Posts about Restaurant Limitation
Retail
Time to ditch Cleveland Park's anti-restaurant law
Why is Cleveland Park's commercial strip struggling while restaurants that could serve residents' needs don't open? An outdated zoning law prohibits new food establishments. It's time to get rid of this failed rule.
Photo by Mr. T in DC on Flickr.
5 years ago, shortly before our second child was born, my wife and I moved to Cleveland Park from Dupont Circle. We were determined to stay in the city, and Cleveland Park seemed like best of both worlds: Metro, restaurants and shops, but also a yard for the kids. So we bit the bullet, took out a mortgage we couldn't really afford, and moved.
I work from home, and coming from a more urban neighborhood I had a hard time adjusting to Cleveland Park's little commercial strip. The area felt empty and sad during the day, with a thin selection of lunch options. But word came out that a Così planned to fill a space that Blockbuster had recently abandoned.
I already had a long-standing addiction to their wasabi-roast beef sandwich on freshly baked flatbread. So, good news! I'd get another lunchtime option, plus a place to meet someone over good coffee, or to work when I need to get out of the house.
That's when I learned about Cleveland Park's anti-restaurant zoning overlay. A couple of decades ago, the neighborhood lobbied for a cap on the number of restaurants. Specifically, no more than 25% of the linear footage fronting the Connecticut Avenue commercial strip could hold any kind of food establishment Così, after briefly floating some creative legal arguments that would have exempted them from the cap, decided a zoning fight wasn't worth the trouble and pulled out.
To summarize, we had:
The neighborhood would have gotten another "third space", a comfortable and informal local gathering place. The city would have gotten tax and licensing revenue. Così's vendors, suppliers, and contractors would have made money, and so on But no. Instead we got a shuttered storefront for two full years. No jobs for anyone, no sandwiches for me, a landlord losing money on a vacant space, and an increasingly depressing-looking commercial strip.
Why?
At this point it would be very easy to turn dismissive and snarky about Cleveland Park's comfortable, out-of-touch, selfish residents who oppose everything. But here's the thing: Since that time I've gotten to know these people. They are among my neighbors and my friends. They're good and generous people, and they're not fools or cranks. They're proud of their history of local activism and they're trying to do what they think is best for the neighborhood.
They deserve a fair hearing for the strongest arguments they've made for the restaurant cap. I still think this is still a bad law. More broadly, this provides a good case study in how neighborhood politics can go wrong, and what we can do about it.
The original rationale for the restaurant overlay involves two main arguments.
To the first point, the overlay hasn't worked. It hasn't given us the retail landscape we imagined, but has instead given us empty storefronts and tanning salons. To the second point, I'd suggest that these fears are exaggerated and not realistic. There are better ways to address parking problems than keeping amenities out of the neighborhood.
Most importantly, though, it's fundamentally unfair to allow a minority of neighbors to use the government to impose their consumer preferences on all of us. The District of Columbia doesn't want the restaurant cap, and neither does Cleveland Park. It's time to get rid of it.
It isn't working
We all want a lively, diverse retail landscape. The problem is that zoning laws are a blunt instrument: They can only say "no." Zoning can prevent business, but it can't create business. The overlay has been around for 23 years now, Cleveland Park is still waiting for that hardware store and that bookstore, and neither one is ever going to come.
It's not hard to see why, now more than ever: We're halfway between two legendary local bookstores, Politics & Prose and Kramerbooks. Established independent bookstores and big corporate chains alike are going out of business in droves. As much as we might wish the world was otherwise, the economic rationale for retail bookstores has been nearly destroyed by the one-two punch of Amazon Prime and the Amazon Kindle.
A hardware store isn't much more likely: there's also competition nearby and the retail hardware sector is still subject to the economic forces that are leading us to the End of Retail As We Know It.
The long-term future of neighborhood retail, in Cleveland Park as everywhere else, is in products, services, or experiences that people can't obtain over the Internet or receive by UPS. If we don't allow more restaurants, cafés, bars, or delis, what does that leave? We have a couple of grocery stores and a CVS and a Walgreen's. And there are shops that are doing well by offering unique and carefully curated selections (like Wake Up Little Suzy) or advice from helpful specialists (like Potomac River Running).
But that still leaves a lot of space to fill. After years of empty storefronts, that void has now been filled by an abundance of nail salons, tanning salons, cellphone shops, and the like. That's not exactly the sort of "diverse retail" anyone had in mind.
I do wish we had a bookstore and a hardware store, and there's nothing wrong with you and I indulging in wishful thinking. But there is something wrong with building public policy on a foundation of wishful thinking.
