Our reporting on Bethesda's Pimping Castle is drawing links from some VERY unusual places. Here are two of them.
Showing posts with label Bethesda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bethesda. Show all posts
Friday, February 05, 2010
Links We Thought We Would Never Get
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
County Executive's Office Comments on Pimping Castle (Updated)
County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield left the following comment on the notorious "Pimping Castle" in Bethesda. Unlike our satirical account of a mythological raid, Lacefield's statement should be taken seriously.
Update: The Examiner has more.
Update 2: So does the Post. Why do the MSM outlets not use the term "Pimping Castle," which is of course British Lucky Paul's term for the house? Have they no (ahem) balls?
Montgomery County government received a complaint regarding the property at 6304 Tone Drive, Bethesda. The complaint centered around the use of the property and activities taking place inside the residence. Upon receiving this complaint, a Department of Permitting Services inspector visited the property with police officers from Montgomery County’s Vice Squad on Friday, January 26. They were refused entrance to the residence. Because of what was seen inside the property, and what was observed on the business owner’s website, and the community’s complaints, the Department of Permitting Services has written a Notice of Violation citing a commercial business violation. The Notice gives the business operator three days (Feb. 4) to cease the commercial parties and activities at this location. If the property owner continues to operate the business after three days, a Civil Citation requiring a court appearance by the property owner will be required. The County will continue to work with the community to resolve this matter and shut down this illegal business as quickly as possible.
Patrick Lacefield
Director
Montgomery County Public Information Office
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Pimping Castle Raided by Police
Montgomery County Police raided Bethesda’s so-called “Pimping Castle” last night and MPW reporters were on the scene. The raid will quickly go down as one of the wildest ever in county history.
Responding to complaints by neighbors, dozens of county police converged in an early morning raid on the rental property known as the “Pimping Castle” in Bethesda last night. Officers apprehended dozens of unclothed and semi-clothed patrons, as well as numerous devices, implements, machines and how-to manuals that required several Ride-On buses to relocate.
“Let’s put it this way,” said Police Chief Tom Manger. “They had an object that looked like an obelisk in there that was bigger than anything the pharaohs built. And it wasn’t exactly covered in hieroglyphics. The attendees weren’t archaeologists either, although they were certainly digging around in places they didn’t belong!” Inquiries as to the whereabouts of the attendees and equipment poured in from places as far away as Bangkok, Amsterdam, Timbuktu and Xanadu.
The fire department also had to employ the “Jaws of Life” to extricate four attendees from one of the “sex machines” employed by the “Pimping Castle.” All four participants resisted rescue, claiming that they only needed another few minutes inside.
Manger did not respond to multiple witness statements that up to three County Council Members were apprehended in the raid. “Look, it’s a bad budget year, and I have a requisition in for a new $65,000 bathroom,” said the Chief. “Do you really think I want to mess that up?”
One of the individuals snared by the raid was MPW contributor Marc Korman, who claimed that he was led to believe that a Democratic Central Committee meeting was taking place inside the house. “How many Central Committee meetings are held with everybody in their underwear?” Manger laughed. Another individual caught inside was none other than rogue blogger Adam Pagnucco, who claimed to be conducting an “under-cover investigation.” “Look, there’s a reason why I keep hedge clippers in the house, and it’s not to trim hedges,” said the blogger’s wife, Holly Olson. “He better not come home anytime soon, or Andres is going to be an only child!”
Monday, February 01, 2010
Snap Your Whip at Bethesda's Pimping Castle!
According to outraged neighbors, an individual calling himself "British Lucky Paul" is operating a "pimping castle" in Bethesda offering "bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism (BDSM)." Spank it harder, baby!
Here's Email Number One that went to the County Executive and the County Council yesterday:-----Original Message-----
And here's Email Number Two:
From: [Name and Email Address Withheld]
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:45 PM
To: Ike Leggett; Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office, Councilmember; Andrews' Office, Councilmember; Elrich's Office, Councilmember; Ervin's Office, Councilmember; Knapp's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office, Councilmember
Subject:
Dear Honorable Leggett and Council Members,
We are residents of Merrimack Park in Bethesda (a small single-family community of less than 100 homes) living at [address withheld]. It has come to our attention that a renter at 6304 Tone Dr. who calls himself "British Lucky Paul" is using the house for regularly scheduled "sex parties" advertising "bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism (BDSM)." His website features pictures of the house, himself and some party participants and also is linked to many other BDSM websites. In addition to parties at the house, he is offering "keyholder positions open too if you just need a regular place to play". Two web sites documenting this information are:
www.britishluckypaul.com/home/home/castle
www.britishluckypaul.com/home/home/bio
He is selling tickets to the party on-line. The invitation to the parties offers two types of tickets--one for $20 where the partygoers BYOB, and the other is a VIP ticket for $50 that provides access to a VIP lounge with a stocked bar. In addition, the last party held at the house on January 23 (Pimps and Hos) stated there would be hookers at the party. Please see the link below.
http://luckyparty.pingg.com/pimps
(Contents of the invitation listed below)
Pimps and Ho's - Lucky Play Party
Come hang with the Pimp Daddy, British Lucky Paul!
Date: January 23rd, 2010, 9pm
Location: Lucky Castle
Address: Bethesda, MD
Details
Your Host: British Lucky Paul
Host's Message: Come hang with the Pimp Daddy, British Lucky Paul!
What: Pimps and Ho's - Lucky Play Party
Where: Lucky Castle
Bethesda, MD
When: January 23rd, 2010, 9pm
More info: You can trust Pimp Daddy Paul to provide you with the hottest ho's in the Capital at this pimping castle party.
The fun starts at 9pm and keeps going until the last hookers quit workin.
It's BYOB so bring your own booze or grab a VIP Ticket for access to the VIP Lounge with a fully stocked bar, a chill out room, jacuzzi and extra play spaces.
ADVANCE TICKETS ONLY
This is an advance ticket only party so please ensure you buy one or you won't get in the door. You can buy them online by clicking on the link on this page, or even over the phone at (800) 838-3006, just ask for "Pimps and Ho's Lucky Play Party" tickets. You can also buy tickets from Paul in cash when you next see him. Total attendance is capped at 150 and we got damn close last time, you've been warned!
