Yes, it has gotten a little hot. Spring is here and so are tourists. We all feel like going out and enjoying the weather.
What can be better than enjoying a cocktail or two outdoors? Drinking a cold beer or sipping a glass of wine can be a great pleasure while the weather permits.
If you need any help, Washingtonian created an excellent list of places where to drink outside around Washington that includes plenty of our local favorites.
- The Brixton
- Hank’s Oyster Bar
- Masa 14
- El Centro DC
- 1905 Restaurant
- Pearl Dive Oyster Palace
- The Standard
But, if you really don’t want to go any further from the area here is Borderstan’s much longer list of outdoor patios and rooftops.
DC finally got a taste — albeit brief — of spring weather this weekend. And with April officially here, there’s no better way to ring in the season than with a meal or a drink outside. Thankfully, there are several restaurants in the area (some new, some old) that have patio and rooftop outdoor spaces.
Here at Borderstan, we write about outdoor dining quite frequently. (What can we say? We like it.) To make it easier on you, here is a master list of some of the areas best outdoor dining — and drinking — spots. Of course there are many more. Feel free to leave your favorites in the comment section.
The Borderstan Patio and Rooftop Guide
Our three-dozen spots in the neighborhood:
- 1905 Garden, 1905 9th Street NW
- American Ice, 917 V Street NW
- Bar Dupont, New Hampshire Avenue/Dupont Circle NW
- Bar Pilar, 1833 14th Street NW
- Brixton, 901 U Street NW
- Cafe Saint-Ex, 1847 14th Street NW
- CIRCA, 1601 Connecticut Avenue NW
- Commissary, 1443 P Street NW
- DGS Delicatessen, 1317 Connecticut Avenue NW
- Donovan House, 1155 14th Street NW
- El Centro D.F., 1819 14th Street NW
- Hank’s, 1624 Q Street NW
- Jack Rose, 2007 18th Street NW
- Kramerbooks & Afterwords Cafe, 1517 Connecticut Avenue NW
- L’Enfant Cafe, 2000 18th Street NW
- Lauriol Plaza, 1835 18th Street NW
- Le Diplomate, 1601 14th Street NW
- Level One, 1639 R Street NW
- Local 16, 1602 U Street NW
- Logan Tavern, 1423 P Street NW
- Lost Society, 2001 14th Street NW
- Mandu, 1805 18th Street NW
- Marvin, 2007 14th Street NW
- Masa 14, 1825 14th Street NW
- Matchbox, 1901 14th Street NW
- MOVA, 2204 14th Street NW
- Nellie’s Sports Bar, 900 U Street NW
- One Lounge, 1606 20th Street NW
- Sette Osteria, 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW
- Solly’s U Street Tavern, 1942 11th Street NW
- Standard, 1801 14th Street NW
- Tabaq, 1336 U Street NW
- Trio Fox & Hounds, 1537 17th Street NW
- Ulah Bistro, 1214 U Street NW
- Vinoteca, 1940 11th Street NW
- Zorba’s Cafe, 1612 20th Street NW
There is now an online petition supporting Hank’s Oyster Bar, and owner-chef Jamie Leeds, in its dispute with a hand full of protestants over its outdoor patio space and Voluntary Agreement (V.A.). The name of the petition is “Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration: Rule in Favor of Hank’s Oyster Bar Dupont Circle.” The peititon is to Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration Director Fred Moosally; Ward 2 Council Member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2); Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) and ABC Committee Chair; and DC Mayor Vincent Gray.
Hank’s V.A. was with six protesters who live in the general vicinity of the restaurant on Q Street just off 17th Street NW. Hank’s was allowed to terminate its V.A. in November 2010, but in May the District of Columbia Appeals Court remanded the ruling back to the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board. The hearing on the case was June 13; the ABC Board has up to 90 days to rule. The Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) is the agency that oversees DC liquor laws. The ABC Board, composed of mayoral appointees, makes decisions on cases. Only two of the original six protesters were party to the appeal to the court.
The petition was created at change.org and organizers are aiming for 5,000 signatures. Late last week the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington (RAMW) called on supporters to back Hank’s. Last week, Leeds posted a letter on her restaurant door, website and Facebook page asking for community support.
From Tom Hay. Questions for Tom? Send him an email at Tom[AT]borderstan.com. You can follow him on Twitter @Tomonswann.
The hearings on the widely reported Hank’s Oyster Bar saga got underway Wednesday afternoon and were still proceeding well into the evening as this story is written. The final outcome could be weeks away for Hank’s ever-patient chef and owner Jamie Leeds, who thought her troubles were behind her when she successfully expanded her popular Dupont Circle restaurant in 2011, despite a protest from a group of six neighborhood residents.
The November 2010 Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) decision allowing the termination of a neighborhood voluntary agreement (V.A.) and ultimate expansion of Leeds’ restaurant was appealed to the DC Court of Appeals by two of the six original protesters (David Malloff and Lex Rieffel). The Court ruled that the ABC Board erred in its order allowing termination, so the case was remanded the back to the Board. The Board now has 90 days to issue an order. The uniqueness of the case and public outcry in support of Leeds’ situation raises hope for faster action from the ABC Board.
