App PB 24 01 West Essex Highlands LLC Traffic Review 1 20240726

JOHN H. ALLGAIR, PE, PP, LS (1983-2001) DAVID J. SAMUEL, PE, PP, CME JOHN J. STEFANI, PE, LS, PP, CME JAY B. CORNELL, PE, PP, CME MICHAEL J. McCLELLAND, PE, PP, CME GREGORY R. VALESI, PE, PP, CME MEMORANDUM To: Chairman and Members of the West Orange Planning Board From: Kevin E. Chen, P.E., PTOE HEL Office of the Planning Board Engineer Date: July 26, 2024 Re: Application No. PB 24-01 West Essex Highlands, LLC Traffic Impact Study and Site Plan — Review #1 Proposed 496 Multi-Family Residential Units Block 179, Lot 32 Our File No.: 115.WRP0179.V01 CC: Geniece Gary-Adams — Zoning Official Zayibeth Carballo, P.E., P.L.S., P.P., C.M.E., CFM, CFS — Township Engineer Diana McGovern, Esq. — Planning Board Attorney John J. Hess, P.E., P.P., C.M.E. —- Planning Board Engineer George Wheatle Williams, P.P. - Planning Board Planner West Essex Highlands, LLC - Applicant Bryan D. Plocker, Esq. — Applicant’s Attorney Paul W. Anderson, P.E., Applicant’s Engineer Laurance D. Appel, RA — Applicant's Architect Karl A. Pehnke, P.E., PTOE — Applicant’s Traffic Engineer John McDonough, P.P., LA— Applicant's Planner Jeffrey S. Gunn - Applicant’s Surveyor We have performed our review of the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the above referenced West Essex Highlands Residential Development Apartments. The following documents were received by our office via email: A. Traffic Impact Study for West Essex Highlands Township of West Orange, Essex County, New Jersey, prepared by Kari A. Pehnke, P.E., and Eric J. Viloria, P.E., of Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., dated June 19, 2024. B. “Preliminary and Final Site Plan West Essex Highlands”, prepared by Paul W. Anderson, P.E., of Anderson Consulting Services, Inc., last revised June 24, 2024. Cc. Settlement of Litigation Agreement between West Essex Highlands, Inc., Township of West Orange, and West Essex Highlands Condominium Association, Inc., dated April 23, 2020 CONSULTING AND MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS \ NJ CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 24GA28359000 ] 3141 BORDENTOWN AVENUE e PARLIN, NEW JERSEY 08859-1162 e (732) 727-8000 BRUCE M. KOCH, PE, PP, CME LOUIS J. PLOSKONKA, PE, CME TREVOR J. TAYLOR, PE, PP, CME BEHRAM TURAN, PE, LSRP- LAURA J, NEUMANN, PE, PP DOUGLAS ROHMEYER, PE, CFM, CME ROBERT J. RUSSO, PE, PP, CME JOHN J. HESS, PE, PP, CME KEITH CHIARAVALLO, PE, CME

Chairman and Members of the West Orange Planning Board West Orange Planning Board Re: Traffic Impact Study and Site Plan – Review #1 West Essex Highlands, LLC July 26, 2024 Our File No. 115.WRP0179.V01 Page 2 It is our understanding that this application is under the auspices of a settlement agreement dated April 23, 2020. The Applicant is proposing 496 Multi-Family Residential Units in six (6) 4-story buildings located in the Township of West Orange with proposed access to the development via direct extension of Warner Road. The plans currently depict an extension of Kuzik Drive with a swinging gate to allow emergency access only, and an extension of Howell Drive with a swinging gate to allow emergency access only. We have the following comments relative to the Traffic Impact Study prepared for this proposed development: 1. This traffic review is limited to traffic, site circulation, intersection sight distances, parking, and off-site improvements related to such. All other issues are deferred to the respective professionals. 2. It should be noted that County Route 611 (Eagle Rock Avenue) is a roadway under the jurisdiction of Essex County and that approval from the Essex County Planning Board may be required. 3. The Applicant’s Engineer conducted manual turning movement counts at the following locations on Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at the following times: a. Eagle Rock Avenue (County Route 611) and Laurel Avenue (County Route 634) – 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm b. Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road – 7am to 7pm c. Eagle Rock Avenue and Crestmont Country Club Driveway – 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm d. Eagle Rock Avenue and Crestmont Country Club Driveway – 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm It should be noted that a previous traffic study was performed in 2018 and was included as an attachment to the current traffic study. The Applicant’s Engineer indicated that the 2024 counts are comparable to the 2018 traffic counts, the previous traffic study indicated that the levels of service were D or better for all movements, and with the reduction in proposed development from 683 to 496 units, the amount of traffic proposed at the internal intersections will be less than previously studied and the internal traffic intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service during the no-build and build conditions. We reviewed the 2018 traffic volumes from the previous

previously studied and the internal traffic intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service during the no-build and build conditions. We reviewed the 2018 traffic volumes from the previous traffic study and the 2024 traffic