Address, directions etc are on the website. This is the last party that doesn't require a Lucky Party Card. Cards will be distributed at this party and will be needed for all future parties.
Be sure to click the link below to read the rules before heading over.
Need to crash for the night? Bring an air mattress/bedding and be prepared to help clean up in the morning!
The party will benefit the NCSF including some fundraiser stripping so bring some singles with you!
Cost: $20 Donation
VIP: $50 Donation
No refunds within 72 hours of event.
<< show less
You can trust Pimp Daddy Paul to provide you with the hottest ho's in the Capital at this pimping castle party.
The fun starts at 9pm and keeps going until the last hookers quit workin.
It's BYOB ...
show more >>
Links: Buy Tickets
Party Rules
www.britishluckypaul.com
Besides accumulations of trash, traffic to the house and neighborhood, excessive parking, and noise through the night into early morning, this person is operating an "adult" commercial business in a residential area where his neighbors are families with young children. By advertising the business on his web site and picturing the house, he is causing blight and damaging a quiet residential neighborhood.
As parents of [withheld] and owners in this quiet neighborhood, we are very concerned about an adult business operating in one of our neighbor's homes. Are the businesses and activities conducted in this home legal in a residential community? Are zoning laws or other codes being broken by this individual? Who do we need to contact to ensure these activities are legal.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Name and Address Withheld]-----Original Message-----
Now we don't know what is going on in that house and we're not going over there to investigate! (At least, not openly.) But British Lucky Paul's website is the cat's meow! What self-respecting pervert could say no to his "classes?" Click on the screenshot if you dare!
From: [Email Withheld]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 8:34 AM
To: Ike Leggett; Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Andrews' Office, Councilmember; Knapp's Office, Councilmember; Elrich's Office, Councilmember; Ervin's Office, Councilmember
Subject: 6304 Tone Drive
To Whom it may concern,
Please be advised of the following activities that are occurring in our neighborhood. The schools, Whitman and Pyle are also advised of the situation below and may need some guidance from your office as to how to proceed. I do believe that they will move to the parking lots of our local schools!!
A renter at 6304 Tone Drive who calls himself "British Lucky Paul" is using the house for regularly scheduled, commercial "sex parties" advertising "bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism" on his web site. His parties routinely bring 200-plus guests. His website also advertises the availability of "keyholder positions" for non-residents who "just need a regular place to play". The website also advertises the availability of his "dungeon" to non-residents and posts a calendar of available times 24/7. The web address is www.britishluckypaul.com.
Besides the accumulations of trash, traffic and noise through the night into early morning, this person is operating an "adult" commercial business in a residential area made up of families and children. By advertising the business on websites, picturing the house, providing a map to the house, he is causing a blight and damaging a quiet residential neighborhood which is not zoned for such commercial use.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter!!
[Name and Address Withheld]
Now we know that the cops are probably on their way to shut the house down as we write this. But the boys in blue need to make a good case in order to handcuff British Lucky Paul (assuming he has any objection to that). That means the police should take lots of video, maybe send in spies, and collect a ton of hard evidence to impose a stiff sentence.
We have just one request: send us the announcement for when the evidence is auctioned off after the trial!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Berliner Calls for New Transportation Policy on Wisconsin Avenue
Montgomery County Council Member Roger Berliner, who represents Bethesda, North Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac, is calling for the state to consider a “Sustainable Transportation Corridor” approach to Wisconsin Avenue. Berliner points out the impending transportation challenges in the Bethesda-White Flint vicinity and rightly notes how current policy emphasizes intersection capacity improvements above other solutions. Berliner states, “It is increasingly clear that pavement alone is not going to get the job done and would be counterproductive to our long term energy and environmental objectives, which can be met only if we significantly reduce vehicle miles traveled, expand transit options, and encourage more biking and walking.” We reproduce his letter to the Governor below.
Montgomery County Council
Roger Berliner
Council Member
District 1
July 13, 2009
Governor Martin O’Malley
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401-1925
Dear Governor O’Malley:
I am writing to ask you, Acting Secretary Swaim-Staley, and our legislative leadership to explore new legislation or regulations that would enhance coordination between state and local governments, harmonize land use and transportation objectives, and provide priority funding for “Sustainable Transportation Corridors.”
Modeled after a similar policy in Oregon, the goal of this program would be to ensure that future investments in state highway segments that (1) are of extraordinary economic significance to the state; (2) are experiencing unacceptable levels of congestion; and (3) straddle urban smart growth areas, are considered in the context of our larger public policy objectives of reducing vehicle miles traveled and supporting livable communities.
Regrettably, our current approach to significant state roads that bisect our increasingly urban county too often focuses on isolated intersection improvements in one area totally divorced from the larger context. The result can be short term “improvements” that are actually counterproductive in the long run. As the County Council representative of the communities that surround the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, I have witnessed this possibility first hand. Indeed, it is this experience that led me to explore other models that might serve our state and community better.
To the credit of your people in the State Highway Administration, who recently testified before our Council, they are trying hard to come up with a plan that would provide immediate short term relief to a looming traffic nightmare. As you appreciate, under the Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda is expanding and will reopen in 2011 as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. This expanded facility will treat twice as many patients, add 2500 new jobs, and increase traffic on a roadway that is already subject to unacceptable levels of congestion.
At the same time, just to the north of the expanded Medical Center, the Montgomery County Planning Department is currently drafting a new “White Flint Sector Plan,” which calls for compact mixed-use redevelopment. The Plan envisions the transformation of a section of the Rockville Pike into a multi-modal urban “boulevard” with a landscaped median, street parking, wider sidewalks, bike lanes, a grid of streets to take pressure off Rockville Pike, and much needed mass transit improvements, including the possibility of bus rapid transit.
Yet, to date, we have not stepped back collectively and assessed the needs of the entire Rockville Pike/Wisconsin Avenue corridor, without question one of the most important transportation corridors in the entire state. It is increasingly clear that pavement alone is not going to get the job done and would be counterproductive to our long term energy and environmental objectives, which can be met only if we significantly reduce vehicle miles traveled, expand transit options, and encourage more biking and walking.
