Dokiman ki tache

AGENDA CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 17, 2011 – 7:00 P.M. - City Hall: Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING of September 19, 2011 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1) The next Planning Commission Quarterly Workshop is scheduled for Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 4:00pm in the City Hall Conference Room. 2) An Audio/Web Conference entitled “Social Media and Ethics” will be held on November 9, 2011 from 4:00pm-5:30pm at a location to be determined. The session is sponsored by the Delaware Chapter of the American Planning Organization (APA). 3) At the upcoming Delaware League of Local Governments Meeting the program is a presentation on Land Use & Ordinances. The dinner meeting will be held on November 17, 2011 from 6:00pm-8:00pm at the Sheraton Dover Hotel. 4) Report on City Council actions a. Updates from Meetings 5) Update on other Planning activities a. Report on Status of Conditional Use Permit C-08-01 House of Pride Properties on North and South New Street: Results of Follow-up Inspections OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 1) MI-11-11 Request for Street Name Change: Slaughter Street to Jerusalem Way – Review for Recommendation to City Council of a Request for a Street Name Change for the one block segment of Slaughter Street which runs in a north-south direction between West North Street and West Loockerman Street just east of the railroad corridor. The new street name proposed is Jerusalem Way. The request was filed in accordance with Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-45 Street name change procedure which also references Appendix A: Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI, Section A. Streets. The name change procedure requires review and comments by the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and review by the Planning Commission prior to public hearing and consideration by the City Council.

City of Dover Planning Commission Agenda Public Hearing: October 17, 2011 Page 2 of 2 2) MI-11-07 Text Amendment: Revisions to Article VII of the Land Subdivision Regulations regarding Homeowners Associations – Review for Recommendation to City Council on a series of Amendments to the Land Subdivision Regulations, Appendix A – Subdivisions, Article VII – Special Provisions by re-lettering Section B as Section C and adding a new Section B. Homeowners Associations. The proposed ordinance clarifies the requirements and responsibilities of existing and new homeowners associations in regards to open space/common areas and allows the City to complete delinquent maintenance responsibilities not performed by the homeowners associations and to bill the property owners for the incurred costs. Ordinance #2011-15. NEW BUSINESS PRESENTATION 1) Dover/ Kent County MPO Regional Bike Plan for 2030, adopted September 2011 ADJOURN THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION September 19, 2011 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday September 19, 2011 at 7:00 PM with Chairman Hemmig presiding. Members present were Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Tolbert, Colonel Welsh, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Holt, Mr. Shomo, Mr. Friedman, (Left at 7:41 PM) and Mr. Ambruso. Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Koenig, Ms. Cornwell and Ms. Metsch. Also present were Mr. Doug Liberman, Mr. Garth Jones, Mr. Larry Harris, and Mr. Bill Boyles. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Tolbert moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Colonel Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2011 Mr. Nichols moved to approve the regular Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 16, 2011, seconded by Mr. Shomo and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION QUARTERLY WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2011 Mr. Holt moved to approve the regular Planning Commission Quarterly Workshop meeting minutes of August 17, 2011, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Townshend stated that there is an Audio Web Conference “Planning for Solar Energy” that will be held at the Kent County Administration Building on October 12, 2011 at 4:00 PM. This is sponsored by the Delaware Chapter of the American Planning Association and Kent County. Mrs. Townshend provided an update on the regular City Council and Legislative & Finance Administration Committee meetings of August 22, 2011; the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting of August 25, 2011; and the regular City Council, Legislative & Finance Administration Committee meetings of September 12, 2011. Mrs. Townshend further stated in terms of other updates from the Planning Office, Michael Albert will be leaving the Planning Office with Wednesday, September 21, 2011 being his last day. His wife Julie has/or is in the process of graduating with her PhD in Chemical Engineering from the University of Delaware and they will be moving to North Carolina where she will do her post doctorate work at NC State. Mrs. Townshend further stated that this is the first of the Planning Commission meetings where the Article 10 changes are in full effect and there are a couple of things of note. In your packet is a summary of each project that has a request for extension, what has happened with that applicant, and what the Code requirements are for granting an extension. The extensions that are

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 on this evening’s meeting agenda are projects that were approved last year and will be eligible for an extension this evening. If they are not under construction, they would be eligible for one additional one year extension. At this point, when you approve something, you are approving it for two (2) years with the ability for a one extension. Mrs. Townshend stated that the last thing that she would note with regards to the Article 10 changes is that this is the first meeting where the new public notice requirements went into effect. The applicants have complied with the physical posting and we should find out over time whether it is working. She believes that the signs are very visible and over time people should be accustomed to seeing that and realizing that there is something going on with the property. Mr. Hemmig stated that with regards to Mr. Albert leaving, he would like to say how much he appreciated his efforts. He is very detailed oriented particularly when it came to sign packages in which Janelle has inherited. He would like to say publicly that he really appreciates all of his efforts and we’ll truly miss him. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Townshend presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the meeting. OLD BUSINESS S-09-19 Walker Pavilion at Four Seasons at 101 Mont Blanc Boulevard – Request for an extension of the Planning Commission approval first granted October 19, 2009 for a Site Plan application to permit the construction of a two story 24,657 S.F. building and associated site improvements. The project located on a single parcel of land consisting of 2.615 acres ± is zoned C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The subject area is located at the southwest corner of Saulsbury Road and Walker Road. The owner of record is Cahne Pavilion of Dover, LLC. Property Address: 101 Mont Blanc Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.19-04-52.00-000. Council District 1. Previously, a one year extension was granted by the Planning Commission on September 20, 2010 setting the plan expiration date as October 31, 2011. Under the newly adopted provisions of Ordinance #2011-14 unexpired plans shall be eligible for an extension of approval not to exceed 36 months from the initial approval date. Representative: None. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a 2009 application and has already received one extension of approval from this body. The Ordinance most recently adopting Article 10 made allowances for this to be eligible for an additional one year extension. There is a letter submitted by the project engineer dated September 6, 2011 that gives some information with regards to the status of the project. The Planning Staff notes that the Planning Commission had originally granted approval back in October of 2009 and then in September of last year granted their first one year extension. The project does have final Site Plan approval as of August 15, 2011 and their next step would be that they are eligible to file a Building Permit application and request a pre-construction meeting to start construction. At this point, the Plan is due to expire on October 31, 2011 and they are seeking a one year extension that would have that Plan then expire in October of 2012. 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 There were no questions raised from any Planning Commission members at this time. Mr. Hemmig questioned if there is anything that has changed in the Code that could affect this project since approval? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated no. Colonel Welsh moved to approve a one year extension for S-09-19 Walker Pavilion at Four Seasons located at 101 Mont Blanc Boulevard, seconded by Mr. Ambruso and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. SB-10-02 Wynsome Oaks Subdivision on White Oak Road – Request for an extension of the Planning Commission approval granted on September 20, 2010 for a Conceptual Subdivision Plan Review to create seventeen parcels from an existing parcel totaling 12.78 acres +/- of land. The property is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The property is located on the south side of White Oak Road, southwest of Mourning Dove Lane. The owner of record is TFLD Management, LLC. Tax Parcel: LC-05- 068.00-01-18.00-000. Council District 3. Representative: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that again, we are in receipt of a letter from the project engineer dated August 8, 2011 which goes into extensive detail regarding their work in dealing with stormwater management and drainage issues in the area; specifically their work with the Kent Conservation District, DelDOT and ultimately how it might affect the White Oak Road Tax Ditch. For this project, as a subdivision, the Planning Commission granted conditional approval of the Conceptual Subdivision Plan in September 2010 and then City Council acted on a waiver request that was associated with the subdivision. Their next step is that they would need to file a Preliminary Subdivision Plan and as the Code requires that would need to be done by September 30, 2011. They are seeking a one year extension to allow for additional time to prepare the plans prior to filing of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for full review. There were no questions raised from any Planning Commission members at this time. Mr. Hemmig questioned if there is anything that has changed in the Code that could affect this project since approval? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated no. Mr. Tolbert moved to approve a one year extension for SB-10-02 Wynsome Oaks Subdivision located on White Oak Road, seconded by Mr. Shomo and the motion was unanimously carried 9- 0. S-10-17 Duncan Plaza at 600 Forest Street – Request for an extension of the Planning Commission approval granted on September 20, 2010 for a Site Development Plan and Architectural Review Certification for construction of a four story 32,624 S.F office building with coffee shop and the associated site improvements. The project site is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone) and the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The property site is located on the south side of Forest Street just west of the intersection of West Loockerman Street, South Kirkwood Street, and Slaughter Street. The owner of record is 1776 Investments & Holdings (Robert Duncan). Property 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Address: 600 Forest Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-02-44.00-000. (Parcel ED-05-076.12-02- 45.00-000 is reputed to be a City of Dover owned parcel). Council District 4. Representative: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that with this application for the Duncan Plaza there are actually two (2) letters that were submitted: one from the Professional Land Surveyor working on the project and then the Property Owner himself. With this project, its location puts it in the Historic District so it made appearances with the Historic District Commission in the summer of 2010 and then the Planning Commission granted approval in September 2010 for the Site Development Plan and the Architectural Review Certificate for the project. As such, the Plan is due to expire on September 30, 2011. To date, there have been no check print submissions made to the Planning Office and we have no other documentation of check print submissions to other agencies in regards to this plan. They are seeking a one year extension of their approval which would then grant the approval through September of 2012. There were no questions raised from any Planning Commission members at this time. Mr. Hemmig questioned if there is anything that has changed in the Code that could affect this project since approval? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated no. Mr. Holt moved to approve a one year extension for S-10-17 Duncan Plaza located at 600 Forest Street, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. S-10-21 NBR Properties at 850 New Burton Road – Request for an extension of the Planning Commission approval granted on September 20, 2010 for a Site Development Plan to permit the construction of a 20,000 S.F. office building with the associated site improvements on a 1.671 acre parcel. The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The property is located southwest of the intersection of New Burton Road/Queen Street and West Street. The owner of record is NBR Properties, LLC. Property Address: 850 New Burton Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05- 76.00-01-23.00-000. Council District 2. Representatives: None. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that we are in receipt of a letter from the Project Engineer making this request for extension. For this project, in its most recent form, the Planning Commission granted approval in September 2010. They have made a series of check print submissions to the Planning Office and multiple agencies with some of those agencies issuing approvals and others issuing comments. Staff would note that today we received another submission from the Project Engineer for the Record Plan and Check Prints of the Final Plans for this project. They are seeking a one year extension as the Plan is due to expire at the end of the month. The one year extension would grant approval through September of 2012. There were no questions raised from any Planning Commission members at this time. Mr. Hemmig questioned if there is anything that has changed in the Code that could affect this project since approval? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated no. 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Mr. Nichols moved to approve a one year extension for S-10-21 NBR Properties located at 850 New Burton Road, seconded by Colonel Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. HI-10-08 Bayard Plaza on West Loockerman Street - Update on the selected/required exterior finish materials for the Bayard Plaza project. Previously, the Architectural Review Certification for the project was issued upon recommendation of the Historic District Commission on October 21, 2010 and November 4, 2010 and upon action by the Planning Commission November 15, 2010. The project consists of the construction of a five story 54,998 S.F. mixed use building to include 5,012 S.F. of retail space on the first floor, 48 residential apartments, and the associated site improvements. The project involves demolition of the two existing buildings on the project site including the building known as the Bayard Hotel which the Commission declared on January 21, 2010 as being Demolished by Neglect. The project area consists of one parcel of land totaling 27,675.62 S.F.± of land zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The property is located on the southwest corner of West Loockerman Street and South Governors Avenue. The owner of record is the Capital Plaza, LLC. The property addresses are 200-216 West Loockerman Street and 208 South Governors Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-01-86.00-000. Council District 4. The Historic District Commission reviewed this revision request on August 18, 2011 and has provided a recommendation. Representative: Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning Commission and the Historic District Commission saw this application in the fall of 2010. They are here this evening seeking revisions to the Architectural Review Certificate for the property. On the larger screen is what is referred to as Sheets A-9 and A-10 of Addendum #9 which is dated August 10, 2011. They are seeking some changes to the exterior finish materials of the project. Mrs. Melson-Williams further stated that during the Building Permit process there needed to be some design revisions to the exterior finish materials as a result of the type of construction that they chose for the building. It dealt with the exterior finish materials of combustible versus non- combustible wall coverings. Their request is to change the areas of vinyl siding on the exterior of the building to a fiber cement siding product and to also use fiber cement as the trim work. Mrs. Melson-Williams further stated that the Historic District Commission reviewed these changes at their August 18, 2011 meeting and also considered the request of the applicant to propose changes to areas that were proposed as Dryvit to also utilize the fiber cement siding which is at the corner elevation of the building. In addition, the change to the fiber cement siding will eliminate the use of window shutters; however, the applicant is adding a wider trim work piece surrounding the windows. The Historic District Commission has forwarded to you a recommendation of approval for these changes to the exterior finish materials as they were presented in Addendum #9. The revisions consist of changing vinyl siding to a fiber cement siding, changing areas of Dryvit to fiber cement siding, and then the removal of the shutters to utilize a wider trim work piece. Mrs. Melson-Williams further stated that information provided to you included more details on the project history. There are inactive demolition and a Building Permit was conditionally issued in mid-August for the project site. 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Mr. Nichols questioned if the only changes made were to change from vinyl siding to the fiber cement and Dryvit? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mrs. Townshend stated that yes, and the shutters were eliminated; however, wider trim is being used. Mr. Nichols further stated that the shutters should be on the building. Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mrs. Townshend stated that the shutters would be a combustible material and the issue that they were up against was that because of the type of construction they were using, they could not have exterior finishes of combustible material. Mr. Hemmig stated that there was no public hearing required for this matter. Colonel Welsh moved to approve HI-10-08 Bayard Plaza located on West Loockerman Street with the revisions to the Architectural Review Certification, seconded by Mr. Ambruso and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. S-11-11 Lands of Downtown Dover Partnership at 120 S. Governors Avenue – Report on Recommendation of Side Yard Setback Waiver Request from the Historic District Commission as associated with the Architectural Review Certificate for this Site Development Master Plan. The project proposes construction of a four story 47,042 SF mixed-use building consisting of a retail component and 27 apartments, a four story 34,896 S.F. apartment building of 24 apartments with ground level parking in the building, and other associated site improvements on the property at 120 South Governors Avenue. The existing 16,783 SF commercial building on the property is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a Minor Subdivision Plan to divide the property into two lots. The property consists of 1.7653 acres ± and is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District zone). The property site spans the block between South Governors Avenue and South New Street located north of, but not adjacent to, West Loockerman Street. The owner of record is Downtown Dover Partnership (formerly the Downtown Dover Development Corporation). Property Address: 120 South Governors Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.09-01-44.00-000. Council District 4. Previously, the Planning Commission on August 15, 2011 took action to conditionally approve the Site Development Master Plan and the Architectural Review Certificate for this project. The Historic District Commission reviewed the waiver request at their meeting of August 18, 2011 and has provided a recommendation. (HI-11-04). Representative: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this project should be familiar as it was just at your August meeting. The reason that it is back before you this evening is in reviewing the Site Development Master Plan for the project it was discovered that a waiver request was necessary in regards to the side yard setback for what is Building #1 which is the building that fronts on South Governors Avenue specifically in the area of the south end of the building. The side yard setback was discovered in the Planning Staff’s review of the project in preparation for your August meeting. In the C-2 zone there is a setback of either zero or ten (10) feet and their proposed building was placed at seven (7) feet. As a result, the application had to return to the Historic District Commission at their August 18, 2011 meeting. This evening, the Historic District Commission is recommending approval of the side yard setback waiver request to allow the building to be placed at a setback of seven (7) feet from that side property line. Their 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 recommendation is forwarded to you to document their action on that waiver request. At your meeting of August 15, 2011 you had granted conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certificate for the project subject to a favorable recommendation from the Historic District Commission in regards to the waiver request. Mrs. Melson-Williams further stated that this evening there is no formal action that needs to be taken; however, you may want to recognize the action taken by the Historic District Commission that allows for the full issuance of the Architectural Review Certificate for this project. Mr. Hemmig stated that there was no motion needed on this request. We need to recognize the fact that the Historic District Commission has approved what this body (the Planning Commission) conditionally approved with regards to the Architectural Review Certification with a seven (7) foot setback. There was no discussion or objections to the final approval of the Architectural Review Certification. S-11-09 State Street Plaza at 1004 S. State Street – Review Revised Architecture associated with a Site Plan for the construction of a 9,942 SF office building and other associated site improvements at 1004 South State Street. The property is 0.7635 acres ± and is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located on the west side of South State Street at the intersection with Wyoming Avenue. The owner of record is Gateway South Professional Center, LLC and the equitable owner is ADP Properties, Inc. Property Address: 1004 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.17-07-21.00-000. Council District 2. Previously, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the Site Plan at their meeting on July 18, 2011 and requested revised architecture for the building. Representative: Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering. Ms. Cornwell stated that the applicant has revised the building architecture as required by the Planning Commission at the July meeting. At the July Planning Commission meeting, you recommended that the architecture of the building be looked at with required changes to reflect more of a pitched roof and residential feel. What they have brought back is a brick building with a hipped roof with a watertable feature, windows, dormers, and other architectural features to reflect a more residential look. Mr. Nichols stated that you see what happens when you ask for it to get sent back; it comes back and looks like a building. Colonel Welsh stated that he is thrilled with the changes and is thankful to the developer for agreeing to make the changes. He feels that it is something the developer and the City can be very proud of. Mr. Ambruso stated that he lives directly across the street from this project and feels that it will be a nice view. Mr. Hemmig stated that there is no public hearing required for this application. 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Mr. Liberman stated that one thing they looked at and the partnership discussed with the architect was the two (2) dormers that are located on the front elevation. They would like to take those off because we have the big monumental style entrance in the center of the building and the dormers do not fit that area; however, they would leave them on the rest of the building to break up the longer roof. Colonel Welsh stated that to him this made sense and again thanked the architect and applicant for agreeing to those changes. Colonel Welsh moved to approve S-11-09 State Street Plaza located at 1004 S. State Street with the two (2) dormers removed and accepted as the revised architecture for the building, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried 9-0. C-08-01 House of Pride at Properties on North New Street and South New Street – Annual Review of the Conditional Use Permit for the House of Pride properties, a philanthropic use and social service agency, including a residential recovery program and transitional housing. The project is located on seven (7) properties on North New Street and South New Street. The application involved the establishment of a multi-use philanthropic use relating to substance abuse prevention, intervention, treatment, education, and aftercare. The buildings include office, recovery houses, and transitional houses. The properties are zoned RG-1 (General Residential Zone) with the exception of 105 South New Street which is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone). The owner of record is The House of Pride, Inc. The property addresses and associated tax parcels numbers are listed below. Council District 4. 20 North New Street ED-05-076.08-05-20.00-000 29 South New Street ED-05-077.05-03-10.00-000 37 South New Street ED-05-077.05-03-08.00-000 38 South New Street ED-05-076.08-05-84.00-000 55-57 South New Street ED-05-077.05-03-02.00-000 105 South New Street ED-05-077.09-01-37.00-000 110 South New Street ED-05-077.09-01-31.00-000 ***Initial approval of the Conditional Use by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2008. At the January 18, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission acted to provisionally continue the Conditional Use Permit and required that it be subject to annual review by the Planning Commission. Representative: Mr. Larry Harris, Property Manager for House of Pride. Mrs. Townshend stated that the background on the House of Pride Conditional Use was provided in your packet. The original Conditional Use application was approved by the Planning Commission in January of 2008 and then a six (6) month review that was ultimately done on December 15, 2008. Mrs. Townshend further stated that after numerous code violations were found at the end of 2010, there was a hearing held on January 18, 2011 to discuss possible revocation of Conditional Use. At that point in time, the Planning Commission provisionally agreed to keep the Conditional Use in place with the condition that all of the Code violations be corrected in accordance with the timeframe set forward and at that point it was put on an annual review. 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Mrs. Townshend further stated that in February 2011, Staff brought forward that an annual review in August of each year would be required because we did not want to end up in the winter scenario again. Last month, we brought this forward and stated that we were putting it off because we were unable to get the inspections scheduled during the month of July as initially hoped. On September 7th and 8th the Code Enforcement Office and the Fire Marshal’s Office did perform inspections of House of Pride properties. The Fire Marshal’s Office inspections included properties that are not a part of the Conditional Use so some of what you see in their report is not related to the properties that are subject to the Conditional Use. Mrs. Townshend further stated that there were a number of violations identified on the number of properties inspected which were primarily cosmetic type of things such as cracked windows, leaks, some areas where there needed to be smoke detectors either installed or battery operated smoke detectors needed to be removed because hard wired was in place and battery operated ones were not being utilized. At 105 S. New Street a significant leak was found that required that the second floor of the building not be used until the leak is appropriately repaired. Mrs. Townshend further stated that follow-up inspections are scheduled for October 7, 2011 as this was the timeframe that the House of Pride was given to get the various violations corrected. The report notes that the Fire Marshal’s Office included documentation of violations related to preventable responses to fire related alarms. Fines have been issued by the Fire Marshal’s Office for these and all of those fines have been paid. The Fire Marshal’s Office has given them a list of corrections that would avoid these preventable responses in the future. Mrs. Townshend stated with the response of the inspections in hand, the Planning Staff would recommend that the Conditional Use permit for the House of Pride on the properties located at 20 North New Street and 29, 37, 38, 55-57, 105, and 110 South New Street be provisionally continued in accordance with the motion of January 2011 with the condition of compliance that all of the identified violations be corrected by October 7, 2011 in accordance with the deadline set forth by Code Enforcement. If compliance is not made by October 7, 2011, the City Planner would begin the proceedings under the Zoning Ordinance for revocation of Conditional Use. We would also state that the annual reviews continue and that the next annual review would be in July 2012. Mrs. Townshend further stated that part of the challenge that we had in scheduling the inspections was that the House of Pride is very involved in the State Fair and they were not available to schedule inspections during the month of July which set us back a month so here we are coming up on cold weather again which is what we were trying to avoid. Mrs. Townshend stated that all of the properties that are associated with a Conditional Use are tax exempt under the City’s taxes; however, there are a number of properties that are subject to City taxes. Currently, there is a delinquent balance of City taxes for House of Pride properties of $2,105.57. Mr. Hemmig stated that it’s just a clarification; although Mrs. Townshend just gave us the tax delinquency figure, we do not involve ourselves with tax liens those are administrative. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City has what is called “a Clean Hands Ordinance” which indicates essentially that any outstanding charges can be part of the 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 permit review process. Mr. Harris stated that they are currently taking care of these violations. The 105 S. New Street roof situation has been taken care of. Mr. Holt questioned if there would be a problem with paying the remaining taxes? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Harris stated that he was unsure about the taxes and would have to refer it to Sandra Dean, the Attorney for the House of Pride who handles all of that. Mr. Friedman stated that since he has been absent for an extended period of time he is hesitant to jump back in on this particular project. He does recall that what was said is that you cannot fix this without a Plan and you can’t have a Plan unless you have some direction for where you are heading and that you will reach some finality. He is a little surprised that we are not there yet. It is nice to hear that October 7, 2011 is the new drop dead date at which time these things will be resolved or not. Responding to Mr. Friedman, Mrs. Townshend stated that all of the violations previously identified were corrected. These are violations that have occurred since and have been determined since that initial inspection. Mr. Friedman further stated that he also addressed the possibility of this happening and having constantly reoccurring problems. He is glad to see that it is being addressed. Mr. Nichols questioned if he was under the assumption that we cannot approve anything until next month’s inspections? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Hemmig stated that we could do a conditional approval tonight for six (6) months with the proviso that should the inspections on October 7, 2011 fail then Staff will have the permission to move forward to begin to take action for revocation of their Conditional Use permit. Mrs. Townshend stated that the action to take revocation of their Conditional Use would come as a public hearing before the Planning Commission. There would be a thirty (30) day notification process which would take it into November. Colonel Welsh stated that he is concerned about a couple of things. He is concerned that we have backed ourselves into a corner again with cold weather coming up with quite a lengthy list of discrepancies that need to be corrected. One of the things that he was taken by in reading the discrepancies was the large number of them that were due to water leaks or rotting wood. This is not something that has occurred in the last six (6) months. The mildew and mold that has formed is something that has obviously been taking place for quite a while. Do you have any kind of plan or program for continuing maintenance? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Harris stated that he is not sure about the water in all the facilities; however, a lot of them were taken care of when they were first inspected back in March of this year. He believes that these are new situations, except for the rotted wood; he is not sure about that. Colonel Welsh further stated that it would seem to him that if you had an ongoing maintenance program, then you are not going to have these discrepancies that have occurred obviously over a long period of time. Wood does not rot in six (6) months. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Harris stated with regards to the 105 S. New Street that situation was different in that it was storm damage where it came down through the wall. This is the one that they were very concerned about and this has been taken care of. Colonel Welsh further stated that if you do not have a continuing maintenance program or plan, then he suggests they develop one and try to stick with it. You would avoid all these last minute discrepancies that you have to deal with on a panic basis. You could stay ahead of it instead of trying to catch up. You have less than thirty (30) days to clear up these discrepancies. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Harris stated that they have started on them and are well on their way. Note: Mr. Friedman left the meeting at 7:41 PM. Mr. Hemmig stated that there is no public hearing required for this application. Colonel Welsh moved to approve C-08-01 House of Pride at Properties on North New Street and South New Street contingent upon their repair and correction of identified discrepancies and to continue with the annual review to take place in July with inspections to take place in June, seconded by Mr. Ambruso and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Friedman absent. Z-11-06 Lands of EJB, Inc. at 327 Martin Street: Serenity Place - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation for a rezoning application consisting of one parcel of land totaling of 0.277 acres ± (11,744 S.F. +/-). The property is currently zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional/Office Zone). The subject property is located on the east side of Martin Street and southeast of the intersection Court Street and South DuPont Highway (Route 13). The owner of record is EJB, Inc. The lessee is Serenity Place, Inc. Property Address: 327 Martin Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.10-01-48.00-000. Council District 2. Representative: Mr. Bill Boyles, Executive Director for Serenity Place. Mrs. Townshend stated that the present use is a substance abuse treatment center that was destroyed by fire. The proposed use would rebuild the substance abuse treatment center. The substance abuse and treatment center was viewed as a non-conforming use that had been in place for a number of years. She has had a number of conversations with the applicant as they were going to be doing some work there; however, were limited in their ability to expand because of its non-conforming status. In terms of the surrounding land uses, all of the properties surrounding the subject property are zoned C-4 which is Highway Commercial and they are developed commercial properties. Mrs. Townshend further stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for commercial uses. Both the existing C-4 zoning and the requested IO zoning are consistent with this request. The Staff Report gives you a summary of the uses permitted in the IO zone. The IO zone does not permit retail and service commercial establishments as the C-4 zone does. These are different zones so we provided information on both of those zones. 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Mrs. Townshend further stated that Staff notes the approval of the Rezoning would create a small parcel zoned IO surrounding by C-4. However, due to the nature of the IO zone, this is a fairly common occurrence throughout the City to have single parcels that are zoned IO and surrounded by parcels that are not IO. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends in favor of the rezoning. In addition, we would note while when you look at the bulk standards it looks like you could build a really big building there, the bulk standards, particularly the floor area ratio, parking, coverage, those bulk standards would essentially keep it to be a reasonably sized structure especially on this size parcel that they have. Mr. Boyles stated that they have been here for twenty (20) years and we plan to be there a lot longer. We have helped over a thousand men with substance abuse issues. At this time, we envision rebuilding not a very large structure; however, a two story building in which we had a capacity of ten (10) beds. With the ability to start from scratch and with the efficient use of the land, we feel that we could double our capacity and serve the community twice as better if not more. We would do two (2) floors, approximately 5,000 square feet, and hope to get this rolling very soon. Demolition is scheduled for the beginning of next week. Mr. Nichols questioned with regards to the patients who stay there, how long is the average stay? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Boyles stated that the minimum requirement for coming to Serenity Place is a three (3) month commitment. On average the stay is approximately eight (8) to nine (9) months and some stay even a little longer up to eighteen (18) months. It will vary client to client. Mr. Nichols further questioned how many could stay there? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Boyles stated that on this location we had a maximum of ten (10) clients and we stay full and typically have a waiting list. Mr. Holt stated that he knows you had a fire; have you determined what the cause of the fire was? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Boyles stated yes, it was a cigarette in the mulch in the front yard and not sure whether it came from interior or someone walking by. The breeze was blowing towards the house that day and went up into the handicap accessible wooden ramp which was very dry and then jumped up into the house. Fortunately, no one was injured. Mr. Hemmig opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Colonel Welsh moved to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for Z-11-06 Lands of EJB, Inc. located at 327 Martin Street: Serenity Place Rezoning from C-4 to IO, seconded by Mr. Ambruso and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Friedman absent. S-11-16 Governors Avenue Animal Hospital at 1008 South Governors Avenue – Public Hearing and Site Plan Review to permit the construction involving renovations to an existing building and a two story building addition resulting in a 7,900 S.F. +/- veterinary hospital building and associated site improvements. The subject site consists of one parcel for a total of 0.8379 acres +/- (36,497 S.F. +/-) of land. The property is situated on the southwest corner of South Governors Avenue and Wyoming Avenue. The property is zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The owner of record is Governors Avenue Realty, LLC. Property Address: 1008 South Governors 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-06-20.00-000. Council District 2. Waiver Request: Reduction of Arterial Street Buffer, Elimination of the Opaque Barrier element of the Landscape Buffer requirement. A previous application for the property was reviewed as S-09-01 South Governors Avenue Animal Hospital in February 2009; the plan has since expired. Representative: Mr. Garth Jones, Becker Morgan Group, Inc. Ms. Cornwell stated that the application was previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in 2009 and even received Final Plan approval; however, the Site Plan expired as no construction commenced. The application is providing the required parking, bicycle parking, sidewalk, curbing, dumpsters, and landscaping. There are two (2) waiver requests with this application. The first is for the reduction in the Arterial Street Buffer. South Governors Avenue is considered an arterial street and requires a thirty (30) foot landscape buffer. The applicant is requesting a twenty-seven (27) foot reduction and will provide a three (3) foot buffer. Staff noted, as did the applicant, that there is a large area of green space within the right-of-way that could also act as part of that buffer which would equal thirty (30) feet. The second waiver request is for the elimination of the opaque barrier of the opaque wooden fence as the property is adjacent to residential use on the west side. The applicant is proposing to continue the existing vinyl fence along the west side of the property in lieu of the wooden fence and then eliminate the fence within the front yard setback as shown on the plan within the twenty (20) feet because they would only be permitted a four (4) foot fence instead of a six (6) foot fence. The other agencies reviewing the application have provided their comments. Mr. Jones stated that they agree with all of the DAC comments of record. Mr. Nichols questioned when you first came before us the existing building was to be torn down and a parking lot put in. This new building is tied into the parking area. Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Jones stated that when the Site Plan came through, they were going to build an addition in the same area that the addition is going now. They were going to build an addition and then the existing building was going to be torn down and a new building put right back in its identical place and the two buildings were going to be joined to look like one building. The site layout that you see now is identical to the Site Plan that was approved back in 2009. We have made no changes to the parking lot layout from the Site Plan that was approved before. The only difference in this Site Plan now is that the existing building is going to remain where before the existing building was going to be torn down and a new structure built back in the same footprint and connected onto the addition. Mr. Nichols stated that he understands; however, what he can remember is the building is going to be facing Wyoming Avenue. The old building would be torn down and the parking lot would be located in the back of the building. Responding to Mr. Nichols, Ms. Cornwell stated that the parking has not changed. The parking lot has always remained the same. There are several parallel parking spaces that will be located in the back and they have always been there. Most of the parking has always been around the front and on the west side of the building. That has not changed. Mr. Hemmig opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. 13