We've made it illegal to add any more food establishments, in the hope that that would magically produce lots of charming independent retail. But no sane entrepreneur is going to give us the stores we say we want. The unintended consequence is that we're filling our storefronts with the dregs of the service sector.
It's a solution to a nonexistent problem
The second argument stems from fear: Fear of more traffic, fear of changing the neighborhood's character, fear of becoming "the next Adams Morgan."
Let's not flatter ourselves. That's not going to happen. Adams Morgan isn't even the new Adams Morgan any more; the district's hipsters have long since moved on to U Street and H Street and 9th Street. What those neighborhoods have in common is the energy that comes from cultural and economic diversity. How do I say this nicely: Cleveland Park's respectable citizens are ... boring. No one goes out of their way to party in a neighborhood full of middle-aged white lawyers and minivan-driving families.
Anyway, Adams Morgan's weekend crowds never went there for the fine dining, for the cafés, or the sandwich shops: They were going for the bars and nightclubs; and the liquor licensing process gives neighbors all the tools they need to keep those kinds of establishments in check.
One last thing about the "not-another-Adams-Morgan" trope: I lived in Adams Morgan for years, and while the twice-weekly onslaught of drunken kids was a big nuisance, the entertainment venues didn't crowd out neighborhood retail.
To the contrary, the neighborhood has a diverse and vibrant retail scene that puts Cleveland Park to shame: A slew of trendy women's clothing stores, shoe stores, home decor shops, music stores, ethnic groceries, and gift shops. And the best running store, the best frame shop, the best bike shop, and the best florist in DC. And standard neighborhood amenities like grocery stores, pharmacies, dry cleaners, and convenience stores. And, yes, a hardware store and a bookstore.
None of us wants more congestion or more cars parked on our side streets. And none of us wants teenagers from the suburbs puking on our lawns. But allowing more food establishments in the neighborhood will do none of those things. Restaurant, cafés, or delis are not more likely than other businesses to cause traffic or parking problems. People can always take the metro or walk to eat out; but they're more likely to use their cars to get to a hardware store, a grocery store, a wine store, or a vacuum cleaner repair shop.
It's not fair
The most important argument for getting rid of the restaurant cap is that it's not fair. It's not fair for consumers, and it's not fair to our local landlords and merchants.
The restaurant cap imposes the economic preferences of one group of consumers on everyone else, and that's not right.
Some people eat out more than others. And there's been a generational shift in dining preferences: For our parents' generation, restaurants were for rich people or for special occasions. In contrast, my wife and I eat out all the time, sometimes with our boys and sometimes without, and we rely on neighborhood take-out for the occasional weeknight meal. The market is perfectly able to sort out those preferences and figure out the "right" number of restaurants for the demographics of any given location.
The 25% cap is also unfair to landlords and merchants. If you happen to already own space occupied by a restaurant, you're "grandfathered in" and you can replace that restaurant with another as a matter of right. All else being equal, the retail space right next door is worth less, for the arbitrary reason that it doesn't happen to already house a food establishment.
When a food establishment leaves the neighborhood for whatever reason, their landlord has every incentive to turn away retail or service tenants, even if that means keeping the space vacant for years. When McDonald's left Cleveland Park in 2004, the 2-story space People wouldn't start restaurants if people didn't want to go to restaurants. The fact that so many people want to open food establishments in Cleveland Park is a reflection of the desire of the people of Cleveland Park and the people of the District of Columbia for more food establishments. And yet here we are using the coercive power of the government to keep those food establishments from happening. That's not right.
The neighborhood doesn't want it
The Office of Planning would lift the restaurant cap if were persuaded that Cleveland Park doesn't want it. And it's not what the neighborhood wants, at least not any more. The Cleveland Park listserv held a survey on the question in 2008 and again just recently. In both cases voters expressed about a 2:1 preference for allowing more restaurants.
This is a classic example of one of the most frustrating aspects of local politics: A highly motivated minority can easily end up overruling a passive majority. A handful of angry people shouting "No" can often carry the day, even if the predominant sentiment is "Yes" or "Sure, why not?"
We've all seen this happen in Cleveland Park and elsewhere in DC. We saw it with the Wisconsin Avenue Giant controversy, and I worry that the same phenomenon will hamper the current effort to bring DC's zoning code into the 21st century.
So if you're OK with allowing more restaurants, cafés, diners, delis, ice cream parlors, sandwich shops, and other food establishments, you need to speak up. If you want lively and walkable neighborhoods, they're not going to just happen as long as leaders only hear from an outspoken minority.
If you agree, and you're a DC resident, please sign this petition to send a message to key local officials.
Sign the petition!