The aim of legislation creating Sustainable Transportation Corridors would be to establish that broader context, to bring the best of urban planning and progressive transportation policies together to support sustainable and vibrant communities, and to give priority to such areas of statewide significance.
Governor, I know that you and our legislative leaders are firmly committed to sustainability. The legislation that you and our state legislature have championed puts Maryland at the environmental forefront. In my view, legislation creating Sustainable Transportation Corridors is consistent with and builds upon this commitment. I commend it to you and our legislative leaders for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Roger Berliner
cc:
Secretary Beverly K. Swaim-Staley
The Honorable Mike Miller
The Honorable Michael Busch
The Honorable Rich Madaleno
The Honorable Brian Frosh
The Honorable Bill Bronrott
The Honorable Susan Lee
The Honorable Ana Sol Gutierrez
The Honorable Al Carr
The Honorable Jeff Waldstreicher
The Honorable Bill Frick
The Honorable Brian Feldman
Thursday, June 12, 2008
4 Bethesda Metro Center Heads to the Planning Board
The Planning Board is holding a hearing on 4 Bethesda Metro Center today, the new office building on top of downtown's Metro station. The Post covered the issue today but left out a couple things our readers should know.
In a previous post, I detailed how the Bethesda CBD Master Plan uses Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to set the density level of the area around the Metro station. FAR is gross building area divided by lot area. But Meridian, the applicant for the new 16-story building, persuaded the planning staff to include half the width of several roads around the project, including Wisconsin Avenue and Old Georgetown Road, in the FAR calculation. Why? Because supposedly the roads were once Indian trails associated with the property and Meridian is arguing that they should count towards lot area. Forget the fact that the Indians did not keep deed or plat records.
Furthermore, the project's opponents are alleging that the inclusion of undedicated road area in FAR has occurred several times before, but only when project applicants were represented by Linowes and Blocher. Charles Claxton and Jerry Pasternak, representing Clark Enterprises, wrote to the Planning Board:It thus appears that this whole theory of the "prescriptive dedication" of Indian trails is not an historic practice, but the recent creation of Linowes and Blocher, the attorneys who initiated this application for Meridian and who first argued that Wisconsin Avenue and Old Georgetown Road should be included in FAR calcuations for Bethesda Metro Center. Recent history has shown that the fact that Linowes and Blocher can convince staff to accept its concepts of zoning compliance is not necessarily a good thing.
But Claxton and Pasternak actually go further, baldly stating that the dispute amounts to a repetition of the Clarksburg scandal:We have seen this scenario before - a developer gets too cozy with staff at the Planning Board and staff enables the developer to violate plans and the law. In Clarksburg I, there was no opportunity for the Board to prevent the integrity of the process from being shattered and citizen confidence in its government undermined. This Board, however, has the opportunity to prevent "Clarksburg II" and should do so by denying the application.
The irony of attorneys for Clark, which is a general contractor, developer and construction manager, deploring developer "coziness" with staff is rich. But then what does Rollin Stanley, the new Planning Director, do but add new ammo to the opponents' arguments. According to the Post:Stanley criticized the opponents during a speech Friday to members of the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce. He suggested that they are too focused on minutiae and don't see the big picture, which he said is a growing need for more housing and jobs near public transit as gas prices skyrocket.
The role of the Planning staff, including its Director, is not to criticize a development applicant or any other parties expressing views on an application. The staff's role is to offer its best professional guidance to the Planning Board. Stanley, who over-ruled lower-ranking staff who originally recommended against the new office building, is treading dangerously close to the line on this project.
"Planning shouldn't be about sitting in a room with five lawyers talking about the road in 1781. When you get to that level... something has gone wrong."
Stay tuned folks - this dispute is just getting started.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Hellbent in Hillmead
Neighbors of Hillmead Park in Bethesda want additional green space. Advocates for the homeless want additional housing. Why can’t both sides get what they want?
The saga of Hillmead Park began two years ago. Phyllis Piotrow, who lived on a 1.3-acre property next to Hillmead Park off Bradley Boulevard, planned to sell her property and move to New Hampshire. Neighbors blocked her plan to sell the property to developers, so Ms. Piotrow sold it to the county for $2.5 million instead. The county intended to add the property to the adjacent 4.3-acre Hillmead Park but questions arose about the fate of Ms. Piotrow’s residence. The county had been experiencing trouble finding homes for large homeless families, so the Department of Health and Human Services proposed using the Piotrow residence to house a 14-member homeless family. The family would be required to pay 30% of its income in rent. The remaining one acre of the property not occupied by the house would be added to Hillmead Park.
The neighbors revolted against that idea. They want the house demolished and all the land added to their park. In a column yesterday, Marc Fisher quoted two emails to the County Council on the issue:“I simply cannot believe that anyone with an IQ above that of a retarded chicken would seriously consider putting a welfare brood sow and her 13 kids in a $2.5 million mansion paid for by the taxpayers of this county,” [Rockville resident] Winston Dean wrote to council members.
Hillmead residents should feel fortunate. My neighbors just up Georgia Avenue have been trying unsuccessfully to get the county to purchase Montgomery College property for parkland for more than a year. Instead, they have been told to cross six busy lanes on Georgia Avenue to get to another park with no crosswalk and no traffic light. Hillmead residents already have a park and the county spent $2.5 million to expand it.
“May I suggest that you let the poor family live next to you and you let us tear down the [Piotrow] house at Hillmead citizens' expense and . . . let the earth be green,” wrote Hillmead resident Myriam Gaviria.
Ms. Piotrow’s 3,300-square-foot former home is a single-family dwelling in a single-family neighborhood, so retaining it does not change the physical character of the existing neighborhood. Because only one family is involved, there will be no significant traffic impact on Bradley Boulevard or the rest of Bethesda. The county has not proposed using the residence as a halfway house for criminals or substance abusers. The Greentree Shelter for homeless families has been located near Hillmead since 1983 and has not ruined the neighborhood. And at least one acre of the 1.3-acre lot will be added to the 4.3-acre Hillmead Park, so the neighbors will receive more green space. So if new development, traffic and crime are not problems and public green space will expand, what could possibly remain as an issue? Just take a wild guess.
