at 10:00 a.m. at the MPO Office. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.