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Mr. Tolbert moved to approve S-11-16 Governors Avenue Animal Hospital located at 1008 South Governors Avenue and said approval is to include the approval of the waiver for the Arterial Street Buffer and the waiver for the elimination of the fence component for the opaque barrier only in the front yard setback with the rest of the fence remaining as an alternative material of vinyl rather than wood, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was carried 8-0 with Mr. Friedman absent. MI-11-09 Text Amendment: Revisions to Article 3 and Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Swimming Pools – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a series of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §1 – One Family Residence Zones and the addition of a new subsection 1.11 to Article 5 §1 – Supplementary Regulations Applying to Residence Zones. The proposed ordinance revises the regulations regarding swimming pools in residence zones and relocates the regulations into the supplementary regulations section of the Code. Ordinance #2011-21. Representatives: None Mrs. Townshend stated that this proposed amendment does essentially two (2) things as it relates to swimming pools. One it pulls the details of the location of the pools in terms of property lines out of Article 3 which is the section of the Zoning Ordinance that spells out the permitted uses and places those requirements in Article 5: Supplementary Regulations. It makes the Code easier to read if you are a member of the public trying to figure out where to put your pool and how to do it. Mrs. Townshend further stated that the other thing that this does is it more closely aligns the Zoning requirements relating to swimming pools with those requirements within the Building Code. The Code, as it stands today, has conflicting provisions that tend to create confusion even among Staff. So if Staff gets confused then you can imagine that the public is getting confused as well and it frequently puts us in a situation that limits our ability to be customer friendly. We thought it would be prudent to align the Building Code requirements for swimming pools with the Zoning requirements for swimming pools so that we can eliminate any potential overlap or conflict. Colonel Welsh stated that the only thing that he has a concern about is the requirement for a fence. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that there is a requirement in the Building Code for a four (4) foot safety barrier which in most cases is going to be a fence. If you have a hard walled swimming pool or one that is entirely surrounded by a deck that has fencing around the deck as long as those elements are four (4) feet sometimes the fence would not be required. However, the four (4) foot safety barrier is required under the Building Code. Mr. Hemmig opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mr. Tolbert moved to forward recommendation of approval to City Council for MI-11-09 Text Amendment: Revisions to Article 3 and Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Swimming Pools, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously approved 8-0 with Mr. Friedman absent. 14

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Meeting Adjourned at 8:06 PM Sincerely, Diane Metsch Secretary 15

City of Dover REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE Before The Planning Commission October 17, 2011 Petitioner: New Jerusalem Baptist Church C/o Reverend Clifton Holmes 25 Slaughter Street Dover, DE 19904 Location: One block segment of Slaughter Street which runs in a north-south direction between West North Street and West Loockerman Street just east of the railroad corridor Purpose: Request to change the street name of this street segment from Slaughter Street to Jerusalem Way. Request was filed in accordance with the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-45 Street name change Procedure Proposed Street Name: Jerusalem Way File Number: MI-11-11 P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C MEETING DATE: October 5, 2011 ===================================================================== APPLICATION: Request for Street Name Change: Slaughter Street to Jerusalem Way FILE#: MI-11-11 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Dawn E. Melson-Williams, AICP PHONE#: 736-7196 ===================================================================== This request is submitted for Planning Commission review of a Request for a Street Name Change for the one block segment of Slaughter Street which runs in a north-south direction between West North Street and West Loockerman Street just east of the railroad corridor. The new street name proposed is Jerusalem Way. The request was filed in accordance with Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-45 Street name change procedure which also references Appendix A: Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI, Section A. Streets. The name change procedure requires review and comments by the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and review by the Planning Commission prior to review by the Utility Committee of City Council and then public hearing and consideration by the City Council. History of Area This area of Dover is part of the downtown grid network of streets. The 1868 Beers Map of Dover shows limited development in this area with only the railroad corridor and a large block bounded by Loockerman Street to the north, Queen Street on the east, and North Street on the south. Within the block, there are two buildings fronting on Loockerman Street, a cemetery adjacent to Queen Street, and an African Church building. The western portion of the block is owned by T. Slaughter. The 1885 Bird’s Eye View of Dover by Bailey shows a north-south street bisecting the block by 1885 with more extensive building development (residences, a school) fronting the street. Review of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map series 1885-1944, shows the street names of Negro Street and Slaughter Street for this street segment. It appears that this street segment was named for the adjacent property owner, T. Slaughter. It is also noted that there is another street segment also named Slaughter Street (not subject to this request). This street is located west of the railroad corridor and runs east-west with street connections of Clarence Street and Minima Street to West North Street. This “Slaughter Street” is depicted on an 1887 Map of Dover by W.B. Roe. Existing Conditions and Use: For this one block segment of Slaughter Street, the west side adjacent to the railroad corridor is developed with a multi-story office building and parking lot known as the Duncan Center and

MI-11-11 Request for Street Name Change: Slaughter Street to Jerusalem Way DAC Report of October 5, 2011 Page 2 addressed as 500 West Loockerman Street. The site access to the parking lot is from Slaughter Street. On the east side of the block the only remaining building fronting on the subject street is a church building (constructed circa 1871) currently occupied by the New Jerusalem Baptist Church. The church is addressed as 25 Slaughter Street. This street right-of-way is owned and maintained by the City of Dover. Request for Street Name Change The proposed Street Name requested is Jerusalem Way for this segment of Slaughter Street. Within the Land Subdivision Regulations Article VI, Section A. Streets, guidelines for the naming of streets are provided. Article VI. Section A. Streets. 16. Street names shall be selected so as not to duplicate, or be confused with, the names of existing streets. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the commission. All new streets shall be named in the following manner: TABLE INSET: Short General Direction Long (under 1,000 ') North and south Streets Places East and west Avenues Courts Diagonal Roads Ways Curving Drives Lanes, Circles Arterial streets shall be named Boulevards THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. RECOMMENDATIONS and ADVISORY COMMENTS: 1. Planning Staff recommends approval of the street name Jerusalem Way as following the naming conventions for a short one block segment of street. 2. As part of the Development Advisory Committee process, a series of City, County, and State agencies were notified of the street name change request. Any comments received regarding the request are attached to this report. 3. Upon approval of the street name change, notification of appropriate City, County, and State agencies will be completed by the City of Dover. 4. Upon approval of the street name, the installation of updated street name blades on the street will be completed by the City of Dover.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 APPLICATION: REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE: SLAUGHTER STREET TO JERUSALEM WAY FILE #: MI-11-11 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Utilities Department CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Sharon Duca, P.E. - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7070 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed name change. STORMWATER / GENERAL 1. None. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER 1. None. GENERAL 1. The new street signs required for this location will be purchased and installed by the Public Services Department. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: October 5, 2011 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Request for Street Name Change: Slaughter Street to Jerusalem Way FILE#: MI-11-11 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The Department has no comments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

Kent County Department of Planning Services Division of Geographic Information Systems SARAH E. KEIFER, AICP Phone: 302/744-2420 Director of Planning Services FAX: 302/736-2128 Email: sabrina.fite@co.kent.de.us SABRINA FITE GIS Specialist TO: - Dawn E. Melson-Williams, AICP The City of Dover FROM: Sabrina Fite 911 Addressing DATE: September 30, 2011 PIN #: OWNER: REF: MI-11-11 Request for Street Name Change: Slaughter Street to Jerusalem Way - Kent County has no objections regarding the proposed street name JERUSALEM WAY

Slaughter Street - Jerusalem Way Proposed Street Name Change 127 130 131 133 136 585 141 For 135 est St 321 403 407 329 409 2 415 erman St k 600 Looc 326 212 412 S Qu 516 416 St een 371 gh Slau 25 t tree 500 ter S 645 St N orth W 450 520 350 0 75 150 300 Feet ¯ Date Printed: October 5, 2011 Legend File: m:\gis_data\projects\tech_mxds \street_name_change Portion Proposed to be Renamed Jerusalem Way Department: Public Services GIS Dover Parcels City of Dover, Delaware

PETITION TO AMEND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT Report to the Dover Planning Commission October 17, 2011 Proposed Change: Amendment to Subdivision Regulations, Article VII –Special Provisions, to create a new Section B – Homeowners Associations Summary of Amendment: City Council and many residents of the City have expressed concerns about the state of several subdivisions that have gone inactive. This had led to infrastructure that is incomplete and not dedicated to the City and lack of maintenance of the private common areas (stormwater management areas and common open space) by homeowners associations. City Council assigned this issue to staff to develop a list of the problems and potential solutions related to the maintenance of development projects that are incomplete. On January 24, 2011, staff presented a report to the Utility Committee, who in turn ranked the problems and instructed staff to address the three top-ranked problems. This ordinance addresses Problem #4 from the report, “Stormwater/Passive Open Space Not Being Maintained”. The Zoning Ordinance requires that private open spaces within residential development be turned over and maintained by a homeowners association. In many locations, the homeowners association was developed, land is owned by the homeowners association, and yet the property is not being maintained. The City receives complaints about the lack of maintenance. If the City expends funds to maintain these areas, there is no mechanism to recover the funds. The City does not have the resources to maintain these areas without receiving payment to do so. The proposed ordinance would amend the Subdivision Regulations and require that homeowners associations be formed, membership mandatory, and that they assume and continue the maintenance responsibilities for the common open space, including the stormwater management areas, passive open space, and active recreation areas. If the City needs to perform maintenance of these areas due to code violations not addressed by the homeowners association, the City could bill the property owners of the lots within the subdivision to recover costs, and place these charges on the tax bill of these property owners. Ordinance Number: 2011-15 File Number: MI-11-07 Attachments: Dover Private Open Space Inventory Minutes from Utility Committee Meeting of January 24, 2011 Memo of January 3, 2011 to Utility Committee

CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2011-15 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VII - Special Provisions, be amended by re-lettering Section B - 4 Severability, as Section C and inserting a new Section B - Homeowners associations, to read as follows: 5 B. Homeowners associations. 6 1. Creation of homeowners association. The owner and/or developer shall create a homeowners 7 association for the proposed development where private open space and stormwater management 8 facility ownership and maintenance responsibility exist. The homeowners association shall be 9 organized and established as a legal entity prior to or as a part of the final plat approval and 10 recording process and all documents related to the homeowners association shall be submitted 11 in draft form at the time of application for the subdivision plan review (whether minor or major). 12 Such documents shall be acceptable to the city as a condition of subdivision plan approval. 13 2. Legal documents recorded. The owner and/or developer should pay for the preparation of the 14 legal document necessary to create the association, have same approved by the city solicitor and 15 council and record same in the recorder of deeds office for Kent County. 16 3. Maintenance of property of the homeowners association. The legal documents prepared will 17 give the city the authority to require the homeowner's association to perform routine maintenance 18 and minor/major repairs as necessary to keep the property in good condition, and eliminate any 19 health or safety issues. 20 If the homeowners association does not respond to a notice of violation from the city regarding 21 maintenance within 14 calendar days of the date of such notice, the city shall have the right to 22 perform the work itself or hire a contractor to perform the work and assess each property owner 23 of the homeowner association and/or each owner of property within the final plat for the 24 subdivision a fee to recover its cost. Such fee shall include an administrative charge equal to 15% 25 of the cost of the work performed. This fee will be added to the real estate tax bill as a special 26 assessment to these lot owners. 27 4. Homeowners association requirements. If the applicant is required to establish a homeowners 28 association for purposes of ownership and maintenance of common areas, common facilities 29 and/or open spaces, such association documents shall require, at minimum: 30 a. Membership mandatory. All owners of property within the subdivision must be members of 31 the homeowners association. The members of the homeowners association shall share 32 equitably in the costs of maintaining all open space, common areas and facilities, recreation 33 areas and facilities, and stormwater management areas and facilities which are not accepted 34 by the city in writing in accordance with the provisions of all deed restrictions and 35 maintenance agreements, all applicable property maintenance codes, all record plan notes, 36 and in accordance with procedures established by the homeowners association. The deed 37 restrictions shall require, at minimum, that the costs of such maintenance shall be collectable 38 from the owner of the lot(s) to which such costs are assessed; and that such costs shall be and

Proposed Ordinance #2011-15 - Appendix A, Article VII - Special Provisions Page 2 39 constitute a lien upon such lot(s). 40 b. Responsibilities. The homeowners association shall be responsible for all maintenance, 41 insurance, taxes, fees, and other burdens customary to the ownership of real property and all 42 improvements and construction thereon, including, but not limited to all recreation amenities, 43 walkways, storm water facilities, ponds, landscaping, and other facilities not owned or 44 accepted by the City of Dover. 45 c. Deed restrictions. Restrictive covenants shall provide that in the event the association fails 46 to maintain the common areas, common facilities, and open areas according to the adopted 47 codes of the City of Dover, in accordance with the recorded plan, and in accordance with the 48 requirements of recorded restrictions, the city may: 49 1. Demand that the deficiency of maintenance be corrected. If the homeowners 50 association shall fail to correct the deficiency, after reasonable notice, the city may 51 enter the common area to inspect and correct the deficiency. The cost of such 52 maintenance shall be charged to the association in accordance with the provisions of 53 Section C (3). 54 5. Homeowners association reporting responsibilities. Each homeowners association established 55 pursuant to Appendix A, Subdivisions shall, not later than December 31 of each year, provide 56 to the City Clerk of the City of Dover a listing of the officers of such homeowners association, 57 including their addresses and telephone numbers, and the date of the annual meeting. The 58 homeowners association shall list the terms of office of each officer and the date of the annual 59 election. The homeowners association shall provide the name, address, phone number and 60 contact information for any firm providing services in behalf of or acting as agent for the 61 homeowners association in carrying out its responsibilities. 62 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 63 That the provisions of this ordinance shall be in effect upon its adoption and shall apply to all existing 64 subdivisions where the homeowners association has maintenance responsibilities for open space and 65 stormwater management areas. The city manager shall send a letter to all property owners within the City 66 of Dover who have HOA maintenance responsibilities under this ordinance informing them of these 67 responsibilities and the City's right to bill property owners within the homeowners association for any 68 maintenance performed by the City of Dover due to lack of maintenance on the part of the homeowners 69 association. 70 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 71 That all homeowners associations with maintenance responsibilities for open space and stormwater areas 72 that existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall report to the city manager by December 31, 2011 73 those items required in subsection (B)(5) - Homeowners Association Reporting Responsibilities. 74 SYNOPSIS 75 The proposed amendment would clarify the requirement that developers of subdivisions with 76 common open space, including active recreation areas, woodlands, and stormwater