Council Member Roger Berliner would like to demolish the Piotrow residence. Council Member George Leventhal would like to use it to house the above-mentioned homeless family while adding the rest of the site to Hillmead Park. Both proposals will be considered tomorrow and the council members are lining up on opposing sides. And so we have one park, one family and lots of Hell in Hillmead.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
A Question for the Planning Board
Jon Weintraub sent the following letter to the Planning Board Chairman about the propose development at 4 Bethesda Metro Center. See the last paragraph for the question referenced in the title.
June 2, 2008
Chairman Royce Hanson
Montgomery County Planning Board
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Re: 4 Bethesda Metro Center Project
Dear Dr. Hanson:
I am a founding member of the Bethesda Citizens Association, an owner and condo board President at 4821 Montgomery Lane in downtown Bethesda, and live within a few blocks of the Bethesda Metro Center. Both my wife and I ride the metro. I am convinced that the proposed 4 Bethesda Metro Center project is a bad idea for several reasons.
It is contrary to the intent of the sector plan which would need to be amended before anything can be done. When I considered moving to Bethesda, I reviewed the sector plan which calls for public open space where this building is being considered. I did my due diligence, let the builder do the same and request an amendment.
Bethesda traffic is already a problem. This project calls for a re-striping of the garage in order to add 400 additional parking spaces. When you add these 400 spaces to the additional spaces planned in the projects already approved for downtown Bethesda, we are talking about more than 2500 spaces to be added in a few years. I thought the goal was to get people out of cars and riding metro. Why is the Planning Board participating in this charade on the public?? A responsible public entity in the county must address the cumulative impact of the increased number of parking spaces on traffic in downtown Bethesda. We are creating our own BRAC traffic jam in downtown Bethesda, and it is of your causing by approving more and more parking!
The Bethesda Metro Center plaza area could be improved, but a looming office building will take away some of our dwindling open space and cut off air and light that currently makes the plaza a pleasant space for community use. We need to increase open space in Bethesda, not lose it. If the developers want to revitalize the plaza by adding a couple of restaurants, they could remodel the existing three-story food court building which they have purposely left fallow!
The Metro Center area was designed to be open at the center with easy passage for pedestrians. A lot of dedicated citizens, business people and developers spent a lot of time on the Citizens Advisory Committee that drafted guidelines for how they wanted this important area of Bethesda to look. The earlier developers followed the rules and were true to the vision for the Center. But, the 4 Bethesda project would destroy that vision.
It is obvious that what is planned is a dramatic change from what Montgomery County citizens want.
When we first heard of this project early this year, the staff recommended against it. Now the latest staff report supports it with flying colors. We would like to know what changed, and respectfully recommend a postponement so our Association, and undoubtedly others that have been following this project, can get some answers.
Sincerely,
Jon Weintraub,
Bethesda Citizens Association
A Question for Robert Harris
Mr. Harris, thank you for replying to my post on 4 Bethesda Metro Center. I have a question regarding your response.
It is true that the Planning staff saw many virtues in your client's application. (I encourage interested readers to look at the staff's recommendation for approval.) But my coverage of the issue focused on density calculation under the county's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard. In responding on that issue, you said:In calculating the density for the building, the developer followed gross tract area provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and approved by the County in 1989. This calculation allows for the inclusion of road rights-of-way attributable to the property when determining FAR. There are many other development projects in Bethesda and around Montgomery County that relied on and used this calculation in determining the density of buildings.
Section 59-A-2.1 of the county's zoning ordinance defines gross tract area, the denominator of FAR, as, "The total area of a lot or parcel of land including any existing or proposed streets, highways, or other land required for public use that is attributable to the lot or parcel dedicated by the owner or a predecessor in title." [Emphasis Added]
On May 29, 2008, the staff of the Montgomery County Planning Board recognized in their staff report that Meridian calculated density precisely as defined in the zoning ordinance.
The above ordinance means that if an owner dedicates (turns over) a portion of his or her property for public use to the county (such as for a roadway), the owner and his or her successors are still entitled to use its area for the purpose of a density calculation for the remaining property. But the owner must at one point have actually owned the dedicated property used for the density calculation.
As the graphic taken from the Planning staff's report shows, half the width of Wisconsin Avenue, Old Georgetown Road, Edgemoor Lane and Montgomery Lane is included in calculating density for the project. (The blue line shows the lot area included in the staff's density calculation.) This implies that at one time, your client or a predecessor owner actually owned half of those streets.
Mr. Harris, can you tell me the date on which your client or a predecessor owner transferred half the width of Wisconsin Avenue or Old Georgetown Road to Montgomery County or the State of Maryland?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Is This Smart Growth?
In April, the Post depicted the battle over a new office tower on the Bethesda Metro station as a struggle between Goliaths: the developer proposing the tower and the surrounding building owners and tenants opposing it. But this dispute is about far more than that. In fact, the Planning Board’s impending decision on this issue may very well change the allowed densities of commercial development all around Montgomery County.
In one sense, the Post is right: both parties to the dispute include commercial property owners. Meridian, which owns the 3-story food court building on the Metro station, would like to replace it with a 16-story office tower. The owners of the Clark Building (just to the north) and the Chevy Chase Bank building (across Wisconsin Avenue) oppose the new tower because it would interfere with their views and sunlight, thereby lowering their property values. But Meridian’s opponents also say that the new tower violates the Bethesda Central Business District Master Plan. Does it?
The key disagreement involves the concept of Floor Area Ratio (FAR), a planning standard designed to regulate building density. FAR is defined as gross building area divided by lot size. So a 10,000-square-foot lot with a FAR designation of 2.0 could have, at most, a 20,000-square-foot building. FAR limits are key components of proposals to limit density and “mansionization” in both Chevy Chase and more broadly throughout the county.