Retail
DC moving with record speed to change 14th and U restaurant limits, accepts resident recommendations
The DC Zoning Commission is usually a very slow-moving body. Hearings can take months just to schedule, and rezonings can take years. But the machinery has sprung into rapid action to address the outrage over DCRA's recent determination that no more restaurants can open along 14th and U Streets in the ARTS overlay.
Image from Google Street View.
DCRA's ruling just enforces the current, yet arguably unfair zoning rule that limits restaurants and bars to 25% of the linear frontage of 14th and U in the entire, large ARTS overlay.
That extends along 14th from just north of N Street all the way to Florida Avenue, and U Street from 9th to 15th. That means that a concentration of restaurants on U around 10th affects the ability of a restaurant to open down around 14th and Rhode Island. That seems wrong.
Furthermore, a committee created by ANC 2F (which represents most of 14th south of U) recommended modifying the 25% limitation, saying, "it is now overkill to reserve 75% of the frontage on 14th and U streets for non-restaurant and bar uses."
The report recommended increasing the limit to 40-50%, but changing the standard for exceptions to no longer permit a "special exception" (which is easier to obtain) to exceed the limit. They also recommended computing the limit for each block rather than across the entire district, an approach I suggested on the blog and spoke to the committee about during their investigations.
After the MidCity Business Association raised the alarm, nearly every blog in DC covered the issue, area Councilmembers voiced their support for a change, DCRA put out press releases saying they wanted to change the rules, and the Office of Planning proposed an emergency text amendment, which the WBJ reported will have a hearing on April 26th.
That's probably the meeting to discuss the "setdown," where the Zoning Commission officially announces an issue and opens up the public comment. The Office of Planning just posted their setdown report for the amendment and recommended an abbreviated 30-day notice period for the subsequent hearing.
OP essentially recommends exactly what the ARTS overlay committee proposed. The new rule would allow up to 50% restaurant and bar uses, but measured for each "block face" rather than for the entire overlay. Any exceptions to this new standard would need to meet the much stricter variance test rather than the special exception requirements. The change would also clarify that restaurants above or below the ground floor do not count toward the limit.
According to the OP report, four block faces currently exceed the 50% limit: the east side of 14th between U and V (which includes Busboys and Poets), the north side of U between 13th and 14th, the south side of U between 11th and 12th (which is "currently entirely developed with popular eating establishments," such as Dukem Ethiopian), and the north side of U between 10th and 11th.
It's very meaningful that OP took the committee's recommendations nearly without change. Unlike many resident efforts in zoning, the committee took a very pragmatic approach to the ARTS overlay. They came up with sensible ideas for better achieving the goals of the zoning regulations and improving the area, not agreeing to unlimited development nor fighting any change at all.
This committee did a remarkable amount of work learning about the issues, studying the regulations, interviewing residents, business owners, and developers, and debating the issues. It's gratifying to see their hard work accepted by the Office of Planning. OP should similarly strive to incorporate as much of the committee's other recommendations into the larger zoning rewrite, to demonstrate that when residents put in the work to formulate detailed, thoughtful, and non-knee-jerk recommendations, the government will listen.
Retail
Some restaurant limitations aren't all bad
DCRA will stop issuing any permits for "restaurants, bars, diners, coffees shops and carry-outs" along the 14th and U commercial corridors because the area has reached the 25% maximum allowed by zoning.
Photo by squidpants.
Nobody wants to discourage investment in the city, especially in places that are historically underdeveloped. On the other hand, there are some good reasons why a percentage rule is a good one.
One of the most basic tenets of urbanism is to encourage a healthy mix of uses. While people normally think of "mixed use" as meaning the residential/commercial mix, it also applies to the type of commercial. Healthy city neighborhoods need a mix of commercial types just as much as they need a mix of land use types. If a neighborhood becomes overrun with too many of one type of storefront, that means there is less room for every other type.
If a commercial district leans too heavily on restaurants and bars, that means it probably doesn't have enough hardware stores, clothing stores, book stores, barber shops, or home goods stores to meet the day-to-day needs of neighborhood residents. And neighborhood commercial districts that force neighborhood residents to travel elsewhere for their basic needs aren't doing their job as neighborhood commercial districts.
This is something that private shopping malls have known a long time, and it's one of the advantages they have over urban neighborhoods that led to the mall's dominance in the latter part of the 20th Century. Ownership controls the exact mix of tenants in order to serve every need under one roof and reduce shopper's desire to ever leave or go anywhere else. Every good mall has one or two sports apparel stores, one or two formalwear stores, one or two jewelry stores, etc. And of course a food court.
But unless it's an older mall struggling to survive (and therefore not picky about who signs leases), there is never more than a couple of stores for any one niche. They want to hit every niche, so they can capture as many markets as possible. In the short term that means some potential tenants have to be turned away, but in the long term it makes the whole mall more healthy. It's a form of delayed gratification that the major commercial developers of the country are very good at.
