Comply with the regs DRP!

I'd rather have them actually make good food.

Can they add some of those tall cocktail tables w/o chairs?

The parking space issue doesn't make much sense when you're in such a walkable community, however if that's the rule I do agree they need to comply until they receive the special use permit.

The City should have required DRP to come into compliance when the violation was first discovered (December). Now the City is ready to rule on the new permit (i.e. has all the information it needs), but the delay appears designed to essentially pander to the (justified) public outcry over the earlier exercise of the City's discretion not to enforce the permit, and/or punish DRP. I'm not really sure that's good government. That said, the restaurant does seem crowded with 80 seats. Personally, I am hoping to see the City take the number down a bit, both for comfort and parking purposes.

this is a perfect example of the city and its regulations using absolutely zero common sense. if you go into DRP on a crowded night, there is more than enough room in that space for the 80 seats they have been using. THIRTY-TWO?!?!? is that some sort of a joke?? I am all for sticking to regulations, BUT, only if those regulations actually make sense :P I mean, LOOK at the front of the restaurant - they HAVE the space for the extra outdoor seating. I just don't get it. It's the rules that need changing, NOT DRP :P Sorry, I just find the lack of common sense HIGHLY annoying. but, then again, this is the same city who wouldn't erect "no tour bus parking" signs on Pendleton Street in old town TO ENFORCE AN EXISTING LAW, in favor of sending police there 4+ times a day to physically enforce the law. sooooo, I guess maybe I'm expecting way too much

How typical. The big government, nanny state bolsheviks delight in punishing a business that is being so successful that they had to expand and is employing people in the private sector. Is anyone reading that 8 people are going to lose their jobs??? Does anyone care? It is a sad state of affairs that people in this community care more about compliance with idiotic regulations imposed by unelected bureaucrats, "comfort" and parking spaces than seeing a locally owned business succeed.

I think DRP is a great addition to the neighborhood and the reduced seating for the next two months is going to be really annoying. I wish the city had a more pro-small business mentality.

When DRP first opened, it used a very pro-business permitting approach called the Administrative SUP process. The ASUP is a highly streamlined process that involves no public hearings, no involvement of the DRCA, and allows businesses to open very quickly as long as they comply with a set of pre-determined criteria that were negotiated in advance with the community. Those standards include among other things the hours of operation, deliveries and loading areas and times. and the seating to parking ratio. DRP opened in compliance with everything, but then under the new ownership, became out of compliance on a variety of fronts.

While the new owner may claim ignorance, it is still their responsibility to comply, and when it becomes evident that the business needs a variance, then they need to go to the city asking for it, rather than operating in violation. This is an instance of a business taking advantage of a very pro-business process and then disregarding the rules that allowed them to operate.

There needs to be a happy medium between the ASUP approach and the typical SUP approach like what Pork Barrel BBQ want through that caused major delays in opening in advance. DRP is fortunate that they are allowed to stay in business. If they had to go through the same process PBBBQ did, DRP may never have opened. Not all small business owners have Mike Anderson's fortitude, but they shouldn't have to either.

Let's see if DRP can comply with the rules to which they agreed.

Linda, your crowding comment is code, not zoning, the issue here.

DRP moved into a residential neighborhood. They took over a building that had two businesses (a title search company and a clothing consignment store) that had few employees and generated little traffic. The new use is labor-intensive and generates a lot of visits, meaning lots of cars arriving.

In order to protect the residents (who, remember, were here first) and ensure that the restaurants don't soak up all the parking on the residential streets the city mandates that the restaurant provide a parking spot for each four seats. Obviously, that will not completely cover the parking requirement generated by employees and guests, but it is a good compromise. Their initial administrative SUP specified 32 seats because they could only provide 8 parking spots.

They could have 400 seats if they could come up with a hundred parking spaces. They can't do that in Del Ray. But the onus for coming up with some kind of creative solution to the parking problem should lay with those who are bringing all those cars into the neighborhood.

Note: initially DRP said that they expected the vast majority of their patrons to walk to the restaurant thus parking was irrelevant. A survey of their patrons found that 70 percent, in fact, arrived by car.

Note: For what it is worth my wife and I were overjoyed to see Eric Reid cooking here again. We eat there at least once a week.

In my opinion, DRP thought it was better to ask forgiveness then to ask permission. I hope the message that that is unacceptable has been received by them and their land use attorney Duncan Blair. I think DRP intended all along to add the tables. Who would build lots of empty space in a restaurant without the intent to fill it with tables?

If they have the authority, perhaps the City should have issued a serious fine in addition to or in lieu of the 2 month penalty (at which point the CIty seems likely to grant the expansion).

I don't understand the mentality of some of my neighbors. Having great restaurants and shopping in walking distance is the reason the Del Ray has become one of the best (and most expensive) places to live in Alexandria. If these are problems, then they are good problems to have (my goodness! we have awesome restaurants that people want to go to!). I would rather deal with a secondary or tertiary problem that is the result of a good problem, then to not have that good problem at all. Worse comes to worse, we get zoned parking for residents. Not difficult, as many, many other communities have done this.

