O28 Litwornia West Essex Highlands Traffic Report 82225 FINAL

parking spots per unit. RSIS also requires 0.5 spots per residential unit for visitors. We used 1.9 parking spaces for all units for this analysis. We computed the spaces required by the units in each building adding resident’s requirement to visitor’s requirement. We then counted all the parking spaces shown in the drawings. We then computed the required spaces and compared that total to the provided spaces. There are 4 buildings with residential units and we find all 4 meet the RSIS requirement as shown on SP-3 of the most recent engineering drawing set. We are in agreement with the CME assessment of parking including the deficiency of EV spaces. Recent regulations require 15% of the parking be “make ready for future installation and 1/3 of them operational EV stations. This would prevent tandem parking.

Page 9 Residential parking is a very important aspect of mid-rise apartment complexes. Furthermore this site is isolated from any shopping where residents could walk, this project is not on any bus route, there are no train stations in walking distance for access to the cities therefore parking space variance for either residents or visitors. Residents need motor vehicles to access all services required to live. The applicant proposes hundreds of tandem parking spaces in all four buildings. Tandem parking is not recommended in our opinion. The RSIS states in Section 5:21-1.5 that Planning Boards and Zoning Boards of Adjustment shall insure that any plans and plats comply with the requirements of these rules before issuing a preliminary or final application approval. The word used in the law is SHALL. This development cannot be approved as presently proposed because it violates many rules of the RSIS. The application should not be deemed complete until all the plats include all deed restrictions. More importantly, all property owners are a not part of the application. The roads are currently private. Since the owners are not a part of the application, this application cannot be considered complete and this application should not have been heard. In addition, a licensed surveyor must provide a recent complete site survey before the application can be heard. These plans cannot be approved as submitted. The applicant has provided a dualized roadway in areas that create cul-de-sacs within his new proposed area of development. The applicant has relied on this to create loop roadways using either side of the divided roadways into and/or out of the development. However, the roadways are shown to be 15 foot and 18 foot wide. To be allowed to meet the requirement of a two-way residential street, the roadways must be 20 feet in width on either side of the divider. Even if this is done, it should be remembered that there is still only one way into or out of the development. It should also be pointed out that the developer’s experts, its planner and traffic engineer, both insisted that they were providing loop roadways in the development at the end of the first divided entranceway. The traffic volume at the end of the first divided roadway would be approximately 2,728 vehicles per day using a volume of 5.5 trips per dwelling unit per the RSIS. Remember the present design

nceway. The traffic volume at the end of the first divided roadway would be approximately 2,728 vehicles per day using a volume of 5.5 trips per dwelling unit per the RSIS. Remember the present design requires all housing units to be accessed by driving to the end of the first divided streets. The RSIS states that loop roads will have a maximum traffic volume of 750 vehicles per day. The volume will determine the length of the loop road. Thus, this aspect of a loop roadway is not met. The development is over developed for the slope problem and the amount of housing units proposed. It appears that the maximum number of units would be 180 for this development to be in line with the RSIS as presently designed. Twice this many housing units already exist on West Orange tax maps, leaving no space to add 496 more housing units. The municipality should insist on having a minimum width of 20 feet on each side of the divided entranceway proposed. The RSIS states that the developer should agree on the street widths with the Township. This is a safety concern.

Page 10 De Minimis Exceptions To obtain a de minimis exception, the RSIS states in Section 5:21-3.1 that a municipal approving authority may grant such de minimis exceptions from the requirements of the site improvement standards as may be reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the standards, if the literal enforcement of one or more provisions of the standards is impracticable or will exact undue hardship because of the peculiar conditions pertaining to the development in question. To do this, the RSIS states in Section 5:21-3.1 (b), an application of an exception pursuant to this section shall be filed in writing with the municipal approving authority and shall include: 1. 2. 3. A statement of the requirements of the standards from which an exception is sought; A statement of the manner by which strict compliance with said provisions would result in practical difficulties; and A statement of the nature and extent of such practical difficulties. The applicant is not guaranteed a de minimis exception, and in this instance, the only justification is in the traffic report. The traffic report anchors its reasons for the granting of a de minimis exception to providing emergency access and utilization of existing roadways. The traffic report states that this de minimis exception is consistent with the intent of the act to provide for emergency access. This would also be true if the intent of the RSIS was to provide cul-de-sacs with large traffic volumes. The traffic volume proposed for this development would be 2.7 times (2.7x) what the RSIS standards are for a cul-de-sac and 4 times (4x) the amount of traffic at one point of a loop roadway. This is not a de minimis amount in our opinion, and should not be granted. The applicant has still not met the RSIS requirements. The applicant has not met or explained his need for: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Violating the width of the entrance way (divided roadway). Having loop road volumes over 750 vehicles at a single point. Violating the total volume of a Cul-de-sac since the other aspects of the RSIS are not met; this remains one large Cul-de-sac. Failure to provide the required EV charging stations. Failure to provide sidewalks on both sides of all the streets per RSIS requirements. Eagle Rock Avenue There are three problems with the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road.

