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

he 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 regulations for ADA parking spaces. d. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 4 ADA parking spaces for the 121 (73 + 48) parking space facility covering Building B where 5 ADA parking spaces are required. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes at least 2 van accessible parking spaces where 1 van Accessible parking spaces are required. The Applicant’s

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 7 Engineer should indicate the dimensions of the proposed ADA parking spaces in the parking facility under Building B. The Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with ADA regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building B be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the ADA parking as necessary to meet the regulations for ADA parking spaces. e. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 5 ADA parking spaces for the 260 (156 + 104) parking space facility covering Building C where 7 ADA parking spaces are required. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes at least 2 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 in the parking facility under Building C. The Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with ADA regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building C be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the ADA parking as necessary to meet the regulations for ADA parking spaces. f. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 ADA parking spaces for the 95 (55 + 40) parking space facility covering the clubhouse where 4 ADA parking spaces are required. No dimensions are given so it is not known if the ADA parking spaces proposed are van accessible parking spaces, and at least 1 of the 4 accessible parking spaces is required to be van accessible. The Applicant’s Engineer should indicate the dimensions of the proposed ADA parking spaces for the clubhouse. The Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with ADA regulations. Should the parking for the proposed clubhouse be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the ADA parking as necessary to meet the regulations for ADA parking spaces. g. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 6 ADA parking spaces for the 105 (92 + 13) parking space facility covering Building D.1 where 5 ADA parking spaces are required. No dimensions are given so it is not known if the ADA parking spaces proposed are van accessible parking spaces, and at least 1 of the 6 accessible parking spaces is required to be van accessible. The Applicant’s Engineer should indicate

known if the ADA parking spaces proposed are van accessible parking spaces, and at least 1 of the 6 accessible parking spaces is required to be van accessible. The Applicant’s Engineer should indicate the dimensions of the proposed ADA parking spaces for Building D.1. The Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with ADA regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building D.1 be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the ADA parking as necessary to meet the regulations for ADA parking spaces. h. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 ADA parking spaces for the 158 (97 + 61) parking space facility covering Building D.2 where 6 ADA parking spaces are

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 8 required. No dimensions are given so it is not known if the ADA parking spaces proposed are van accessible parking spaces, and at least 1 of the 2 accessible parking spaces is required to be van accessible. The Applicant’s Engineer should indicate the dimensions of the proposed ADA parking spaces for Building D.2. The Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with ADA regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building D.2 be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the ADA parking as necessary to meet the regulations for ADA parking spaces. 13. The Applicant’s Engineer provided EV parking spaces for the different buildings as follows: a. The Applicant’s Engineer should add EV parking calculations and EV parking proposed to the parking table on SP-3. Should the Applicant’s Engineer calculate EV parking credits per State Requirements, the credits shall be calculated toward the parking requirement with a 10% hard cap on the parking credit. The Applicant should include calculations for ADA Make-Ready parking spaces as per State regulations on EV parking. b. Note 2 on The Parking Table on SP-3 indicates EV parking spaces will be provided for 5% of parking spaces on site. The Regulations require at least 15% of offstreet parking spaces to be make-ready, and at least 1/3 of the Make-Ready parking spaces be outfitted with EV equipment. The Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plans to propose additional make-ready or EV parking spaces and should provide testimony on this subject, including but not limited to the timeline of installation. c. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 4 EV parking spaces for the 265 parking space facility covering Buildings A.1 and A.2 where 40 Make-Ready parking spaces are required (265 * 15% = 39.75, rounded up to 40). Of those 40 Make-Ready parking spaces, at least 14 shall be EV parking spaces upon completion of construction (39.75 * 1/3 = 13.25, rounded up to 14). Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with EV parking regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building A.1 and A.2 be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the EV parking as necessary to meet the

vise the plan to comply with EV parking regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building A.1 and A.2 be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the EV parking as necessary to meet the regulations for EV parking space. d. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 EV parking spaces for the 17 parking space facility covering the proposed dog park where 3 EV parking spaces are required (17 * 15% = 2.55, rounded up to 3). Of those 3 Make-Ready parking spaces, at least 1 shall be EV parking spaces upon completion of construction (2.55 * 1/3 = 0.85, rounded up to 1). The Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply

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 9 with EV parking regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building B be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the EV parking as necessary to meet the regulations for EV parking spaces. e. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 EV parking spaces for the 121 (73 + 48) parking space facility covering Building B where 19 Make-Ready parking spaces are required (121 * 15% = 18.15, rounded up to 19). Of those 19 Make-Ready parking spaces, at least 7 shall be EV parking spaces upon completion of construction (18.15 * 1/3 = 6.05, rounded up to 7). Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with EV parking regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building B be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the EV parking as necessary to meet the regulations for EV parking space. f. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 EV parking spaces for the 260 (156 + 104) parking space facility covering Building C where 39 Make-Ready parking spaces are required (260 * 15% = 39). Of those 39 Make-Ready parking spaces, at least 13 shall be EV parking spaces upon completion of construction (15 * 1/3 = 5). Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with EV parking regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building C be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the EV parking as necessary to meet the regulations for EV parking spaces. g. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 EV parking spaces for the 95 (55 + 40) parking space facility covering the clubhouse where 15 Make-Ready parking spaces are required (95 * 15% = 14.25, rounded up to 15). Of those 15 MakeReady parking spaces, at least 5 shall be EV parking spaces upon completion of construction (14.25 * 1/3 = 4.75, rounded up to 5). Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with EV parking regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Clubhouse be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the EV parking as necessary to meet the regulations for EV parking spaces. h. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 EV parking spaces for the 105 (92 + 13) parking space facility covering Building D.1 where 16 Make-Ready parking spaces are required (105 * 15% =