The Bethesda CBD Master Plan sets a FAR limit of 4.0 for an area around the Metro station bounded by Wisconsin Avenue, Old Georgetown Road, Edgemoor Lane, Woodmont Avenue and Montgomery Lane. That area includes not only Meridian’s food court building and the pedestrian plaza but also the Clark Building to the north and the Hyatt Hotel, Lorenz Building and Post Office Building to the south. That FAR limit has been in effect for at least 30 years and has served to balance space in the existing buildings against the open space between them. Indeed, the developers of the existing buildings had to respect that FAR limit when those buildings were originally constructed.
Meridian’s opponents claim that the new 16-story tower would push the FAR limit for the area around the Metro station above 4.0, thereby violating the master plan. But in recommending approval for the project, the Planning staff calculated the FAR limit differently from the opponents. The staff cited a 1989 definition for gross tract area, the denominator of FAR, appearing in the county’s zoning ordinance:Gross tract area: The total area of a lot or parcel of land including any existing or proposed streets, highways, or other land required for public use that is attributable to the lot or parcel dedicated by the owner or a predecessor in title.
This provision was designed to compensate a developer for turning over, or “dedicating” a portion of their land for public use to win approval for a project. If a developer did surrender land for a park, road or other amenity, he or she could still use the land for the purpose of calculating the allowable density of the project under a FAR limit.
But the Planning staff went further. They based a new FAR calculation for the Meridian project in part on a lot size that includes half the width of Wisconsin Avenue, Old Georgetown Road, Edgemoor Lane and Montgomery Lane – the streets that surround the FAR-limited area. (The expanded lot size under the new calculation is indicated by the blue lines on the staff’s map below.) The staff presents no evidence that the owners or former owners of the property ever dedicated or turned over any of these streets to the county as a condition of their properties’ development. How could they when the streets are centuries old?
The Planning staff’s arbitrary inclusion of surrounding street area in density calculations has sweeping consequences for the county. FAR limits are contained in many of the county’s zoning codes. If Meridian is allowed to benefit from this new, more permissible definition of FAR, then property owners elsewhere will want the same right. This will lead to greater density in areas all over the county, including office developments far away from any transit. How smart is that?
If the Planning staff wanted to approve Meridian’s office tower, they could propose amending the Bethesda CBD Master Plan or even writing a new one. But that would take many months of staff time, many thousands of dollars and lots of community input. That would slow down Meridian’s timeline. Instead, the staff has chosen to create a new standard for measuring density that would speed this particular project but create unintended consequences down the road. I have previously written in favor of channeling development into downtowns, but not at the cost of opening a Pandora’s Box of soaring density everywhere else.
Will the Planning Board go along with the staff? We’ll find out after they hold a hearing on the project on June 12.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Bethesda Development Activity
Below are pictures of three files provided to me by the Planning Board. The first is a map of development activity in the Bethesda Central Business District. The second is a list of pending projects, as in projects which have been proposed but are not yet formally approved by the Planning Board. The third is a list of approved projects which have not yet been built (on the top part of the page) or have already been constructed (on the bottom part of the page). The figures are hard to see as posted but just click on them to get the full-size image.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Fighting for Open Space in Bethesda
I know this is a long post but I urge you to wade through it and then take action to save a key bit of green in the heart of Bethesda.
The Planning Board staff have issued two blows to the fight for the last bit of green space at the intersections of Bethesda and Woodmont Avenues. First, they have rejected the application that the area be considered for the County's Legacy Open Space program. Second, they issued a report recommending approval of the preliminary plan for development.
The process for the consideration of the application for Legacy Open Space, which was submitted by the Greater Bethesda Chevy Chase, East Bethesda, and Edgemoor Citizens Associations, was highly unusual. Although the developers had requested an extension for consideration of the project which still had over two months to run, the application was summarily rejected. In contrast to the usual process, the community was not consulted. Nor was the official Advisory Board on Legacy Open Space consulted.
Fifty people, including yours truly, showed up on less than 24-hours notice (!) at lunchtime to plead with representatives of Park and Planning to overturn this decision. People came from all over the area, including Silver Spring, Westmoreland, Bradley Hills, Chevy Chase West, East Bethesda, Chevy Chase DC, Edgemoor, Westgate, and River North Chevy Chase, Town of Chevy Chase, Green Acres, Hamlet, Battery Park, and Colombia Forest. Unfortunately, the head of the Legacy Open Space program was delayed and could not come until after virtually everyone had left.
Apparently, the location is not considered sufficiently unique to deem it worth saving. Ironically, though the Planning Department has spent much time, energy, and money trying fruitlessly to turn Bethesda Metro Center into an urban center, one has emerged naturally instead right at the intersection of Woodmont and Bethesda Avenues due to the presence of the trail, the bookstore, movie theaters, and so many restaurants. The intersection in front of Barnes and Noble is unquestionably the center of the Bethesda and thus a unique location.
The County has already approved a major new parking lot and development across the street from Barnes and Noble at Lots 31 & 31A. Other new condo projects are already rising in the area. The chance for preserving a bit of green and a key gathering space at Woodmont East at the last open corner of this key intersection renders the space not just unique but critical to making the emerging increasingly dense Bethesda function well.
Moreover, the Planning Board Staff Report on the preliminary plan for Woodmont East II is fundamentally flawed. Consider some of its key arguments:
* Green space here isn't needed because of Elm Street Park and Caroline Freeland Park. Except that in addition to being on the periphery of the center of the urban district rather than being in its center, the former is across Wisconsin Ave. and the latter is across Arlington Road. If the Parks Department really wants to create urban parks, it needs to step up and create one at Woodmont East.
* There is lot of other open space near the intersection. Here the report incredibly cites the extra-wide sidewalks on Woodmont Ave. for proof. Except that whenever the weather is remotely nice (i.e. anyone would want to use the open space), the area is taken up with restaurant tables so the so-called open space is actually private, profit-making restaurant space. I think that's fine but let's not pretend it is "open space".
The report further cites the existence of a few down the Capital Crescent Trail by a small drinking fountain. With a grand view of Ourisman Honda's parking garage and closed after dark, the area is primarily used for a quick rest and to water dogs while walking the Trail. It is not a gathering place.
