O28 Litwornia West Essex Highlands Traffic Report 82225 FINAL

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 exceeds RSIS and further adds to Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue. AIR QUALITY IN GARAGES The application we reviewed did not have an air quality study covering the indoor garages on the four proposed buildings. There are 941 parking spaces in the entire project located in garages and engine exhaust fumes must be evacuated effectively and the air quality study would make appropriate recommendations on exhaust fan specifications required to meet the air quality standards. Since this was not done, the application must not be approved as it is incomplete.

Page 15 SIGHT TRIANGLES Sight triangles are a means of assuring drivers can see far enough to make a safe turning movement decision. The parking exits from building A and building D are questionable because of the road slopes and the curves. Applicant has not shown sight triangles on the plans to prove the sight distances are adequate. Further, 90 degree parking along Road “D “where the road curves and is also on a 10% grade doesn’t allow for sufficient sight distance in our opinion. This is a traffic safety issue that needs to be considered before application can be deemed complete or a waiver request be accepted by the Planning Board. STREET CLASSIFICATION RSIS identifies three categories of street depending upon its usage. Residential access is the lowest category, and it is limited to 1500 ADT. Minor collector is the next highest category and RSIS limits that category to 3500 ADT. The highest category is Major Collector and none of the roads in this development application qualifies for that category. The residential access category might apply which limits ADT to 1500. The calculated ADT for this application is 2728 which is 1228 more than this category. This applies to the Warner Road segment. Oval Road sees 5100 ADT and is also a residential access road as it is the cul-desac main access. CONCLUSIONS Remember, the RSIS was adopted so that residential projects would be based to the greatest extent possible upon sound, objective site improvement standards rather than upon discretionary design standards (RSIS 5:21-1.3). With this in mind, the application should not be approved as presently proposed for the following reasons: 1. The Traffic from One Cul-de-Sac Roadway Is Excessive. The RSIS states that a cul-de-sac must have a maximum of 250 vehicle trips per day. The application will create a single cul-de-sac with an estimated daily traffic of over 5,100 trips per day when existing development is taken into account. This would be created with only one way in or out of the entire complex. This violates good planning and violates the applicant’s requirement that two access points are required for emergency access. Providing a single access with 5,100 trips per day via one roadway, without an alternate access, is not sound planning and is unsafe. It is recommended that another full access roadway into the development be provided from a major collector.

Page 16 2. The RSIS Must Be Met - This Is Still a Cul-de-Sac. The applicant has no reason to be granted a de minimis exception by the Board for the proposed development to allow all access via one roadway, Warner Road. The amount of traffic to be utilizing Warner Road from the proposed development would be way in excess of the 1000 trips per day that the RSIS allows. It would be approximately 2,728 trips or about 2.7 times the allowed volume for a multi-unit culde-sac and quadruple (4x) the amount of traffic at one point at a loop roadway. Therefore, this de minimis exception is not de minimis, and should not be granted by the Board. The applicant has stated that he would provide emergency access roadways. The RSIS does not call for emergency roadways but full access points. Emergency access roadways often are snow covered and unpassable during storms, the very time that these roadways would be required. The applicant has provided a scheme of divided roadways with widths of 15 feet and 18 feet separated by a median approximately 8 feet in width. The roadway widths must be 20 feet in width on each side to satisfy the requirements of RSIS. This is still a Cul-de-sac. 3. The intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road Must Be Signalized. The applicant should address the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road as an unsignalized intersection as the traffic signal is not yet installed, and while planned, it is not guaranteed that this will happen. If this occurs, it may not occur prior to the development being built out and occupied. It is not a part of this application. No approval should therefore be provided unless the improvement is bonded by or constructed by the applicant prior to any certificates of occupancy being provided by the municipality. In addition, the work must be bonded and in place prior to any certificates of occupancy can be issued. 4. A Left Turn Lane Should Be Installed 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 should be provided on Eagle Rock Avenue for traffic into Oval Road and the development. The left turn storage length should be calculated and implemented ASAP. This work

ommended that a left turn lane should be provided on Eagle Rock Avenue for traffic into Oval Road and the development. The left turn storage length should be calculated and implemented ASAP. This work should be done as soon as possible and should be bonded by the applicant. The applicant should provide a traffic signal application and approval and a signal design plan.

