TRANSPORTATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Transportation Review Committee met on November 12, 2003 at 12:00 noon, with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Councilmen Ritter (departed 1:20 p.m.) and Pitts (departed 12:43 p.m.), and Mr. Ornauer. Mr. Asay was absent.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Ruane requested that item #6 - Update, Eden Hill Farm, be considered as item #1 and that item #5 -Traffic Impact Studies, be considered as item #2.
Mr. Ornauer moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried.
UPDATE - EDEN HILL FARM
Mr. DePrima advised members that there had been no further discussions regarding the extension of the roadway through Eden Hill Farm. A meeting was held with the prospective developer for the purpose of relaying the City’s policy, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Update. DelDOT was not represented at this meeting. Both the developer and the City have indicated to the realtor of their interest in being included in the planning and development of this property.
For record purposes, Mr. Ruane cited pages 136, 137, and Chapter 14 on page 163 of the Comprehensive Plan Update as it relates to the Eden Hill Farm and the creation of a mixed use traditional development zone that would allow for the specific development intended for this property.
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES - REVIEW OF SECTION 15 OF “RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS”
During their meeting of October 21, 2003, members were requested to review DelDOT’s current regulations with regard to proposed revisions to traffic impact studies and the TIS requirements of the Dover Code. Mr. Ruane introduced Mr. Bill Brockenbrough, County Coordinator, Division of Planning for DelDOT, to explain the current regulations and proposed revisions to DelDOT traffic impact studies.
Mr. Brockenbrough reviewed Section 15, DelDOT’s Rules and Regulations for Subdivision Streets, which includes the requirement for traffic impact studies. As indicated in Table 1 of Section 15, he explained that there are specific circumstances that mandate a traffic impact study (TIS); however, there may be additional reasons for such requirement. Although the study does not require the area to be included to go much beyond the access of the property, he stated that there may be circumstances that would require a larger area to be included.
Mr. Brockenbrough explained the process that occurs in the development of property and the reasons for requiring a TIS and its purpose. Once it is determined that a TIS is necessary, the developer’s engineer will contact DelDOT for guidance. He stated that DelDOT is interested in determining the impact of a development; therefore, although Section 15 requires the TIS to be conducted from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, DelDOT has the flexibility of requiring the TIS to be conducted at other times, such as “store peak” or “street peak” times depending on the proposed use of the property and its surrounding area.
Responding to Mr. Ornauer, Mr. Brockenbrough stated that the best avenue for suggestions to be considered by DelDOT in determining the specifics of a TIS would be through the DAC process.
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, further explained that DelDOT considers the input of the DAC and, on many occasions, a project has been presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration when a traffic issue has arisen and those concerns are considered by DelDOT.
Responding, Mr. Ruane relayed concern that although DelDOT considers the concerns of the Planning Commission, action on a project has already been taken without the results of the TIS. It was his feeling that the TIS is to serve as a tool in making a decision; however, it is not obtained until after final action has occurred. He questioned what purpose a TIS serves if it is not made available until after a decision is made.
Mr. Koenig, Public Works Director, explained that the TIS is used to describe the type of improvements that are necessary to obtain entrance permits and signalization upgrades. Mr. DePrima advised members that, in accordance with the Zoning Code, there are only certain, specific reasons to deny a project and explained that the Planning Commission’s approval may be conditioned on certain conditions being met. If the developer does not meet those conditions, they will not be provided an entrance permit, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy and, therefore, the project does not come to fruition. Every Planning Commission approval is a conditional approval. Once a project receives approval, there are several conditions that need to be met and if they are not met, in essence the approval is denied.
Mr. Brockenbrough noted that rezoning decisions (approvals) are not conditional and suggested that a completed TIS could be helpful prior to final approval. Unfortunately, there are several TIS required to be conducted by DelDOT, which could take more than a year to complete.
To further clarify, Mr. DePrima explained that New Castle County is requiring the TIS to be conducted in their consideration of rezonings. The City’s policy was to change all property zones to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, the City does not receive large rezoning projects that would require a TIS to be conducted prior to its consideration.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that if a TIS determines that the development of a proposed project would cause failure at a particular intersection, then the developer has three (3) choices: 1) not to do the project; 2) modify the project; or 3) build whatever improvements are necessary to correct the failure. Examples of such improvements are for costs of a traffic signal, a turning lane, the addition of a third lane, or paving of a shoulder. These are cost factors that a developer would have to consider in order to determine if a project was worth the required improvements. Mr. DePrima assured members that all approvals issued by the Planning Commission include a stipulation to include the recommendations of the DAC.
