University View Pictures Released
As we reported Sunday, the University View plans an absolutely massive phased expansion - 434 units (1,416 student beds) and a whopping 30,000+ S.F. of retail. The 1st phase is planned to take place by 2010 (directly in front of the University View) with the other phases (including a parking garage) materializing by 2012.
Special thanks to Councilmember Stephanie Stullich for getting ahold of these for the general public. Looks like we’re finally getting somewhere around here…
Elevations:
Site Plan:
Ground floor retail and amenity plan:
Existing locational charm:
Click here to view our interactive project map
November 15th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Interesting that they still show the liquor store there. Maybe they can offer the guy some cut-rate retail space in the new development in exchange for his property…
November 15th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Yeah, that liquor store is quite an obnoxious eye sore and pretty much exemplifies the image that College Park is trying to dispel.
Overall, this is very exciting news that the council approved this. How many steps are left before construction can begin?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Why are liquor stores so hard to git rid of? I’m not sure the community would put up much of a fight to keep a liquor store around. Or, at least like Pat says, have them relocate into something more appealing to the eye. Or at least remodel where they are.
I for one get tired of looking at Tick Tock Liquor and the neighboring Pep Boys. There should be some code that requires a business to keep up its grounds. I’ve always dreampt of winning the lottery and buying out Tick Tock and putting a cafe/book store there. Sure it may get robbed every week, but anything is better than looking at dirt, beer cans and bottles, and afternoon drunkards laying in the grass.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Nice! Looks more like Bethesda than College Park. There’s hope for this town yet!
November 15th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Yeah if they put the liquor store in one of the buildings than the students only need to go downstairs instead of across the parking lot. That helps if it’s cold or raining, or there’s only 5 minutes til close! Some people might not like it, but think if you’re a student, that’s really convenient!
November 15th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
If only it were that easy, jeuill. The story has it that the liquor store owner is holding out for a ridiculously high price, betting that the View’s developer, Otis Warren, will eventually give in.
Though the county has the authority to take private land for private use, it is reluctant to do so for various reasons both good and bad.
However, the liquor store owner’s dreams of winning the lottery with his location may be dashed by the state’s plan for Route 1 reconstruction, which we wrote about a few months ago. The state’s plan calls for the partial elimination of the intersection in front of the liquor store and the creation of a signal-controlled intersection at Berwyn House Road and the View’s northern driveway. Admittedly these plans are drafts that are a few years old, but if the liquor store owner doesn’t play his cards right, it’s Otis Warren who may get the last laugh here.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I do believe that this is an issue of a long term lease and that Otis Warren actually owns #1 Liquor and the land which it sits on (I could be wrong). Eric is right that the Supreme Court allows eminent domain for private reuse (Kelo v. New London). It’s important to realize that despite the willingness of the governing body to carry out the eminent domain order, eminent domain (of a lease in this instance) for private reuse can only be done in the most extreme circumstances where the developer has a comprehensive plan.
Basically I can’t get the county to exercise eminent domain on a single family home, have them convey it to me, and then I build a 7-11 on it. Then the system would be ripe for abuse. This is a very common misunderstanding that property rights advocates exploit to their full advantage.
Otis Warren might meet the “comprehensive” test considering the scope of this project, but it would be up to the courts decide if #1 liquors decided to make it a fight.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
It’s interesting how close to Route 1 they are pushing the new buildings. How would this affect the proposed road widening or expansion from four to six lanes? Would they cut out some of the tree line, shrink the sidewalk, or just take spaces away from McDonalds across the street?
November 16th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
There is no proposed street widening… The whole principle is to build to the street and have activity centers on the sidewalks.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
David, what about the recommendations from the SHA design document? Although the proposed Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt Master Plan’s six-lane divided highway has been dropped (for now), doesn’t it still call for potential widening of the street (with a divided median and larger shoulders/bike lanes) in the future?
November 16th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Noah, my understanding is that the current center lane will be narrowed and replaced by a median and the remaining lanes will be narrowed to accommodate controlled left turn lanes at specific intersections and a bike lane (at varying widths) along the entire roadway. The rt 1 sector plan for CP calls for basically 0 “set-back” lines meaning buildings will come up right to the street. Since the corridor is zoned mixed-use, we are talking about continuous retail along the sidewalk similar to parts of DC.
How in the world will we deal with all the traffic from all the new development? Look up our posts about traffic demand management (TDM).
November 17th, 2007 at 6:11 am
Development plans that are approved for Route 1 do allow for the additional ten feet or so necessary for the proposed expanded right-of-way for Route 1. The pictures and illustrations the developers show us don’t focus on that element, which while important, would not be readily apparent given the small scale of the pictures and the drawings.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Few Comments…
RE: Eminent Domain for private use. Huge political issue these days up here in Jersey (google “Long Branch” “Pier Village” “MTOSA” ….a lot of people losing their beach houses to a developer (I suppose the FBI inquiries dont help matters much) Its not just Dirty Jersey though - lots of folks getting fed up and fighting back, driving up legal fees.
RE: this project. Ok, looks great and I am excited and all but again, from what I can tell, we dont seem to be utilizing the creek area. Weve got a garage in the center back by the creek. While I definitely want the garage hidden from Rte 1 I do hope they do something to incorporate / leverage the creek as an asset as opposed to shunning it at the ground level/first few floors like the view.