I think you can feel for the 8 people who will lose their jobs while still thinking it is inappropriate for a business to circumvent the rules. They are not mutually exclusive beliefs. Perhaps DRP should have considered the impact of hiring staff when they did not have the approval to seat that many people in the first place (thereby supporting the need for that staff). I also expect if they had gone through the appropriate SUP process and demonstrated the value they bring to the neighborhood, DRP would have been granted approval (or at least a close compromise.) Instead they are in this dilemma.

I still think the parking rules are a terrible reason to try and stiffle a successful, local business. If there is a problem with illegal parking, perhaps the city could enforce parking laws. Why do we need multiple layers of policies and laws for parking? I would think that if DRP suddenly wanted to invest in parking to further allow the business to expand they would be able to do that.

There's a deeper problem with this, of course. Government rules vs local business. I see most of the comments here are clearly on the side of the government, who we need to "protect" the residents from these scary businesses who bring cars to our precious neighborhood. If DRP is that much of a disruption, don't eat there. If people can't park legally, they won't come to Del Ray. I'm suddenly not surprised the Democrats have a strangle hold on all levels of city government. I certainly wouldn't want the government to tell me what businesses can be in my neighborhood. If there's no demand, they will go away.

"Perhaps DRP should have considered the impact of hiring staff when they did not have the approval to seat that many people in the first place (thereby supporting the need for that staff)"

Exactly.

The blame lies entirely with the DRP manager, not with the city. The people should never have been hired in the first place. It's an egregious deflection to blame the city. Shame on those claiming that.

Maybe I should set up an illegal amusement park behind GW, hire 100 drunken carnies, and then whine about lost jobs when the city shuts me down. Anyone have some tilt-a-whirl experience and a raging meth addiction?

They aren't mutually exclusive, but aside from you no one seems to care.

Who I see commenting are a bunch of richy rich folks who care primarily about parking. (i.e. selfish whiners.) I'm ok with people who are selfish and only care about themselves. But OWN IT. Don't try and hide behind the "I care about my community" BS because no one is buying it. You just want to be able to park your fancy import close to your house. Ok, fine - but be honest about why you feel the way you do!

I live two blocks from this business and I love it. They are a fantastic addition to the community, they are locally owned and they employ local workers. They pay their taxes and make this a more prosperous, vibrant community. I intend to patronize it more because of this idiocy.

The next time I hear someone in government take credit for "creating jobs" I am going to call them out for the liar that they are. Businesses succeed in this community DESPITE government, never BECAUSE of it!

To be fair to the Planning Commission and city staff: They are usually very flexible with the interpretation of the conditions of an SUP, with the intent of keeping small businesses in business. Sometimes their efforts to accommodate business are much to the chagrin and frustration of neighbors and civic groups.

City staff had been working with DRP concerning the past violations and had recommended approval of the new SUP. Several Planning Commissioners had expressed the point that they had come to the meeting with the intention of approving the new SUP.

But when DRP had yet another violation when they were under review for the new SUP, Planning Commission said enough was enough. That although they try to be understanding and accommodating, the expectation is that businesses will follow the conditions in their SUP.

The particular final violation might have been minor and might have been an innocent oversight on DRP's part, but we have all been in that position where "enough is enough" and fairly or unfairly have to pay the price.

The Planning Commission felt the need to make a point: The conditions in an SUP are contractual agreements. They are privileges not rights. Planning Commission tries to be flexible but there is an overarching purpose behind the SUP to balance the needs of business with the impact of businesses.

DRP was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"The Planning Commission felt the need to make a point..."

On behalf of who? Sounds like they are taking it personally. These commissioners don't answer to the voters. Maybe they should be elected and thus accountable at the ballot box for punishing local businesses.

Of course they aren't carnies, Matthew. The point is that there exist businesses and business practices that aren't acceptable in a small residential area. The seating limitations are in place to, among other things, keep the small neighborhood feel. You think a Cap Center or Nationals Park would have been approved for that location? Why not? Because it would disrupt the lives of the individuals that existed there long before DRP's conception. I'm one of them. I've lived here before even Mancinis or Monroe's were here. I'm not anti-business at all, but I do insist on keeping things in check.

That there exists a demand for their pizza has no bearing on zoning issues whatsoever. Replace their pizza with crack cocaine and tell me that the demand justifies the operation.

Matt F- I guarantee you make more than I do. And I drive a pair of shoes so parking aint the issue for me. And their employees aren't all locals by any stretch. I know several of them and they live in Chantilly. You really need to work on your posturing.

"Matt F- I guarantee you make more than I do."

Mcbrinn - you don't know me - and unless you've rooted through my trash looking for payslips, you don't know how much money I earn. So your "guarantee" is pretty meaningless. Why mention it I wonder?

This isn't about baseball stadium, it's a local pizza joint. Oh, and cocaine is a schedule 1 controlled substance which illegal to sell. Pizza isn't, so your logic is flawed.

And as for posturing, how's this: you sound like a typical, provincial, flat earth no-growth shut in who drones on about how long you've lived here and how you predate businesses, as if that gives your opinion any additional weight (it doesn't).

You're probably the guy who shakes his cane at the ne'er-do-wells who drive too fast down your street right?