Of course, we don't really want our neighborhoods to all look like shopping malls, lest they all look exactly the same. Been to one Lids and you've been to them all. But DC is generally a city that is overserved by restaurants and underserved by actual stores. And while it's okay for some neighborhoods to develop specialties (such as 14th Street emerging as a furniture district), it's in the city's long term best interests to have as diverse a collection of retail as possible.
Zoning has always been a blunt tool, and maybe the zoning for Mid City needs to be more sophisticated. It's entirely possible that 25% is the wrong ratio. But in discussing the matter we should remember that there are legitimately good reasons why livable neighborhoods don't want every storefront to be the same.
Cross-posted at BeyondDC.
Update: Ryan Avent responds thoughtfully, suggesting that higher residential densities are a better way to encourage commercial diversity, and that as a regional specialty district for nightlife, U Street in particular increases investment in the whole city.
Retail
Who decides DC's zoning?
DC's Zoning Administrator recently ruled that the ARTS overlay around 14th and U has reached its bar and restaurant maximum of 25%, prompting many blog posts about the decision.
Image by ChrisL_AK.
Some commenters specifically charge that DCRA, the agency of which the Zoning Administrator is a part, is stifling restaurants. But they're not actually the ones who make the zoning policy. To fully comprehend this issue, it's helpful to understand the complex set of boards and agencies responsible for making zoning policy.
The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) is the agency actually responsible for giving out building permits and certificates of occupancy for buildings and businesses. The Office of the Zoning Administrator, inside DCRA, makes the determination about what the zoning regulations allow.
If someone wants to build a building or open a business that isn't allowed by the strict interpretation from DCRA, they go to the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). The BZA grants variances and special exceptions. Variances are permission to do something not permitted in the zoning regulations, while special exceptions are permissions to do something that the zoning regulations allow but require a special review beforehand.
Under the ARTS Ovelay, restaurants exceeding the 25% would only need a special exception, but that still can take months to get through the BZA's lengthy quasi-judicial process and crowded calendar; establishments seeking one also are likely to need to pay a zoning attorney for considerable amounts of time.
If this is not acceptable, the solution is to change the zoning rules. That is done by the Zoning Commission, made up of three Mayoral appointees and two federal representatives, one from the National Park Service and the other from the Architect of the Capitol. The Zoning Commission reviews Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), larger-scale projects that get some relief from zoning in exchange for community benefits, and also amendments to the zoning map and regulations.
Most of the time, changes to the zoning regulations come from the DC Office of Planning (OP). They often suggest individual text and map amendments, though residents can also petition for amendments.
OP is also running the citywide zoning update process to rewrite the District's zoning code. OP has recommended setting restaurant limitations on a zone-by-zone basis and the Zoning Commission wants a simpler tool, but there is not yet a specific alternate plan. An ANC 2F committee recommended increasing the limit to 40-50%, but the zoning update itself will take another year or more to complete.
When OP formulates recommendations and when the Zoning Commission rules on them, they are supposed to be guided by the District's and federal government's overall plans, especially the Comprehensive Plan. There are also smaller neighborhood plans.
OP writes these plans and the DC Council (for the District) and National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC, for the federal government) review them. The Council isn't allowed to change Small Area Plans, but can disapprove them.
Therefore, unlike in most jurisdictions, the elected representatives don't directly make specific decisions about zoning at the level of individual properties. Instead, they can set very broad policies, which OP tries to turn into text and maps and the Zoning Commission rules upon, DCRA enforces and the BZA grants exceptions to.
If the 25% restaurant limitation is inappropriate, there are a few ways to fix the problem. Expecting DCRA not to enforce an existing regulation, however, is not one of them. OP could propose an immediate text amendment to change the rules sooner than the full zoning update, or ANC2F or other groups could. The Zoning Commission would hold a hearing, and could approve the change. MidCity Business Association has said they want to try to get such a text amendment moving as soon as possible.
Retail
ARTS report balances bars and arts, requirements and bonuses
ANCs and other community groups have a reputation for taking an anti-change, knee-jerk anti-development point of view. Just look at yesterday's discussion of the Georgetown ANC, including many of the comments. Over in the 14th Street area, however, a committee of residents and business owners appointed by ANC 2F has created a very thoughtful and sensible set of recommendations for the ARTS zoning overlay on 14th and U Streets.
14th and P including the Studio Theatre. Photo by NCinDC.
They spent three months carefully analyzing the thinking about and discussing the future of the neighborhood. They met with merchants, developers, neighbors and planners. And, in the end, they produced a report that's neither knee-jerk anti-change nor knee-jerk pro-development, but one that tries to employ sensible incentives to shape a lively yet livable neighborhood.