Page 11 1. A New and Larger Cul-de-sac One new and larger Cul-de-sac is being created. The applicant also notes in his report that the Board may grant a de minimis exception for the length of cul-de-sac since the applicant is providing two emergency access points. However, the applicant is not addressing the fact that this entire development and the various streets connecting with it are all one huge cul-de-sac that meet on Oval Road at Eagle Rock Avenue. There are no other emergency roadways existing or proposed that will provide an alternate roadway into and out of the various existing developments. The proposed development will in effect, worsen and increase the possibility of access problems for residents in all three developments. It should be noted that the greater the traffic volume, the more traffic conflicts and the greater the possibility of an accident. Accidents would restrict access to this development. This was not addressed by the applicant and is a safety issue of the greatest concern to me. The additional traffic to the area should preclude the additional development of the proposed apartment units. This newly expanded Cul-de-sac, including the existing development of 300 dwelling units would be far in excess of the RSIS allowed traffic on Warner Road. With the proposed development, the trips on Warner Road leading onto Oval Road are estimated to increase to over 5,100 trips per day without any emergency access roadway or other alternate roadway connections. This creates a dangerous situation and is contrary to the intent of the RSIS and good planning in any community where the safety of the community is a concern. It is my opinion that since the divided roadway width is deficient and does not provide for two lanes of traffic on each side of the divided entranceway, with a minimum width of 20 feet on each side of the entrance way, a cul-de-sac will still be in place. 2. Intersection of Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue The applicant must provide a warrant analysis and bond for the installation of a traffic signal at Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue and have the signal installed prior to the issuance of CO’s to the new apartments. The applicant’s traffic consultant has stated in his traffic report that the intersection of Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue will soon be signalized. All of the traffic analyses in the traffic report assumed that

t’s traffic consultant has stated in his traffic report that the intersection of Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue will soon be signalized. All of the traffic analyses in the traffic report assumed that this intersection would be signalized when the proposed apartment units are in place. This would, in my mind, correlate with the granting of any certificates of occupancy. Therefore, if the Board should approve this development, any approvals should require the traffic signal to be installed prior to the granting of any certificates of occupancy,

Page 12 or an analysis of the intersection as an unsignalized intersection should be performed to show how the present intersection operates and what impact the proposed development would have on the intersection at buildout, if the signal is not installed. The analysis performed at the intersection of Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue as a signalized intersection did not take into account any progression analysis that may modify the traffic signal operation and require a minimum of green times on Eagle Rock Avenue. This may affect the level of service analysis on side streets entering Oval Road. This should also be addressed by the applicant. It should also be pointed out that the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road is approximately 450 feet from another signalized intersection, the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Laurel Avenue. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices states in Section 4C.07 that coordinated signal system warrants should not be applied where resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 1,000 feet apart. This is because signals spaced closer than 1,000 feet usually do not allow vehicles to platoon and progression of vehicles will not be successful. The proposed traffic signal at Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue will violate these criteria and it is doubtful that progression will be maintained in the area if this traffic signal is installed. The applicant has advised that a signal will be provided and that an authorization to design was provided, but there are no plans submitted in conjunction with this application. The applicant has not indicated that he will be paying for the signal or a part of the cost of the signal installation, but the signal will be required if this development is built. The analysis of this intersection should also be performed as an unsignalized intersection, or the project should only be approved with the condition that no certificates of occupancy could be granted without the traffic signal at the intersection of Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue installed and operational. 3. A Left Turn Lane on Eagle Rock Avenue at Oval Road The applicant should install a left turn lane on Eagle Rock Avenue. The traffic volumes warrant this improvement to assure safe entry into the development. This should be addressed by the applicant. In other words, it is recommended that a left turn lane

Rock Avenue. The traffic volumes warrant this improvement to assure safe entry into the development. This should be addressed by the applicant. In other words, it is recommended that a left turn lane be provided on Eagle Rock Avenue for traffic into Oval Road and the development. This should be done as soon as possible and included in the signal plan. TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES If this project is approved, traffic calming measures should be provided along the existing roadways in the development.