Proposed Ordinance #2011-15 - Appendix A, Article VII - Special Provisions Page 3 77 managements, form homeowners associations where membership is mandatory. It would 78 allow the City to perform work that is the responsibility of the homeowners association if 79 such work is not performed in accordance with code requirements. Such work would be 80 billed to the property owners on their tax bill, including an administrative charge. The 81 proposed amendment would require that homeowners associations with management 82 responsibility for common open space submit annually a listing of officers of the association. 83 The proposed amendment also clarifies that these requirements are retroactive to all 84 subdivisions with common open space in existence prior to adoption of the ordinance. 85 ADOPTED: * 86 Actions History 87 June 13, 2011 - Scheduled for consideration by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee 88 S:\ORDINANCES\2011\Draft\Ordinance 2011-15 - Appendix A - Subdivisions Art VII - Special Provisions.wpd

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: October 5, 2011 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Text Amendment: Revisions to Article VII of the land Subdivision Regulations Regarding Homeowners Associations. FILE#: MI-11-07 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The Department has no comments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 APPLICATION: TEXT AMENDMENTS: REVISIONS TO ARTICLE VII OF THE LAND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REGARDING HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS FILE #: MI-11-07 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Utilities Department CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Sharon Duca, P.E. - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7070 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

Dover Private Open Space Inventory October 5, 2011 Name Dedicated? Open Space Owner Comments Acorn Farms Yes ACORN FARMS LTD. Open space and HOA functions are the responsibility of Cannon Mill the developer until the subdivision is dedicated and the No MOORE-CANNON MILL LLC HOA turned over to the homeowners. Open space and HOA functions are the responsibility of Clearview Meadow the developer until the subdivision is dedicated and the No FIRST DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC HOA turned over to the homeowners. Cranberry Run Yes CRANBERRY RUN MAINTENANCE CORP Open space and HOA functions are the responsibility of Eden Hill Farm the developer until the subdivision is dedicated and the No HILL FARM ASSOCIATES LLC HOA turned over to the homeowners. Open space and HOA functions are the responsibility of Emerald Pointe the developer until the subdivision is dedicated and the No EMERALD POINTE INC HOA turned over to the homeowners. Farthing Woods No ASHBURN HOMES INC HOA has been inactive since initial formation. Residents frequently call the City for maintenance of areas that are Four Seasons HOA responsibility. Private open space on delinquent tax list. A builder who owns multiple lots has been Yes FOUR SEASONS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC maintaining the grass in the open areas. Fox Hall West Addition Yes FOX HALL WEST ADDITION The Greens of Dover Yes THE GREENS TOWN MEETING ASSOC The Hamlet Yes HAMLET HOMES ASSOCIATION HOA owns pool and tennis courts. Hidden Creek Yes HIDDEN CREEK HOMEOWNERS Open space and HOA functions are the responsibility of Lexington Glen the developer until the subdivision is dedicated and the No LEXINGTON GLEN INC HOA turned over to the homeowners. 1

Dover Private Open Space Inventory October 5, 2011 Maple Glen Yes MAPLE GLEN HOMEOWNERS HOA is active. Marsh Creek Yes PRESIDENTIAL ASSOC Meadows at Dover Yes MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC Open space and HOA functions are the responsibility of Nottingham Meadows the developer until the subdivision is dedicated and the No STOVER HOMES LLC HOA turned over to the homeowners. Oak Shadows Yes OAK SHADOWS CONDO COUNCIL INC Open space and HOA functions are the responsibility of Patriot Village the developer until the subdivision is dedicated and the No CRAFT BUILT HOMES LLC HOA turned over to the homeowners. Persimmon Park Place Yes PERSIMMON PARK PLACE Condominium Association serves as the HOA. The Overlook on Silver Lake Yes THE OVERLOOK ON SILVER LAKE Seskinore Yes SESKINORE HOME BUILDERS, INC Silver Lake Townhouses Yes SILVER LAKE PROPERTIES LLC Stoney Creek Yes COUNTRY LIVING HOMES LLC Turnberry Yes TURNBERRY MAINTENANCE ASSOC Phases I-V HOA has responsibility for open space in Phases I-V. HOA Village of Westover Dedicated - is currently functioning; however, many owners do not Phase VI WESTOVER LLC pay their dues, and long-term viability of HOA and Undedicated VILLAGE OF WESTOVER HOMEOWNERS maintenance of open space is a concern. Westfield Yes WESTFIELD MAINTENANCE CORP 2

Excerpt from Utility Committee Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 1 of 2 Development Projects - Performance and Maintenance Bonding Concerns During their meeting of January 10, 2011, members were advised that, as part of a shared performance goal, the City Manager, the Public Services Manager, and the Director of Planning and Community Development conducted a series of four (4) internal meetings to brainstorm various ideas to address concerns raised about performance and maintenance bonding in subdivisions, site plan compliance, ensuring the functionality of homeowners’ associations (HOAs), and other development project issues. As a result of these meetings, which were held in October, November, and December of 2010, he stated that eight (8) specific issues/concerns were identified. Members requested that staff provide the list of Development Projects to members for their review and prioritization to be considered by the Committee during their next meeting. Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, advised members that he, Mr. Ruane, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend, and Mr. DePrima ranked the projects and written comments were submitted by Major Kosior. He stated that the highest-ranked projects are as follows: 1) Problem #2 - Some projects are partially built and the construction or the site work has been abandoned. 2) Problem #5 - Nuisance issues such as maintenance of buildable lots with homes, partially complete homes, partially complete subdivisions, roll-off trash containers for construction debris, soil stockpiles, and material storage areas are degrading the overall quality of various subdivisions (in both dedicated and undedicated subdivisions). 3) Problem #4 - Stormwater / Passive Open Space – Not Being Maintained. Mr. Koenig stated that these three (3) problems ranked significantly higher than the others, based on the feedback received. Staff recommended that a timeline be developed to begin resolving the three (3) highest-ranked problems and that recommendations be developed in the form of proposed ordinances or procedural amendments to be presented to the Committee for review. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig advised members that administrative action is being taken on all problems and assured members that the goal is to resolve them. With regards to snow removal (Problem #7) at Nottingham Meadows, Mr. Koenig stated that the bank has hired a contractor to oversee both the “punch list items” and snow removal for this season at Nottingham Meadows. He stated that the developers or the banks are hiring contractors for removal of snow in other abandoned areas; therefore, he assured members that, to his knowledge, all undedicated developments have some method of snow removal in place during the current winter season. At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig read the comments submitted by Major Kosior in response to Mr. Koenig’s memorandum of January 3, 2011, Subject: Development Projects – Performance and Maintenance Bonding Concerns (Attachment #3 - Major Kosior’s comments are depicted in

Excerpt from Utility Committee Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 2 of 2 red font). Council President Hogan stated that he had prepared a ranking, apologized for not submitting it to staff, and noted that he also ranked Problem #2 as the top priority. Mr. McGiffin moved to recommend acceptance of the designation of Problems #2, #5, and #4 as the highest-ranked concerns related to Development Projects - Performance and Maintenance Bonding, with the expectation that a timeline would be developed to begin resolving these problems, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.

Memorandum Public Services Manager P. O. Box 475 City Hall/ The Plaza Dover, Delaware 19903-0475 Phone: (302) 736-7026 Fax: (302) 736-7177 E-mail:skoenig@dover.de.us TO: Utility Committee Members FROM: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., Public Services Manager Anthony J. DePrima, AICP, ICMA-CM, City Manager Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development DATE: January 3, 2011 SUBJECT: Development Projects – Performance & Maintenance Bonding Concerns As part of a shared performance goal, the City Manager, the Public Services Manager and the Director of Planning & Community Development conducted a series of four (4) internal meetings to brainstorm various ideas regarding concerns raised about Performance & Maintenance Bonding in subdivisions, site plan compliance, ensuring the functionality of homeowners associations (HOAs), and other development project problems. These meetings were held in October, November and December of 2010. Eight (8) specific problems/concerns were identified. Each problem is listed below along with one or more suggestions to improve the area of concern. Problem #1 – Active Recreation Areas in some Subdivisions / Site Plans (Apartments) are not being completed in proportion to the lots constructed. Article 5, Section 10.6 of the Zoning Ordinance is weak and difficult to enforce. It is difficult to build the recreation areas in proportion to the lots / building permits, as specified by code; therefore, an alternative solution must be developed. Possible Solutions: 1. Require specific phasing plan for the Active Recreation Plan. 2. Require a Performance Bond / Letter Of Credit (LOC) equal to 150% of the value (or add the active recreation improvements to current infrastructure LOC). LOC is preferred over a bond as the LOC creates more leverage. Note: A Code amendment is required to accomplish this.

Problem #2 – Some projects are partially built and the construction or the site work has been abandoned. (Examples: Enterprise Business Park, Tall Pines, Dove View) Possible Solutions: 1. Fund a Demolition Reserve that can be sustained with monies collected from liens and be used to demolish or safely seal construction. 2. Amend Tall Grass & Weed Ordinance (Chapter 114, Article II) to allow the City to regrade or restore the property and place a lien against the property to collect the costs. 3. Amend state law for Demolition Liens to allow for the City to recover costs through sheriff’s sale. 4. A Dangerous Building (DB) declaration accelerates tax sale (for delinquent taxes). This is an administrative action that is already in place. Problem #3 – Failure of HOA to take over initial responsibilities or HOA does not form or stay formed and therefore fails to function. Common Areas are not maintained. (Example: Four Seasons) Possible Solutions: 1. Amend assessment section of the code to allow city to bill and lien individual property owners for the common areas that the City is forced to maintain. 2. Amend subdivision ordinance to require an escrow start up account so HOA is capitalized from the beginning. 3. Buyers somehow are notified and certify / acknowledge that they are required to be part of the HOA and that there are maintenance responsibilities for which the HOA is responsible. Possible venues could include requiring that information be posted conspicuously in model homes or the City could send a letter after real estate transfer tax is received. 4. Require developer to meet guideline to turn over HOA at 75% of the initial phase of the development. - City could facilitate initial HOA meeting – Notice, Public Meeting at City Hall, City representative in attendance - Ensure elected official in attendance. 5. Amend subdivision ordinance to include a specific turnover requirement. 6. Amend subdivision ordinance to require a Certified Management Agency. Problem #4 – Stormwater / Passive Open Space – Not Being Maintained Possible Solutions: 1. Amend sections of the code addressing special assessment (Chapter 94) and/or amend tall grass and weeds (Chapter 114) to allow staff to hire contractors to maintain the passive open space and/or stormwater management areas and bill the property owners (developer or individual owners) and place a lien against the property to recover costs. 2. Create a Limited Stormwater Utility  Unilateral authority to take over facilities that are not being maintaned  Start with new developments

Problem #5 – Nuisance issues such as maintenance of buildable lots with homes, partially complete homes, partially complete subdivisions, roll-off trash containers for construction debris, soil stockpiles and material storage areas are degrading the overall quality of various subdivisions (in both dedicated and undedicated subdivisions). Possible Solutions: 1. Require an upfront agreement and escrow deposit from the developer of the subdivision ($1,000 / lot) to address these issues if they arise. 2. Provide incentives to dedicate infrastructure – Bill developer for Street Light operating costs and pump station maintenance until subdivision is dedicated. Problem #6 – Sidewalk network not complete and the developer wants to dedicate the rights-of-way and infrastructure. Possible Solutions: 1. Require all sidewalk construction to be complete prior to dedication. This position would maintain the status quo. 2. Add option that developer can go to Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee with a special Letter of Credit for the uncompleted sidewalks on the streets to be dedicated. The uncompleted sidewalks are associated with lots that have not had building permits issued as of that date. Potential enhancement to this option is to require a Public Hearing with notice to all residents and/or property owners in the development. Problem #7 – Snow Removal on uncompleted and/or undedicated streets represents a serious service delivery problem for the City of Dover and residents in these areas. Possible Solutions: 1. Require a maintenance escrow to be set up by the developer that can be used for snow and ice removal. 2. Require a signed contract between the developer and a private contractor responsible for snow removal be shared with the City. Problem #8 – The City does not provide a full range of services on undedicated streets since they are considered private property. (i.e. – snow removal, street sweeping, speed enforcement) Possible Solutions: 1. Earlier dedication – city would accept dedication of uncompleted streets and follow up with completion of the infrastructure on a designated time line identified in the dedication action. 2. Require more extensive maintenance agreement with longer time period for coverage.

Based upon the above information, staff is proposing the following next steps: 1) Staff would like to receive feedback from members of the Committee and Council on the possible solutions presented above as well as other items you would like to consider to address the identified problems. 2) Prioritize the problems listed above. 3) Prepare a timeline to address the problems in priority order. 4) Hold focus group with stakeholders (HOAs, Civic Associations, Civic Leaders, the development community, KCD) 5) Develop ordinances / charter amendments / administrative changes If you have any questions, please contact me. SDK/sdk

Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Bicycle Plan Adopted September 2011

ii

DOVER/KENT COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2011 PREPARED BY THE DOVER/KENT COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION The preparation of this document was financed in part with funds provided by the federal government, including the Federal Transit Administration, through the Joint Simplification Program, and the Federal Highway Administration of the United States Department of Transportation.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document is the end result of the hard work of many individuals who gave their time, expertise, and effort to develop, review, revise and prepare the facts, concepts and actions presented. The Dover/Kent Count Metropolitan Planning Organization would like to recognize their invaluable contributions. Bicycle Working Group Gary Norris , City of Milford Zachery Carter, City of Dover Parks & Recreation Chris Asay , Public member Anthony Aglio, Delaware Department of Transportation, Planning Division Michael Albert, City of Dover, Planning and Inspections Mike Krumrine , Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Parks Kendall Sommers , Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Parks Chris Zimmerman , Kent County Greenway Phil Wheeler, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Air Quality David Edgell, Office of State Planning Coordination David Dooley , Delaware Transit Corporation Bill Osborne , Transportation Management Association Delaware Tricia Faust, Dover Air Force Base Jeff Helmetag , Dover Air Force Base Tom Hartley , Delaware Bike Council Ann Marie Townshend , City of Dover, Planning and Community Development Andrea Kreiner, A. Kreiner Company Dover/Kent Metropolitan Planning Organization: Council Carleton Carey Sr. , Mayor, City of Dover, Chairman Brad Eaby , Kent County Levy Court Commissioner for Brooks Banta, Kent County Levy Court President Cleon Cauley for Shailen Bhatt, Secretary, Delaware Department of Transportation Elizabeth Olsen , Deputy Director, Department of Safety and Homeland Security for Governor Jack Markell Stephen Kingsberry , Director, Delaware Transit Corporation Richard Maly , Mayor, Town of Camden Hassan Raza , Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration Letitia Thompson , Regional Administrator, Federal Transit Administration Technical Advisory Committee Scott Koenig , City of Dover, Chairman David Edgell, Office of State Planning Coordination, Vice-Chairman Terry Reilly , Transportation Management Association Ann Marie Townshend , City of Dover, Planning and Community Development Mary Ellen Gray, for Sarah Kiefer, Kent County Planning Greg Oliver, Delaware Department of Transportation, Planning Division Milton Melendez , Delaware Department of Agriculture Theon Callender, Town of Cheswold Catherine Smith , Delaware Transit Corporation Timothy Riley , District Coordinator, Kent Conservation District Tricia Faust, Dover Air Force Base Joe Zilcosky for Jeff Stone , Delaware Economic Development Office i

Gary Norris , City of Milford Dave Hugg , Town of Smyrna Phillip Wheeler, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Air Quality Marc Dixon , Federal Highway Administration Rick Crawford , Norfolk Southern Corporation Byard O’Neal, Delaware Motor Transport Association Ryan Long , Federal Transit Administration Public Advisory Committee Horace Cook , Chairman Dwight Meyer, Vice-Chairman Prameela Kaza James Webster Dr. Carlton Cannon Phyllis Collins Dr. Daniel Houghtaling Michael Gumrot Arley Cooper James Brown David Fry MPO Staff Juanita Wieczoreck , Executive Director James Galvin , Principal Planner Kate Layton , Public Liaison Catherine Samardza , Executive Secretary Tara Davis , MPO Intern Arthur Wicks , MPO Intern ii

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ ............ i Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. .......... iii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... ........... v List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... ......... vii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... .......... ix Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ ........... 1 Why a Bicycle Plan for the Dover/Kent County MPO Region? ...................................... ........... 1 Purpose of the Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Bicycle Plan ................................... ........... 2 Development of the Regional Bicycle Plan .......................................................................... ........... 2 Vision, Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... ........... 5 Dover/Kent County MPO Transportation Vision for 2030 ............................................. ........... 5 Bicycling in the Dover/Kent County MPO Region ......................................................................... .........11 Types of Bicyclists .................................................................................................................... .........11 The Existing Dover/Kent County MPO Region Bicycle Network ................................. .........11 Bicycle Policies ....................................................................................................................................... .........23 DelDOT Complete Streets Policy ......................................................................................... .........23 DelDOT Bicycle Policy ........................................................................................................... .........24 Policy Recommendations...................................................................................................................... .........27 Policy 1 – Selecting Appropriate Bicycle Facilities .............................................................. .........27 Policy 2 – Bicycle Facilities at Intersections ......................................................................... .........31 Policy 3 – Bicycle Parking ....................................................................................................... .........33 Policy 4 – Education and Enforcement ................................................................................ .........37 Bicycle Network Impediment and Gaps ............................................................................................ .........41 Proposed Regional Bicycle System – Project Recommendations ................................................... .........45 Recommended On-Road Construction and Lane Width Reallocation Projects ............ .........51 Recommended Off-Road Projects......................................................................................... .........72 Implementing Bicycle Plan Recommendations ................................................................... .........79 iii

Appendix A: Bicycle Routes included in Delaware Bicycle Master Plan ....................................... .........81 Appendix B: Planning Efforts Affecting Kent County Bicycling ................................................... .........97 Appendix C: Review Criteria ................................................................................................................ ...... 103 Appendix D: Summary of Project Recommendations ..................................................................... ...... 107 Appendix E: Public Comment ............................................................................................................ ...... 115 iv

List of Figures Figure 1: Existing Bicycle System in Dover/Kent County MPO Region ..................................... .........13 Figure 2: Existing Off Road Facilities in Dover/Kent County MPO Region .............................. .........19 Figure 3: Two-Lane Suburban Roadway with Shoulder and Multi-Use Path ............................... .........23 Figure 4: Space Requirements for Bicycle Travel (Width) ............................................................... .........27 Figure 5: Space Requirements for Bicycle Travel (Height) .............................................................. .........27 Figure 6: Space Requirements for Bicycle Travel with Trailer (Width) ......................................... .........28 Figure 7: Space Requirements for Bicycle Travel with Trailer (Length) ........................................ .........28 Figure 8: Sharrow Dimensions............................................................................................................. .........31 Figure 9: Bicycle Pathway Markings at an Intersection .................................................................... .........32 Figure 10: Bicycle Boxes ....................................................................................................................... .........33 Figure 11: Secure Bike Racks – Minneapolis, MN ............................................................................ .........34 Figure 12: Key Destinations in Dover/Kent County MPO Region .............................................. .........39 Figure 13: Proposed Regional Bicycle System – On Road Project Recommendations............... .........47 Figure 14: Proposed Regional Bicycle System – Off Road Project Recommendations .............. .........49 Figure 15: South West Street ................................................................................................................ .........51 Figure 16: US 13 ..................................................................................................................................... .........52 Figure 17: West Denney’s Road........................................................................................................... .........53 Figure 18: State Street ............................................................................................................................ .........54 Figure 19: DE 8 / Forest Avenue ....................................................................................................... .........55 Figure 20: Walker Road ......................................................................................................................... .........55 Figure 21: North Street ......................................................................................................................... .........56 Figure 22: College Road ........................................................................................................................ .........57 Figure 23: DE 10 .................................................................................................................................... .........58 Figure 24: Milford Riverwalk................................................................................................................ .........59 Figure 25: Saulsbury Road .................................................................................................................... .........60 Figure 26: US 113 – Milford ................................................................................................................. .........61 Figure 27: Kenton Road........................................................................................................................ .........62 Figure 28: Sorghum Mill Road ............................................................................................................. .........63 Figure 29: Pearson’s Corner Road ....................................................................................................... .........64 Figure 30: Chestnut Grove Road ......................................................................................................... .........65 Figure 31: DE 12 .................................................................................................................................... .........65 Figure 32: DE 15 .................................................................................................................................... .........66 Figure 33: Intersections of Interest in the Dover/Kent County MPO Region............................ .........69 Figure 34: Silver Lake/St. Jones Connector....................................................................................... .........72 v

Figure 35: Camden to Dover Trail ...................................................................................................... .........73 Figure 36: Dover Air Force Base ......................................................................................................... .........74 Figure 37: Route 10 Trail ...................................................................................................................... .........75 Figure 38: Smyrna-Clayton Trail .......................................................................................................... .........76 Figure 39: Smyrna-Big Oak Park Connector ..................................................................................... .........77 Figure 40: Clayton, DE to Easton, MD Rail Trail ............................................................................ .........78 vi