* Any park would at Woodmont East II would have to be a hardscape park. Here the report become internally contradictory. The report argues that there are so many people that it would impossible to preserve green space. Except that the presence of so many people (and the sidewalks are often choked on Spring/Fall evenings before all this new development has already occurred) clearly indicate a need to protect open space. The inability to preserve green space is contradicted by its continued existence not to mention common sense. One could easily have a green space surrounded by hard surfaces with benches.
* The preliminary plan for Woodmont East II preserves sufficient open space. Much of the significantly smaller completely hardscape open space envisioned in the preliminary plan would not actually be open. The building have a "bar" which would go over much of the space starting at 30 feet up. While the report gushes about the "bar", it remains a conventional bar and would place much of the "open space" in uninviting shadow, and essentially extend the existing tunnel underneath Wisconsin Ave.
The small gap underneath between the bar and the tunnel would likely be in permanent shadow as well due to the height of the building in that area. Moreover, much of the edges of the space would be taken up, as they are now, by tables for restaurants, so it would also not be open in a meaningful sense. If the Purple Line is built, a tail track is envisioned in the space so the public might be left with no real open space.
The report has other flaws but I think I've gone through enough at this point. If you want to read the report for yourself, here is how you can find it:
http://mncppc.org/
Click on planning department (not board) under Montgomery (not Prince George's) County on the left side;
Click on development in the reddish "What's going on" box;
A new browser window will open, click on "next" in that window;
Enter project number of 920070070 and click on "search";
Click on search for related plans and reports;
Click on "staff reports" and then click on "search";
Click on the 88-page document from 10/29/07.
What can you do to help protect the open space?
(1) Send an email to Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson at MCP-Chairman@mncppc-mc.org asking that they reschedule the hearing currently scheduled for the middle of a workday so that working members of the community can be there and have a chance to testify.
(2) Sign up to testify at the hearing, currently set for November 8th at 2PM. You can sign up online.
(3) This project will ultimately have to be approved by the County Council which must abandon Reed Street and give it to the developers for the project to move forward. Contact the County Council to voice your opposition to its abandonment and your support for a park. You can find email addresses for specific councilmembers here.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Purple Line Focus Group
On Monday night, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) held a focus group meeting on the Purple Line at B-CC High School. Mike Madden, the Project Manager, was accompanied by Lead Engineer Joe Romanowski, Engineer Harriet Levine, Engineer Deirdre Smith, and Public Outreach Person Kacie Levy.
Representatives of a number of different groups were there. In addition to the ACT, other pro-development and pro-Purple people included the MoCo Chamber and the Bethesda Urban Partnership (BUP). Community representatives came from the Town of Chevy Chase (Councilwoman Kathy Strom), East Bethesda, and the Riviera, and the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition--a group in favor of protecting the existing trail.
Although they are still officially assessing which route is best and whether any Purple Line route is justified, the tone of the meeting was that MTA firmly believes in the light-rail option along the Capital Crescent Trail and the ridership numbers will back them up. The official MTA Purple Line website reinforces this conclusion as it has a section on benefits but does not weigh them against potential costs of the light rail system.
The ridership study attracted a lot of attention at the start of the meeting. The BUP representative expressed concern that the ridership study would underestimate use because people are increasingly willing to walk more than 15 minutes to ride it. MTA expressed some sympathy with this view but ultimately made clear that they intended to estimate use based on surveys. My own sense that the willingness to ride naturally drops with distance and rapidly beyond a 15-minute walk.
The MTA representatives explained that they did not know much about ridership estimates--the experts on this topic were not at the meeting. However, they made clear their firm belief that BRAC (the base realignment process) would generate relatively few additional trips to Medical Center and not make a high-speed bus route along Jones Bridge Rd. more sensible than the light-rail route along the Capital Crescent Trail.
There was a fair amount of confusion when I asked whether the ridership would be based on existing development or development generated by the Purple Line. Building a light-rail system would permit and result in much higher development in Bethesda, Chevy Chase Lake, and Silver Spring under current law which links development to transportation.
At the end of the meeting, I was unclear on how fast the Purple Line would go. At one point, it was stated that it would run at an average speed of around 30-35mph. However, I also thought I heard that it would run around 40-45mph. MTA outlined that the speed of trips is critical to attracting ridership which made me wonder how many would ride outside of rush hour as one can drive as fast and to the exact location instead of a stop.
No mention or claim was made for traffic reduction by MTA which seems wise since its potential to take cars off the road appears dubious. After all, it is unclear how many will leave the roads for the light rail. Moreover, the new development permitted by the light rail will dump additional traffic onto roads near the stops (e.g. Connecticut Ave). The light rail appears to be less of an attack on existing traffic and more part of a smart growth strategy to promote greater density and public transit use within already developed areas.
MTA explained that they had to adhere to the Council of Governments (COG) model for future growth in estimating ridership order to have a shot at winning federal funds. Clearly, both supporters and opponents will be looking closing at the ridership numbers when they are released at their Fall meeting.
The trail was another issue discussed at the meeting. At one point before the meeting officially started, Mike Madden objected to calling the trail between Chevy Chase and Silver Spring part of the Capital Crescent Trail. However, the maps produced by MTA actually use the same name. MTA explained that within the tunnel under Wisconsin Ave., the trail would run above the proposed light-rail system. The floor to ceiling space would be as small as eight feet which MTA conceded was tight. Outside, the trail will be about 11 feet from the light rail and separated by some sort of fence outside.
Trees were also a matter of concern. MTA says that they want to avoid destroying any more trees than are necessary. They explained that the width of the right-of-way varies along the route from Bethesda to Silver Spring and that the full right-of-way was not needed for much of the way. Of course, they acknowledge that thousands of trees will have to go if the light rail is built. In the portion near Chevy Chase, the right-of-way is the minimum size needed so it will not be possible to replant trees alongside either the new trail or the light rail there.
MTA presented information a grass track option for the Purple Line. The group was shown appealing photos from light rail systems in France with grass instead of the conventional stones along the track. In addition to the obvious benefit of being more attractive, Mike Madden said that it could also help reduce noise. MTA had no information on the initial cost or the maintenance costs.