Page 13 EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADWAYS It should be noted that emergency access connections are proposed but are questionable because the land is deed restricted from any use but single family homes. The land there is also very highly sloped and not suitable for access. These connections should be paved and maintained. If they are not paved and maintained, which includes plowing in the winter, then they will be unavailable during emergencies. In addition, fire departments will not go over unplowed unpaved roadways for fear of bogging down and putting buildings and the public at risk if their equipment is not available. CONSTRUCTION CIRCULATION PLAN The only way in or out of the tract is from Eagle Rock Ave via Oval Road and then up Warner Road up through existing neighborhood. This is an unacceptable situation. Furthermore the only right of way for utilities is the same path and major disruptions will occur if this project is approved. STREET WIDTHS The applicant has stated that he may place the street widths that he wants on the plans in accordance with the RSIS. It should be pointed out to the Board that Section 5:21-4.1(d) states: “The municipality and the developer shall determine the highest order street required to be used in a given residential development. Sidewalks must be provided to meet ADA requirements for an accessible route between all housing units and facilities such as handicap parking spaces and EV charging stations.” Thus, the Board must require sidewalks and wider streets than were requested to be used by the developer. The Board can err on the side of safety and not provide minimal street widths requested by the developer. The applicant shows 24’ travel way widths with sidewalks on latest plans only in some areas close to the buildings. ROAD SLOPES RSIS Table 4.6 Street Grade, Curve, and Intersection Design Criteria. Specifically, Road “D” servicing Building D which has 177 units with 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units and parking for residents of all these units on a two level parking garage on one end and a one

Page 14 level parking garage on the other end. The garages have 3 entry and exits to the Road “D” that runs to the circle connecting to Warner Road the only exit road from Building “D”. Road “D” has sections where the travel lane grade is 10% which exceeds Table 4.6 grade limits for a major collector and is on the upper edge of a minor collector. Since Road “D” is a driveway and a dead end to a cul-de-sac this slope is objectionable. Further, the lower garage exit into Road “D” appears to intersect in the 10% slope region. Considering this is an intersection, Table 4.6 shows a limit of 5% slope on either street of the intersection required for 50 feet. This intersection is extremely unsafe. No grades over 10% should be allowed near the busy driveways to the parking garages. This is a huge safety issue. Kuzik Drive profile on SP-46 has slope of 9.7% also near to the intersection of the driveway into Building “A”. If Kuzik Drive is so sloped, then the driveway into the outdoor parking area is likely sloped just as much. Both conditions are safety issues, especially the intersection with Kuzik Drive. All driveways and intersecting roadways should have a maximum slope of 5% and be level for 100 feet from the intersection in each direction. Kuzik Drive has a 10% profile where it passes the entrance to the Clubhouse parking making this intersection in violation of the RSIS slope limits of 5% and it is not level for 100 feet from the intersection as recommended. Kuzik Drive which runs past building “C” and “B” also has an intersection slope violation at the entrance to parking area of Building “B” where Kuzik is sloped 9.7% based on drawing SP-47 Profile. Kuzik Drive which runs down to the existing condominium community is also severely sloped as seen on drawing SP-47. Drainage stormwater will flow down this paved slope like a waterfall and cause flooding in the existing neighborhood. Warner Road has a similar issue with stormwater despite the many basins and drainage pipes. Warner Road extended to the circle shown on drawing SP-29 also has severe slopes inconsistent with RSIS Table 4.6, but in addition Warner Road collects all the traffic from Buildings A, B, C, D, and the clubhouse. The new traffic from this extension of Warner Road is added to the existing traffic from 300 residential units already serviced by Warner Road exclusively. The combined total ADT