List of Tables Table 1: State and Regional Bicycle Routes........................................................................................ .........15 Table 2: On-Road Bikeway Design Selection for Urban Areas ...................................................... .........29 Table 3: Bike Parking Requirement Guide ......................................................................................... .........36 Table 4: Improvements ......................................................................................................................... .........43 Table 5: Intersections Needing Bike Lanes or Directional Markings ............................................ .........67 Table 6: Roads Identified for Sharrows .............................................................................................. .........71 Table 7: Construction and Lane-Width Reallocation Projects ........................................................ ...... 109 vii

viii

DOVER/KENT COUNTY MPO REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A variety of issues including increasing roadway congestion, deteriorating air quality and increasing rates of obesity have made an automobile-centric transportation system an unsustainable solution to moving people and goods around the Dover/Kent County MPO region. By increasing the use of other transportation modes (i.e. walking and public transit), issues such as congestion, air quality, and poor health can be mitigated. Promoting the use of bicycles is an integral part of creating a truly multi-modal transportation system in the MPO region. A bicycle friendly community achieves a myriad of benefits, including creating safer streets, promoting a healthier environment, promoting active living and improving the quality of life or livability of the area. The purpose of the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Regional Bicycle Plan is to provide a plan for improving bicyclists’ safety and access to local facilities and services. It is intended to help increase the number of trips made by bicycle and reduce automobile use. The Regional Bicycle Plan is designed to coordinate with existing local bicycle plans throughout the region. Work on the Regional Bicycle Plan began in November 2009 when the Bicycle Working Group was convened. The working group, which consisted of local recreational facility managers, agencies responsible for land-use and transportation planning and citizens interested in bicycling, held 11 meetings between November 2009 and May 2011 to determine key aspects of the plan. To gauge the needs and concerns of the public, the Dover/Kent County MPO conducted a four month outreach campaign between March and June of 2010. The Regional Bicycle Plan identifies several objectives that could be accomplished through new policies and projects designed to improve bicycling conditions in the region: Objective 1: Create an effective and safe bicycle transportation system Objective 2: Create an environment where all bicyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road. Objective 3: Increase the number of local utility trips made by bicycle Objective 4: Increase the number of students riding their bicycles to school Objective 5: Increase the number of people choosing to bicycle to work Objective 6: Increase recreational and fitness riding The Regional Bicycle Plan identifies existing and recommended policies as tools to help accomplish these objectives. The Delaware Department of Transportation’s (DelDOT) Complete Streets Policy will be used to increase bicycle facilities in the MPO region by ensuring that multi-modal improvements are considered for applicable DelDOT construction projects. The Regional Bicycle Plan also notes several other existing DelDOT bicycle-related policies that provide guidance on intersection design, support facilities (bike racks, signal detection, etc.) and requirements, and prioritizing bicycle facility projects. The Regional Bicycle Plan outlines four new policies recommended by the Dover/Kent County MPO that will serve as guidance to cities and towns and/or for implementation by DelDOT on projects undertaken in the region: Policy 1: Selecting Appropriate Bicycle Facilities – a variety of factors including roadway classification, location, types of vehicles on the roadway and speed of vehicles need to be considered when selecting a bikeway design for an on-street facility. Policy 2: Bicycle Facilities at Intersections – in order to improve bicyclists’ safety and comfort, intersections need to be designed in a manner that clearly guides the movement of both bicyclists and ix

motorists to avoid conflicts. Bicycle facilities and markings need to be continued through intersections to reduce bicycle facility gaps. Policy 3: Bicycle Parking – to increase the use of bicycles for transportation and commuting, bicycle parking needs to be readily available to provide safe and convenient facilities for storing bicycles at both commercial and residential buildings. Policy 4: Education and Enforcement – to ensure that bicycle access is safe throughout the MPO region, the Dover/Kent MPO needs to ensure that bicyclists and motorists are aware of traffic rules and how to interact in a multi-modal transportation system. The Regional Bicycle Plan emphasizes that the most effective way to enhance the bicycle transportation system in the MPO region is to eliminate impediments and gaps in the current system. By prioritizing projects that connect existing facilities and key attractors or destinations, the region can work toward a safer and more consistent bicycle transportation system. To eliminate or mitigate gaps and impediments in the current system, the Regional Bicycle Plan identifies several types of improvements to implement: • Widening the road to add a paved shoulder or bike lane • Adjusting allocation of pavement to allow for bike lanes or facilities • Adding striping to shoulders • Implementing sharrow markings for roads where bicycles will travel among the cars • Installing Share the road signs • Removing on-street parking to increase the road width available for through traffic • Identifying an alternative parallel route, such as a bicycle boulevard • Adding an off-road path The Regional Bicycle Plan includes recommendations for on-road construction projects, off-road/trail projects, sharrow locations, and intersection improvements that should be completed within the plan’s 20- year timeframe. The projects are listed in order of priority, which was determined though the use of prioritization criteria (see Appendix C). x

INTRODUCTION Why A Bicycle Plan For The Dover/Kent County MPO Region? Since the advent of the automobile, bicycling had been primarily a leisure activity or sport in the United States. With increased automobile traffic congestion, deteriorating air quality, and increased rates of obesity in the country, now is the time to expand bicycle use for short trips that might otherwise use an automobile. Currently, however, Kent County does not have adequate bicycle facilities to make safe and convenient trips by bicycle an option for most citizens. This Bicycle Plan is intended to satisfy that need. Increasing the number of people using their bicycles to travel to and from work (bicycle commuting) is one tool in the county’s toolbox for meeting air quality standards and for improving the quality of life and health of our citizens. In addition to bicycle commuting, errand trips, such as to the grocery store, post office, library, community center, etc., can often be done on a bike. According to the 2008 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behavior, the most common purposes of trips on bicycles were recreational or exercise related (a combined 53%). Five percent (5%) reported using their bicycles for commuting to work or school, while errands were reported as 14% and visiting a friend or relative, 10%. 1 The bicycle plan will focus on increasing bicycle use in these latter categories, where there is plenty of room for improvement, and where the trips would otherwise be done in an automobile. Although Kent County’s population is still the smallest of Delaware’s three counties, it is growing. The July 2009 population estimate was 157,741, an increase of 24.5% from April 2000. During the same time period, statewide population only grew 13%. The County also has a relatively high percentage of children, both under 5 years old (7.2%) and under 18 years old (25.2%) 2. Bicycle facilities must meet the needs of children wishing or needing to use bicycles for transportation to school or recreational facilities. In 2009, only 1.7% of daily transportation trips nationwide were made on a bike. 3 The Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Bicycle Plan is intended to serve all types of bicyclists for trips of all purposes and to increase the percentage of trips that are accomplished via bicycle. Making investments in bicycling infrastructure will provide additional benefits: • Bicycling infrastructure creates safer streets - As roads are designed or marked to include bicycle facilities, they both become safer and appear safer to bicyclists. When people feel a road is safe for riding a bicycle, they are more likely to use their bicycle on that road. • Bicycling reduces the causes of global climate change and promotes a healthy environment - The transportation sector, powered by the internal combustion engine, accounts for 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in Delaware, significantly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. 4 A bicycle trip that replaces an automobile trip eliminates that vehicle’s emissions for that trip. • Bicycling helps reduce the causes and health care costs related to obesity - In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) labeled obesity a national health epidemic and linked obesity to insufficient physical activity. According to the CDC, “automobile trips that can be safely replaced by walking or biking 1 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behavior. August 2008 2 U.S. Census Bureau. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10/10001.html. Last Revised: Monday, 16-Aug-2010 3 NHTSA. 2001 National Household Travel Survey. 4 Governor’s Energy Advisory Council. Delaware Energy Plan 2009-2014. 26 March 2009. 1

offer the first target for increased physical activity in communities.” In 2009, 26.7% of Delawareans were obese. A safe and effective bikeway system can help residents achieve the 30 minutes of daily physical activity the CDC recommends for fighting obesity. 5 • Bicycling (and other forms of exercise) improves the mood of the rider - The endorphins released during exercise provide people with an enhanced sense of well-being, and, thus, contribute to the quality of life in the community. Purpose of the Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Bicycle Plan The purpose of the Bicycle Plan is to establish goals, objectives, and benchmarks for improving safety and accessibility for bicyclists and increase the number of trips taken by bicycle. The Bicycle Plan discusses bicycle policy, and existing road conditions, provides a needs analysis, and prioritizes suggested projects. This plan has a 20-year timeframe and is intended to be updated every 4 years. Development of the Regional Bicycle Plan The Dover/Kent County MPO convened a Bicycle Working Group to guide development of the plan. The group began meeting in November 2009 and worked on all aspects of the plan from the scope of work to be completed to the recommendations and priority process. In total, the group held 11 meetings between November 2009 and May 2011. Working group members included agencies responsible for recreational facilities, land-use planning and transportation as well as citizens interested in bicycling. The working group provided their expertise in bicycling and bicycling facilities to identify gaps and impediments in the system and help craft strategies for reducing or eliminating them. Other data were gathered through telephone, on-line and in-person surveys and interviews. Community Outreach: A public outreach campaign was conducted between March and June 2010 through live contact, e-mail, telephone and a 12-question survey on bicycle riding habits and interests in bike facilities and improvements. Nearly 200 comments were received and incorporated into the bicycle plan development process. Surveys were made available in paper and online formats. The online version was available on the MPO’s web site, and a link was e-mailed to the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce. Paper copies of the survey were supplied to local bike shops and brought to public events, including: • MPO’s annual TIP bus tour • Killen’s Pond’s Earth Day • Milford’s Bug n’ Bud Festival • Dover Days • a car show put on by a Smyrna chapter of the Rotary Club • Kent County Levy Court’s Safe Summer Day • Delmarva Chicken Festival 5 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Prevalence and Trends Data: Delaware - 2009 Overweight and Obesity (BMI). http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/BRFSS/display.asp?cat=OB&yr=2009&qkey=4409&state=DE. 2

• Delaware Bike Summit, and • Dover/Kent County Levy Court Ride and Stride trails event. As an incentive for people to fill out the survey, the MPO held a prize drawing at most of the events. Prizes included donations from local bicycle shops and MPO memorabilia. The prize drawing was held on June 22 at the MPO’s Public Advisory Committee annual dinner meeting. MPO staff visited the Wyoming Striders and Riders walk and bicycle club and Smyrna Town Council to talk about the bike plan and distribute surveys and information about the MPO. In addition to the surveys, MPO staff took phone calls and e-mails about the plan Most survey respondents live and/or work in Kent County, are between the ages of 35 and 44, own cars and ride for recreation and exercise. Safety and accessibility greatly influence riding habits, according to responses. These factors not only affect where people ride, but why they do not ride bicycles. Health issues and a lack of a working bicycle also play a role into not riding. Safety ranked highest among suggestions (~30%) for improvement among all means of communication with the MPO. Requests for improvements included more bike lanes and safer road shoulders. The draft Bicycle Plan was released for a 30-day public comment period on July 20, 2011, during which presentations were given to interested groups to solicit comments on the draft. The plan was adopted by the Dover/Kent County MPO Council on September 7, 2011. Plan Organization The Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Bicycle Plan includes: • Vision, Goals, objectives, and performance measures • An examination of existing conditions, including identification of physical impediments to bicycle use, hazardous road segments and other deficiencies in the bicycle route system • Identification of educational needs and opportunities, such as attitudes of motorists, perception of danger by potential bicyclists, etc. • Proposals for new policies to address the identified needs and deficiencies • A process for prioritizing bicycle projects • A prioritized listing of proposed projects to address the impediments, deficiencies and educational needs • Regional bicycle plan maps that show existing and proposed on- and off-road facilities. 3

4

VISION, GOALS & OBJECTIVES Dover/Kent County MPO Transportation Vision For 2030 6 “The future transportation system in the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan region is safe, supports economic development, allows easy access and mobility for people and goods to reach their destinations, and serves desired growth patterns. The transportation system meets the public’s needs – simultaneously reinforcing the unique character and quality of life of each community while preserving the region and its natural resources.” Goals Goals are the desired end-result and are general in nature. Goals are considered successful when the terms in the defined objectives have been satisfied. In support of the 2030 Vision, the Goals of the Kent County Regional Bicycle Plan are to: • Make bicycle riding a viable transportation option • Increase the number of trips in the region that are made by bicycle It should be noted that increasing the number of trips made by bicycle is more than a goal; it is a fundamental value that drove the development of this regional bicycle plan. The Goals of the bicycle plan are aligned with the five transportation goals stated in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Achieving the goals of the bicycle plan relates to each RTP goal as follows: • Economic Development: Increasing bicycle use for utility and commuting trips can lead to reduced traffic congestion, a healthier and happier work force, and increase the ability to attract high quality companies to the region. • Quality of Life: Reduced traffic congestion and increased opportunities to bicycle to errands, work, and recreation will lead to improved livability in the region. • Growth Management/Land Use Coordination: To have an effective bicycle route and trail system will require land use coordination and planning. • Access, Safety, Security, and Mobility: To increase bicycle riding, riders must feel safe and feel their bicycles are secure in bicycle parking areas. • Transportation network or infrastructure: A safe and efficient bicycle infrastructure decreases personal travel costs, increases travel options, and reduces overall energy consumption. Objectives Objectives are how the goal, or desired end-result, is achieved. The path or strategy to reach the goal is defined under an objective. There are usually many ways to achieve a goal. Objectives involve specific projects and initiatives. The goals of the Bike Plan will be achieved through the following Objectives: • Increase the number of local utility trips that are made by bicycle; • Increase the opportunities for students to ride their bicycles to school; 6 Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Transportation Plan FY2009-FY2030 5

• Increase the number of people choosing to bicycle to work; and • Increase recreational and fitness riding. The goals and objectives of the Bicycle Plan have a 20 year planning horizon, to coincide with the 2030 Vision. The strategies to accomplish the objectives have a 4 year planning frame and include performance measures to be evaluated when the plan is revisited and revised every 4 years. The goals of the Bike Plan will be achieved through the following strategies: Goal: Make bicycle riding a viable transportation option I. Objective 1: Create an effective and safe bicycle transportation system The strategies to achieve this objective are mainly infrastructure-based: Strategy 1.1: Increase the number of miles of on-street bikeways within the county. Performance Measure: Number of lane miles Highest priority projects are recommended to be implemented over the next 4 years. This plan will be updated and remaining project reevaluated every four years as part of the 20-year transportation plan. Full implementation of this plan would result in an increase in on-street facilities by approximately 50 miles by 2030. Strategy 1.2: Make intersections accessible and safe for bicyclists. Performance Measure: Number of intersections with striping or bike boxes There are two approaches recommended in the bike plan for making intersections accessible and safe for bicyclists: striping to indicate bicycle routes through intersections and the use of bike boxes (advanced stop lines). Key intersections are identified for improvements; with a benchmark of 50% of identified intersections have striping or bike boxes by 2020 and 100% by 2030. Strategy 1.3: Increase the number of miles of off-road, multi-use paths within the county. Performance Measure: Number of miles of multi-use paths Highest priority projects are recommended to be implemented over the next 4 years. This plan will be updated and remaining projects reevaluated every four years as part of the 20-year transportation plan. Full implementation of this plan would result in an increase in off-road, multi-use paths of between 39 and 42 miles by 2030. 6

Strategy 1.4: Increase the number of miles of roadways clearly marked for shared use by bicycles and motorized vehicles. Performance Measure: Number of lane miles marked with sharrows or signage Sharrow and signage projects are less costly and more readily implementable than projects involving creation of new bike lanes. Early implementation of these projects is recommended, with 50% of identified sharrow/signage projects to be implemented by 2020 and 100 % by 2030. Strategy 1.5: Increase the amount of bicycle parking available to the public. Performance Measures: Percentage of schools, parks, post offices and public buildings with installed bicycle parking facilities. Percentage of local governments adopting bicycle parking policies. A map of all known bike racks and bike lockers has been reviewed and areas of priority need identified. The needs are for bicycle parking at public facilities, shopping areas, schools and employment centers. Public and private installations of bike racks will be required to truly create an effective bicycle system. Strategy 1.6: The MPO should establish an ongoing bicycle (or non-motorized) committee to review project proposals on an ongoing basis. Performance Measure: Establishment and regular meeting of the committee Criteria have been developed by which bicycle project proposals can be evaluated and prioritized. The bicycle committee would be charged specifically with reviewing bicycle project proposals and with oversight of implementation of the strategies and policies in the bike plan. II. Objective 2: Create an environment where all bicyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road. The strategies to achieve this objective are education and enforcement-based: Strategy 2.1: Create and secure funding for a bicycle and motorist education campaign to promote the rules of the road Performance Measures: Number of law enforcement officials trained Number of jurisdictions with police on bikes programs Number of students receiving bicycle skills training Number of Drivers Education students receiving bicycle awareness training Number of tickets issued Working with partners to implement the educational efforts in the education and enforcement policy would create education and training programs for law enforcement officials, students and other adult drivers and bicyclists. 7

Strategy 2.2: Create and secure funding for a bicycle enforcement campaign Performance Measure: Number of tickets issued Consistent enforcement of traffic laws pertaining to bicycles and bicyclist-motorist interactions will result in an initial increase in tickets issued, followed by a reduction over time. Benchmarks are the number of traffic violations pertaining to bicycles reduced by 25% by 2015, 35% by 2020, and 50% by 2025. Goal: Increase the number of trips in the region that are made by bicycle III. Objective 3: Increase the number of local utility trips that are made by bicycle. Strategy 3.1: Increase local utility trips by bicycle through improved bicycle routes and increased parking Performance Measure: Number of trips as measured by bicycle counts and surveys of roads and bicycle parking Establish the baseline, then increase the total number of trips by 100% each year. IV. Objective 4: Increase the number of students riding their bicycles to school. Strategy 4.1: Increase Students riding bicycles to school through increasing the availability of bike lanes and off-road paths to schools Performance Measure: Number of trips as measured by surveys of school bicycle parking. Establish the baseline, then increase the total number of trips by 100% each year. V. Objective 5: Increase the number of people choosing to bicycle to work. Strategy 5.1: Increase bicycle commuting through improved bicycle routes and increased parking opportunities Performance Measure: American Community Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. US Census 2000 data shows journey to work statistics that are now estimated yearly. The bicycle mode share in Kent County is .05%. Using the 2000 data as current (2010), increasing bicycle mode share (trips to work) by 50% per year will result in mode shares of .11% by 2020 and .25% by 2030. 8

VI. Objective 6: Increase recreational and fitness riding. Strategy 6.1: Increase recreational and fitness riding through increasing the miles of bicycle lanes and off-road paths Performance Measure: Off-road trail bicycle counts and surveys Establish the baseline, then increase the total number of trips by 100% each year. 9

10

BICYCLING IN THE DOVER/KENT COUNTY MPO REGION Types of Bicyclists Each bicyclist has a different set of skills and abilities. Some bicyclists are comfortable using their bicycle as they would their car, on-road and with traffic. There are other adult riders who prefer to be in designated bike lanes or are even more comfortable on off-road, multi-use paths. Children and seniors have different needs that also must be considered in the bicycle plan. Bicyclists can also be categorized by the types of trips they take: • To and from work (Commuting) • Errands and Shopping • Recreation DelDOT’s 2005 Delaware Bicycle Facilities Master Plan uses the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “ABC” categorization for bicyclists: Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the traveled way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either them or a passing vehicle to shift position. Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation purposes, e.g., to get to the store or to visit friends, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking by faster motor vehicles. Thus, basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets. Children, riding on their own or with their parents, may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, convenience stores and recreational facilities. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds, linked with shared use paths and busier streets with well-defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials. Not every bicycle facility will accommodate the needs of every type of bicyclist. The Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Bicycle Plan strives to provide ample opportunities and options to serve the needs of all three classes of bicyclists. The Existing Dover/Kent County MPO Region Bicycle Network The existing bicycle network in Kent County includes state and regional routes identified by the DelDOT 7, roads with paved shoulders or other marked bicycle facilities, and off-road multi-use paved paths. Figure 1 shows the map of the existing bicycle system in Dover/Kent County MPO Region as of July 2011. The map includes the state and regional bike routes included in the Delaware Bicycle Master Plan, roads with bike lanes, roads with paved shoulders and roads marked with sharrows or signage. 7 Delaware Bicycle Facility Master Plan, DelDOT, Appendix B pp. 37-62. October 2005. 11

12

Figure 1 13

The state and regional bike routes are briefly described in Table 1 below; complete descriptions of the routes and are included in Appendix A, including identifications of the sections of the bicycle routes that have inadequate or no bicycle facilities. Table 1. State and Regional Bicycle Routes Route Name/Number Route Overview Purpose Bicycle Route 1 - Kent This 37 mile portion of Bicycle Route 1 To improve north-south bicycle County connects New Castle County with mobility. Within Kent County, Sussex County and provides direct Bicycle Route 1 serves as a spine access to the state capital and to the to the bicycle network, linking other major municipalities in Kent the major municipalities within County Kent County and providing connections to all but one regional bicycle route in the county. Bicycle Route 2 - Kent This 42-mile portion of the Wilmington- The purpose of this route is to County (Wilmington- Selbyville Statewide Bicycle Route improve north-south bicycle Selbyville) provides north-south bicycle mobility mobility along the Delaware along SR9 and the US 113 corridor in coast. Kent County. The route provides access to Kent County and the City of Dover, from the municipalities of Wilmington and New Castle to the North and Milford, Ellendale, Georgetown and Dagsboro to the South. Bicycle Route 3 - This Statewide Bicycle Route is a 39- The purpose of this route is to Kent/Sussex County mile branch off of Bicycle Route 1, improve bicycle mobility along (Delmar-Felton) running along the US 13 corridor from the US 13 corridor. Kent County to the border of the state with Maryland. Route K-1 - MD Border The Maryland Border to Woodland This route connects the Towns to Woodland Beach Beach route is a 17.6-mile east-west of Clayton and Smyrna with Regional Bicycle Route. The route Maryland and Woodland Beach begins at the Maryland Border on SR 6 on the Delaware Bay. in the Blackiston Wildlife Area, travels through the Towns of Clayton and Smyrna, to Woodland Beach via the Woodland Beach Wildlife Area. Route K-2 NE Dover This 12 mile route borders Bombay The purpose of this route is to to Kitts Hook National Wildlife Refuge and the provide linkages between the Hummock/Delaware Little Creek Wildlife Area, Dover Air Bay coast east of Dover with Bay Force Base and the community of Kitts Bicycle Route 1. Hummock. 15

Table 1. State and Regional Bicycle Routes Route Name/Number Route Overview Purpose Route K-3 MD Border This 24 mile Regional Bicycle Route The route provides east-west to Port Mahon bisects Kent County from the Maryland access and connectivity across border to Delaware Bay. Kent County by connecting Dover to the Maryland border to the west and the Little Creek Wildlife Area and Delaware Bay to the east. Route K-4 MD Border This 16 mile Regional Bicycle Route This route travels east from the to Dover AFB travels from the Maryland Border along western edge of Kent County to SR10 through central Kent County and the towns of Camden and the towns of Camden and Wyoming to Wyoming, terminating at the the intersection with US113 near the Dover Air Force Base. It also Dover Air Force Base south of the City connects two statewide bicycle of Dover. routes, Bicycle Routes 1 and 2. Route K-5 MD Border This 14.1 Regional Bicycle Route travels This route provides east-west to Frederica from State Route 12 at the Maryland access and connectivity to Border to the intersection of SR12 and Maryland and two towns in Andrews Lake Road (MR 380) at the central Kent County. It also western outskirts of Frederica. provides direct access to Statewide Bicycle Routes 1, 2 and 3. Route K-6 MD Border The MD Border to Slaughter Beach The purpose of this route is to to Slaughter Beach Regional Bicycle Route provides a cross- provide access from the Delaware route which connects Maryland border to Delaware southern Kent County and northern Bay. Sussex County from the Maryland border to Delaware Bay. This route also links Milford and Harrington. It also provides access to recreational destinations along the Delaware Shore including Slaughter Beach and federally protected wildlife refuges. The route is a total of 25 miles in length. County roads and city streets that are not designated as bike routes by DelDOT are nevertheless important for this regional bike plan, because short local trips will almost invariably take place on such roads. Many of these roads, or road segments, are currently bike friendly. These include country roads that have little traffic and city neighborhood streets, also with little automobile traffic and low speed limits. Inside the cities and towns, these bike-friendly streets often join with others to form a bike-friendly network. These networks, however are limited in size and disconnected from other such networks by impediments and barriers discussed later in this plan. 16

Many roads in Kent County are not bicycle-friendly due to the narrowness of the roadway, lack of shoulders, and/or speed and volume of auto traffic. Occasionally, a bike-unfriendly road may have a short or isolated section of striped shoulder or striped bike lane that was installed with a road improvement or new housing development. These short “bike-friendly” segments have limited usefulness without connection to other bike-friendly roads. On other routes, which provide striped shoulders or bike lanes along much of the route, but have shorter segments without bike facilities, the suitability for bicycling is greatly reduced. Off-Road Routes As shown in Figure 2, a limited number of paved, off-road, multi-use paths are available for bicyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders, inline skaters, etc. Few of these are long enough to be suitable for fitness cyclists, but they provide an extra-safe route of travel for the recreational adult and/or child. Some of the off-road paths have been poorly maintained, there are now cracks or dips in the pavement, and overgrown vegetation. Many of these routes cross other roads, usually at intersections, and it is at these crossing points that the routes become less safe. Crossing points involve two-way bike traffic crossing the intersection where the automobile driver may be assuming one-way bike travel. 17