At one point in the meeting, it was candidly stated that it was unclear if grass tracks were feasible since the short and long-term costs are not known. However, Mike Madden later said in response to my query that they would not have presented it if they did not think it would be feasible but that positive community support would be needed to make it happen. Your gentle correspondent encouraged MTA to develop numbers on the cost.
Mike Madden expressed a direct willingness to work with communities on dealing with a variety of issues such as safety, noise, and access to the trail. Kathy Strom and I brought up the issue of people, especially kids, needing to be protected from the light rail. In the Town of Chevy Chase, the light rail would directly adjoin the Town with the trail being on the other side.
In general, the overall cost remains an interesting issue. No information is available on the cost of flying the Purple Line and the trail over Connecticut Ave. among other fixes needed to make it work. Mike Madden stated that he still intends to run the light rail at grade through the University of Maryland though the Chancellor of the University has publicly opposed this idea.
The State would be wise to gather independent estimates on cost. MTA favors the project and knows it needs to keep the estimated cost low in order to qualify for federal funds which naturally creates pressures for lower, albeit plausible, cost estimates. I imagine this is why so many public projects like this tend to cost far more than expected (visit the "Big Dig" in Boston for a prime example) to the detriment of public budgets.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Bethesda Metro Center Redevelopment
There will soon be a meeting to outline the latest plans to redevelop Bethesda Metro Center:
The Western Montgomery County Citizens Advisory Board – Land Use Committee will meet on Monday, September 10 at 7:00pm. The meeting will be held at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center, 4805 Edgemoor Lane, Bethesda.
The Meridian Group will present a project plan amendment to redevelop the food court portion of the Bethesda Metro Center property (the 3-story portion of the office building) with an office building including ground-floor retail/restaurant uses. The proposed project also includes improvements to the outdoor plaza and to the bus station area below the plaza.
This Land Use Committee meeting is an informational session that is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the committee members and any public attendee about prospective development projects. The Western Montgomery County Citizens Advisory Board, as an advisory board to the County Executive and County Council, does not take a position on any particular development project.
If you have questions or need additional information, please call or email Karen Thon.
Her phone number is 240-777-8210.
Her email address is Karen.Thon@montgomerycountymd
.gov .
The Citizens Advisory Board may not take a position but the notice is interesting as much for what it doesn't mention as what it does. The notice talks about "improvements" but doesn't state that the project would take up quite a bit of the existing public-use space to put in this massive building. The proposed office building would have 16 stories above ground (plus about two more for the roof) and 5 stories below the plaza for parking in addition to the bus terminal.
The existing plaza is less than ideal. At the same time, I can't quite see how the addition of a new glass tower is somehow going to make the space more inviting. It certainly lacks any aspect of the human scale which has made Bethesda Row work. I can't attend this meeting but I am hoping that people ask some good, hard questions about the exterior plan for this project.
Another area to explore is the nature of the public amenity. In order to qualify for optional-method development, developers have to provide an appropriate public amenity. In this case, the developers are taking away the plaza--the existing public amenity. One wonders if the proposal really compensates for this loss and provides a new amenity on top of it to justify allowing construction of this new building.
The notice mentions that they will improve the bus terminal and the plaza. However, they are taking a huge bite out of the plaza to put in the building. Moreover, construction will tear it up so much that they would need to rework it anyway. Presumably, it is to the builder's advantage to make the exterior around their building nice. The Planning Board will need to see if the proposal even comes close to compensating for the loss of open space let alone meeting the requirements for optional-method development.More questions for the developers:
Where will all the buses and metro passengers go during construction? Or are they leaving this until the project has been approved even though the inconvenience may last for years during the construction of the building? Will the project overlap with other nearby projects (Lot 31, Woodmont East, Hampden La.)? Remember that no public plan has yet to be released for how to deal with the proposed two-year closure of Woodmont Ave. on the Lot 31 project which is far more advanced in the approval process.
What will the impact on traffic be of creating a new office tower in the center of Bethesda. It would be nice to think that everyone will ride Metro but clearly that is not realistic or even part of the plan since they are building a five-story parking garage. Wisconsin Ave. is already jam packed during rush hour. Is the parking garage sufficient to meet the demand of the building? Or will the workers spill over into nearby already overcrowded public lots?
I'm not an expert on these and other question. However, apparently neither are the developers. Their previous proposal for a condo building was already shot down. Will their proposal for a new office tower fare any better? Should it?
You can take a peek at what the developer has submitted to the Planning Board yourself by navigating through their website:
Go to http://mncppc.org/
Click on planning department under Montgomery (not Prince George's) on the left side
Click on development in the reddish "What's going on" box
A new browser window will open, click on next in that window
Enter project number of 91992004B
Click on search for related plans and reports
Click on "select all" and then click on "search"
Bethesda Circulator Problems
The Bethesda 8 has recently been renamed the Bethesda Circulator. However, this valuable, free service run by the Bethesda Urban Partnership (BUP), has a few problems:
1. Not on time. The buses are supposed to run about every eight minutes but they frequently get bunched up and it isn't uncommon to wait 15 minutes. If you really want people to ride the bus from one part of Bethesda to another, the service needs to be more reliable.
2. Buses not clearly labeled. In the past, one of the buses was dressed up like a trolley while the other was frequently an ordinary Ride-On bus. While one of the buses still looks like a trolley, the other doesn't look like a public bus and has only two small signs on 8.5 x 11 inch paper indicating that it is the Bethesda Circulator. The leather seats in this bus are very comfortable and the driver was a very friendly woman on the day I rode it. However, you need to know it's a bus in order to ride it.
3. Stops not clearly labeled. The whimsical benches dot Bethesda but many stops lack any other sign that it is supposed to be a bus stop. BUP, which is funded by the public through a share of revenue from Bethesda parking meters, is reluctant to fork out funds for new signs. Not a smart decision on where to cut the budget to say the least.
Monday, July 09, 2007
One Thousand Cranes
If you want to date yourself, you can always talk about how you remember when Lowen's toy store and Gifford's Ice Cream were located on Wisconsin Ave. and you could even drive straight across Wisconsin Ave. on Old Georgetown Road. It wasn't quite Mayberry but it was quite different from the urban environment which has grown up around the Metro stop.