14th Street is a bustling commercial corridor with an uncertain future. Its numerous theaters and galleries give the area a special arts focus, which spurred the creation of a special zoning district to preserve and encourage arts uses. However, many galleries are closing. Restaurants and bars have multiplied, bringing more foot traffic for other businesses and replacing vacant storefronts, but also threatening to push arts uses out and bringing greater levels of noise. A number of furniture stores have opened in the area, which could create a burgeoning "furniture district" that becomes a regional draw, but could also contribute to displacing the arts. The economic downturn may claim several retail stores or other businesses, and according to committee chair Andrea Doughty, many are looking to 14th Street for a sign about whether urban retail districts can truly thrive and grow.
How can the community shape its future? The report recommends tweaking the limits on restaurants and bars, maintaining some limits but adapting them to something that could work better. It would limit the percentage of bars and restaurants on every block and require some non-restaurant, non-bar ground floor retail, along with requiring some arts uses. But for developers who include extra arts in a building, the report also recommends granting more "bonus density" than is available today, including one extra story of height, as an incentive. Here's the report, or for something shorter, here's a summary of the recommendations.
Today, the ARTS overlay lets developers build extra density in a project if they include space for arts in the building. However, "arts uses" include restaurants and bars. The only differentiation is that the overlay also limits the total "linear frontage" of bars and restaurants to 25% of the total frontage. In theory, that would ensure a mix of restaurants and bars and other uses. However, that hasn't worked in practice. For a long time, the area was under 25%, and nobody considered the balance when opening businesses. Now, the district has either reached or nearly reached the limit, which could mean no new restaurants and bars can open. That's not right either, as the popularity of the area has created demand for restaurants and bars, and other retail or arts uses are not able to fill the remaining space. New development projects are less likely to be profitable without the opportunity to include any food or drink establishments anywhere in a new building.
Instead, the committee suggested removing restaurants and bars from the list of uses eligible for bonus density. For the percentage, their recommendation resembles my suggestion: they would increase the percentage limit to 40-50%, but consider the limit over a smaller area. Right now, the limit applies over 10 blocks of 14th and 6 blocks of U, meaning a restaurant at 9th and U limits the possibility of one at 14th and N. The committee suggests considering the percentage only for each "square," such as the east side of 14th between S and T.
To ensure an active streetscape, the report also recommends requiring 75% of the ground floor of any new development to contain retail. However, a bar or restaurant could only fulfill half of that requirement, forcing some diversity of uses even on a project by project basis in addition to square by square. This wouldn't apply to buildings under 60 feet in width, as smaller buildings obviously don't have room for two different retail uses and it wouldn't be fair to completely preclude a bar or restaurant from such buildings.
In the Arts and Culture section of the Zoning Update, the Zoning Commission already recommended requiring some arts uses in new buildings equalling 0.5 FAR, or essentially half of one floor. The committee strongly endorses this requirement, but suggests changing it to 5% of the total floor area of the project, exempting buildings under a certain size, and expanding it to include major, large-scale additions and alterations of existing buildings.
Meanwhile, the committee recommends offering even greater bonuses to developers who build arts uses into a project.
In addition, buildings containing some of these uses could potentially build ten feet (one story) higher than the current zoning allows. Most of 14th Street, for example, is C-3-A, which allows buildings up to 65 feet, with the ARTS overlay extending that to 75. This recommendation would expand that to 85 feet. However, developers could only take advantage of this extra bonus by applying for a "special exception," which the Board of Zoning Adjustment reviews to ensure that the exception does not harm the public interest. The buildings would also have to continue to comply with rules in the overlay like the "45 degree line" rule, where starting 50 feet above the ground, the building has to step back at least at a 45 degree angle from adjacent residential zones.
Map of the ARTS Overlay. Image from the DC Office of Planning.
HPRB would also review all projects, since the entire area is part of several historic districts. Whether rightly or wrongly, they've lowered other buildings' height in the past to better line up with older, historic buildings, and "shaped" them to better fit into the appearance of the district by selectively cutting out pieces. This alleviates many residents' fears of a "glass canyon" like K Street. At the same time, any such limits reduce the ability of a developer to take advantage of the bonus density. If a building can't add more floors or more square feet, it won't benefit from the inclusion of arts uses. As the report points out, HPRB generally uses the allowed zoning envelope as a guide, and would try to strike a balance between creating a building that fits into the area with something that encloses enough space to pay for its construction.