Page 17 5. The Roadway Width should be improved at the divided section to a minimum of 20 feet on each side of the median. 6. Road slopes are higher than RSIS allows. ADT on all roads in this subdivision all violate RSIS standards and represent a very high safety risk for various reasons. Steep slopes prevent vehicles from stopping safely and will contribute to accidents. Emergency vehicles will have difficulty traversing up the slope in harsh winter weather leaving approximately 1000 people vulnerable to health emergencies helpless. Intersections are safety hazards on level roads but much worse when the main travel road is sloped braking distances are greater due to wet or icy conditions therefore stopping is not normal. Roads can collect stormwater and on slopes the water velocity can bypass storm water inlets and continue down the travel way, causing travel safety issues and flooding at the end of the road. This application contains many safety and RSIS issues that cannot be ignored and in our opinion the application should be rejected as presented. 7. ADA requirements must be met with adequate sidewalk width from parking to the travel path to the residences and all other amenities offered to the residents. As noted above the roadway slopes exceed the 5% walkway allowable slope and also the ramp maximum slope of 8.3%. This application cannot meet ADA requirements on any of the roads as they all have slopes above 8.3% and 5%. The many areas of concern are so severe and affect safety to such a degree that deminimis exceptions cannot be allowed on this application in regards to volumes as the volumes added are not de-minimis. We have identified many variances from the RSIS, many of which cannot be cured such as too much ADT and slopes too steep for safe travel and ADA limits. Emergency access is curable but not until the applicant gets property rights and privileges to access Kuzik Drive but even then, Warner Road is still a constriction to access from Oval Road to existing and proposed residential units. Currently there are runoff stormwater issues from this unimproved tract. The addition of two roads funneling water to the existing community is very concerning. The stormwater report in our opinion ignores the reality of rushing water bypassing inlets that inevitably get plugged with leaves and loose trash. The filters employed will be plugged faster

cerning. The stormwater report in our opinion ignores the reality of rushing water bypassing inlets that inevitably get plugged with leaves and loose trash. The filters employed will be plugged faster than maintenance can clear them in a NorEaster storm or Hurricane. Warner Road from Oval Road is the only access to the Cul-de-sac already existing with 300 units and the RSIS rules are already exceeded without any new development. Paragraph b on page 2 of this report controls the addition, alteration of an existing cul-desac and based on the “rules” no new development is supported by the current limited access on Warner Road!

Page 18 The planning board members should take note of all these issues and act accordingly by rejecting this application. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this report as new information comes to light. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, Litwornia Associates, Inc. By: Alexander J. Litwornia, PE PP President CC: WH Green, PE

Page 19 Appendix A What could be built on the applicant’s lot if it was a new Cul-de-Sac? RSIS Table 4.2 limits ADT to 1000 trips on multiunit Cul-de-sac. Warner Road already has its limit and much more. Setting that aside, using Table 4.1 from RSIS giving ADT per dwelling factors, we get the following possibilities if it were a new Cul-de-sac off Eagle Rock Avenue: 1 2 3 4 5 250/10.1 ADT/Dwelling = 24 Single family homes allowed 250/5.9 ADT/Dwelling = 42 townhouses 1000/5.5 ADT/Dwelling = 182 Mid Rise on Multiple apartments on Cul-de-sac 250/3.7 ADT/Dwelling = 68 Senior adult house - detached 250/3.5 ADT/Dwelling = 71 Senior adult housing – attached

