We, as a city, already turned down their plan for development of this site. The developer has made no changes and all of the most objectionable elements of their plan (high negative impact on the park, loss of historic character, and lack of affordable housing) remain. They keep changing what they are asking for hoping that someday, one of their asks will slip through the net.

If this proposal were in our interest, we would have said "yes" to it last month. We didn't.

The City needs to tell Werrlein Properties in no uncertain terms that this proposal is unacceptable, regardless of the vehicle they are using to try to undo the Counci's previous disapproval.

The city of Hyattsville already said 'no' to supporting Magruder Pointe. Now it's coming back again but via a request to rezone. The plan is still the same, however, and addresses none of the reasons the majority of council members gave for saying 'no' to the proposal before, chief among them being the impact to our primary public space, Magruder Park.

Given all the comments about insufficient participation opportunities for the public last time, it's an insult to suggest that there'll be even less process this time.

This is a time where 'no' still means, well, 'no'.

I am opposed to the Werrlein proposal for many reasons. As the daughter and granddaughter of civil engineers who worked in New Orleans, I am strongly opposed to use of any flood plain for living space. From a design perspective, I find the existing Werrlein houses in our community very out of character in appearance and in the stilted way they sit on their lots. I think the density they are proposing will forever change the feel of Magruder Park. I also dislike the noise and air pollution and carbon footprint of demolition, then new construction. I would consider an alternate proposal including partial demolition for a school. I am not a parent, but find that a walkable school knits a community together in a way nothing else can. I would also support other adaptive reuse ie UMD planning & architecture using the space for a combination of classrooms and community space. I would even consider city hall relocating there, especially if the existing city building space could be annexed somehow for Hyattsville elementary. Or perhaps PG community college could have courses in the space, especially ones that would appeal to commuter students and our Aging In Place population. Single family homes would add a great deal of congestion and adversely affect the existing challenges for storm water management. I would want to have the parking lot redone to include permeable pavement and rain gardens for whoever uses the space as a requirement for any purpose.

I think this development is not the best idea for this site. Adaptive reuse of the current building should be part of the development, and it should include some type of community use. I have lived in Hyattsville since 1987 and have watched this building close down, be considered as a school, be considered for tear-down, and more. If our community has a focus on sustainability, tearing this building down is not the way to go. I would like to see a different kind of development in this area--some housing (single-family, rowhouse, etc.) but not such a high number of dwellings that will wreak havoc on our local schools. Let's not "settle" for something that is not an excellent solution. We are a desirable community so let's do some things that are going to be good for all of us.

I don't follow the argument that we have to agree to this proposal or risk being branded as anti-development. In the six years I've lived in Hyattsville the pace of new development has been off the charts (most of it welcome), so it seems clear that our community is desirable and will remain so regardless of what happens with this one project.

As Maureen writes in her post (you should read it), a chief reason Hyattsville is so desireable for new development and new residents is that there is such a strong sense of place here. That's the civic asset we should be most concerned with protecting.

I am sympathetic to the neighbors of the current building who are sick of it, but there's clearly a lot of potential for this piece of land to elevate the city, rather than simply get turned into a row of townhouses.

PS - If this project does go through, we should insist they drop the "e" from "Pointe". That's just not neighborly.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Magruder Pointe Development proposal by Werrlein Properties. I am deeply dismayed by the proposed demolition of the existing WSSC building, as well as the loss of potential open space for our community. While I realize that it can be difficult for many people to get beyond the "run down" nature of a vacant building, I would like to provide my professional opinion as a preservation architect, that this building offers great potential for adaptive reuse. Unfortunately, Werrlein has dismissed this possibility outright.

It has been proven over and over again that people appreciate historic architecture as being essential to the identity and unique character of their communities. Hyattsville is a historic neighborhood - people are attracted to Hyattsville precisely because of its historic building stock and, even more so, as the recent wave of adaptive reuse projects have created lively community spaces like Pyramid Atlantic, Vigilante Coffee and Pizzeria Paradiso. I would argue that it is exactly these types of adaptive reuse projects that are the reason Hyattsville is now in demand as a desirable place to live. The preservation of buildings that are part and parcel of our community’s history is essential to cultural, social, economic and environmental sustainability.

I don’t want Hyattsville to succumb to the kind of increasingly fast-paced, anonymous and “placeless” form of urban development that has drastically changed similar neighborhoods in the metro area. The individual character of Hyattsville is a precious commodity that we should not just throw away to the highest bidder. It is the unique identity of Hyattsville as a product of incremental development over time, that helps create a sense of stability and community spirit.

More specifically the WSSC building offers many qualities that would be lost forever if it is demolished, including:

1. A richness of design that spans three distinct architectural styles and time periods.

2. Solid construction and a high degree of craftsmanship and quality materials.

3. A thoughtful and considerate site design that utilizes the change in grade to negotiate the building’s relationship to both the residential character of Hamilton Street and the existing open character of Gallatin Street.

4. A tangible connection to our city’s history as the headquarters of a major public utility.

It is very convenient for developers to say that it isn’t financially feasible to rehab an old building when they have no interest or intention of preservation. It is my professional opinion that the WSSC building is a viable candidate for adaptive reuse and is in considerably better shape than many buildings I have seen brought back from neglect and vacancy to a vibrant new use.

In terms of the parking lot on which Werrlein is proposing to build town homes, I would much prefer to see this portion of the property remain open space. Its location directly adjacent to the entrance of our largest city park is a golden opportunity that our city should simply NOT pass up. Once this parcel is developed, the opportunity to add additional public green space and recreational opportunities is lost. I would encourage our city leadership to find a creative solution that would add this parcel to our existing park.