rking spaces. h. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 EV parking spaces for the 105 (92 + 13) parking space facility covering Building D.1 where 16 Make-Ready parking spaces are required (105 * 15% = 15.75, rounded up to 16). Of those 16 Make-Ready parking spaces, at least 6 shall be EV parking spaces upon completion of construction (15.75 * 1/3 = 5.25, rounded up to 6). Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with EV parking regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building D.1 be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the EV parking as necessary to meet the regulations for EV parking spaces.

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 i. July 26, 2024 Our File No. 115.WRP0179.V01 Page 10 The Applicant’s Engineer proposes 2 EV parking spaces for the 158 (97 + 61) parking space facility covering Building D.2 where 24 Make-Ready parking spaces are required (158 * 15% = 23.7, rounded up to 24). Of those 24 Make-Ready parking spaces, at least 8 shall be EV parking spaces upon completion of construction (23.7 * 1/3 = 7.9, rounded up to 8). Applicant’s Engineer should revise the plan to comply with EV parking regulations. Should the parking for the proposed Building D.2 be revised, the Applicant’s Engineer should revise the EV parking as necessary to meet the regulations for EV parking spaces. 14. The Applicant’s Engineer should propose EV parking signs and markings for proposed EV parking signs. 15. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes tandem parking within the various buildings. The Applicant’s Engineer should provide testimony on the expected operations of the proposed tandem parking. 16. The Applicant should propose a detail of the Keep Right sign proposed in the roundabout adjacent to Building A.2. The Applicant’s Engineer should also address a potential conflict between roundabout traffic and the 2 parking spaces proposed. 17. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes a clockwise roundabout adjacent to the clubhouse. The Applicant’s Engineer should explain the proposed circulation here. If one-way circulation patterns are proposed, the appropriate signs should be proposed on the plans and detailed, such as but not limited to one way and do not enter signs. 18. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes a multi-lane roundabout to the south of the proposed clubhouse at the intersection of Warner Road, Kuzik Drive, and Road D. The Applicant’s Engineer should give testimony on the proposed roundabout. It should be noted that there is only one receiving lane on each exit of the roundabout and proposing a two-lane exit into each roundabout approach may be inappropriate. The roundabout should be designed in accordance with the MUTCD. 19. The Applicant’s Engineer should propose a detail of the R6-5P Keep Right around roundabout / Roundabout Circulation sign. 20. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes a one-way circulation adjacent to Building D.1. If

t’s Engineer should propose a detail of the R6-5P Keep Right around roundabout / Roundabout Circulation sign. 20. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes a one-way circulation adjacent to Building D.1. If oneway circulation patterns are proposed, the appropriate signs should be proposed on the plans and detailed, such as but not limited to one way and do not enter signs.

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 11 21. The Applicant’s Engineer proposes an offset roundabout at the end of Road D. The Applicant’s Engineer should give testimony on the proposed roundabout. The roundabout should be designed in accordance with the MUTCD. It should be noted that there is a lack of deflection proposes for vehicles approaching this roundabout on Road D. 22. The Applicant’s Engineer should provide a sight triangle for all of the proposed stop sign and stop line locations within the proposed development. The Applicant’s Engineer should review the sight triangles to ensure that no existing or proposed objects will obstruct sight triangles. The intersection sight distance triangles provided should be in accordance with the latest AASHTO guidelines. 23. The Applicant’s Engineer should propose a stop line and double yellow centerline for any driveway intersecting with Warner Road, Kuzik Drive, and Road D. 24. The Applicant’s Engineer should design the proposed curb ramps, sidewalks, warning surfaces, and crosswalks, to meet the latest ADA and MUTCD requirements. The Applicant’s Engineer should provide landing areas as required before and after the curb ramps at the appropriate slopes and the locations of the proposed detectable warning surfaces should be clearly indicated. This ADA compliance issue should be reviewed relative to all ramps, sidewalks, crosswalks, pushbuttons, and pedestrian signal heads currently proposed under this project. 25. The design and placement of all traffic signs and striping shall follow the requirements specified in “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,” published by the U.S. Department of Transportation and adopted by the N.J. Department of Transportation. 26. The Applicant’s Engineer should provide a site circulation plan showing the travel paths of the design vehicles (garbage truck/fire truck/rescue squad/delivery trucks) to verify that the on-site circulation is adequate for the required service and emergency vehicle access. 27. Fire lanes and striping would be subject to the approval of the Fire Subcode Official. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to