Things began to heat up this past weekend when the ABC Board ordered the restaurant to close half of the venue’s outdoor seating, reducing the outdoor dining space from 40 seats to 20. The Friday shutdown occurred without prior notification on a the review of an ABC Board decision approving termination of the Voluntary Agreement (V.A.) with six area residents. Two of the six residents, David Malloff and Lex Rieffel, appealed the V.A. termination and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals kicked the case back to the ABC Board.
At that point Leeds went public, asking the community for support by emailing and calling DC councilmemers, the mayor and the head of the city’s Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration. In response, several local organizations supported Leeds.
Criteria for Termination of the V.A.
At issue in the case are the criteria for termination of a V.A. The appellate court decision said the ABC Board must meet three statutory subparagraphs for termination of a V.A. The original ABC Board order only met criteria (C). The three criteria are:
(A) The applicant (Hank’s/Leeds) seeking the amendment has made a diligent effort to locate all other parties to the voluntary agreement; or (ii) If non-applicant parties are located, the applicant has made a good-faith attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable amendment to the voluntary agreement;
(B) The need for an amendment is either caused by circumstances beyond the control of the applicant or is due to a change in the neighborhood where the applicant’s establishment is located; and
(C) The amendment or termination will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood where the establishment is located as determined under § 25-313 or § 25-314, if applicable.
Early in the hearing ABC Board Chair Ruthanne Miller made it clear that on remand from the Court of Appeals the Board must make findings on paragraphs (A) and (B) and any effort to have the case dismissed would be inconsistent with the decision of the Court of Appeals. At the time of the 2010 order the ABC Board had been chaired by Charles Brodsky.
Dupont East Liquor License Moratorium
Leeds’ representative, Andrew Kline, first called Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner (ANC) Jack Jacobson (2B04) as a witness. Jacobson detailed the 2009 ANC review of the Dupont East liquor license moratorium and its recommendation to allow for two lateral expansions. Later Jamie Leeds was called as a witness and detailed the timeline of how she saw the opportunity to expand her operation. Kline argued that this easing of the moratorium, the rezoning of adjacent space next to Hank’s and the restaurant’s success met the conditions of subparagraph (B).
For the criteria in subparagraph (A), Kline presented a letter and email correspondence from February 2010 to his last witness, David Mallof, one of the original signatories to the V.A. The correspondence stated that Leeds desired to expand her business and wanted to meet with the protesters.
Under questioning by Kline about efforts to reach out to the parties to the V.A., Mallof argued that the email chain had been “cherry-picked” and that he had several phone conversations with Kline about Hanks’s. Mallof also explained that he was somewhat confused about the expansion plans and thought perhaps Leeds wanted to expand into the Trio space at the corner of 17th and Q Streets NW. He further explained that he wanted some sort of proposal or Powerpoint presentation with “meat on the bones” before coordinating a meeting — and had concerns with a suggested weekday meeting during business hours when residents might not be available. ABC Board members questioning of Mallof suggest they did not fully understand why a meeting did not occur despite overtures from Leeds.
Leeds has previously stated, and did so again yesterday, that she felt compelled to sign the V.A. in order to open her restaurant, noting that she would otherwise have had to wait approximately six months for a hearing to resolve the original demands by the protest group; the wait would have been extremely costly for Leeds. At the time she agreed to the terms of the V.A., the liquor license moratorium on 17th Street prevented Leeds from potentially expanding her business. However, when the Dupont East Liquor License Moratorium was later amended to allow for a limited number of “lateral expansions” for existing restaurants; Leeds said she then initiated a request to review the restrictions in the V.A. with the group of six protestants with whom she had signed the V.A.
(Note: I was unable to stay until the end of hearing, which began at 4 pm and did not conclude until 8:30 pm.) According to additional sources who stayed for the entire hearing, witnesses for the protestants who appealed the termination of the V.A. said that their reluctance to meet with Leeds was due to her failure to detail in advance of their agreeing to meet exactly what changes she hoped to make to the business, i.e., the expansion into the adjoining space to the east.
Mallof, plus one of the original protestants, conceded in their sworn testimony that they understood that Leeds hoped to expand to an adjoining space, as informed by correspondence at the time from Leeds’ attorney, but claimed to be confused as to whether this meant an expansion to the adjoining vacant space rezoned for commercial use or whether Leeds planned to take over the Trio restaurant building next door. They also acknowledged their understanding that the expansion would naturally require an increase in the capacity for the restaurant, necessitating a change to the seating limit specified in the V.A.
The big question now is when will the ABC Board reach a decision? Will Leeds and Hank’s Oyster Bar have to operate under the original V.A., or will the ABC Board be able to rule that its original decision to release Leeds from the V.A. was valid, based on the presentation of new evidence at the Wednesday hearing? The Board has up to 90 days to reach a decision.