I've been following new development in Bethesda for the Town of Chevy Chase's Long Range Planning Committee . Lots of new projects are on the books that will promote an even greater transformation of the core of Bethesda. Indeed, 15 new projects have already been announced. In this post, I detail two of the largest projects. Both will have a major impact on existing connections between Bethesda and Chevy Chase.
Two huge development projects are planned for the intersection of Woodmont Ave. and Bethesda Ave. Woodmont East II will be an enormous development. It will engulf the existing building where Thyme Square is located as well as the open space between that building and the Bethesda Row Landmark movie theaters and even go over the existing garage in the adjoining building. In addition to a new 121,090 square foot hotel, Woodmont East II will contain 250 new condominium units in 304,135 square feet. There will also be 78,300 square feet of office space and 36,300 square feet of retail space.
This building will have to over the existing trail and the tunnel under Wisconsin Ave. connecting Bethesda and Chevy Chase will be blocked during construction. Hikers and bikers will have to cross Wisconsin Ave. and go through Elm Street Park during construction. Although the County spent substantial funds during the Duncan years to open the tunnel, the Department of Planning is not bothered by the change as the Master Plan apparently has the trail connection going down a non-existent bike lane along this route.
Lot 31 is already becoming the Area 51 of Montgomery County. This enormous development is a public/private partnership between Montgomery County and PN Hoffman and Stonebridge Associates. It will encompass the existing Lot 31 and 31A parking lots opposite Barnes and Noble and even Woodmont Ave. between them. You can view the development plan for yourself on their website designed to promote the project.
The development plan includes the construction of an underground parking lot with 1450 parking spaces (1150 public and 300 private). The parking lots will have two exits, one on the east side of Woodmont Ave. and one on Bethesda Ave (east of Woodmont Ave.). There will be 250 condominium units ranging in size from 600 to 3500 square feet for a total of 332,500 square feet. Thirty workforce housing units are included in the project. There will also be 40,000 square feet of retail space at street level.
There will also be permanent changes to the traffic pattern which will greatly impact the Town. Specifically, a new median will be constructed which will make it impossible to make left turns from Woodmont Ave. on to Leland St. This change appears designed primarily to assuage the community on Leland St. which will have to endure years of construction. Woodmont Ave. will also be narrowed from two lanes in both directions to one lane, thus likely increasing traffic backups on this street, especially in Ourisman Honda continues to unload cars there as it does now.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Bethesda Under Construction
Here is a roundup of the projects currently under construction (or about to start construction) in the Bethesda Central Business District.
Arlington East
Federal Realty is constructing a mixed housing and retail complex on the east side of Arlington Rd. between Bethesda Ave. and Elm St. where Giant Food used to be located. The new building will contain 180 "luxury" apartments as well as retail establishments on the ground floor (207,340 square feet of housing and 67,651 square feet of retail).
Adagio
This mixed residential-retail building is located on Wisconsin Ave. practically on top of Staples. Approved at the height of the Bethesda housing frenzy, the Adagio will contain 92 residential units (150,660 square feet of housing) priced at $650,000 to $1.6 million. Washington Sports Club is the major retail anchor (44,146 square feet of retail). After much delay, WSC has finally announced to its members that its club at Bethesda Ave. and Woodmont Ave. will close in September and be relocated to the Adagio. However, no information has be issued about the parking situation.
Lionsgate
Another mixed residential and retail development, Liongate is located at the intersection of Old Georgetown Rd. and Woodmont Ave. (also known as Woodmont Corner where Olsson's, Flanagan's and Outback were located before the cranes went up). This twelve floor building will have 158 "luxury condominiums" (in 267,516 square feet) as well as retail on the ground floor (in 17,000 square feet).
Trillium
Located in the Woodmont Triangle, Trillium is at the leading edge of an expected spate of new development in this section of Bethesda since the adopted of the Woodmont Triangle Amendment to the Master Plan for the Bethesda Central Business District. Located on Battery La. between Wisconsin Ave. and Woodmont Ave., this nine-story building is being constructed by the Patrinely Group. It will contain 198 new residential units (in 260,662 square feet) as well as retail space (in 16,595 square feet).
Air Rights Hotel
A new 216-room Hilton Garden Inn is being constructed as part of the Air Rights Center. However, the hotel will only compose 132,421 square feet of this development--office space will comprise 364,100 square feet in the building with retail comprising the remaining 4,600 square feet. Located just north of Elm Street Park, Chevy Chase Councilman Mier Wolf informs me that the developers have agreed to stage the construction from Waverly Ave. rather than the park and to pay for improvements to the park.
4933 Fairmont Avenue
Located on the same block as Ben & Jerry's, this relatively small mixed residential-retail-office development will contain just two residential units in 2,626 square feet as well as 1,092 square feet of retail space and 1,490 square feet of office space.
In upcoming posts, I hope to detail the many pending and future projects which are at various stages of planning approval process.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Creating Traffic
Lots 31 and 31A, better known as the parking lots across the street from Barnes and Noble at Bethesda and Woodmont Aves., is becoming the Area 51 of Bethesda. Some of the new traffic is temporary and some is permanent.
Temporary:
Woodmont Ave. will be closed for approximately two years so that a massive underground parking lot can be constructed underneath the existing street as well as the two parking lots.
Permanent:
It will no longer be possible to make a left turn from Woodmont Ave. on to Leland St. due to the construction of a new median designed to block this sort of turn. As a result, Leland St. will no longer serve as a cut through between Woodmont Ave. and Bradley Blvd. or Hillandale St. All of that existing traffic will be dumped on to already overcrowded Wisconsin Ave. and Bradley Blvd.
Woodmont Ave. will be narrowed so that there are no longer two lanes of traffic in each direction throughout its length between Bethesda and Wisconsin Aves., presumably making it more difficult to traverse that stretch of road. I also wonder where Ourisman will unload cars now.
Finally, the 250 new residences will also add cars to the road in Bethesda. You didn't really think that they would all ride Metro?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