18

Figure 2 19

Existing Bicycle Parking Facilities During the spring, 2010, the Dover/Kent MPO conducted a survey of businesses and schools in the county to identify the locations and capacity of bicycle parking (racks). Of the 42 public schools, 57% responded that they have bicycle racks. Eight of the 10 middle schools have bicycle racks (there was no information from Central Middle School or Kent County Community School) and 13 of the 23 elementary schools have racks. Three of the 6 public high schools have bicycle racks (Milford High School does not have bike racks and there was no information from Polytech High School or Lake Forest High School. None of the 13 private schools responded that they had bicycle racks and all of the colleges and universities except the University of Delaware’s Paradee Center had bicycle racks. Of the existing racks at schools, only 3% were reported as having frequent usage, 38% of the schools reported moderate usage, while 34% reported infrequent usage. It should be noted that no information was provided on usage by almost one-quarter (24%) of the schools. Of the 119 businesses that responded to the survey, 26 (22%) had bicycle racks. Information on usage of the racks is not as clear, 41% provided no information on usage. Of the 10 businesses that did respond, 1 reported frequent usage, 5 reported moderate usage, and 4 reported infrequent usage. Based on the survey responses, there are some locations that stand out as being in need of bicycle parking facilities. For example, in Milford, at present there are no bicycle parking facilities at the Milford Library, no intermodal connections such as the DART Stop at the WalMart, and no facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. . 21

22

BICYCLE POLICIES DelDOT Complete Streets Policy 8 The purpose of the Complete Streets Policy is to ensure that DelDOT system modifications are routinely planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a way that enables safe and efficient access for all users. The result should be a system for all users that is comprehensive, integrated, connected, safe, and efficient allowing users to choose among different transportation modes, both motorized and non-motorized. The term “Complete Street” means a roadway that accommodates all travelers, particularly public transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians (including individuals of all ages and individuals with mobility, sensory, neurological, or hidden disabilities), and motorists, to enable all travelers to use the roadway safely and efficiently. An illustration of a complete street is shown in Figure 3. Creating complete streets means planning, designing, constructing, maintaining and operating streets and all directly related components for motorized and non-motorized modes of travel, as appropriate for the area. The most basic element of a complete streets policy is that it ensures that roads are planned and built to serve all users. Figure 3. Complete Street Two-lane Suburban Roadway Source: Delaware Department of Transportation The policy applies to: 1. All projects in the state right-of-way that are considered road reconstruction, widens the pavement width, or allows for the inclusion of facilities for all users, shall consider all transportation modes and accommodate accordingly; facility type shall be based on the project location and the needs of the community. 2. System maintenance projects - while it is not the specific intent of these projects to expand existing facilities, opportunities to provide and improve safety for other modes shall be explored during the project development stage. 8 P.I. Number No. 0-6 Complete Streets Policy. Delaware Department of Transportation. Effective 1/06/2010. 23

Exemptions to the policy include: roadways that prohibit by law use of the roadway by specific users. (Example I-95); if it is determined that a reasonable and equivalent alternative already exists for certain users or is programmed in the CTP/TIP as a separate project as determined by representatives of appropriate modes; and ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep transportation facilities in serviceable condition that do not interfere with existing facilities for longer than the time needed to perform maintenance. Waivers to the policy may also be granted to avoid or mitigate impacts to natural and cultural resources. There may also be right-of-way and financial constraints associated with individual projects. Every effort should be made to identify constraints early in the project scoping phase. Therefore, Complete Street Waivers shall be initiated no later than the Semi-Final design phase of all projects. The policy is the outgrowth of Governor Jack A. Markell’s Executive Order No. 6 (April 24, 2009). This Executive Order directed that a Statewide Complete Streets Policy be delivered to the Governor by September, 2009. This step toward creating a transportation system in Delaware that provides facilities for biking, walking, and transit, can increase safety, reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. DelDOT Bicycle Policy 9 Current DelDOT bicycle policy is to include appropriate accommodations for bicycles as part of all System Management and System Expansion projects. For System Preservation projects, those designed to keep existing facilities in good repair, opportunities to provide or enhance bicycle facilities will be explored during the program development stage of paving and bridge replacement projects. Items such as paving existing shoulders, minor widening around bypass lanes when right of way is available, and the addition of shoulders on bridge replacement projects are solutions that enhance cycling opportunities that could fit into the context of a System Preservation project. These items will be included in all System Preservation projects in "multi-modal" areas and on all roads classified as a minor arterial or above in "management" and "preservation" areas of the Long- Range Plan, unless exceptional circumstances exist that precludes the provision of these facilities for bicycling. DelDOT utilizes the guidance provided by AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) "Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists" in designing accommodations for bicycles. In determining priorities for bikeways, DelDOT policy is that priority is given to facilities that provide connections between neighborhoods, shopping, schools, transit, park and ride lots and employment centers. In addition, DelDOT policy states that the continuity of existing paved shoulders shall be maintained at the widest possible width. The desirable width of 5-ft (1.5m) travel way on the shoulder shall be maintained for bicycle use unless exceptional circumstances occur that require emergency operational safety improvements that compromise this width. If the width of a paved shoulder area must be compromised to less than four feet, the area shall be appropriately marked as a hazard for bicyclists and the Department shall concurrently nominate a project that will result in the restoration of appropriate accommodations for bicycle travel. Impacts to the suitability of 9 P.I. Number: D-06 Bicycle Policy. Delaware Department of Transportation. Effective: 12/22/2000. 24

roadways for bicycle travel due to traffic increases caused by land development shall be assessed and mitigated as part of the Department's Traffic Impact Study and Project Development process as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator. Support facilities such as parking devices, transport racks on buses, and signal detection for bicycles shall be considered for incorporation into transportation projects during planning and project development. Bicycle friendly drainage grates shall be used to replace parallel bar grates on all roadway reconstruction and rehabilitation projects or replaced individually upon request. The policy addresses intersections as follows: over and under crossings should be considered for roadway crossings with a high number of non-motorized users, high speed and high volumes of motorized traffic or specific safety concerns. The policy does not address bicycle travel markings through at-grade intersections. 25

26

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS To improve the bicycle system in Kent County, specific bicycle policies are being recommended to address: • Policy 1 - Selecting Appropriate Bicycle Facilities • Policy 2 - Bicycle Facilities at Intersections • Policy 3 - Bicycle Parking • Policy 4 - Education and Enforcement The policies are to be adopted by the Dover/Kent County MPO and serve as guidance to cities and towns and/or for implementation by DelDOT on projects undertaken in the County. Policy 1 - Selecting Appropriate Bicycle Facilities When determining the feasibility or planning for different types of bicycle facilities, the space requirements for bicycle travel must be taken into consideration. Figures 4 and 5 10 show the width and vertical space requirements for bicycle travel, with Figures 6 and 7 showing the added requirements of a bicyclist towing a trailer, such as one used to transport young children. Figure 4. Figure 5. 10 Bikeway Facility Design Manual. MN Department of Transportation. March 2007. Dimensions are consistent with AASHTO Guidance. 27

Figure 6. Figure 7. The following factors should be considered to determine appropriate on-street bicycle facility design: 11 • Vehicles - Motor vehicle speeds - Average daily traffic volumes & peak-hour traffic volume - Traffic composition, especially volumes of large trucks - On-road parking - Bus routes • Location - Urban or rural - Topography, grades, sight distances, and sight lines • Road Design - Roadway functional classification - Intersections and driveways - Number of traffic lanes - Vehicle turn lane configuration - Right-of-way constraints • Bicyclist characteristics (type of bicyclists served) Selection of the type of bikeway for a specific travel corridor depends on many factors including bicyclists’ abilities, corridor conditions, current and future land use, topography, population growth, roadway characteristics, and the cost to build and maintain the bikeway. Based on these factors and using engineering judgment, an appropriate bicycle treatment can be selected for a given corridor. Within any travel corridor, more than one option may be needed to serve all bicyclists. However, no one type of bikeway or road design suits every bicyclist. 11 Draft Bicycle Master Plan. Minneapolis, MN. August 2010. 28

The Delaware Bicycle Facility Master Plan includes three types of on-road bikeways: • Bike Lane. Five (5) foot minimum lane width with striping, bike symbols, and route designation. Warning and regulatory signage to be provided. The guidelines for Bike Lanes establish preferential use by bicyclists. • Shared Shoulders. It should be noted that the Delaware plan sets minimums widths of 5 feet for paved striped shoulders. The plan also states that shared shoulders include some signage and bicycle symbols. As a shared bikeway this facility maintains use of the shoulder for motorist breakdowns or emergencies while providing a facility for bicyclists separated from the travel lane. Parking on shoulders should be prohibited. • Wide Outside Travel Lane. A 14 foot wide outside travel lane to be shared by motorists and bicyclists. Warning and regulatory signage to be included but no striping to be provided. Wide outside travel lanes are seldom used with on street parking due to the amount of space that is needed for both parking and additional travel width. A Shared Lane is another type of on-road bikeway, a normal travel lane shared by motor vehicles and bicyclists. Bicyclists share the same space with motor vehicles and follow the same laws as motor vehicles. The shared lane may or may not include road markings or signage for bicycles, such as “Share the Road”. A Shared Use Path is not an on-road bikeway but rather an off road multi-use trail. This approach is included in the chart as a suggested alternative to a shared shoulder when vehicle traffic volume and speeds are both high. The following table lays out some guidelines for the type of on-road bicycle facility that should be used for given vehicle volume and speed combinations in urban areas. These roads include curbs, which are common in municipalities, but not present throughout much of Kent County. Table 2. On-road Bikeway Design Selection for Urban Areas (road cross sections with curbs) Motor Vehicle Avg. 500-1,000 5,000- Daily Traffic (2 lanes, <500 1,000-2,000 2,000-5,000 >10,000 10,000 one in each direction) Motor Vehicle Avg. 4,000- 10,000- Daily Traffic (4 lanes, 2 N/A N/A 2,000-4,000 >20,000 10,000 20,000 in each direction) 25 mph SL WOL WOL WOL BL=5ft N/A SL with Motor 30 mph WOL BL=5ft BL=5ft BL=6ft BL=6ft sign Vehicle 35-40 mph BL=6ft or Speed WOL BL=5ft BL=5ft BL=6ft BL=6ft SS=8ft 45 mph BL=6ft or SUP or BL=5ft BL=5ft BL=6ft BL=6ft and greater SS=8ft SS=10ft SL = Shared Lane; BL = Bike Lane; WOL = Wide Outside Lane SS = Shared Shoulder – Paved; SUP = Shared use Path 29

Additional Approaches Competition for space in a given roadway and its accompanying right-of-way often requires difficult choices to be made. Often there is not enough room to allow for bicycle lanes, adequate vehicle capacity, transit accommodations, parking needs, and sidewalks. In some cases the on-road approaches described above do not result in improved safety or increased bicycle travel. Alternative approaches, such as bicycle boulevards and Shared Use Pavement Markings with Signage have been found to more effectively attract bicyclists in other communities. Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle boulevards are enhanced local street corridors that give priority to bicycles. Bicycle boulevards typically run parallel to arterial or collector street corridors and generally serve bicyclists who are not comfortable riding on busy streets. The use of bicycle boulevards should be evaluated in urban settings such as Dover, Smyrna, and Milford, along low-volume local streets that parallel collector roads. For example, the local street network near State Street and Walker Road in Dover could potentially provide opportunities to implement bicycle boulevards. Bicycle boulevards usually allow motorists but often include traffic calming treatments such as diverters, bump-outs, and speed humps to discourage cut-through motor vehicle trips. In some cases speed limits are reduced or there is additional traffic enforcement. Bicycle boulevards include information and way finding signage in addition to special pavement markings. Special attention is also given to intersections to limit bicycle delay and to create free-flow conditions for bikes whenever possible. Bicycle Boulevard Decision Factors: • Bicycle Boulevards should be implemented on low volume local street corridors that are parallel to arterial and collector roadways. • Candidate corridors should be located where there are existing diverters, ped/bike bridges, and signalized crossings to minimize the need for new infrastructure. • Bicycle Boulevards should be spaced in a 1-mile grid. • Bike Boulevards should be used when a bike lane is not practical and shared lanes, shared lanes with signage, and wide outside lanes are not expected to increase bicycle use or safety. Shared Use Pavement Markings Shared use pavement markings (also called Sharrows) are used when there is not enough space for bike lanes. The main reason shared use markings are used is to increase the awareness of drivers that bicycles may be present on the roadway. The markings also enhance the visibility of bicycles. Shared use markings are intended to accomplish the following: • Help bikers position themselves in lanes too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane; • Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists; • Reduce the chance of a bicyclist colliding with the open door of a vehicle parked in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking; • Alert road users of the location bicyclists may occupy; and • Reduce wrong-way bicycling. 30

Shared Use Markings Decision Factors: • Sharrows are not to be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes. • Signage (share the road signage, or bike route signage) enhances the effectiveness of shared use pavement markings and should always be used when sharrows are utilized. • Shared use markings should only be implemented on corridors with speed limits at or below 35 mph. • When parallel parking exists, pavement marking should be placed 11 feet (or greater) from face of curb to avoid the door zone. • Shared use markings should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter (2 markings on a short block, 3 on a long block). The dimensions of a typical sharrow are shown in Figure 8 below. Use of a sharrow is shown in the picture (Minneapolis, MN). Figure 8. Sharrow Dimensions Policy 2 - Bicycle Facilities At Intersections According to the Federal Highway Administration, an intersection is a planned point of conflict in the roadway system and intersection safety is a national, state and local priority since intersections represent a disproportionate share of the safety problem. It is at intersections that bicyclists are exposed at the greatest frequency to potential conflicts with motorized vehicles. At many intersections, including intersections of bike routes and major roads, such as U.S.13, bike lanes are dropped at approaches to intersections with right turn lanes. This can result in unpredictable movements and conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. At intersections without right turn lanes, when bike lanes are brought up to the stop line, bicyclists are exposed to conflicts with right turning motorists. In addition left-turning bicyclists often cannot find a suitable gap in which to merge in preparation for the turn. 31

The goal in addressing intersections is to improve bicyclist safety and comfort through designing and implementing intersections to reduce confusion and conflicts. The intersection design should increase motorist awareness of bicycles and facilitate bicycle through-travel and turning movements. Techniques include striping to allow for predictable movements of both cars and bicycles, advanced stop bars (aka “bike box”), and bicycle only center turn lane striping. Policy 2A - Bicycle Facilities At Intersections With Right-Turn Lanes When roads with bike lanes or shared shoulders approach an intersection with a right-turn lane, markings shall be used to designate the bicycle pathway through the intersection. Two examples of approaches to marking the bicycle pathway are shown in Figure 9 below. 12 Figure 9. Markings to Designate Bike Lane At Intersections with a Right-turn Lane Policy 2B - Install Bicycle Boxes At Intersections With High Bicyclist And Motor Vehicle Volumes Bike box is a right angle extension to a bike lane at the head of an intersection. The box allows bicyclists to get to the head of the traffic queue on a red traffic signal indication and then proceed first when the traffic signal changes to green. Such a movement is beneficial to bicyclists and eliminates conflicts when, for example, there are many right-turning motor vehicles next to a right 12 Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. DELDOT, June 2011. 32

side bike lane. Being in the box, and thus at the front of the traffic queue, also tends to make bicyclists more visible to motorists. The design of a Bike box is two parallel stop lines at the intersection, the first one at which all traffic except that for which the facility is provided must stop, and a second one nearer the intersection to which only specified vehicles may proceed. The area between the stop lines is the "reservoir" or "box". Signage may be required to inform road users as to the meaning of the extra stop line. A separate set of traffic signals may be provided for the specified traffic, but all vehicles usually use the same signals. The pictures below show bike boxes as viewed from two directions. Figure 10. Bicycle Boxes Policy 3 - Bicycle Parking The Need for More Bicycle Parking and Standards In order to increase use of bicycles for transportation and commuting purposes, access to bicycle parking needs to be readily available at work locations, schools, parks, transit centers, government buildings as well as businesses such as stores and restaurants. Kent County and the local governments should incorporate bicycle parking policies and standards into land use regulations regarding motor vehicle parking. Commercial and high-density residential land uses should provide an ample quantity of short- and long-term bicycle parking. In addition, owners of existing residential or commercial buildings should be encouraged to provide, supplement and upgrade bicycle parking at their facility. 33

Types of Bicycle Parking There are two main types of bicycle parking, bicycle lockers and bicycle racks. Bicycle lockers provide the most secure method of bicycle parking. The security level of bicycle racks varies, with the most secure being racks which lock both the front and back wheels of the bicycle (as shown below, from Minneapolis, MN). Figure 11. Secure Bike Racks – Minneapolis, MN Bicycle Lockers - Bicycle lockers fully enclose the bicycle, protecting it from both weather and potential thieves. Although bicycle lockers provide long term high security they are the most expensive type of bicycle parking. They also take up more space than other types of bike parking and require enough additional room to get a bike in or out of the compartments. Because of the cost, bicycle lockers need to be placed in high density locations. Most lockers accommodate two bicycles and are accessible on both ends. It is important that bicycle lockers be placed on a well drained concrete surface and that snow is cleared when access to the lockers is blocked. Bicycle Racks – Bicycle racks come in many shapes and styles and are quite versatile. Bicycle racks take up less space and are cheaper than bicycle lockers, but are less secure. Bicycle racks are often placed on public sidewalks and can be effectively integrated with bus stops and transit shelters. Racks can also be designed with a custom look and can be painted any color. Bicycle racks should be mounted in concrete for maximum security, however rail mounted racks may be placed on grass surfaces. Shelters — Covered bicycle parking helps protect bicycles from wind, snow, and rain. Bicycle Shelters, used in combination with bicycle racks, are preferred by bicyclists to racks alone and can 34

significantly increase bicycling to a particular area and are preferred by bicyclists. 13 However, shelters take up additional space, can be quite expensive, and require a significant amount of maintenance. They must be well lit and swept on a regular basis. It is important that bicycle shelters properly drain water and the roof must be able to support the weight of snow. To relieve some of the costs, similar to bus shelters, there may be opportunities for advertisements or billboards on shelter walls. Bicycle Parking Decisions Choosing the Appropriate Style of Bicycle Rack—The selection of the type of bicycle rack or locker is based on how much security is required at the location, the available space, and cost factors. Some rack styles take up more space than others and position parked bicycles differently. Other site factors include the location of utilities utility locations, fire escapes and exits, sidewalk dimensions, and visibility. Bike racks should reflect the character of the area. Bike racks should not have sharp edges, welds must be grounded and smoothed; they should be at least 32 inches tall so that the bike rack will be clearly visible to pedestrians and will not be a trip hazard. Gaps in the bike rack must be wide enough to fit a chain, u-lock, or cable, but cannot be large enough for a child’s arm or head to get stuck. Choosing the Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces—Bicycle parking demand and cost are the two major factors when choosing the number of bicycle parking spaces. However, current demand is not the only determinant since one of the goals of this plan is not only to serve current bicyclist, but to increase the use of bicycles for transportation and commuting. Determining the number of employees or customers that bike or are likely to bike to a given destination at a given time is also helpful in determining the correct number of racks at a location. Future growth should be considered, but it is recommended that additional bicycle racks be installed as needed due to cost. 14 Placement Considerations – Bicycle Lockers—Placement factors that need to be considered include: • At least 3 feet of clearance is needed in front of the locker door to allow for bikes to get in and out. • Bike lockers must be placed away from utilities (sewer, water, gas, and electricity). • Bike lockers must not obstruct a sidewalk and must be placed on a flat concrete surface. • Bike lockers must not be placed in a spot that blocks safe sight-lines for motor vehicles. • Bike lockers should not be placed in front of a loading dock or unloading area at a bus stop. • Bike lockers should be placed in a well lit area that is not hidden from public views. Areas that are under surveillance are recommended for bike lockers. • Lockers should be placed in high density areas. Due to high costs, surveys should be done to determine the demand for lockers. 13 Draft Bicycle Master Plan. Minneapolis MN. August 2010. 14 Minneapolis Ordinances prescribe the number of needed bike parking spaces at new developments based on square footage. 35

Placement Considerations – Bicycle Racks—Placement factors that need to be considered include: • Distance to front doorways should be minimized, but kept at least 2 feet from edge of door. • Bike racks must be placed 2 feet away from utilities (sewer, water, gas, and electricity). • Distance from fire hydrants—At least 10 feet • Bike racks should be placed on a flat surface not to exceed a 2% slope. • Mounted bike racks should be placed on a paved surface. Rail mounted bike racks may be placed in a grass or wood chip surface. • Bike racks may not be directly placed in front of windows and doors that would act as a fire escape. • Bike racks shall not be placed in a corner area that blocks safe sight lines for motor vehicles. • Bike racks should not be placed in front of a loading or unloading area at a bus stop. Table 3. Bike Parking Requirement Guide Type of Facility Minimum Bicycle Parking Recommendation Multifamily dwellings (5 or more 1 space per two dwelling units units) Schools (K-12) 3 spaces per classroom Community centers 6 spaces Theaters 3 spaces General retail sales & services 3 spaces or 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. of general floor area Offices 3 spaces or 1 space per 15,000 sq. ft. of general floor area Restaurant or coffee shop 3 spaces Indoor or outdoor recreation facility 3 spaces Sports & health facility 3 spaces or 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. of general floor area Medical clinic 3 spaces Industrial uses 2 spaces or 1 space per 20,000/30,000/40,000 sq. ft. Post office 3 spaces Employment Center Covered parking or shelters 36

Policy 4 - Education And Enforcement The goal of Kent County’s bicycle network is to provide safe, convenient access for bicyclists to travel to destinations throughout County. To be effective and safe, the facilities must be used appropriately. For example, bicycle facilities are designed under the assumption that bicyclists ride the correct direction on streets and stop at red traffic lights. It is also assumed that motorists yield to bicyclists when turning and do not drive or park in designated bicycle lanes. Therefore, it is not acceptable for bicyclists or motorists to disregard traffic rules. Breaking these laws puts bicyclists and other roadway users at risk. Strong enforcement of laws regulating the interaction between vehicles and bicyclists is essential to a safe bicycling environment. Efforts must be made to encourage a culture of respect and shared usage. Education of drivers and bicyclists at all levels is a key element of this plan. The Dover/Kent County MPO should work with DelDOT and other applicable agencies to: • Create an awareness campaign emphasizing the rules of the road pertaining to bicycles as a part of the larger transportation community, including placing bike safety messages in the Department of Motor Vehicle waiting rooms; • Inventory existing programs and support and promote enhancement and expansion of current drivers education and bicycle safety programs in the Capital, Caesar Rodney, Lake Forest, Milford, and Smyrna School Districts; • Partner with local universities and colleges for bicycle safety education; and • Partner with Delaware State Police to ensure that the importance of enforcing the rules of the road for both motorists and bicyclists is included in cadet training. 37

