Walgreens Revised Plans FLAWS
Part I of the proposal is flawed:
1. This PUD does not provide ''necessary and convenient retail services''. That site with a Walgreen's upon it is not necessary to the neighborhood as we are served by 7 other pharmacies of like kind, and the traffic patterns will not be convenient for the majority of Western AFB shoppers to use.
2. In fact, its siting creates many u-turn opportunities involving necessary intrusions into neighborhood streets in order to gain access.
3. The revised street plan shortens the turning lanes now already too short along Rampart for southbound traffic to turn west. This is totally un-acceptable. A traffic bottleneck would be created by this plan by cars heading south not being able to access the shortened turning lane heading west on AFB. This plan would negate the Rampart improvements to traffic flow.
4. The JTA bus turn-in on AFB would eliminate the ability of cars to turn west onto AFB from Rampart into an access lane that merges into AFB's two lanes after some distance from Rampart.
5. Likewise, the turn-in to Walgreens along AFB just past the Western bounds of the property impedes the same traffic. This turn-in
should be eliminated altogether.
6. The cut-through near the bridge will be a popular wreck site and the cross through should be eliminated. This would be a proper distance from Rampart for the access to the site however from AFB traffic headed west, and it would permit the West family western-only access to AFB.
Part Two is flawed:
1. In Section A1 as follows:
a. Uses f,h and i are off the charts and should be removed.
2. In Section A2 as follows:
a. Get rid of this altogether.
3. In Section B2 as follows:
a. The off-street loading area creates parking lot bottleneck where two lanes of drive thru traffic would merge to one lane where vehicles backing out of parking spaces along the western boundary of the property and at the nose of semi-trailers and tractors parked for off-loading.
4. In Section B3 as follows:
a. The space at the northeastern corner of the property is marked as reserved for future access. THIS IS EXACTLY THE IDEA THE AACC RESENTS IN THAT THIS SPOT RE-ZONING ON THISCORNER WOULD DOMINO INTO FURTHER SPOT RE-ZONINGS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES!!!!!
Part Three:
1. In Part IIIB as follows:
a. The visual screen along the northerly border would create a visual barrier of the JTA's retention pond, which will be well maintained and is unnecessary, plus it would create a hiding wall for no good use.
b. The visual screen along the westerly boundary would shield Walgreens from looking at their own retention pond and make management less
likely to keep it spiffy.
2. In Part IIIC as follows:
a. There is no reason for a sign other than on the building. This is the only commercial site for quite a space and it will stand out like a sore thumb anyhow.
b. THE SUGGESTION IS INCLUDED THAT OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MAY OCCUR AT THIS CORNER AND SIGNAGE WOULD BE ADDED WHEN THAT OCCURS. NO WAY!!!
Part Four:
1. In Part IVB4 as follows:
a. The deficiencies have already been pointed out above. The access points are seriously flawed and the traffic patterns on Rampart and AFB are dangerous and will be wreck sites.
Part Five:
1. The services provided by Walgreens are not necessary to this site or nearby neighborhoods.
2. The traffic problems created and access problems will not cause reduced trips to currently used commercial sites. It will be too tough to access this site.
3. The most desirable zoning for this site is for a senior citizens center or city skateboard park or additional retention pond capacity. It could also be used as a park-n-ride parking lot for mass transit uses.
David ''Magnum'' Hodges, P.I., F.C.I.
Fine Tooth Comb Investigations, Inc.
Jacksonville, Fl.
ftc@fdn.com
A97-00009
By David ''Magnum'' Hodges
Part I of the proposal is flawed:
1. This PUD does not provide ''necessary and convenient retail services''. That site with a Walgreen's upon it is not necessary to the neighborhood as we are served by 7 other pharmacies of like kind, and the traffic patterns will not be convenient for the majority of Western AFB shoppers to use.
2. In fact, its siting creates many u-turn opportunities involving necessary intrusions into neighborhood streets in order to gain access.
3. The revised street plan shortens the turning lanes now already too short along Rampart for southbound traffic to turn west. This is totally un-acceptable. A traffic bottleneck would be created by this plan by cars heading south not being able to access the shortened turning lane heading west on AFB. This plan would negate the Rampart improvements to traffic flow.
4. The JTA bus turn-in on AFB would eliminate the ability of cars to turn west onto AFB from Rampart into an access lane that merges into AFB's two lanes after some distance from Rampart.
5. Likewise, the turn-in to Walgreens along AFB just past the Western bounds of the property impedes the same traffic. This turn-in
should be eliminated altogether.
6. The cut-through near the bridge will be a popular wreck site and the cross through should be eliminated. This would be a proper distance from Rampart for the access to the site however from AFB traffic headed west, and it would permit the West family western-only access to AFB.
Part Two is flawed:
1. In Section A1 as follows:
a. Uses f,h and i are off the charts and should be removed.
2. In Section A2 as follows:
a. Get rid of this altogether.
3. In Section B2 as follows:
a. The off-street loading area creates parking lot bottleneck where two lanes of drive thru traffic would merge to one lane where vehicles backing out of parking spaces along the western boundary of the property and at the nose of semi-trailers and tractors parked for off-loading.
4. In Section B3 as follows:
a. The space at the northeastern corner of the property is marked as reserved for future access. THIS IS EXACTLY THE IDEA THE AACC RESENTS IN THAT THIS SPOT RE-ZONING ON THISCORNER WOULD DOMINO INTO FURTHER SPOT RE-ZONINGS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES!!!!!
Part Three:
1. In Part IIIB as follows:
a. The visual screen along the northerly border would create a visual barrier of the JTA's retention pond, which will be well maintained and is unnecessary, plus it would create a hiding wall for no good use.
b. The visual screen along the westerly boundary would shield Walgreens from looking at their own retention pond and make management less
likely to keep it spiffy.
2. In Part IIIC as follows:
a. There is no reason for a sign other than on the building. This is the only commercial site for quite a space and it will stand out like a sore thumb anyhow.
b. THE SUGGESTION IS INCLUDED THAT OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MAY OCCUR AT THIS CORNER AND SIGNAGE WOULD BE ADDED WHEN THAT OCCURS. NO WAY!!!
Part Four:
1. In Part IVB4 as follows:
a. The deficiencies have already been pointed out above. The access points are seriously flawed and the traffic patterns on Rampart and AFB are dangerous and will be wreck sites.
Part Five:
1. The services provided by Walgreens are not necessary to this site or nearby neighborhoods.
2. The traffic problems created and access problems will not cause reduced trips to currently used commercial sites. It will be too tough to access this site.
3. The most desirable zoning for this site is for a senior citizens center or city skateboard park or additional retention pond capacity. It could also be used as a park-n-ride parking lot for mass transit uses.
David ''Magnum'' Hodges, P.I., F.C.I.
Fine Tooth Comb Investigations, Inc.
Jacksonville, Fl.
ftc@fdn.com
A97-00009
By David ''Magnum'' Hodges
