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

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