38

Figure 12 39

BICYCLE NETWORK IMPEDIMENTS AND GAPS The regional bicycle network needs to connect riders with key destinations such as parks and recreational centers, schools, public buildings, employment centers and commercial/retail centers. Key destinations in the Dover/Kent County MPO region are shown in Figure 12. There are two main types of impediments to bicycling: • Physical Impediments • Safety Impediments Physical impediments include such things as railroads, rivers and highways, which reduce the options for crossing and tend to channel auto and bicycle traffic into close proximity. A river or a railroad track may block the neighborhood streets from continuing in a particular direction, where they might have connected to other neighborhoods. In some cases existing bridges can be retrofitted to accommodate bicycles, an example being the St. George’s bridge on U.S.13 in New Castle County. In many cases, bicyclists must either travel out of their way to cross a physical impediment or use a roadway or bridge that may feel uncomfortable or be unsafe. Many people will choose not to bike if they do not feel safe. In Kent County, lack of safety stems mainly from a lack of bicycle facilities or inadequate bicycle facilities where traffic is heavy and/or fast-moving. The main types of safety impediments are listed below: • Gaps in existing bicycle facilities - Bike lane disappears - Shoulder disappears - Shoulder striping disappears - No bicycle facilities at intersection - No bicycle facilities nor shoulder on road or significant road segment - Narrow shoulders, heavy auto traffic Physical impediments can create safety impediments by limiting the number of crossings. This funnels auto traffic onto the crossings, increasing congestion, and often resulting in multiple lanes in each direction. The lanes get narrow and the shoulder disappears, making bicycle travel even more hazardous. In the City of Dover, two impediments cause all travel modes to be funneled into the same road segments. East-west travel is funneled into 5 railroad crossings: College Road, Walker Road, Division St., Loockerman Street and North Street. The St. Jones River also impedes east-west travel, with crossings only at Division Street, Loockerman Street and Court Street. North-south travel is impeded by the St Jones River, with the only crossings being US 13 and N. State Street. 41

Safety and accessibility were the two most common reasons respondents to the MPO’s survey gave as to where, or if, they choose to ride their bicycles. 15 Removing or mitigating impediments is key to improving safety and increasing bicycle use in Kent County. Removing and Mitigating Impediments Addressing existing bikeway gaps and discontinuities will improve both accessibility and safety and lead to increased bicycle usage for both transportation and recreation. Needed improvements include both system-wide improvements and site-specific fixes. Systemwide improvements resolve region-wide problems that are not specific to location and can be approached more holistically. These include such things as bike rack policies, consistent signage and pavement markings, bike route cleanup programs, and replacing any unsafe manhole covers or storm sewer grates that are not bicycle friendly. Site specific improvements will address the specific barrier or impediment in that road segment. The types of improvements include: • Widening the road to add a paved shoulder or bike lane • Adjusting allocation of pavement to allow for bike lanes or facilities • Adding striping to shoulders • Implementing sharrow markings for roads where bicycles will travel among the cars • Share the road signs • Removing on-street parking to increase the road width available for through traffic • Identifying an alternative parallel route, such as a bicycle boulevard • Adding an off-road path Table 4 shows the types of improvements that can be used to mitigate or remove the safety impediments listed above. 15 Dover Kent County Municipal Planning Organization, Survey, conducted Spring 2010. 42

Table 4. Improvements Identify Adjust Share the Remove Alternative Widen Allocation Off-Road Striping Sharrows Road On-Street Parallel Road of Path Signs Parking Route - Pavement Bike Blvd Bike Lane x x x x x Disappears I m Shoulder x x x x x x x p Disappears e d Shoulder i Striping x x x m Disappears e No Bike n Facilities @ x x t Intersection s No Bike x x x x x x x x Facilities Narrow Shoulders, x x x x x x Heavy Auto Traffic 43

44

PROPOSED REGIONAL BICYCLE SYSTEM - PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS The following maps below show the proposed on-road and off-road bicycle systems for the Dover/Kent County MPO region. To complete the proposed system, several different types of projects need to be undertaken: • On-Road Projects - Projects that involved addition of shoulders and other construction issues; - Reallocation of lane width to accommodate bike lanes 16 ; - Striping of key intersections to direct bicycle traffic flow 17; - Signage and sharrows 18. • Off-Road Projects - Construction of multi-use paths 16 See description of bike lanes on p. 29. 17 See intersection policy recommendation p. 31. 18 See description of signage and sharrows on p. 30. 45

46

Figure 13 47

Figure 14 49

Recommended On-Road Construction and Lane Width Reallocation Projects The following projects include both construction and lane width reallocation in order to create bike lanes. The projects were reviewed and prioritized based on the review criteria included in Appendix C. They are presented in order of priority. 1. South West Street South West Street is the location of the new Dover transit hub, but has no bicycle facilities to access the transit center. South from North Street (.40 miles) the road needs to be widened and a bike lane added, linking to the proposed bike lanes and multi-use path on North Street. Figure 15. South West Street 51

2. US 13 US 13 is a major highway running north-south the length of the County, creating an impediment for bicyclists traveling east-west. Within Dover, US 13 is the main road to access many shopping and employment areas, but has no bicycle facilities and very heavy, fast-moving automobile traffic. Scarborough Rd to Puncheon Run (4.61 miles) - Lane width should be reallocated to add bike lanes north and south-bound through this road segment during the upcoming road resurfacing project scheduled for spring 2012. Intersections - To facilitate bicycles crossing US 13, bike lanes or directional markings should be added to cross streets at all intersections with traffic signals. Bike lanes are the preferred option. Figure 16. US 13 52

3. West Denney’s Road West Denney's Road is an east-west road connecting US 13 and Delaware Technical and Community College with existing and planned residential development west and north of Dover. The road segment between US 13 and Kenton Road is a winding, narrow 2-lane road with no shoulders but significant bicycle traffic. Kenton Road to US 13 (2.2 miles) - widen the road to add bike lanes. Figure 17. West Denney’s Road 53

4. State Street The segment of State Street south from US 13 to Walker Road has no bicycle facilities and very limited shoulders, and heavy, fast-moving traffic. In addition, the road is constrained by the bridge over Silver Lake. Between US 13 and Walker Road (approx .5 miles) - Reallocate lane width to add a bike lane. Figure 18. State Street 54

5. DE 8/Forest Ave DE 8 is one of the major east-west routes through Dover. Between the railroad tracks and Kenton Road, DE 8 has no bike facilities, no shoulders and heavy auto traffic. The road will also be one of the main access roads to the new Dover High School. Railroad tracks to Heatherfield Way (1.8 miles) - reallocate lane width to add bike lanes. Figure 19. DE 8/Forest Avenue 6. Walker Road Walker Road is a major east-west route connecting State Street and neighborhoods on the west side of the city. The road also has an elementary school and Dover High School. Between State Street and Saulsbury Road, Walker Road has a wide outside lane, no shoulders and moderate auto traffic. There is a bike lane between Saulsbury Rd and Kenton Road. State Street to Saulsbury Road (approx. 1 mile) - reallocate lane width to add bike lanes. Figure 20. Walker Road 55

7. North Street North Street/Hazlettville Road is a major route utilized to access Dover from the west. There is currently a multi-use path running on the eastbound side of the road between Shutte Park and the east end of the Eden Hill property. From the end of the multi-use path across the railroad tracks, the road is narrow and busy. On the westbound side, there is neither shoulder nor multi-use path, except for a short segment of bike lane between the railroad tracks and Minima Street. Wyoming Mill Road to Railroad tracks (1.51 miles) - Bike lanes and a clear transition from the multi- use path to North Street need to be added. Figure 21. North Street 56

8. College Road College Road is the main road, other than US 13, accessing Delaware State University, and serves as a connector from West Dover to commercial areas on US 13. The road segment west of McKee Road has no bike facilities, no shoulders, and heavy auto traffic. Between McKee Road and Dover- Kenton Road (0.81 miles) the road needs to be widened and a bike lane added. Figure 22. College Road 57

9. DE 10 DE 10 is the main road connecting Dover AFB with the towns of Camden and Wyoming. There are several schools just off the route. A key area of concern is the bridge over the St. Jones River; there are no shoulders on westbound side, and no bike facilities and heavy, fast-moving auto traffic in both directions. Eastbound the shoulder should be marked as a bike lane, westbound, lane width should be reallocated to add a bike lane. Ideally, the speed limit on the bridge should also be reduced. A continuous bike lane should be added in each direction between US 113 and US 13 (2.9 miles). Figure 23. DE 10 58

10. Riverwalk To connect existing residential development with the Downtown and the Riverwalk, and in conjunction with the Safe Routes to Schools Program, bike lanes need to be added to connect Banneker and Lulu Ross elementary schools with the Riverwalk. 1. From Lulu Ross Elementary School using Lovers Lane to SE Front St to Marshall Street to the Riverwalk (.83 miles). 2. From Banneker Elementary School using Church Street directly south to the Riverwalk (.63 miles). Figure 24. Milford Riverwalk 59

11. Saulsbury Road Running between North Street and US 13, Saulsbury Rd/McKee Rd/Scarborough Rd connects Delaware Tech and shopping areas to West Dover, and connects to each of the main east-west routes through Dover. One problem point on the road is that the bike lane disappears just south of Rt 8 and the striped shoulder disappears halfway down block. The existing bike lane needs to be continued south of Route 8 and marked along the full length of the road (3.57 miles), including through the intersections at Walker Road, College Road, the railroad bridge and Crawford Carroll Avenue. Figure 25. Saulsbury Road 60

12. US 113 - Milford US 113 is the main north-south route through Milford, connecting numerous shopping areas. The road has no bicycle facilities and fast, heavy auto traffic. From SR1 south through to DE 36 (2.7 miles) a bike lane needs to be marked and/or added. Figure 26. US 113 - Milford 61

13. Kenton Road Kenton Road is a key commuting route for residents northwest of Dover, as well as a key route for recreational bicyclists. The road has no bicycle facilities and no or narrow shoulders and heavy, fast- moving automobile traffic. DE 8 to Denney’s Road (2.35 miles) - lane width should be reallocated and the road widened if necessary to add a bike lane, including adding bike lane markings at the intersection with DE 8 Figure 27. Kenton Road 62

14. Sorghum Mill Road Sorghum Mill Road is part of the St. Jones Greenway trail system. The causeway connects from the Hunn Family Farm House to the Lebanon Landing Boat Ramp. From there a pedestrian bridge crosses over the St. Jones River to Old Lebanon Road. This road can be used by bicycles for approximately 2 miles until the path is blocked by the DAFB housing project. Sorghum Mill Road continues west to the small town of Lebanon and continues to multiple housing developments (Locust Grove, Eagle Meadow, and Quail Landing) as well as an elementary school, a middle school and the John S. Charlton facility. Between DE 10 and the Hunn Property (1.65 miles), the causeway needs to be widened and a bike lane added. Figure 28. Sorghum Mill Road 63

15. Pearsons Corner Road Pearsons Corner Road is a significant recreational biking road which is also used by horse and buggies and large trucks. The road has no bicycle facilities, no shoulders and moderate automobile volume. Between DE 8 and DE 42, Pearsons Corner Road needs to be widened to add striped shoulders. Figure 29. Pearson’s Corner Road 64

16. Chestnut Grove Road Chestnut Grove Road is a main connector route, used by automobiles, bicycles, and horse and buggies, from west of Dover to the northern commercial areas on US 13. The road has no bike facilities, no shoulders, and fast, moderate volume auto traffic. Between Kenton Road and DE 8 (2.59 miles) the road needs to be widened and striped shoulders added. Figure 30. Chestnut Grove Road 17. DE 12 DE 12 is a main mid-county east-west bicycling route. West of Felton, the road has no bike facilities, no shoulders, and fast, moderate volume auto traffic. From Black Swamp Road to the Maryland line (10.75 miles), the road needs to be widened and striped shoulders added. Figure 31. DE 12 65

18. DE 15 This segment of DE 15, a major north-south bicycling route, has no bike facilities, no shoulders, and fast, moderate volume auto traffic. From Viola to Airport Road (5.72 miles), the road needs to be widened and striped shoulders added. Figure 32. DE 15 66

Intersections There are intersections along main bicycling routes that have high traffic volumes and the bicycle routing through the intersection may be unclear. The intersections listed in Table 5 and shown on Figure 33 should be striped to show the routing bicycles should take through the intersection. Although all the intersections need to be addressed, the ones with bile lanes leading to the intersection are the highest priority. Table 5. Intersections Needing Bike Lanes or Directional Markings Saulsbury North Street to College Rd./ No bike facilities at most intersections Rd DE 15 US 13 US 13 is a four-lane divided highway with a median. Length of Kent County Traffic volumes along this highway are high, and the posted speed is 50 mph. US 13 is a four-lane divided highway with a median. Intersection with US 13 in DE 12 Traffic volumes along this highway are high, and the Felton posted speed is 50 mph. Warner Road (K406) & US 113 - traffic volumes are heavy along this segment of US 113. As Warner Road Intersection of Warner Rd Rehoboth Blvd crosses US 113 right where it forks between US 113 and (K406) & US113 SR 14, the geometry of the intersection may confuse bicyclists traveling through the area for the first time. 10th Street, Intersections with US 113 No bicycle facilities. 10th Street is a city-planned bike Milford and SR1 route. There are only two narrow lanes (10 feet) with turn Intersection of DE 6 and DE 6 - Smyrna lanes. There is no shoulder or extra space available for US 13 bicycle travel. At its intersection with US 13, US 13 is a divided Intersections with US13, highway, with restaurants located in the median. The DE 14 US113, SR1 access points to these restaurants may create conflicts with bicycle traffic. US 113A, S. Sorghum Mill Rd north to No bike facilities at most intersections, fast auto traffic State St. SR 1 bridge No bike facilities through intersections, fast, heavy auto DE 42 Kenton to Cheswold traffic 67

68

Figure 33 69

Sharrows and Signage There are significant routes that bicyclists take in the County which are on roads that are not viable candidates for separate bike lanes. The vehicle traffic on these streets travel at speeds conducive to sharing the road with bicyclists (35 MPH or less), which make sharrows the appropriate bicycle facility. The roads and road segments identified in the planning process as being in need of sharrows are listed in Table 6. Bicycle flow through key intersections on these roads should also be marked. Since the addition of sharrows only requires pavement markings, it is recommended that DelDOT or the appropriate local government add sharrows to these roads within the next year. Table 6. Roads Identified for Sharrows Road Location/Segment US 13 south to US 13, including intersections with Walker Rd, State St. - Dover Division St, Loockerman St, North St, and Water St. (3.00 miles) Walker Rd to Water St, including Governors Ave - Dover intersections at Division St and Loockerman St. (1.35 miles) Division St. - Dover US 13 to RR (1.53 miles) Loockerman St. - Dover Division to US 13 (1.36 miles) US 13 to railroad on west side of DE 10 - Camden/Wyoming Wyoming BICYCLE ROUTE 3 - Within Harrington (3.55 miles) Harrington DE 9 runs the length of the county and is designated as a scenic byway. The road has no shoulders and addition of shoulders for bike lanes is not under consideration. To alert cars to the presence of bicyclists, “Share the Road” signs should be added along the full length of the route through the count. Marshall Street in Milford, between Elks Lodge Road and SE 2nd Street has shoulders wide enough for bike lanes, the lanes marked for part of the route; the road simply requires marking the rest of the segment as bike lanes. 71

Recommended Off-Road Projects 1. Silver Lake/St. Jones Connector This 1.7 mile connector would create a link through the center of the state’s capitol from the Silver Lake trail (.5 mi) and the St. Jones trail (2.66 miles) with very few road crossings. At the south end, the trail would parallel US 13 to the St. Jones River and cross under the highway at the bridge. The route requires construction of 2 bike bridges across the St. Jones River, one just south of Division St and the other near US 13. Figure 34. Silver Lake/St. Jones Connector 72

2. Camden to Dover Trail The Camden to Dover Trail (4 to 4.5 miles depending on route), would connect from Camden- Wyoming Ave to North St in Dover. A completed trail along this corridor would connect schools, parks (including Brecknock, Schutte and the proposed County park adjacent to Brecknock) and transit facilities. The trail would take advantage of preexisting trail connections (Brecknock Park to Fifer Middle School) and the proposed Dover Western Connector. The Trail would also provide connections to other on road facilities, and an additional connection to the proposed SR 10 trail would help to provide a loop. Figure 35. Camden to Dover Trail 73

3. Dover Air Force Base Trail The Dover Air Base Trail (1.02 miles) will run along the Route 1 section of the outside of the Dover AFB fence line extending from the North Gate Intersection to the Main Gate. Currently, bikes and pedestrians do not have safe access to base when the North Gate is closed. The Dover AFB main gate is the only 24-hour access onto the base.The path will serve as an alternate route for bikes/pedestrians wishing to travel to and from the base and associated housing area at all times of the day. Figure 36. Dover Air Force Base Trail 74

4. Route 10 Trail The Route 10 trail from the St. Jones Greenway to US 13 would be 2.7 miles if on one side of the road or 5.4 miles if trails are put on both sides of Route 10. A separate bicycle bridge over the St. Jones may be required. A recommended addition to this trail would be a connection to Caesar Rodney High School. This trail will link to the Dover Air Force Base Trail discussed on p. 72. Figure 37. Route 10 Trail 75

5. Smyrna-Clayton Trail The Smyrna to Clayton Trail (1.35 miles) would connect existing trails around schools and parks to communities of Smyrna and Clayton. The trail would also link to the proposed trail to Easton, MD. Figure 38. Smyrna-Clayton Trail 76

6. Smyrna - Big Oak Park Connection The trail (2.20 miles) would provide a connection between Smyrna and Big Oak County Park east of SR 1, reducing the need to travel by car to use the park. Figure 39. Smyrna – Big Oak Park Connection 77

7. Clayton, DE to Easton, MD Rail Trail The Clayton to Easton recreational rail trail would include over 27 miles of trail in Delaware connecting Marydel, Hartly and Clayton with Greensboro, Goldsboro and Easton, Maryland. The State of Maryland owns the rail right of way in Delaware; negotiations are ongoing for Delaware to either lease or own the right of way for the purpose of creating the rail-to-trail. Figure 40. Clayton, DE to Easton, MD Rail Trail 78

Implementing Bicycle Plan Recommendations This plan contains multiple types of recommendations, from simple signage and pavement marking, to more complicated road width reallocation and construction projects. Some are expensive to implement; some are not. While it is hoped that all of the recommendations will be implemented, inclusion in this plan does not guarantee that it will happen. There are multiple ways to fund bicycle improvements. The most common way is in conjunction with roadway reconstruction or maintenance improvements that result in reallocation of lane width and/or striping the road surface to accommodate bicycles. As part of the Complete Streets Policy, DelDOT is required to evaluate all transportation modes as part of any reconstruction or widening project within the existing right-of-way. When the bicycle project requires additional right-of-way or pavement to be added to the transportation system, other funding must be used. Federal funding sources include the Surface Transportation, Transportation Enhancement (TE), and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Programs (CMAQ). For off-road, multi-use paths, the Fiscal Year 2012 Bond Bill includes five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). A portion of this funding should be used to design and build the higher priority off-road bicycle path recommendations in this plan. The signage and pavement marking projects should be implemented over the next several years and as time and funding allows. Bicycle improvements requiring construction are only one of 12 different categories of projects funded through the Transportation Enhancement Program. Funds are requested by writing a letter to the Secretary of the Delaware Department of Transportation and describing the project desired. The program is completely administered within the Department of Transportation. Projects that use Surface Transportation or Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program funds, must first be included in the statewide Capital Transportation Program (CTP) and the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Projects proposed for inclusion in the CTP and TIP must be submitted to the MPO for priority scoring. Set at a three point scale, projects receiving a score of 2.1 or higher are then forwarded to DelDOT for funding consideration. The relationship between the Regional Bicycle Plan priority process and the TIP priority process is sequential. Bicycle projects are scored using the priority process established in this plan. The highest scoring projects that require higher funding levels are then scored using the TIP process along with all of the other types of projects for which funding is being requested. Consequently, a high scoring bicycle project may not score as well under the TIP scoring process. A Bicycle Committee should be established for the MPO. The Committee would be responsible for bicycle project scoring and to pursue implementation of the policy recommendations. In addition, the Bicycle Committee would develop education and marketing of projects as bicycle projects are implemented. 79

80

APPENDIX A BICYCLE ROUTES INCLUDED IN DELAWARE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN 81

82

APPENDIX A: BICYCLE ROUTES INCLUDED IN DELAWARE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN STATEWIDE ROUTES Bicycle Route 1 - Kent County 19 Route Overview This 37 mile portion of Bicycle Route 1 connects New Castle County with Sussex County and provides direct access to the state capital and to the other major municipalities in Kent County. Description of Route The purpose of Bicycle Route 1 is to improve north-south bicycle mobility. Within Kent County, Bicycle Route 1 serves as a spine to the bicycle network, linking the major municipalities within Kent County and providing connections to all but one regional bicycle route in the county. The portion of the route in Kent County begins in Clayton along Duck Creek Road West (SR 15). The route then proceeds west along Millington Road (K 39) and School Lane (K 40), and then continues south along Wheatleys Pond Road (SR 300), Moorton Road (K92), which becomes Commerce Street in Cheswold. Commerce Street then becomes McKee Road (K 156/SR 15) before entering the City of Dover. In Dover, the route becomes Salisbury Road and turns west onto North Street/Hazlettville Road (K 73/SR 15), south onto Wyoming Mill Road (K195), which becomes Railroad Avenue in Camden. In Wyoming, the route follows Westville Road (SR 15/K52) and proceeds along the western edge of Camden, continuing down SR 15 on Moose Lodge Road and Dundee Road. The route then continues east on Henry Cowgill Road (Route 10A) for a brief period, then continues south on Turkey Point Road (K240), passing through Woodside and Viola along the way. Once K240 enters Felton, the route intersects with Main Street (SR 12), then south onto Little Mastens Corner Road (K284). It then turns east onto Reeves Crossing Road (K 286), which becomes Killens Pond Road (K384) and continues east and then south, bordering Killens Pond State Park. After crossing SR 14, Killens Pond Road becomes Deep Grass Lane (K 384). The route then travels east on Williamsville Road (K 116) for a short stretch, and then continues southeast along Abbotts Pond Road (K 442) into Sussex County. Barriers and Opportunities - Lane Widths/Road Geometry. The majority of the route is on two-lane rural roads without shoulders. Between Cheswold and Wyoming, the roads have shoulders and cross-sections in keeping with an urbanized area. - Major intersections. Bicycle Route 1 was originally designed to avoid as many major roadways as possible to provide a more recreational experience for cyclists; as such, the number of major intersections along the route has been minimized. The two most significant intersections in Kent County are at SR8 in Dover and at US 13 south of Felton. SR8 is a four-lane section with dedicated turning lanes at the intersection. The width of this intersection and the volume and speed of traffic here may deter less 19 Delaware Bicycle Facility Master Plan, DelDOT, Appendix B pp. 37-62. October 2005. 83

experienced cyclists. US 13 is a four-lane divided highway with a median. Traffic volumes along this highway are high, and the posted speed is 50 mph. Signing and striping may be necessary to improve the safety of this intersection for bicyclists. - Water crossings. There are no major water crossings along this route which would pose a serious deterrent to bicycle travel. - Railroad crossings. There are three railroad crossings along Bicycle Route 1 in Kent County. The first is an abandoned at-grade crossing in Clayton, which is being discussed as a possible Rail-to-Trail connection to Easton, Maryland. The second crossing is at the Norfolk Southern Railroad at Reeves Crossing Road. This is an at-grade crossing. The third crossing is located where Deep Grass Lane intersects the east-west branch of the Norfolk Southern. This is also an at-grade crossing. Opportunities for Connections - Statewide and Long-Distance Bicycle Routes: • Delmar-Felton - Statewide Bicycle Route 3 • Proposed Clayton-Easton Rail-to-Trail - Regional Bicycle Routes: • MD Border to Woodland Beach (K-1) • MD Border to Port Mahon (K-3) • MD Border to DAFB (K-4) • MD Border to Frederica (K-5) • MD Border to Slaughter Beach (K-6) - Recreational, local and other bike trails: • Local bicycle network within the City of Dover • Off-road network of trails at Killen’s Pond State Park Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Statewide Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Statewide Bicycle Routes. 84