Most of the other recommendations address consistency and administration. They suggest creating an ARTS "district" instead of an "overlay," or if the overlay remains, splitting it into two separate districts, one for 14th Street and one for U. On 14th, they would rezone the residential parcels along 14th, such as the east side between Riggs and S, to the same commercial classification as the rest of the street. Obviously, the buildings there could remain residential, but the law wouldn't force them to remain that way forever. The committee also urges the DC government to adequately fund compliance in the Office of Zoning. In the past, that office has not been able to adequately monitor the various overlays, leading to many violations. These zoning tools cannot help shape the community if nobody enforces them.
Overall, this is an amazingly detailed and thoughtful report. A group of eight residents and business owners carefully considered all of the zoning rules in the area and met with many people. They've created a set of recommendations that apply some new rules but also introduce some incentives as well. On balance, it shouldn't hinder the ability of developers to fill in the dead spaces along the street, but will hopefully also preserve an arts focus for the area.
ANC 2F (whose territory includes 14th Street south of S) and 1B (which covers the north side of U from 16th to 14th and both sides east of 14th, along with the east side of 14th from U to S) both voted to endorse the report. Dupont Circle's ANC, 2B also borders the area, covering the south side of U from 16th to 14th and the west side of 14th from U to S. Commissioner Ramon Estrada represents that corner, and has often taken a more strongly anti-development and anti-bar and restaurant stance than many of his neighboring commissioners in the other ANCs. Estrada told ANC 1B that 2B "would not be supporting the Committee's recommendations in their entirety," which was apparently a surprise to the other 2B commissioners. Estrada opposes splitting 14th and U into separate districts, and unifying the zoning, which probably means removing the residential classifications on some of the blocks.
As a resident of ANC 2B, I plan to testify in favor of the report at their meeting tonight. If you live in the Dupont Circle area or southwest of 14th and U, come to Brookings, 1775 Mass. Ave. at 7 pm to give your opinions. If I were writing the zoning code, I might have made a few small differences and perhaps erred a bit more on the side of flexibility, but this is an excellent report that clearly represents the collective consensus of the committee's members. I hope the commissioners will endorse the plan. This represents the best of resident involvement in zoning: a detailed, thorough look at the issue culminating in a very thoughtful and reasonable set of recommendations.
Retail
Balancing neighborhood retail, part 1: The 25% rule
Fostering a diverse range of retail in a neighborhood commercial area is a difficult balancing act. DC has tried several techniques for managing this balance, including limiting the frontage devoted to restaurants, limiting liquor licenses, and offering bonuses to new development that contains certain uses.
Adams Morgan. Photo by randomduck.
Restaurants, especially those allowed to serve alcohol, can afford higher rents than neighborhood-serving businesses, like grocery stores, hardware stores, pharmacies and dry cleaners. As bars and restaurants become successful, an area draws more foot traffic, attracting more of those businesses. Landlords can charge higher rent, which pushes out the local businesses. This is basically an economic game theory problem: the most natural equilibrium states are a mostly-vacant corridor on the one hand, and nothing but bars on the other.
Can zoning or other regulations help keep corridors in more of a balance? Is that desirable? One options is to allow market forces to determine the retail mix. But many residents are concerned about their neighborhoods becoming "another Adams Morgan." At the same time, regulation also hampers business, leading to more vacant storefronts. Is there a way to strike a balance, encouraging free enterprise while also maintaining some diversity of store types?
At last week's Commercial Corridors/Areas working group meeting, participants discussed the current 25% limitation on restaurants. This restriction allows at most 25% of the "linear frontage" within the district to be used for bar and restaurant uses. It applies to many of the city's neighborhood commercial areas, including the 14th and U "ARTS Overlay," Cleveland Park, H Street, and lower Georgia Avenue. This map shows DC's commercial zones outside downtown, with the ones subject to a limitation filled with the darker color.
The ARTS overlay is nearing its 25%, though there is some ambiguity about which establishments count. Cleveland Park residents disagree about their 25% limitation, a debate which recently resurfaced when Starbucks announced it would close its location near the Cleveland Park Metro.
The workgroup meeting focused not on whether such restrictions are appropriate, but how best to implement them. Is measuring the linear frontage of restaurants the best way, or something else? The Office of Planning presented five options:
- Linear frontage: This is the existing approach. Measure the frontage of bars and restaurants and compute the percentage of the total frontage in the district. This allows multiple restaurants close to each other, as long as some other uses offset them elsewhere. However, it requires administration to keep the measurement up to date as businesses open and close.
- Total occupancy limit: Allow a certain maximum number of bar and restaurant uses in the district. Berkeley, CA uses this for restaurants. This is very easy to administer, but since it treats a small restaurant the same as a large one, would probably create a disincentive for small establishments.
