Landy Property

Take a look at the proposed 1100-1300 unit Landy Property development (yes, that’s right–over 1100 units). Multiply that by 1.5 or 1.75 cars per unit…landy-property-rev.jpg

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.

About these ads

6 Comments

Filed under Hyattsville, Landy Property, Schools, University Park

6 responses to “Landy Property

  1. Personally, I don’t mind high rises. It beats knocking down more trees in the exurbs any day. Nonetheless, we have to insist that our infrastructure keeps up, especially the already overcrowded schools.

    With regard to this project, is this going to be housing only? Is there going to be retail at the lower floors?

    It would seem to me that a project of this size should be mixed to make a contribution to traffic reduction.

  2. jeuill

    To me, that’s a lot more new people to the area. Are they going to tear down the old towers in front and the surrounding garden apartments in order to absorb those residents? Also, with this new population, it will add to the metro station traffic the mall already receives. It seems like it would be a crowded nightmare. I can foresee long lines at the movie theater and 1+ hour waits for seating at restaurants. It would be nice to add retail to the property, say a convenience store, maybe a few restaurants, etc., so that the mall and UTC doesn’t get overcrowded. I mean from the renderings this development looks like it could contain a small city of people. If anyone has seen The Mall At Prince Georges on a weekend, there are wall-to-wall people. Mainly because there are few places to shop in PG that are accessible to the metro.

  3. I am horrified at the scale of this project. Not the density – this is a half-mile from a Metro stop – but the scale. We’re talking about 1300 apartments in what are essentially TWO super-blocks. These towers need to be broken up into smaller buildings, on smaller blocks, that could create a more pedestrian-friendly layout and even create more open space. The UTC creates an urban grid that should be extended into the surrounding community. Instead, this project turns its back on the neighborhood. If you want to create a denser, more urban community around Prince George’s Plaza, this is definitely not the way to do it.

    Dan Reed
    justupthepike.blogspot.com

  4. I agree with Jeuill. There has to be a substantial retail component at this location.

    I would also like to see the traffic study.

  5. Craig

    Yesterday I purchased a home on Rosemary Lane thinking it would be a nice street to raise my two young children (2 and 4). My top priority in my home search was to NOT be on a major road. Had I done my homework, I would not have bought this house. I could not have imagined how this quite, dead-end street would be turned into a driveway for 1300 condos. All of our resources are invested in this home. What I have learned so far about this project is that I can look forward to thousands of cars passing my house each day. Please tell me this is not true.

  6. Univ. Hills resident

    Craig, First of all, welcome to the neighborhood! I’m sure you will find that this is an excellent place to raise your children. We’ve been here 7 years, have two children ourselves and love our location. That said, we are fighting the Landy property development like our lives depend on it…
    Now to address your concerns: it is my understanding that Rosemary Lane will NOT become an access road for the apartments/condominiums. However, the road MIGHT become an access road for the Clay property, an undeveloped tract of land that Mr. Blumberg gave MNCPPC in exchange for his impact on the Landy property. There are tentative plans to develop this property into a park with soccer fields, etc. This would bring traffic past your house, but nowhere near the thousands of cars a day you fear. The good news: University Hills residents and – more importantly – our City Council reps oppose the development of the Clay property. I have even heard that the park’s construction is not even in MNCPPC’s budget. So there seems to be a very, very good chance that this land will remain undeveloped, at least for a long time. I hope you find some comfort in that.
    In the meantime, I hope you continue to attend the council, civic association and other public meetings, write to the Planning Board and County Council, and get to know our very accessible City Council reps, Krista Atteberry and Anthony Patterson.
    Looking forward to meeting you and your family!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s