Bicycle Route 2 - Kent County Wilmington-Selbyville Route Overview This 42-mile portion of the Wilmington-Selbyville Statewide Bicycle Route provides north-south bicycle mobility along SR9 and the US 113 corridor in Kent County. The route provides access to Kent County City of Dover, from the municipalities of Wilmington and New Castle to the North and Milford, Ellendale, Georgetown and Dagsboro to the South. Description of Route The purpose of this route is to improve north-south bicycle mobility along the Delaware coast. The route enters Kent County along SR9. It continues south along Bayside Drive (SR 9), turning southwest onto White Oak Road (K 66) into Dover. In Dover, the route crosses DuPont Highway (US 13), then continues south as Kings Highway (K 66), west on Loockerman Street East, and then south on State Street South (SR 10A). The route follows State Street South out of Dover, to the town of Magnolia. South of Magnolia State Street becomes Clapham Road (K 27) and continues south to Buffalo Road (K 376). From Buffalo Road (K 376), the route turns west onto Barratts Chapel Road (K 371), then south onto McGinnis Pond Road (K 378). The route then continues southeast via Andrews Lake Road (K 380), and Johnnycake Landing Road (K 380), and then turns south onto Carpenter Bridge Road (K35), and east onto Fork Landing Road (K 390). From Fork Landing Road (K 390), the route continues east to Tub Mill Pond Road (K 119), and then south on Bowman Road (K 401) to Warner Road (K 406). Continuing east on Warner Road/11 Street, NW (K 406), the route enters Milford and then continues south via Walnut Street (K 20) to the Sussex County and the Mispillion River. Barriers and Opportunities - Lane Widths/Road Geometry. SR9 is a two-lane road without shoulders; however, traffic volumes along this road are low, and automobiles should be able to pass bicyclists without trouble. From Leipsic (K 11) to White Oak Road (K 66), the road is two-lanes wide with shoulders suitable for bicycle facilities. There are no shoulders along Kings Highway until approximately one-quarter-mile east of SR 1, where the shoulders become suitable for bicycle facilities. In Dover, Kings Highway lacks shoulders, but may be wide enough to accommodate bicycle facilities. South State Street in Dover has on-street parking which may create potential conflicts with bicycle traffic. South of Dover, South State Street (113A) has shoulders sufficient for bicycle facilities. The majority of the roads between Magnolia and Milton are two-lane roads without shoulders; however, traffic volumes on these segments of the route should be low enough to allow safe passing movements by automobiles around bicycles. - Major intersections. There are two major intersections within this portion of the Wilmington-Selbyville route. The first major intersection is the intersection of Kings Highway with US 13. This intersection carries heavy volumes of traffic and has multiple dedicated turn lanes which may make this intersection difficult for bicyclists to cross. The second major intersection is at Warner Road (K406) and US 113. Again, traffic volumes are heavy along this segment of US 113. As Warner Road crosses US 113 right 85

where it forks between US 113 and SR 14, the geometry of the intersection may confuse bicyclists traveling through the area for the first time. - Water crossings. There are several minor water crossings along SR9; at some of these, the shoulders are not wide enough for a bicycle facility and additional signage may be appropriate to alert bicyclists and motorists. The crossing of Browns Branch south of Frederica is wide enough to accommodate bicycle facilities. - Railroad crossings. There are no railroad crossings along this portion of the Wilmington- Selbyville statewide route. Opportunities for Connections - Regional Bicycle Routes: • MD Border to Port Mahon (K-3) • SR9/MR337 to Delaware Bay (K-2) • MD Border to DAFB (K-4) • MD Border to Slaughter Beach (K-6) • MD Border to Frederica (K-5) • MD Border to Woodland Beach (K-1) Recreational, local and other bicycle routes - Local bicycle network in City of Dover - Off-road trails in the Cedar Swamp Wildlife Area, as well as the proposed St. Jones Greenway. Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Statewide Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Statewide Bicycle Routes. Bicycle Route 3 - Kent/Sussex County Delmar To Felton Route Overview This Statewide Bicycle Route is a 39-mile branch off of Bicycle Route 1, improving bicycle mobility along the US 13 corridor from Kent County to the border of the state with Maryland. Description of Route The route begins in Kent County south of Felton at Maintenance Road 286. It continues south along Little Mastens Corner Road (K284 and K 78) into Harrington. In Harrington, the route turns west onto Center Street, then south on West Street. The route then turns east onto Fairground Road (K316), crosses US 13 (DuPont Highway), and then turns southeast onto Corn Crib Road (K433). 86

The route then continues south on Gun & Rod Club Road (K434), then west on Woodyard Road (K117). From Woodyard Road (K117), the route turns south onto US 13, continuing through Greenwood until it reaches Cart Branch Road (K583A). At Cart Branch Road (K 583A), the route turns southwest, turning onto Adams Road, then Church Street, which it follows into Bridgeville. In Bridgeville, the route runs along Bus.13, and then turns west onto Market Street, then south onto Wilson Farm Road, which it follows into Seaford. In Seaford, Speck Road (K546) becomes Ross Station Road, and continues south to SR 20 (Stein Highway). The route then runs east along SR 20 to Front Street/Market Street which it follows south over the Nanticoke River out of Seaford. Market Street then becomes Seaford Road (K 13) and continues south into Laurel. The route follows SR 13 into Delmar where it terminates at the Maryland border. Barriers and Opportunities - Lane Widths/Road Geometry. North of Seaford, the majority of the route is characterized by two-lane rural roads without shoulders. South of Seaford, the route continues as a two-lane road with sufficient shoulders for a bicycle facility. Within municipalities, the roads used by the route are typified by on-street parking, which may pose a conflict with bicycle travel in adjoining lanes. SR20 within Seaford is a five-lane roadway. In Greenwood, US 13 is a four-lane roadway with a median. The considerable volume of traffic along this section may deter less experienced bicyclists. - Major intersections. The two most significant intersections along this route all occur with US 13. US 13 is a four-lane highway with a median. Traffic volumes along this road may deter less experienced cyclists - Water crossings. There are two major water crossings along this route: one over the Nanticoke River between Seaford and Blades and one over Broad Creek in Laurel. Both of these are drawbridges with sidewalks which are barrier-separated from the travel lanes. The lack of a shoulder on either side of the roadway may require novice bicyclists to walk their bicycles using the sidewalks, which are available on both sides of the bridge. - Railroad crossings. There are three at-grade crossings of the Norfolk Southern Railroad along this route: one south of Harrington, one south of Greenwood, and one north of Bridgeville. Opportunities for Connections - Statewide Bicycle Routes: • Bicycle Route 1 • American Discovery Trail, a hiker-biker trail spanning the length of the United States. Regional Bicycle Routes: • MD Border to Slaughter Beach (K-6) • Greenwood to Broadkill Beach (S-1) 87

• MD Border to Georgetown (S-4) • MD Border to SR1 via Seaford and Millsboro (S-5) • US 13/SR30 to Fenwick Island (S-9) Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Statewide Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Statewide Bicycle Routes. REGIONAL ROUTES Route K-1 MD Border To Woodland Beach Route Overview The Maryland Border to Woodland Beach route (as shown as Route K-1 on the Kent County map) is a 17.6-mile east-west Regional Bicycle Route. The route begins at the Maryland Border on SR 6 in the Blackiston Wildlife Area, travels through the Towns of Clayton and Smyrna, to Woodland Beach via the Woodland Beach Wildlife Area. Description of Route This route connects the Towns of Clayton and Smyrna with Maryland and Woodland Beach on the Delaware Bay. The route is comprised of two-lane roads with shoulders. The road narrows just east of Smyrna where it encounters a wetland area with the potential for flooding. Barriers and Opportunities - Lane widths/Road geometry. From the Maryland Border to SR 15, SR 6 has no shoulders and the edge is soft. At the time of data collection, it appeared as if this area may have been undergoing re-pavement. Most of the remaining length of the route provides ample shoulders for bicycle traffic. However, as SR 6 comes upon wetland and beach areas, the road narrows and less space is available for bicycles. This occurs at the following two locations: • Intersection of SR 6/SR 1 - the road narrows to only two, ten-foot lanes with no shoulders. • SR6 crosses SR9 into the Woodland Beach Wildlife Area - the shoulders are narrowed to only 4 feet and there is water on either side of the bridge. - Major intersections. SR 6 crosses the following major roadways: SR 42, SR 15 (south), SR 15 (north), US 13, SR 1, and SR 9. The intersection of SR 6 with SR 13 is noted for having only two narrow lanes (10 feet) with turn lanes. There is no shoulder or extra 88

space available for bicycle travel. At SR 1, SR 6 crosses over the road and there are no exit ramps. - Water Crossings. There is a water crossing of Duck Creek and the Smyrna River. The crossing of Duck Creek has two narrow shoulders and only jersey barriers separating cyclists from the water. The route encounters wetlands, signed with flood warnings as it exits the community of Smyrna from SR 1 to where SR 6 branches from Beach Road, a local road, and from SR 9 to Woodland Beach. - Railroad crossings. There is one at-grade railroad crossing of an unused railroad in Clayton. This rail line has been identified as a possible candidate for the Clayton to Easton Rail-to-Trail project. Opportunities for Connections - Key Destinations and Activity Centers: • Clayton central business district • Smyrna central business district • Blackiston Wildlife Area • Woodland Beach Wildlife Area • Woodland Beach Statewide Bicycle Routes: - Bicycle Route 1 - Wilmington-Selbyville (Route 2) Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Regional Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Regional Bicycle Routes. Route K-2 NE Dover To Kitts Hummock/Delaware Bay Route Overview This 12 mile route borders Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge and the Little Creek Wildlife Area, Dover Air Force Base and the community of Kitts Hummock. Description of Route The purpose of this route is to provide linkages between the Bay coast east of Dover with the Wilmington-Selbyville Statewide Route. The route begins at the intersection of SR 9 and K 337 (Persimmon Tree Lane). It continues south on SR 9 and provides access to numerous recreational destinations near the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, the Little Creek Wildlife Area, the John Dickenson Plantation, and the Logan Tract of the Ted Harvey Wildlife Area. The route 89

traverses the Dover Air Force Base and then turns east onto Kitts Hummock Road at the intersection of SR 9 and US 113/SR1, and then continues to Delaware Bay. The route is primarily serviced by two-lane roads with shoulders. The terrain is largely rural, wooded, and flat. Barriers and Issues - Lane widths/Road geometry. As noted above, most roads provide adequate shoulders. The exception is in the community of Little Creek where roads serving the residential housing include on-street parking and narrow or no shoulders. Where SR 9 meets the community of Pickering Beach, the road is very narrow and has no shoulders. - Major intersections. The only significant intersections are at North Little Creek Road (SR8), South Little Creek Road, and SR 1. However, the traffic volumes at these intersections are low, and there are good lines of sight. - Water Crossings. Water crossings include the Herring Branch and Little River, which both flow into the Delaware Bay. The bridge over Little Creek does not have shoulders wide enough for bicyclists to use as a bicycle facility, although there is a sidewalk for dismounted cyclists to use. - Railroad crossings. There are no railroad crossings along this route. Opportunities for Connections - Statewide Bicycle Routes: • Wilmington-Selbyville (Route 2) - Regional Bicycle Routes: • MD Border to Port Mahon (Route K-3) - Recreational connectors, local and other bicycle routes: • White Oak Road (K66) • S. Little Creek Road (K67) - Major Highways: • SR8 Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Regional Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Regional Bicycle Routes. 90

Route K-3 MD Border To Port Mahon Route Overview This 24 mile Regional Bicycle Route bisects Kent County from the Maryland border to Delaware Bay. Description of Route The route provides east-west access and connectivity across Kent County by connecting Dover to the Maryland border to the west and the Little Creek Wildlife Area and Delaware Bay to the east. The route begins at the Maryland border and runs along SR8 through Dover to SR15. The route then follows Main Street in Little Creek (Route 15) south until it reaches Port Mahon Road (K89). The route continues east Port Mahon Road (K 89) until it reaches its terminus at Port Mahon on Delaware Bay. The bicycle route operates entirely on existing roadways with mixed traffic. Most of the route is on State Route 8 which varies in width along its course based on the demands of varying traffic volumes and land use. Barriers and Opportunities - Lane Widths/Road Geometry. West of Dover, the route follows a rural roadway with shoulders. The roadway widens and the number of access points to local businesses increases as the route continues eastbound into Dover. Within Dover, there is on-street parking throughout a large portion of the route. The through lane displaces the shoulder when left turn lanes are present, creating a potential conflict point with bicycle travel. Shared use signs should be installed in this area. Between Dover and SR1, SR8 is a two- lane road with shoulders. East of SR1, the shoulders disappear. Along SR9 there are no shoulders. Port Mahon Road (K89) is a two-lane road with no shoulders. - Major intersections. The most significant intersection along this route is where SR8 and US13 meet in Dover. This is a high-volume intersection, with minimal width on the eastbound approach. The interchange of SR1 at SR8 may also pose issues for less experienced cyclists. In addition, there are many high-volume intersections within the City of Dover, including those at State Street, Governors Avenue (Alt.13), and SR15. - Traffic. Along rural portions of this route, traffic volumes are low. Although traffic speeds in rural areas are generally higher than in urban areas, the lower traffic volumes offset this issue. Automobiles can comfortably pass cyclists by crossing into the opposing traffic’s lane. Traffic volumes pick up, however, as the route continues towards Dover. Access driveways and on street parking contribute to potential conflicts between motorists and bicycles. Both drivers and cyclists need to be extra careful to ensure that conflicts between automobile and bikes are minimized. - Railroad crossings. The bicycle route crosses the Norfolk Southern mainline railroad tracks in Dover. The crossing is at grade and at a 90-degree angle. It does not pose a problem for bicycle travel. 91

Opportunities for Connections - Statewide Bicycle Routes: • Bicycle Route 1 • Wilmington-Selbyville, Bicycle Route 2 - Regional Bicycle Routes: • NE Dover to Kitts Hummock/Delaware Bay, Route K-2 - Recreational, local and other bicycle routes: • Feeder bicycle network in the City of Dover • Feeder Routes in Little Creek Wildlife Area. - Major Highways: • SR44 • US13 • US113A • SR9 • SR1 Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Regional Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Regional Bicycle Routes. Route K-4 MD Border To Dover Air Force Base Route Overview This 16 mile Regional Bicycle Route travels from the Maryland Border along SR10 through central Kent County and the towns of Camden and Wyoming to the intersection with US113 near the Dover Air Force Base south of the City of Dover. Description of Route This route travels east from the western edge of Kent County to the towns of Camden and Wyoming, terminating at the Dover Air Force Base. It also connects two statewide bicycle routes, Bicycle Routes 1 and 2. This bicycle facility is entirely on SR10. This road begins at the Maryland- Delaware border as a two-lane rural road with shoulders. Within Camden and Wyoming the road widens and on-street parking is provided. Between US13 and US113A (S. State Street), the road widens to four lanes. While there are shoulders on these sections, the roadway pavement is often used for turn lanes to accommodate access points to local businesses and subdivisions. The road narrows to two lanes with shoulders between US113A and Dover Air Force Base. 92

Barriers and Opportunities - Lane Widths/Road Geometry. Most of the roadway in the rural areas features shoulders of varying width. In town at Camden/Wyoming there are areas where no shoulder exists and limited right of way would require sharing of the roadway lane. Low traffic speeds in the area allow for shared roadway use. - Major intersections. Bicycle Route K-4 crosses major roadways in the Dover area - US13, US113, and SR1. At the intersections with US13 and US113 a bicyclist would have to transition from the shoulder to the through travel lane to safely cross the intersection, and then reenter the shoulder on the other side. The traffic volumes at these intersections are moderate-to-high, and may deter less experienced cyclists. At SR1, K-4 travels under the overpass. The roadway was designed with enough right-of-way to provide a shoulder with adequate space for bicycle travel. - Traffic. SR 10 has lower traffic volumes at its western terminus on the Maryland border due to the rural nature of the land. Near Dover the traffic volumes become more moderate and typical of suburban areas. Speeds are higher in the rural areas and remain fairly low in the Camden/Wyoming area and in the area near Dover. - Water Crossings. The route crosses the St. Jones River near US113 along a section of road that is two lanes wide with adequate shoulders for bicycle travel. - Railroad crossings. The bicycle route crosses the Norfolk Southern rail line near Camden/Wyoming. The crossing here is at grade and at a direct angle and should not pose a problem for the novice or advanced bicyclist. Opportunities for Connections - Statewide Bicycle Routes • Bicycle Route 1 • Bicycle Route 2 - Major Highways • US13 • US113 • SR1 Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Regional Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Regional Bicycle Routes. 93

Route K-5 MD Border To Frederica Route Overview This 14.1 mile Regional Bicycle Route travels from State Route 12 at the Maryland Border to the intersection of SR12 and Andrews Lake Road (MR 380) at the western outskirts of Frederica. Description of Route This route provides east-west access and connectivity to Maryland and two towns in central Kent County. It also provides direct access to Statewide Bicycle Routes 1, 2 and 3. The bicycle facility is entirely on SR12, a 2-lane roadway with adequate shoulders in most areas and low to moderate traffic volumes. In Felton, the road is two lanes with on-street parking but adequate lane width to accommodate both a bicyclist and an automobile. The route crosses the Norfolk Southern Rail line, US Route 13, SR15 and Bicycle Route 1. Traffic volumes are generally light, but speeds in the rural areas can be fast (over 45 mph). Barriers and Opportunities - Lane Widths/Road Geometry. Most of the bicycle route is on a two-lane rural roadway with shoulders. In one area west of Felton the road has no shoulders which may deter less experienced bicyclists, even though traffic volumes are low. Typical sections in the town centers include limited right-of-way and on-street parking. Where on-street parking is present, there is the potential for conflicts with bicycle traffic. However, fairly low traffic volumes and speeds improve the safety of bicycling in these areas. The Route 13 roadway crossing is challenging. However, adequate room exists for the bicyclist to travel next to the automobile through the intersection. - Major intersections. As noted earlier, SR12 crosses US Highway 13 near Felton. This intersection carries moderate volumes of traffic. The dedicated turn lanes and access points to adjoining properties create potential conflicts between automobile and bicycle traffic. - Railroad crossings. The bicycle route crosses over the Norfolk Southern rail line in downtown Felton. This is an at-grade and controlled crossing and the rail bed is metal. This crossing is at a 90 degree angle to the roadway and should not be particularly onerous. The road at this crossing is two-lanes wide, with an adequate shoulder. Opportunities for Connections - Statewide Bicycle Routes: • Bicycle Route 1 • Wilmington-Selbyville, Bicycle Route 2 94

- Recreational, local and other bicycle routes: • This bicycle route provides access to a number of recreational connectors in western Kent County. - Major Highways: • US13 • US113 • SR15 Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Regional Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Regional Bicycle Routes. Route K-6 Md Border To Slaughter Beach Route Overview The MD Border to Slaughter Beach Regional Bicycle Route provides a cross-Delaware route which connects southern Kent County and northern Sussex County from the Maryland border to Delaware Bay. This route also links Milford and Harrington. It also provides access to recreational destinations along the Delaware Shore including Slaughter Beach and federally protected wildlife refuges. The route is a total of 25 miles in length. Description of Route The MD Border to Slaughter Beach Regional Bicycle Route crosses both Kent and Sussex Counties providing access from the Maryland border to Delaware Bay. Beginning at the Maryland border, the route follows SR 14 to Walnut Street south in Milford. It then follows SR 36 until reaching Slaughter Beach. Barriers and Opportunities - Lane Widths/Road Geometry. The proposed bike route follows a typical rural roadway segment. SR 14 is without shoulders except when passing through Harrington and Milford. Additionally, traffic speeds are decreased significantly and on-street parking is provided. There are two key intersections of note along this route. At the intersection of SR 14 and US 113 on the western side of Milford, there are no shoulders on the intersection approaches. The number of lanes decreases from four to two between US 113 and Maple Avenue - Major intersections. The route intersects three major roadways: US 13, US 113, and SR 1. At its intersection with US 13, US 13 is a divided highway, with restaurants located in the median. The access points to these restaurants may create conflicts with bicycle traffic. Where the route crosses US 113, there are higher volumes of traffic which may 95

deter less experienced cyclists. The interchange at SR1 may also require improvements to reduce conflicts between bicycles and traffic utilizing the ramps at this interchange. Other minor though potentially more complicated intersections occur within Milford where traffic is more concentrated. In implementing this route it is critical that provisions be made to maximize safety at these intersections including placement of stop bars, striping, signage and other relevant measures. - Traffic. Along rural portions of this route, traffic volumes are low. Although traffic speeds in rural areas are generally higher than in urban areas, the lower traffic volumes offset this issue. Automobiles can comfortably pass cyclists by crossing into the opposing travel lane. Traffic volumes increase, however, in Milford and Harrington. Access driveways and on street parking contribute to potential conflicts between motorists and bicycles. Both drivers and cyclists need to be extra careful to ensure that conflicts between automobile and bikes are minimized. - Railroad crossings. The bicycle route crosses the Norfolk Southern mainline railroad tracks in Dover. The crossing is at grade and at a 90-degree angle. It does not pose a problem for bicycle travel. Opportunities for Connections - Destinations and Activity Centers: • Haven Lake • Cedar Beach • Milford Neck Wildlife Area • Slaughter Beach • Direct connection between the cities of Milford and Harrington - Statewide Bicycle Routes: • Bicycle Route 1 • Delmar to Felton (Bicycle Route 3) • Wilmington to Selbyville (Bicycle Route 2) Recommendations The facility recommendations proposed for Regional Bicycle Routes in Section 3.0 of this plan should be applied to this route as part of regular roadway construction and maintenance activities. Existing bicycle facilities along this route should be preserved or improved to be consistent with the design guidelines for Regional Bicycle Routes. 96

