Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Willmus Companies, Case No. 2167 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />could be located where it would fit the most functionally. He also <br />states that since the machine is used most after hours, "there is <br />minimal impact on the existing parking layout". This raises the question <br />as to how much blocking of drive lanes by vehicles facing in the wrong <br />direction is acceptable? Don't bank customers also use the A TM <br />machines during the lunch hour and after work when other people will <br />be conducting other bank business? <br /> <br />2. CONCLUSION <br /> <br />We cannot support this proposal as it is currently designed. If the <br />primary function of this facility is to serve after hours customers, then <br />the concern about congestion and conflict with other drive-through <br />customers is moot. If on the other hand, customers use the facility <br />throughout business hours, which we believe they do, then this design <br />will place these vehicles in direct opposition with the designed flow of <br />traffic. <br /> <br />The submitted site plan shows the southernmost driveway as a one-way <br />drive heading east. The parking lot was not designed for this to <br />function as a one-way drive and it will not function as such. <br /> <br />We have prepared a sketch that illustrates how a designated (striped) <br />aisle could be created on the other side of this island. There are <br />numerous other locations throughout the site where this sort of <br />arrangement could be established. We cannot recommend approval of <br />this proposal as it is currently designed. <br />