Page 20 Appendix B List of application deficiencies with De-minimis items marked with *: 1. * Number of dwelling units exceeds RSIS for a cul-de-sac. Currently Oval Road has a 72 house development with 747 ADT where cul-de-sac is only allowed 250 ADT but in addition to that there are 300 apartment units on Warner Road extended from Oval Road which adds 1650 ADT where if taken as only a multiunit Cul-de-sac would be limited to 1000 ADT. This existing cul-de-sac is then 2377 ADT far in excess of the RSIS standard. New proposed 496 units represents another 2728 ADT far in excess of RSIS. 2. * Parking on Road D is dangerous as the sight distance on the curve is too short. See attached drawing SP-48. 3. ADA requirements on all roads specifies 5’ sidewalk sections every 200’ or less and sidewalks on both sides of street, this is missing. 4. Sidewalks don’t comply with ADA slope requirements limiting slope to 5%, many areas are at or near 10% which is dangerous for wheel chairs. This occurs on Road D, Kuzik Drive and Warner Road in places. See SP-46, 47, 48 attached. 5. Road slope on Road D is 10% plus it passes parking entrance on that slope. Violates RSIS and is dangerous in icy conditions. Vehicles cannot stop at the driveway on this slope. 6. Road slope on Kuzik Drive has at or near 10% slope and also passes parking entry/exit on the slope at building A this is dangerous during icy conditions. See drawing SP-47 attached. 7. Warner Road has steep sloped area and as the only access to residential units and may become impassible in winter when it ices up. Emergency equipment has difficulty climbing steep grade. Vehicles cannot stop at the driveway on this slope. 8. Warner Road entry median and road widths violate RSIS where a 6’ median and 20’ road on either side is required. 9. Application lacks a Warrant Analysis and a signal design at Oval and Eagle Rock. No certificates of occupancy should be allowed until the traffic signal is operable and the turning lanes are built. It should be noted there is major concern that the construction of the signal will require additional right of way approval by the county, but the county involvement is not part of the application. A separate contract agreement is required since the applicant removed the construction of the traffic signal and warrant analysis from this application.

Page 21 10. Eagle Rock Avenue requires a turning lane to access Oval Road given the high ADT. In addition, a turning lane may be required on Oval Road. 11. * ADT for the application is 2728 trips which exceeds RSIS for Cul-de-sac but also exceed trips for Residential Access category of road 1500 ADT and Minor Collector which allows 3500 when the existing 300 units along Warner Road are considered making the total ADT equal 5105. This cannot be considered a Deminimis exception because, the NJDOT considers an increase of 10% a substantial impact if Warner Road is considered a minor collector it exceeds the limit by 29%. Warner Road is not owned by the applicant and it is noted that the owners of the road are not a part of this application and since they are not part of the application then this application should not be considered on a road they do not own. The West Orange Tax map shows Oval Road, Warner Road and everything else off Oval Road is private. Applicant can’t assume he has access to a private road he does not own. 12. ITE Peak hour trips from ITE occur at intersections with Oval Road and Eagle Rock Ave, Oval Road and Warner Road and Warner Road at the first Cul-de-sac branch. The peak hour trips triple to over 300 per hour from 100 per hour. In peak hours the trips exceed the RSIS limit for a Cul-de-sac ADT (all day). 13. * There are insufficient EV make ready and ready parking stations for the size of this development. A de-minimis exception should not be allowed because the EV requirements are required by a state statute. No credits should be allowed for EV parking spaces because unit occupants would be short of required spaces per unit. A plan as to how the EV stations would be shared is not provided. 14. A current certified surveyor’s site survey plan is not provided in the application. This is required. 15. Site plan does not show metes and bounds. A current complete survey was not included as required by an application to the PB. 16. No air quality study was provided for the garages on all 4 buildings. 17. Stormwater will not be collected as claimed due to the filters and inlets getting blocked by fall leaves that will accumulate during a storm even if the inlets and filters started clean. Stormwater already rushes down the rough vegetated slope and floods the existing development of 300 units, now two roads will provide an unobstructed path