|From this...via Streetview|
|To this! via Public Hearing Notice|
|Right on the edge between the two new zones|
The proposed design, as well as some additional conditions suggested in the Staff Report, move a little towards this, but broadly speaking there is a mismatch between the site plan and our hopes. Maybe most significantly, the mismatch is the clinic itself.
People rehabbing are not going to be walking or biking to the facility in meaningful numbers. They'll be driving.
And it's not something that will utilize random foot traffic, like a cafe, pub, or retail store. There's nothing here for people out on a stroll. It's a drive-to destination only.
|Sports Rehab Clinic proposed for Second & Patterson NW|
Zeroing in on some of the requirements of the new Edgewater Mixed-Use Zone, a citizen submitted some detailed criticism and comment, and maybe later this week or over the weekend there will be more to say about that. This is an interesting transitional case between older and newer zoning, it's a wonderful thing to see the empty lot being redeveloped, but maybe also it's a comment that medical clinics and nursing homes seem to be the land use of first resort as we redevelop things. There is a developing cluster here of clinics, and as incipient monoculture that's not exactly what the doctor ordered.
Addendum, September 1st
It's hard to be very critical about the proposal, because it redevelops a long-vacant empty lot, and because it's not terrible overall. It could be better, but you know, it doesn't suck.
In an environment where there was lots of redevelopment and another project might quickly swoop in if this was didn't go forward, staff should have good reason for a narrower and stricter interpretation of the new zoning regulations and their intent.
As it is, maybe we are lucky there is this proposal, and staff might have reason to have a rather loose and generous interpretation of some of the regulations.
As I read it, the citizen criticism is grounded in many cases, but staff's vagueness in interpretation and generosity to the development team is defensible.
So this is a boring "both sides are right" reading of things, and it does not seem worthwhile to work through a closer analysis of the Staff Report's recommendations.
Two of the adjustments are notable here:
- Adjustment 1: To provide a maximum setback of approximately 25 feet from Patterson Street NW and 2nd Street NW where a maximum setback of 10 feet is allowed
- Adjustment 2: To place the building along approximately 38% of the frontage on 2nd Street NW where a minimum of 50% is required
The reasons for the adjustments aren't very detailed or supported very well, and staff could push back and say, "no, you should give us more reason."
But the Staff Report accepts a lot of the reasons and argument with hand-waving and vague assurances that this meets the intent of the code...and so on and so forth.
Is this the right project for a battle?
That's how it seems from here, anyway.