It is located northwest of the intersection of Belcrest and Toledo Roads. Click the image above for a pdf with images of the detailed site plan, clearly many families are expected as tenants. While the Hyattsville Council has met recently with the developer, Marvin Blumberg, this project is pretty far along. A revised Park & Planning staff report is due June 27, with the Planning Board Hearing set hot on its heels–July 12 (watch our Events page & calendar for details). Please express your opinion of the development to your city and county council members and to the Planning Board.
UPDATE: Courtesy of Stuart Eisenberg, Hyattsville Planning Committee, At-Large Member, as per the Minutes of the April 3, 2007 Meeting of the Hyattsville Planning Committee:
The Planning Committee motion recommends support with conditions: 1) Inclusion of annexation into City of Hyattsville as a condition of support. 2) Recommends the mandatory development requirements be followed. 3) Request that the developer propose a traffic mitigation program that: a) Reduces parking spaces or b) That provides a shuttle for future residents to access Metro. 4) Request the further reduction of the use of EFIS (ed. 5/31) materials. 5) Request inclusion of an Arts component in the development. 6) Encourage the developer to a speedy conversion to condominiums. 7) Developer should be subject to an offset school impact mechanism.
It seems that there has been movement on some points. From the Hyattsville Mayor & Council Agenda:
On February 28, 2006, the Hyattsville Planning Committee reviewed the DSP for the Landy Property. The committee has significant concerns about the impact of this development on the areas, especially the impact on traffic, schools, recreation, safety, and security. The committee recommends that the City Council and Mayor work with the owner on 1) annexation of the property into the City of Hyattsville, 2) reduction in density, 3) additional amenities (e.g, artwork, landscaping); 4) improved architectural details, materials, and finishes, 5) traffic mitigation, and 6) additional land donated to M-NCPPC or the city for open space preservation. Also the committee recommends that due to the delay in the plan, the developer should meet the APF requirements including the safety surcharge.