The true bottom line is this: 8 people are going to lose their jobs and you care more about some zoning thing than their livelihood.

It was written that "I'm ok with people who are selfish and only care about themselves. But OWN IT. Don't try and hide behind the "I care about my community" BS because no one is buying it. You just want to be able to park your fancy import close to your house."

Since I seem to be the one who raised the parking issue I would like it noted that I bought a used '67 Pontiac in 1970 and drove that as my everyday car until 2007 (yes, 37 years). In that year I got my mother's '72 Olds Cutlass and the air conditioning in that persuaded me to put the Pontiac in storage and switch to the Olds. I have seen fancy imports outside my house, including a nice new Mercedes, but they belong to employees on Mt Vernon.

Matt F- I was paralyzed (T10) in a fall three years ago and have yet to return to work. So, unless you're unemployed, yes, I guarantee you make more than I do. Your combative tone and name calling are uncivil and unjustified. Take it elsewhere.

Oh, and as for "why" I mentioned it, you wrote this:

"Who I see commenting are a bunch of richy rich folks"

Do you have short term memory issues?

I, for one, do think that the parking minimums need to be updated and am happy that the city is currently in the process of reviewing the parking regulations for Del Ray. Having conducted a parking study, the city is now evaluating it. It is likely that, like Old Town, parking minimums may be eliminated for small businesses in Del Ray. 'Small' meaning below a certain size.

I also believe that businesses need to follow whatever regulations are currently in place. I especially think it is important that DRP follows the regulations considering they used the city's business-friendly administrative special use permit (ASUP) - a process that was created recently with the specific intent to streamline the permitting process for 'small' businesses. ASUPs do not require public hearings, for example.

To take the most charitable view, even after DRP was notified that they were not complying with their ASUP (open trash containers, grease in the alley next to existing businesses, lack of communication with staff, outdoor speakers, and most egregiously, operating with twice the permitted seats), DRP continued to flout the ASUP by operating with too many outdoor seats even while the 'spotlight' was on them.

Circumventing the law/regulations is never something to be taken lightly.

I think it is ridiculous they have to reduce the seating. DRP has become a great addition to the neighborhood and needs to be able to survive. I love the neighborhood because of the walking distance to the restaurants.

Just slap them with a fine, have them go back with what was approved only until the new permit is approved (and not delay it on purpose), and be done with it. Being all petty, crying about usurped power, and imposing sentences to "prove" they can "comply" is ridiculous. They're not children. It seems to be an honest mistake.

Like I said before, the City made a honest, hypocritical mistake when they continually threatened fines for not snow-shoveling business and residential sidewalks - while the sidewalk in front of the city space/farmers market/bus stop stayed unshoveled for most of those 2 recent snow-filled winters. It wasn't fair either for everyone who obeyed the rules. At least DRP apologized.

I live a block away from several popular businesses (St. Elmo, Dairy Godmother, Pork Barrel, DRP), and the parking is fine. Except for the custard shop, it seems most customers are our fellow neighbors. How many of the board members are Del Ray residents? Perhaps, like one person suggested, this is a wake up call for more local government involvement by residents. So we don't have to curse under our breath as we wait in the outdoor line at DRP for a seat now after 9pm on a weekday. (cont.)

Del Ray is what it is today because of small businesses and change. A wise kid once told me that all change is good - it shows life. The point of gentrification is change - and not going back to what it used to be. And bringing small businesses, customers, and hence dollars to Del Ray is what brought it to the way it is today. Zoning does have a purpose, but leave nitpicky tactics to NYC and California. I for one would like to see Del Ray grow into a real "Main St., USA," not just a neighborhood for older, career-first couples with babies who move away as soon as their kids start school (or send them to private school). Maybe the presence of older kids and teens would increase pressure/demand for better public schools, for one. And take some of these jobs at our local establishments (while I don't know where each employee at DRP lives, I do know the bartenders at the Majestic live in the neighborhood). And not make the board freak out when, oh no, a restaurant wants to have later hours.

OK, it's obvious Matt F is angry up there, but McBrinn - just how civil is your trolling, exactly? Ugh. All I know for a fact is that the 8 now-unemployed workers at DRP now definitely make less money than you do - and some are trying to put themselves through school. Let's not lose sight of (or detract from) the point.

Personally, I found it reassuring that the owners and the city were trying to reach a good-faith compromise, and found it discouraging that my neighbors were calling for blind, even punitive, enforcement.

Laws are never black or white, and there are always exceptions based on the circumstances. We live in a great community, and benefit when a business or restaurant is successful - how much attention did Del Ray receive when the President visited DRP? In actuality, I wish it had received less, because I want to be able to go to MY restaurants and always have a seat. But times are changing - there's hundreds of apartments and condos being built around us and now a trolley is gonna come through, bringing swarms of new people into our area. So instead of getting upset about having parking right in front of our houses, we should be willing to walk a couple blocks and welcome as much seating as possible in the restaurants we have, instead of waiting to be seated or leaving in frustration. We should realize we're lucky to be living in one of the few areas in the country where property values are at least stable, if not rising. Stop finding every reason to complain.