Although a TIS may not be required, it was noted that most concerns expressed by the citizenry regarding development projects is the resulting traffic. In addition to assisting the governing body in making a sound decision, members felt that a TIS during the review process would also provide the citizenry information and may appease their concerns. When there is a potential traffic problem, residents will attend meetings to voice their concerns and it would be helpful to have the TIS results at that time.
Mr. Koenig also advised members that the City’s standard of congestion is that of a local perspective and if measured against the national standard, it is realized that the City does not really have congestion. Ms. Wieczoreck stated that the only time there is congestion in Dover is on Route 13 during the early afternoon on Saturday’s and between 4:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. during weekdays.
Mr. Ruane requested that members review the material provided by Mr. Brockenbrough to determine if there were any suggestions for improvements and, if so, that they provide them for the next meeting.
MPO/PAC/TAC REPORT
There was no report given on the MPO/PAC/TAC Report.
TEA-21 RE-AUTHORIZATION
Mr. DePrima advised members that the MPO is drafting a letter to take a position on the TEA-21 Re-authorization. Ms. Wieczoreck stated that although it has been indicated that a re-authorization would not occur until after the next election, the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee has issued a draft bill and e-mail has been received from the MPO parent organization in Washington that the House of Representatives anticipated a bill to be brought forth last week. She explained that this matter is moving more quickly than anticipated.
Mr. Ruane had been advised that action was anticipated in the Spring. He suggested that at the next meeting, Ms. Wieczoreck provide information on the TEA-21 Re-authorization to assist the committee in taking a position on the matter.
DELDOT’S CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (FY 2005-2010) - DOVER PROJECTS
Ms. Wieczoreck advised members that the MPO had submitted a list of projects for the 2005 Capital Transportation Program and that only one (1) project, the proposed interchange for Route 1 and Delaware 9, south of the Dover Air Force Base, was funded. This project is on a “fast track” to be designed.
Mr. Ruane suggested that at the next meeting, members be provided a list of priorities for the City of Dover in order for them to develop the three (3) most important projects that should be promoted by the City when the legislators go into session in January.
UPDATES
Members were provided the following updates:
Traffic Studies
SR1/Route 8
Members were advised that a meeting is scheduled to be held by DelDOT regarding the SR1/Route 8 Traffic Study at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon at the DelDOT Administration Building.
East Dover Housing Development Projects
There was no update provided regarding the Traffic Study for East Dover Housing Development Projects.
Status of Road Projects
Clarence Street
Mr. DePrima stated that no further action had been taken on the Clarence Street Project.
College Road
Mr. Ruane referenced an e-mail received from Ms. Wieczoreck which explained that the College Road Project was on the FY 2005 Proposed Project List. If funded, it would not be constructed for another three (3) to five (5) years, or more, depending on environmental and right-of-way issues.
Division Streets
Mr. Ornauer advised members that both Loockerman and Division Streets were closed this past weekend and questioned the logistics of closing two (2) main arteries at the same time.
Loockerman Street
Mr. Ruane noted that the Loockerman Street project appears to be near completion. Mr. Laing stated that he had been working with the City’s Inspections and Planning Department on obtaining permission to close the street on Sundays to allow work to be completed.
North Street and State Street Intersection Study
Members were provided a letter from Mr. Laing, Municipal Liaison for DelDOT, dated November 10, 2003 indicating that DelDOT would have to conduct a full traffic study before agreeing to any restriction. This action will take both time and fiscal resources to accomplish. Mr. Laing requested that if the City makes a formal request of DelDOT to conduct such a study, that the City prioritize this against other projects that have been requested of DelDOT.
Due to the absence of Mr. Ritter, members deferred discussion regarding the North Street and State Street Intersection Study.
Miscellaneous
Ms. Wieczoreck referred to a concern relayed by Mr. Asay regarding pedestrian striping on North Street at Saulsbury Road being white paint on white concrete. She contacted DelDOT and requested that action be done to make the lines more visible. DelDOT indicated that they could use the white tape with black edge; however, this could not be accomplished until Spring because 50o weather would be necessary.
Mr. Ruane requested that Ms. Wieczoreck provide members with an e-mail explaining these details.
Mr. Ornauer expressed concerns with the new EPA regulations and the effect they will have on transportation issues. Ms. Wieczoreck felt that no further discussions, outside of the MPO, should occur regarding this matter since there are still too many “unknowns” regarding this issue.
Mr. Ruane announced and distributed information regarding workshop sessions which have been scheduled by the Parking Authority for November 17th and 18th.
Mr. Ornauer moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 1:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Eugene B. Ruane
Chairman
EBR/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes200311-12-2003-Transportation.wpd