APPENDIX B PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING KENT COUNTY BICYCLING 97

98

APPENDIX B: PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING KENT COUNTY BICYCLING Several plans have been developed that directly relate to bicycling in Kent County; these include the Delaware Bicycle Facility Master Plan, St. Jones River Greenway Plan, and the Milford Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Kent County Regional Bicycle Plan is intended to complement these plans by providing clear recommendations on policies and projects that further the goals of each of these plans. This section is intended to provide a brief summary of the goals and purpose of each of the plans and how it relates to bicycling in Kent County. Delaware Bicycle Facility Master Plan The DelDOT Delaware Bicycle Facility Master Plan covers the entire state of Delaware and designates a system of statewide and regional on-road bicycle routes. Implementation of the plan is intended to achieve the following goals: • Integrate existing bicycle routes and trails to a larger, statewide bicycle network • Establish bicycle routes between municipalities, activity centers, and recreational areas throughout the state The plan designates the bicycle routes described in Table 1 and includes a set of design recommendations for each type of bikeway. The Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Bicycle Plan is intended to add additional policies and project recommendations specific to the needs of bicycling in the County. The recommendations will be consistent with the intent of the Bicycle Facility Master Plan. St. Jones River Greenway Plan 20 The purpose of the St. Jones River Greenway Plan (draft) is to provide a vision for the preservation and enhancement of the St. Jones River Greenway for future generations. The plan is intended to provide outdoor recreation opportunities and links for non-motorized transportation between activity centers, and is developed around the following vision: ”...The greenway is composed of a system of trails stretching from Silver Lake in Dover all the way to the Delaware Bay. ... The primay greenway is a paved surface for walking, jogging, and bicycling which stretches along both sides of the St. Jones River. Secondary paths link the greenway to points of special interest, like the Dickinson Mansion and to lands along river tributaries, like the Isaac Branch, Tidbury Creek, and the Cypress Branch. “ The greenway plan includes a network of primary and secondary trails west of the river which connect Schutte Park in Dover, Caesar Rodney High School, Simpson Elementary School, Isaac Branch Nature trail, Brecknock Park, the Moore’s Lake boat ramp, and the state fish hatchery. The Dover Segment west of the river is also the site of the Capital Bike/Belt Demonstration Project 20 St. Jones River Greenway Plan (draft), Kent County, Delaware, October 1998, urban research and Development Corporation, Bethlehem, PA 99

which the plan states should be incorporated into the greenway’s trail network. The system of hard surface bicycle pathways and designated road shoulders will link Schutte Park in the City of Dover to Brecknock Park. The St. Jones River Greenway is a planned 14-mile long riverside pathway linking the greater Dover, central Kent County area to the Delaware Bay. When finished, the greenway will connect isolated residential communities, the City of Dover and recreation areas along the St. Jones River. Kent County residents will have access to a pathway designed for pedestrians and bicyclists; providing a choice of a non-vehicular means of commuting to work, accessing services and visiting family and friends. The greenway will also offer recreational, natural resource, cultural, and educational experiences. The 3-mile long Isaac Branch Segment has been constructed. The Isaac Branch Segment begins on Public Safety Boulevard, continues behind the Softball Field at the back of the DelDOT Campus, meanders through the woodland, passes under the SR1 Puncheon Run Connector Bridge, runs between the Connector and Capital Park to Bay Road, crosses Presidents Drive and continues south between the SR1 roadway and a major wetland creation site, terminating at Route 10 at a signalized intersection. Several project recommendations in the Kent County Regional Bicycle Plan directly relate to recommendations for the St. Jones River Greenway, including on-road #13, Sorghum Mill Road; off-road #1, Silver Lake/St. Jones Connector; and off-road #3, Route 10 Trail. City of Milford Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (draft) 21 The purpose of the City of Milford’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (draft) is to provide the city with a strong planning tool that will facilitate the continued and orderly development of bicycle facilities and implementation strategies that encourage their use. The major bicycle trip generators and attractors include City Hall, the Milford Public Library, the Milford Hospital, recreational facilities, public schools both elementary and secondary, and existing and future residential developments. Since a majority of the population and a majority of trip generators are located in the central part of the City the primary recommendation is to encourage the use of bicycles in this area. Specific recommendations include connecting the Banneker and Lulu Ross elementary schools with the Riverwalk and connecting residential developments, existing and future, in the southeast section of the City with the downtown area. The specific bicycle facility projects identified in the Milford plan were included in the list of project proposals evaluated for inclusion in the Kent County Plan. 21 Gary Norris, City of Milford. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan “Walk It Bike It Share It “ Draft. 2010. 100

City of Dover Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 22 Adopted in 1997, the Dover Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was the product of a year-long planning process initiated by public interest and support. The plan identifies the following vision: “Dover is a place where people of all ages and abilities walk and bicycle conveniently, comfortably and safely for all purposes. Bicycling and walking are safe, convenient and accepted ways to travel in and around Dover for people of all abilities and for all purposes.” The plan outlines the steps necessary to create a bicycle and pedestrian friendly community, identified a network of bicycle routes and proposes a system-wide approach for recommended improvements. Ten top-priority projects were identified, including the following bicycle related projects: • Schutte Park off-road path to south Dover neighborhoods • Enhanced pedestrian crossing of New Burton Road near the off-road path above • Multi-purpose path between Delaware State University and Delaware Tech • Commercial corridors, such as Route 13, redesigned to enhance circulation and promote bicycling • Walker Road bicycle facility improvements (partially completed) • Improvements to Delaware Bicycle Route 1 (partially completed, problems still exist) • Dover area greenways plan implementation • Intersection improvements at Mifflin Rd and Hazlettville Rd (completed) Recreational Trails Program Delaware Work Plan for FY 2011-2013 23 The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is authorized under the SAFETEA-LU and administered by the Department of Natural REsources and Environmental Control, Division of Parks and Recreation. Trails serve multiple purposes by serving as recreational facilities and alternative transportation facilities. Program objectives set priorities for spending to facilitate creation of an improved statewide trail network that is user friendly, educational and safe for all trail users. Objectives relating to bicycle trails include: • Expand Delaware’s trail network to fulfill the outdoor recreation demand for hiking, bicycling, walking and horseback riding. • Create linkages from state parks to other adjoining park lands and to adjacent communities where feasible, without creating environmental impacts. • Assure safe and accessible trail conditions. • Promote appropriate trail etiquette and ethics among all trail users. • Coordinate the creation of a statewide sustainable trail network through public-private partnerships. The RTP includes the Clayton, DE to Easton, MD Rail Trail (Off-Road Project #6). 22 City of Dover. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. June 1997. 23 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Parks and Recreation. Recreational Trails Program Delaware Workplan for FY 2011-2013. June 2011. 101

102

APPENDIX C REVIEW CRITERIA 103

104

APPENDIX C: REVIEW CRITERIA The Bicycle Work Group developed the following criteria to rank proposed bicycle projects. The criteria were used to rank each of the groups of projects, on-road and off-road. The criteria is intended to be used by an ongoing MPO Bicycle Committee to rank new bicycle proposals and to re-evaluate the remaining projects at the end of the four-year TIP planning period. Criteria (Total Possible Points = 58) · Barrier/Gap Elimination (Total Possible Points Barrier Elimination = 9, Gap Elimination = 7) Gaps and barriers in the bikeway and shoulder system create serious problems for bicyclists, especially those who are not comfortable riding with traffic. Score is based on extent of elimination, with total elimination receiving the maximum score. A barrier can be a physical feature, such as a freeway, railroad track or river, but also includes roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph or greater and no shoulder. A gap is a road segment with inadequate bicycle facilities that connects two or more road segments that have adequate bicycle facilities. Points ____ · Safety & Security (Total Possible Points = 10) Studies have shown that separating bicycles from motor vehicle traffic improves both safety and the perception of safety. Separation also attracts more bicyclists to a given corridor by making it more comfortable to bike. 10 points means the segment is extremely safe and secure, a segment with high-traffic volume, high-speed and no bicycle facilities would score 0 points. Points for post-project segment (___) – Points for existing segment (___) = Points ____ · Regional Significance (Total Possible Points = 9) Regional bicycle facilities are significant because they connect major nodes and are intended to serve users over long distances. Commuter routes would be included in bike routes of regional significance. A project with the potential to greatly increase the number of trips would score 9 points; a project with minimal potential to increase the number of trips would score 0 points. Points ____ · Local Significance (Total Possible Points = 9) Bicycle facilities that facilitate local utility trips and students riding their bicycles to school present opportunities to greatly increase the number of trips accomplished by bicycle. This measure applies to a project that is either within a municipality or has a maximum 1 mile radius of impact or maximum length of 5 miles. A project with the potential to greatly increase the number of trips would score 9 points; a project with minimal potential to increase the number of trips would score 0 points. Points ____ · Multi-modal Connections (Total Possible Points = 7) Bicycle facilities that connect to transit facilities significantly improve mobility and convenience for bicyclists. Placing bicycle racks and lockers at major bus stops and park and rides are also critical improvements that should not be overlooked. A project that connects the maximum 105

available modes and has the potential to greatly increase the number of bicycle trips would score 7 points, a project only impacting bicycle travel would score 0 points. Points ____ · Connections to Recreational Facilities (Total Possible Points = 9) Connecting people to recreation areas, such as parks, ball fields, playgrounds, schools and museums, requires a double faceted approach. In addition to on-road bicycle routes to recreational facilities, families and children are often best served by off-road trails. A project with the potential to greatly increase the number of trips to the recreational facility would score 9 points; a project with minimal potential to increase the number of trips would score 0 points. Points ____ · Cost (Total Possible Points = 5) Cost should be determined for all projects including permitting, right-of-way acquisition, construction, etc. An expensive project should receive a low point value, an inexpensive project can receive up to 5 points. Points ____ 106

APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 107

108

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Table 7. Construction and Lane-Width Reallocation Projects South West Street is the location of the new Dover transit hub, but has no bicycle facilities to access the South West South from North Street transit center. The road needs to be widened and a bike Street (.40 miles) lane added, linking to the proposed bike lanes and multi- use path on North Street. US 13 is a major highway running north-south the length of the County, creating an impediment for bicyclists traveling east-west. Within Dover, US 13 is Scarborough Rd to the main road to access many shopping and US 13 Puncheon Run (4.61 employment areas, but has no bicycle facilities and very miles) heavy, fast-moving automobile traffic. Lane width should be reallocated to add a bike lane through this road segment during the upcoming road resurfacing project. The segment of State Street south from US 13 to Walker Between US 13 and Road has no bicycle facilities and no shoulders, and State Street Walker Road (approx .5 heavy, fast-moving traffic. In addition, the road is miles) constrained by the bridge over Silver Lake. Reallocate lane width to add a bike lane. DE 8 is one of the major east-west routes through Dover. The road west of US 13 has no bike facilities, no Railroad tracks to DE 8/Forest shoulders and heavy auto traffic. The road will also be Heatherfield Way (1.8 Avenue one of the main access roads to the new Dover High miles) School. Reallocate lane width to add bike lanes. Walker Road is a major east-west route connecting State Street and neighborhoods on the west side of the city. The road also has an elementary school and Dover High State Street to Saulsbury School. Between State Street and Saulsbury Road, Walker Road Road (approx. 1 mile) Walker Road has a wide outside lane, no shoulders and moderate auto traffic. There is a bike lane between Saulsbury Rd and Kenton Road. Reallocate lane width to add bike lanes. 109

North Street/Hazlettville Road is a major route utilized to access Dover from the west. There is currently a multi-use path running on the eastbound side of the road between Shutte Park and the east end of the Eden Hill property. From the end of the multi-use path Wyoming Mill Rd to across the railroad tracks, the road is narrow and busy. North Street Railroad tracks (1.51 On the westbound side, there is no shoulder nor multi- miles) use path, except for a short segment of bike lane between the railroad tracks and Minima Street. Bike lanes and a clear transition from the multi-use path to North Street need to be added. College Road is the main road, other than US 13, accessing Delaware State University, and serves as a Between McKee Road connector from West Dover to commercial areas on US College Road and Dover-Kenton Road 13. The road segment west of McKee Road has no bike (0.81 miles) facilities, no shoulders, and heavy auto traffic. The road needs to be widened and a bike lane added. DE 10 is the main road connecting Dover AFB with the towns of Camden and Wyoming. There are several schools along or just off the route. A key hazard is the bridge over the St. Jones River, there are no shoulders on westbound side, and no bike facilities and heavy, fast- Between US 113 and US DE 10 moving auto traffic in both directions. Eastbound the 13 (2.9 miles) shoulder should be marked as a bike lane, westbound, lane width should be reallocated to add a bike lane. Ideally, the speed limit on the bridge should also be reduced. A continuous bike lane should be added in each direction From Lulu Ross Elem. School: Lovers Lane to SE Front St to Marshall Street to the Riverwalk To connect existing residential development with the Riverwalk - (.83 miles). Downtown and the Riverwalk, and In conjunction with Milford the Safe Routes to Schools Program. From Banaker Elem. School: Church Street south to the Riverwalk (.63 miles). Saulsbury Rd/McKee Rd/Scarborough Rd connects Delaware Tech and shopping areas to West Dover, and Saulsbury Rd./ Between North Street and connects to each of the main east-west routes through DE 15 US 13 (3.57 miles) Dover. The existing bike lane needs to be continued along the full length of the road, including through the intersections. 110

US 113 is the main north-south route through Milford, US 113 - From SR1 south through connecting numerous shopping areas. The road has no Milford Milford (2.7 miles) bicycle facilities, no shoulders, and fast, heavy auto traffic. A bike lane needs to be marked and/or added. Kenton Road is a key commuting route for residents northwest of Dover, as well as a key route for recreational bicyclists. The road has no bicycle facilities DE 8 to Denny’s Road and no or narrow shoulders and heavy, fast-moving Kenton Road (2.35 miles) automobile traffic. Lane width should be reallocated and the road widened if necessary to add a bike lane, including adding bike lane markings at the intersection with DE 8. Part of the St. Jones Greenway trail system the causeway connects from the Hunn Family Farm House to the Lebanon Landing Boat Ramp. From there a pedestrian bridge crosses over the St. Jones River to Old Lebanon Road. This road can be used by bicycles for Between DE 10 and the approximately 2 miles until the path is blocked by the Sorghum Mill Hunn Property (1.65 DAFB housing project. Sorghum Mill Road continues Road miles) west to the small town of Lebanon and continues to multiple housing developments (Locust Grove, Eagle Meadow, and Quail Landing) as well as an elementary school, a middle school and the John S. Charlton facility. The causeway needs to be widened and a bike lane added. A significant recreational biking road which is also used by horse and buggies and large trucks. The road has no Pearsons Between DE 8 and DE 42 bicycle facilities, no shoulders and moderate automobile Corner Road volume. Pearsons Corner Road needs to be widened to add striped shoulders. Chestnut Grove Road is a main connector route, used by automobiles, bicycles, and horse and buggies, from Chestnut Grove Between Kenton Road west of Dover to the northern commercial areas on US Road and DE 8 (2.59 miles) 13. The road has no bike facilities, no shoulders, and fast, moderate volume auto traffic. The road needs to be widened and striped shoulders added. DE 12 is a main mid-county east-west bicycling route. From Felton to the West of Felton, the road has no bike facilities, no DE 12 Maryland line (10.75 shoulders, and fast, moderate volume auto traffic. The miles) road needs to be widened and striped shoulders added. This segment of DE 15, a major north-south bicycling route, has no bike facilities, no shoulders, and fast, From Viola to Airport moderate volume auto traffic. The road needs to be DE 15 Road (5.72 miles) widened and striped shoulders added. 111

Intersections Needing Bike Lanes or Directional Markings US 13 is a four-lane divided highway with a median. US 13 Length of Kent County Traffic volumes along this highway are high, and the posted speed is 50 mph. DE 12 US 13 is a four-lane divided highway with a median. Intersection with US 13 in Traffic volumes along this highway are high, and the Felton posted speed is 50 mph. Warner Road (K406) & US 113 - traffic volumes are heavy along this segment of US 113. As Warner Road Intersection of Warner Rd Rehoboth Blvd crosses US 113 right where it forks between US 113 and (K406) & US113 SR 14, the geometry of the intersection may confuse bicyclists traveling through the area for the first time. 10th Street, Intersections with US 113 No bicycle facilities. 10th Street is a city-planned bike Milford and SR1 route. DE 6 - Smyrna Intersection of DE 6 and There are only two narrow lanes (10 feet) with turn US 13 lanes. There is no shoulder or extra space available for bicycle travel. At its intersection with US 13, US 13 is a divided Intersections with US13, highway, with restaurants located in the median. The DE 14 US113, SR1 access points to these restaurants may create conflicts with bicycle traffic. US 113A, S. Voshell Mill Rd north to No bike facilities at most intersections, fast auto traffic State St. SR 1 No bike facilities through intersections, fast, heavy auto DE 42 Kenton to Cheswold traffic Road Segments Identified for Sharrows US 13 south to US 13, including intersections with State St. - Dover Walker Rd, Division St, Loockerman St, North St, and Water St. (3.00 miles) Walker Rd to Water St, including intersections at Governors Ave - Dover Division St and Loockerman St. (1.35 miles) Division St. - Dover US 13 to RR (1.53 miles) Loockerman St. - Dover Division to US 13 (1.36 miles) DE 10 - Camden/Wyoming US 13 to railroad on west side of Wyoming BICYCLE ROUTE 3 - Harrington Within Harrington (3.55 miles) 112

Off-Road Bicycle Paths This connector would create a link through the center Silver Lake/St. Jones of the state’s capitol from the Silver Lake trail (.5 mi) 1.7 miles Connector and the St. Jones trail (2.66 miles) with very few road crossings. The Camden to Dover Trail would connect from 4 - 4.5 miles, Camden-Wyoming Ave to North St in Dover. The Camden to Dover Trail depending upon Trail would also provide connections to other on road the final route facilities, and an additional connection to the proposed SR 10 trail would help to provide a loop. One side of the The Route 10 trail would run from the St. Jones road - 2.7 miles Greenway to US 13 . Route 10 Trail Both sides of the road - 5.4 miles The Smyrna to Clayton Trail would connect existing trails around schools and parks to communities of Smyrna-Clayton Trail 1.35 miles Smyrna and Clayton. The trail would also link to the proposed trail to Easton, MD. Smyrna-Big Oak Park The trail would provide a connection between Smyrna 2.20 miles Connection and Big Oak County Park east of SR 1. The Clayton to Easton recreational rail trail would Clayton, DE to Easton, 27 miles in connect Marydel, Hartley and Clayton with MD Trail Delaware Greensboro, Goldsboro and Easton, Maryland. The Dover Air Base Trail will run along the Route 1 Dover Air Force Base section of the outside of the Dover AFB fence line 1.02 miles Trail extending from the North Gate Intersection to the Main Gate. 113

114

APPENDIX E PUBLIC COMMENT 115

116

APPENDIX E: PUBLIC COMMENT There were three comments made to the MPO during the 30-day public comment period. 1. Dover Air Force Base recommended an off-road project along Route 1 from the North Gate intersection to the Main Gate. The proposed project has been included as Off-Road Project #3. 2. Mr. Michael Tholstrup, a Dover resident, recommended bicycle facilities for West Denney’s Road connecting Kenton Road and Delaware Technical and Community College. (original e-mail text included in this appendix) The West Denney’s Road project has been prioritized and included as on-road project #3. 3. Mr. James Wilson of Bike Delaware recommended that DelDOT or the MPO undertake a planning study to further evaluate the feasibility of a Dover-Smyrna multi-use path. (original e-mail text included in this appendix) 117

Recommendation for West Denney’s Road - Received 8/12/11 I live in the Mill Creek development, at the corner of McKee Rd. and West Denney's Rd. and would like to suggest an addition to the regional bike plan. West Denney's Rd. is currently a narrow 2-lane road with no shoulder and represents the northern border of the city limit. Unfortunately, the nearest access from the residential neighborhoods on W. Denney's Rd. to DART bus service is located at the Del-Tech campus. However, residents are forced to cross an at-grade railroad crossing and a sharp blind curve that make it unsafe for pedestrian or bicycle traffic. The new facilities I'm suggesting should connect Kenton Rd. with the existing multi-use trail at the Delaware Technical College, Terry Campus, along W. Denney's Rd. There are currently 4 neighborhood developments along this section of W. Denney's Rd. and It is my understanding that two more have been planned at the corner of McKee and W. Denney's Rd. (as well as annexation of those sites). For these reasons I think that this is a prime route/location for inclusion in your long range regional bike plan. Thank You, Michael Tholstrup 118

Bike DE Comments received 8/20/11 In May, the 146th Delaware General Assembly unanimously passed "Walkable, Bikeable Delaware", a Resolution which directs the state to build “multi-use paths for pedestrian and bicycle user travel within and between cities and towns in Delaware on independent right-of-way outside of the right-of-way of existing roadways.” In June, to fulfill the promise of that Resolution, the General Assembly voted $5,000,000 for state bike routes. The decision by the General Assembly to make an unprecedented investment of public funds in "off- alignment" multi-use paths between cities and towns was justified by the General Assembly on the grounds that safe, convenient and enjoyable routes for walking and bicycling - provide cost-effective transportation options for Delaware families, - can help spur economic development, and - will promote physical activity, which helps maintain a healthy weight, preventing heart disease, type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases. Kent County's two largest cities are Dover and Smyrna. An off-alignment multi-use path between these cities, passing through and near major population and employment centers is the obvious candidate in Kent County to take advantage of the unprecedented new funds voted by the General Assembly. Just as we worked hard to secure the $5,000,000 in state bike route funds, Bike Delaware is now working equally hard to make sure those funds are used to advance projects to connect cities for walking and bicycling up and down the state. Last Thursday, the WILMAPCO Technical Advisory Committee voted to add the first of those projects, an off-alignment multi-use path connecting Wilmington to New Castle, to the FY2012 TIP for New Castle County. $120,000 of the new state bike route money will be used to leverage $480,000 in federal transportation matching funds. On this coming Tuesday, the Sussex County Council will likely vote to recommend adding an off-alignment multi-use path between Georgetown and Lewes to its list of transportation priorities for inclusion in the FY2012 STIP, with state bike route money again used to leverage federal transportation matching funds. The money voted by the General Assembly is for state bike routes, however. It was not the intention of the General Assembly and Governor - nor would it be fair - to split these funds between New Castle and Sussex, while Kent County is left out. Bike Delaware would like to see substantial funding for a Dover-to-Smyrna multi-use path included in the FY2013 TIP. We are prepared to bring the same laser focus to making sure that happens that we are now bringing to projects in New Castle and Sussex Counties. It would make our job easier, however, (and make it more likely that Kent County will not get left out) if a Dover-to-Smyrna off- alignment multi-use path is included in your bicycle plan. Warm regards, James Wilson Executive Director BIKE DELAWARE 722-4591 ext. 6 "Bikeway networks that everyone can use to get where they want to go on a bike." Visit us at http://www.bikede.org/ 119