- Building area limit: Allow bars and restaurants to occupy at most a percentage of the ground floor of each block or building. DC uses this downtown to limit banks and ground floor office uses. This is also easy to measure, but is trickier in small blocks and small buildings.
- Distance separation requirement: Prohibit a new establishment within a certain distance of an existing one. Oakland uses this for liquor and restaurant licenses. This is very simple to administer but prevents small clusters of restaurants, and it can be difficult to define and measure the distance if the nearest other establishment is through a building.
- Average concentration per capita: Allow a certain number of locations per capita in each Census district. As an area grows in population, more bars and restaurants could open. California uses this for liquor and restaurant licenses. This probably isn't right for DC, because the supply of available retail spaces doesn't necessarily change as population does.
Illustrations of options for use limits. From left to right: linear frontage, total occupancy limit, building area limit, and distance separation requirement. Images from the Office of Planning.
The current linear frontage system has one additional advantage: it creates an incentive for buildings to fill the sidewalk with a greater number of doors to more businesses. Drugstores, bars, and many other establishments can easily locate most of their square footage underground or in the back of the building, occupying a smaller amount of street frontage.
If we stick with a linear frontage rule, we also should consider breaking up the larger zones. The ARTS overlay, for example, is very large. Should a restaurant at 7th and Florida really affect whether one can open at 15th and P? We could divide these zones into blocks of ¼ mile, and compute frontage only within each zone.
Today, though, a zone has either hit the limit or it hasn't. If it's not at the limit, there's no incentive for a new building to restrict frontage, whereas if it's at the limit, there's no opportunity to add a restaurant at all. Ideally, a market could set a value on restaurant frontage in all zones, whether they have 10% restaurants or 50% restaurants, and allow establishments to buy and sell credits, something like a cap-and-trade system.
A developer building a new building could make some extra money by designing the structure to put more establishments into the limited frontage, with more of the square footage behind. This could even apply to banks, drugstores, and office building lobbies.
Finally, 25% is probably too low. Maintaining some number of other stores doesn't require devoting 75% of the commercial district to those establishments. 17th Street in Dupont Circle, for example, has a very wide range of neighborhood-serving stores, but far more than 25% restaurants. We could still protect a balance if a restaurant restriction allowed 50% instead of 25% linear feet, for example.
Tomorrow, part 2 will cover incentives and other possible techniques for encouraging neighborhood-serving retail and other desired uses.
Parking
TDM strategies help reduce car dependence
At yesterday's Whitman-Walker BZA hearing, one of the neighbors opposing the project challenged the notion of building less parking than the current zoning regulations require. "Where will those cars park?" he asked.
Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.
That question assumes that the cars exist at all. But there's no fixed set of cars out there in search of spaces. Instead, the number of cars depends entirely on the people living in the building, or shopping or eating there. Some will drive. Some will walk, bike, or ride Metro or the bus. Some of "those cars" will turn into walkers, bikers, or transit riders instead.
We can do more to ensure that residents and shoppers really can travel without driving. In their comments, DDOT endorses the special exception to build fewer spaces than zoning demands, but recommends a set of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies alongside. They suggest that JBG:
- Provide bicycle parking in the garage (accessible to residents and retail employees) and exterior bike racks for the public
- Give all initial residents a $60 SmartTrip card
- Provide car sharing space(s) in the garage
- Pay for the application fee and a one-year membership to Zipcar for all initial residents and business owners
- Pay for a one-year SmartBike membership for all initial residents and business owners
These represent a great step and are not very expensive for the developer. Each of them simplifies living in the building or working in one of the retail stores without a car.
DDOT also recommends two elements on which I'm not completely sold:
- If people can buy the spaces permanently (instead of just renting them), include a deed restriction prohibiting residents from buying parking spaces and then reselling them to commuters
- Make residents of this building ineligible for RPP stickers
The deed restriction is probably moot, since this building will be rental apartments and thus I assume the garage would likewise rent rather than sell the spaces. But once we've built spaces, it's good to have a free market in those spaces, so that those who really do need parking for any reason (frequent transporting of large items, difficulty walking) can choose to pay for one.
Excluding buildings from RPP is very controversial. On the one hand, it ensures that new development won't create "spillover" competing with residents for spaces. But it's also unfair. An existing resident isn't more entitled to space on the street than a new resident. And if existing residents have a special right to public space, there's less of an incentive to choose to forego the car (and save money) so someone more needy can use the spaces. Better to use performance parking to allocate the limited space to those who value it most, not those who've been around a long time.
Cheryl Cort, of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, testified at the hearing with even more great suggestions. Her recommendations:
- Bicycle shower facilities for employees of the retail businesses
- An on-street Zipcar space instead of one in the garage. The revenue from one more pay garage space not used by the Zipcar could go to DDOT to make up for lost meter revenue.