Development pressures are one of the biggest challenges to adding and maintaining green space in cities - it takes the will of the governing bodies to see the value of access to public open space/parks and prioritize that over development. The required zoning change for this proposal provides the city with considerable leverage in negotiating the future use of this portion of the site - why give that away with no benefit to the larger community? Is it because we are worried about getting “a reputation as a community as being anti-development?” (As we know, this is a concern for Councilmember Warner, whom I am quoting). As a resident I am much more concerned about getting a reputation as a city that doesn’t fight for its community values. I can guarantee that the desire for more open space and maintaining historic neighborhood character are routinely listed among the top values that residents site in Hyattsville.

We can all lament the fact that the city didn’t take earlier opportunities to acquire this property or that previous plans for adaptive reuse fell through or that the building is listed as a contributing structure to the Hyattsville Historic District but which affords no legal protections for preservation, but the fact is we are where we are. I am asking our mayor and council to be the people that stand up for our community values despite development pressure. Why not be the city that sends developers packing when it is not in the best interest of our community?

I would be happy to elaborate more on my specific criticisms of the proposed site plan (especially the town homes located on the lower lot which are poorly sited and not in keeping with our neighborhood, or even regional, character. Why are we plunking down Savannah in the middle of Hyattsville again?) but my real hope is that the mayor and city council will reject this proposal and will stand up for our collective best interest.

I do not think this is the right development for the site, especially because of the impacts it would have on Magruder Park. The current lower parking lot should be part of an expanded Magruder park or school (provided the floodplain issue can be dealt with). Converting this lot to single family homes would alter the character of the park for the worse and the park is one of the gems of the city.

I wouldn't be against a smaller scope development for the WSSC building site only, though I would also like the city/county to seriously consider options for the site for a school or community center, or even limited mixed use and take into consideration the historical significance of parts of the building. On the whole, I would rather see the building reused as much as possible. It is better to wait and make the right decision.

I can support development and new homes, but not at the proposed density. Traffic is already challenging during rush hour in this historic, residential community. Adding the # of proposed homes will turn Hyattsville's residential streets into thruways. In addition, I am disappointed by the lack of a plan for a high-quality community center or mixed use development that includes some commercial space and a more thoughtful plan for incorporating and respecting the green spaces. I moved here in large part because of the green space. Taking that away or making it inaccessible or unenjoyable will have a major impact on the community.

• How will we have events like the cyclocross and carnival without the parking lot?
• This development encroaches on the playground at Magruder Park. That is not ok. Even if they redesign the playground it will still be looming in the shadow of these new houses.
• The amount of traffic this development will bring in is untenable - it will make it even more dangerous for kids, joggers, bikers, etc. to get from the neighborhood into Magruder park. That intersection (at the entrance to Magruder Park) is already at capacity.
• We need this space for our community. There would be little to gain for current residents by building this development, but the developers have a lot to gain ($$$).
• It is highly likely that PGCPS will choose to build a new school in this location once they get to that point in the CIP process. If the land is already gone, this will no longer be a possibility. There are really no other places central to the neighborhood for a rebuild of Hyattsville Elementary. HES is high on the county CIP list, just not at the point right now where the school district can act so it's really up to us to leave this space available.
• Impact on the environment - the developer says there will be no impact but what form of accountability will the developer have? For how long?

While I appreciate the financial windfall Werrlein Properties, LLC would make turning what was once and office building and parking lot into a couple of acres of high density housing I fail to see what benefit that has to the community. New housing will not match with the existing neighborhood, many of which are 100 year old homes. The minimal facilities that are the playground and pool would become overrun with hundreds of new residents and those residents already in the neighborhood would have little to gain from this development. The ideal would be reusing the existing structure for some sort of community center but that may not be a fiscally viable option. I understand that Werrlein is in the business of turning a profit but if the development had any sort of mixed use component to it (gym, shops, restaurants, anything for the community) with residential above or beside that would be more of a win/win for the company and the community. If the only option the city is pursuing is dumping a couple hundred families into the bottom of the neighborhood in new housing my preference would be to keep the empty office building and parking lot which while not ideal doesn't create any strain on the community.

Look at the list- Pyramid Atlantic, Franklins, Vigilante Coffee, Pizza Paradiso, The Firehouse Lofts. In my opinion, the soul and charm of Hyattsville lies in institutions like these and the old homes, not in new development. We are a historic district for a reason. Lets not kill the golden goose.

I agree with Loire and Taylor. This going to cause even worse traffic issues on 40th Place and the historic streets of Hamilton, Gallatin and Farragut. My family also does not like the high density in this tract and demolition of a very historic property.

Furthermore, individual homeowners in Hyattsville have to jump through hoops in order to get permission for additional lot coverage for home additions on 7500 square foot lots, but a developer can almost entirely cover these lots with townhomes and other homes that all look similar? It doesn't make sense and does not promote smart growth.

If such high density is what the community wants (though I don't), then infrastructure needs to be in place to support it, such as increased bus service to the metro station, making 40th Place a one way street and more police enforcing stop sign running and other traffic issues, a bigger elementary school, etc.

I do not support this density level of development in a flood plain. O-S zoning is in place for a reason. This does not seem like wise development that will benefit Hyattsville in the long run for a multitude of reasons, this includes traffic, impact to Magruder Park, impact to already overtaxed public schools and the inexperience of the developer on this scale of a project. I hope that the WSSC site can be developed with a little more thought on how it impacts the community.

.

Hyattsville Coffee Stout with coffee from Vigilante!