Chairman and Members of the West Orange Planning Board West Orange Planning Board Re: Traffic Impact Study and Site Plan – Review #1 West Essex Highlands, LLC July 26, 2024 Our File No. 115.WRP0179.V01 Page 3 volumes from the Applicant’s current traffic study, and we did not arrive at the same conclusions. The AM Peak Hour traffic along Eagle Rock Avenue was generally less in 2024 versus 2018 and the PM Peak Hour Traffic along Eagle Rock Avenue was generally more westbound and less eastbound in 2024 vs 2018. The Applicant’s Engineer should provide testimony on this issue. 4. The Applicant’s Engineer generated trips based on the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation and indicated that for the 496 proposed Mid-Rise Multi-Family Residential Units there are 207 expected AM Peak Hour Trips and 194 expected PM Peak Hour Trips to be added to the network. We reviewed the trip generation calculations and take no exception to same. 5. The Applicant’s Engineer indicated that they grew the existing traffic volumes 3 years at a background growth rate of 1.75% to establish the 2027 No-Build Traffic Volumes. The Applicant’s Engineer should include any nearby adjacent, approved but not yet constructed developments in the No-Build Traffic Volumes, if any, and revise the calculations, delays, levels of service, and conclusions as necessary. 6. The Applicant’s Engineer indicated that the Build Conditions were analyzed with following mitigations in place: a. Signalization of the currently unsignalized intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road, including widening the eastbound Eagle Rock Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane; modifying the westbound Eagle Rock Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane; restriping the Oval Road southbound approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. b. Relocate the existing exit-only Crestmont Country Club North Driveway along Eagle Rock Avenue to be located opposite Oval Road and converted into a twoway driveway c. At the signalized intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Laurel Avenue, extend the westbound left turn lane d. Coordinate the signal timings of the existing signalized intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Laurel

ized intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Laurel Avenue, extend the westbound left turn lane d. Coordinate the signal timings of the existing signalized intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Laurel Avenue and the proposed signalized intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road / Crestmont Country Club North Driveway

Chairman and Members of the West Orange Planning Board West Orange Planning Board Re: Traffic Impact Study and Site Plan – Review #1 West Essex Highlands, LLC e. July 26, 2024 Our File No. 115.WRP0179.V01 Page 4 At the signalized intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Laurel Avenue, increase the maximum cycle length to 90 seconds for both the AM and PM Peak Hours The Applicant’s Engineer should indicate how the Crestmont Country Club North Driveway northbound approach will be configured for the intersection. It should be noted that Item #21 of Exhibit D of the Settlement Agreement indicates that West Essex Highlands, Inc. will obtain approval for and install a traffic signal at the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road. It is our understanding that the traffic signal will be part of a separate planning board application. Should this application for the 496 multifamily residential units be approved, it should be a condition of approval that the traffic signal at the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road be built prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. 7. The Applicant’s Engineer indicated that the levels of service under the Build Conditions for all movements is projected to be a Level of Service D or better for both AM and PM Peak Hours. We take no exceptions to this conclusion. 8. The Applicant’s Engineer provided a warrant analysis indicating that Warrants 1, 2, and 3 of the Current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control devices are met. We reviewed the warrants and the volumes in the warrant analysis and were not able to correlate the traffic volumes from the traffic counts to the traffic volumes utilized in the warrant analyses. The Applicant’s Engineer should provide an explanation of how the traffic volumes in the warrant analyses were calculated. The Applicant’s Engineer should review the warrant analysis calculations and revise them as necessary. 9. It should be noted that the settlement agreement indicates the Concept Plan had Kuzik Drive as a means of access ingress/egress and there was discussion within the agreement as to the status of Kuzik Drive going forward in this application as a point of access with respect to RSIS. It should be noted that the plan on sheet SP-7 currently shows a swinging gate on Kuzik Drive. The Applicant’s Engineer should provide testimony on the intentions of Kuzik Drive with respect

to RSIS. It should be noted that the plan on sheet SP-7 currently shows a swinging gate on Kuzik Drive. The Applicant’s Engineer should provide testimony on the intentions of Kuzik Drive with respect to the proposed application and include in the testimony compliance with RSIS. 10. The Applicant’s Engineer provided parking requirement calculations on Sheet SP-3 that are based on RSIS. We take no exception to the parking requirement calculations shown. 11. The Applicant’s Engineer provided parking spaces counts on Sheet SP-3 that do not align with the plans on several instances as follows:

Chairman and Members of the West Orange Planning Board West Orange Planning Board Re: Traffic Impact Study and Site Plan – Review #1 West Essex Highlands, LLC July 26, 2024 Our File No. 115.WRP0179.V01 Page 5 a. On Sheet SP-6, 175 parking spaces under building and 90 parking spaces on the surface are shown on the plan for Buildings A.1 and A.2. The table in SP-3 for Building C indicates 175 parking spaces under the building and 90 parking spaces on the surface. We take no exception to the provided parking in Buildings A.1 and A.2. b. On Sheet SP-5, 73 parking spaces under building and 48 parking spaces on the surface are shown on the plan for Building B. The table in SP-3 for Building B indicates 73 parking spaces under the building and 68 parking spaces on the surface. The Applicant’s Engineer should resolve the discrepancy. c. On Sheet SP-5, 156 parking spaces under building and 104 parking spaces on the surface are shown on the plan for Building C. The table in SP-3 for Building C indicates 205 parking spaces under the building and 84 parking spaces on the surface. There is a 32 parking space marker and an 8 parking space marker that appears to be incorrect (26 and 4 parking spaces respectively shown) and there are two parking space subcounts of 11 and 28 that appear to be extraneous. The Applicant’s Engineer should resolve the discrepancy. d. On Sheet SP-5, 55 parking spaces on the surface are shown on the plan for the clubhouse. The table note 5 in SP-3 indicates that clubhouse parking of 55 spaces is included in the unit counts, but there are no separate entries for clubhouse units in the parking provided column of the table. The Applicant’s Engineer should resolve the discrepancy. e. On Sheet SP-5, 40 parking spaces under a building are shown on the plan Under Building C. The table note 5 in SP-3 indicates that clubhouse parking of 40 spaces is included in the unit counts, but there are no separate entries for clubhouse units in the parking provided column of the table and it appears that these 40 spaces may have been counted twice in calculating under building parking for Building C. The Applicant’s Engineer should resolve the discrepancy. f. On Sheet SP-6, 17 parking spaces on the surface are shown on the plan for the dog park. The table note 5 in SP-3 indicates that dog park parking of 18 spaces is included in the unit counts, but

. f. On Sheet SP-6, 17 parking spaces on the surface are shown on the plan for the dog park. The table note 5 in SP-3 indicates that dog park parking of 18 spaces is included in the unit counts, but there are no separate entries for dog park parking spaces. The Applicant’s Engineer should resolve the discrepancy. g. On Sheet SP-10, 92 parking spaces under building and 13 parking spaces on the surface are shown on the plan for Building D.1. The table in SP-3 for Building D.1

Chairman and Members of the West Orange Planning Board West Orange Planning Board Re: Traffic Impact Study and Site Plan – Review #1 West Essex Highlands, LLC July 26, 2024 Our File No. 115.WRP0179.V01 Page 6 indicates 147 parking spaces under the building and 41 parking spaces on the surface. The Applicant’s Engineer should resolve the discrepancy. h. 12. On Sheet SP-9, 97 parking spaces under building and 61 parking spaces on the surface are shown on the plan (the 27 parking space subcount appears to be erroneous as 25 parking spaces are shown in that area) for Building D.2. The table in SP-3 for Building D.2 indicates 146 parking spaces under the building and 41 parking spaces on the surface. There is also an extraneous 106 parking count marker on the plans. The Applicant’s Engineer should resolve the discrepancy. The Applicant’s Engineer provided ADA parking spaces for the different buildings as follows: a. The Applicant’s Engineer should add ADA Parking compliance calculations and ADA parking proposed to the parking table on SP-3. b. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 8 ADA parking spaces for the 265 parking space facility covering Buildings A.1 and A.2 where 7 ADA parking spaces are required. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes at least 4 van accessible parking spaces where 2 van Accessible parking spaces are required. The Applicant’s Engineer should indicate the dimensions of the proposed ADA parking spaces under Buildings A.1 and A.2. We take no exception to the ADA parking spaces pending confirmation of those dimensions. Should the parking for A.1 and A.2 be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the ADA parking as necessary to meet the regulations for ADA parking spaces. c. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 1 ADA parking spaces for the 17 parking space facility covering the proposed dog park where 1 ADA parking spaces are required. As it is the only ADA parking space in this parking facility, the ADA parking space proposed shall be a van accessible parking space. The Applicant’s Engineer should indicate the dimensions of the proposed ADA parking spaces in the parking facility for the proposed dog park. We take no exception to the ADA parking spaces pending confirmation of those dimensions. Should the parking for the proposed dog park be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the ADA parking as necessary to meet the