November 29, 2012

acceptable after the project was completed. Additionally, Mr. Intinola said he re-ran the Levels of Service based on Mr. Keller’s memorandum dated November 26, 2012 and got similar results; it was now a left-hand site; the driveways would be able to accommodate deliveries; he stated the revised. plan was one of the better site plans for deliveries. Mr. Del Vecchio asked Mr. Intinola if there was any negative impact regarding the revised plan. Mr. Intinola said the prior site condition had three movements; the new plan eliminated one movement creating an overall improvement. The option of the two driveways would accommodate the oddity of visual sight coming off Route 280. Additionally there would be greater ease making the left turn from Route 10; the way the site was situated, two-way access was the best plan. Mr. Del Vecchio and Mr, Intinola discussed Mr. Keller’s memorandum dated November 26, 2012. Regarding Item #6, Mr. Intinola advised he had conducted Saturday traffic counts. Addressing Items #7 and #8, Mr. Intinola said that fewer motorists would attempt to make left turns into the site if the turn was inconvenient. Per Item #9, Mr. Intinola said a .8 peak hour factor (PHF) would not change his conclusion that the Level of Service would remain acceptable. Regarding Item #10, Mr. Intinola said he had examined Mr. Keller’s concern about simultaneous left turns from the southern driveway and out of Mount Pleasant Place; he did not believe there would be any conflict. Mr. Eben inquired about the intersection of Mt. Pleasant Avenue and Pleasant Valley Way; all signals had different timers, individual phasing, and that he had experienced being backed up to the site’s driveway; he wondered if it would be a problem for the retailer’s customers to get in to the traffic flow. Mr, Intinola said that the beauty of the new plan was that a motorist could make the decision to take either way in or out of the site. Councilwoman McCartney voiced concern about pedesirian safety and inquired if there would be a sidewalk; additionally she inquired if there was restrictive signage on Mt. Pleasant Place. Mr. Intinola said that a sidewalk was planned for the site. The Board determined that there was signage on Mt, Pleasant Place regarding ambulance access. Mc. Carlucci had no questions for Mr. Intinola. Mr. Weston asked for confirmation that the Level of Service was B;

determined that there was signage on Mt, Pleasant Place regarding ambulance access. Mc. Carlucci had no questions for Mr. Intinola. Mr. Weston asked for confirmation that the Level of Service was B; Mr. intinola indicated the Level of Service for Mount Pleasant Place was B; but the Level of Service for Pleasant Valley Way and Mount Pleasant Avenue was D or better. Mr. Weston voiced concern that drivers would make a quick left in to the site making the driver behind the turning vehicle stop short. He questioned if making a left turn would create a potential hazard. Mr. Intinola stated he did not believe there would be a problem making left turns. Mr. Gurland said he was concerned with three views: north, south and from Mt. Pleasant Place. Mr. Klein inquired if it would be possible to make the southern driveway flow right-in and right-out only. Mr. Intinola said he believed the proposed plan called for the most accessibility. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Intinola. Manuel Lin, 938 Pleasant Valley Way. Referring to the traffic study, Mr. Lin asked if there was a plan to control traffic flow once the project was completed. He stated that there were at least two accidents a year when the site was previously occupied; accidents now occurred to the south side NAPLANNING, BRDWEPIMINUTESI20121-29-2012 Spacial Meeting Minuies.doc