- Having the developer guarantee a certain amount of revenue to Zipcar for the space, to ensure that they can put a car in the building (or in front) and not lose money. If they made more than the minimum, the developer would pay nothing.
- Taxi vouchers for people who reach the stores by transit and buy large goods in the stores
- A little bit of affordable housing, perhaps for someone who works in one of the retail stores
Finally, on the limitation of restaurants to 25% in the ARTS overlay, the Office of Planning recommended that BZA allow restaurants in the new development, but only up to 50% of the frontage of the building. That's a good compromise. Most of the restaurants in the ARTS overlay are on U Street, 9th Street, or P Street, not right in this area, so it's silly to prohibit restaurants here. And limiting it to 50% will encourage more, smaller businesses (at least two) instead of one, huge, block-encompassing restaurant or store.
JBG agreed at the hearing to implement some of DDOT's recommendations. They will put bicycle racks in the garage and on the street (facing both 14th and S streets, since S will be the main residential entrance), set aside one space for a Zipcar, and pay for Zipcar memberships for initial residents who don't rent a garage space. That's a good start, though they could also institute some TDM practices for the retail employees beyond simple bike racks.
"I'm happy to hear you're not overparking the site," said Zoning Commissioner Gregory Jeffries, "but I want to make sure there are all the other bells and whistles as it relates to having less parking." Jeffries talked about the importance of development that enables more people without also bringing more cars.
Most of all, it's great to see DDOT recommending these progressive policies in new development. All large, new development projects should include similar best practices. And when developers propose a Planned Unit Development (PUD), where the Zoning Commission gives them greater density and flexibility in exchange for community amenities, similar TDM practices ought to be some of the amenities we require.
In the past, unfortunately, the Zoning Commission has sometimes gone the opposite direction, demanding more parking to protect neighbors' on-street spaces. That only creates gridlock and doesn't even effectively protect on-street parking. Instead, new development should build only the parking the market would support, and with the money they save from fewer underground levels, fund TDM strategies to reduce car dependence for residents and employees.
Retail
Overlays, design standards, and zoning for neighborhood retail
Yesterday, I mentioned the ARTS overlay's restriction on restaurants. Only 25% of the street frontage, measured in linear feet, can be restaurants. The district (which includes commercial districts of U Street, 14th, P, and 7th near Florida) is already about 24% restaurants.
A retail space with multiple entrances, adaptible for smaller retailers. Photo by the Office of Planning.
On the one hand, there's merit in encouraging a mix of businesses (the purpose of the rule). However, restaurants are thriving there. Should we really prohibit any more? Plus, the ARTS overlay is very large. Why should a restaurant at 7th and Florida affect whether there can be one at 14th and S? If we are to have such a rule, it should apply over small distances.
Critics of Cleveland Park's similar overlay say that that limitation leads not to more diverse retail, but simply empty storefronts. There, at least, there isn't enough population to support more clothing boutiques or housewares. Defenders of the overlay argue that the real problem is poor enforcement in the past.
The new portion of the proposed 14th and S building includes four retail "bays", which could contain four doors to four separate stores. Inside, though, the architects are making the interior one large space. That gives flexibility to house one large store, four small ones, or something in between. And the Utopia project is similar, with two large retail spaces that could house single large stores or multiple stores.
It's sensible for architects to keep their options open, but it matters a lot to the neighborhood how many stores go in. The best walkable retail districts have many smaller stores, with closely-spaced entrances. One huge clothing retailer or Apple store or giant restaurant on 14th from S to Swann, even with a lot of glass, will create much less street activity than smaller ones.
As part of DC's zoning update, the Office of Planning has proposed setting caps on retailer size in certain retail districts where we want this. There's not yet any decision about which districts or what size caps are appropriate. The Zoning Commission should respond to OP's recommendations on December 8th, and most likely will adopt the concept.
The retail recommendations also include requirements for adaptability, ensuring that even if a ground floor will house just one large store or a law office today, smaller stores could use the space in the future. Design standards could require more closely-spaced entrances, limit the frontage taken up by large lobbies, and ensure active windows instead of the papered-over windows or blank walls common to large drugstores.
A recent Downtown zoning review meeting specifically discussed drugstores. In Vancouver's downtown, where drugstores are very profitable, the design standards actually require the drugstore to face the street with a series of "boutiques", each with its own entrance and containing a different type of product, like cosmetics, photo products, or cough medicine. We didn't have enough details at the meeting to know whether that specific rule would work in DC, but we needn't continue to suffer from huge, blank walls and poor retail diversity in our commercial corridors.
@ggwash
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
Greater Washington
District of Columbia
