• Like
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010

  • 782 views
Published

Briefing presentation on Countryside Reuse.

Briefing presentation on Countryside Reuse.

Published in Design
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
782
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Morrill
  • Morrill
  • Townsend
  • Carr
  • Carr
  • Carr
  • Carr
  • Carr
  • Carr
  • Carr
  • Townsend
  • Townsend
  • Townsend
  • Chittum
  • Chittum
  • Chittum
  • Chittum
  • Chittum
  • Chittum
  • Chittum
  • Chittum
  • Morrill

Transcript

  • 1. Countryside Property Development City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
  • 2. Contents
    • Timeline/Background
    • City Plans and Citizen Involvement
    • Planning Approach
  • 3. Background
    • Vision 2001-2020 recommended housing cluster development
    • Purchased in 2005 for purposes of mixed-use development
    • Two attempts to identify a developer
    • Pursued continuation of golf course
      • $1.5 million in capital improvements needed
      • Extension of the operating agreement for 5 years
      • Interim management agreement ($75,000 per year)
  • 4. Public Golf Course Performance
    • Nationally, 1990s & 2000s were a period of overbuilding of courses.
    • Growing imbalance between supply of courses and demand by golfers beginning in mid-1990s
      • Number of courses up 24%
      • Decrease of 8,000 rounds per course
    National Golf Foundation, Golf Industry Report , Fall 2009
  • 5. Public Golf Course Performance
    • Many courses trapped in a downward spiral
      • 60% report lowered maintenance standards
      • Almost 90% deferring capital expenditures
    • 100-200 courses will close every year for the next 10 years.
    National Golf Foundation, Golf Industry Report , Fall 2009
  • 6. Public Golf Course Performance $1.3 million $1.05 million Greens Renovation $8.5 million $7.4 million New Course $2.7 million $8.4 million High Source: From CB Richard Ellis, Inc., Golf Market Analysis (2008) Table information from Golf Course Builders Association of America $1.6 million Irrigation Renovation $5.9 million Full Renovation Low 2008 Construction Cost Estimates
  • 7. Municipal Golf Course Performance
    • 16 Virginia local governments surveyed
    • None posted net income for more than two years
    • 9-hole courses do not fare better than 18-hole courses
    • Average subsidy is $302K
  • 8.  
  • 9. Municipal Golf Course Performance
    • 1990s
    • New courses built in Roanoke MSA increased the supply of public courses by 50% (4 courses to 6)
    • Population increase for Roanoke MSA was 5.1%
  • 10. Municipal Golf Course Considerations
    • Fundamentally different from other parks and recreation facilities
      • access provided to citizens
      • limited target market (average golfer income is in the $60-65K range)
    • Expect an operating subsidy each year
    • Expect to fund capital improvements and ongoing repairs/maintenance/periodic replacements
  • 11. Current Situation
    • Financial situation resulted in the need to defer capital improvements
    • No finalization of management contract given delay in improvements
    • Golf course closed
    • City staff directed to work with community on a process to develop alternative development strategies for the property.
  • 12. The Opportunity
    • Scarce land resource for new development
    • Create new residential development
    • Create jobs through economic development
    • Enhance recreational amenities needed in the area
    • Add value to the area
  • 13. City Plans to be Considered
    • Vision 2001-2020
    • Peters Creek North
    • Parks and Recreation Master Plan
    • Greenway plans
    • Housing plan
  • 14. Community Involvement
    • 5 community meetings
    • 6 focus groups
    • Open-house follow up
    • Excellent attendance
    • E-mail correspondence
    • Slideshare a useful involvement tool
  • 15. Community Involvement
    • Neighborhood
    • Recreation
    • Economic Development
    • Realtors
    • Homebuilders
    • Planning Commission
  • 16. Common Ground
    • All want something that adds value to the properties surrounding the former golf course
    • The City and the citizens are all concerned about property values
    • Urgency to find a path forward; uncertainty is harmful
    • Area near I-581 an important gateway
    • Land between Ranch Road, Mattaponi Drive, and Countryside Road most critical area in terms of adjacency.
    • Cove Road needs attention
  • 17. Planning Approach
    • The property should be considered as a community-wide opportunity
    • Responsive to recommendations and needs identified in existing plans
    • Ensure development enhances community
    • Development that is financially sustainable
    • Creates a sense of place and is uniquely Roanoke
    • Respects a visible gateway to Roanoke
  • 18. Challenges
    • RPZ restrictions
    • Topography
    • Street access
    • Airport Noise
    • Fragmentation of property
    • Variety of surrounding uses to be considered
  • 19. Planning Opportunities
    • Largest land area currently available in Roanoke
    • No environmental cleanup issues
    • Visibility
    • Strong neighborhood association
    • Address identified needs of the area
    • Proximity to WFHS
    • Greenway route
    • Can be approached in different pieces with unique character
    • Proximity to retail, airport, I-81
    • Good to excellent adjacent development
    • Potential for expansion of Trane
  • 20. Planning Areas
  • 21. Central Frontage A Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi
    • 8 areas
    • Relative size shown
    Schematic 16 12 42 17 14 21 15 72
    • 137 acres are City-owned
    • 72 acres RRAC
  • 22. Central Frontage A Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi
  • 23.
    • Positive Features
    • Existing street frontages
    • Strong adjacent residential
    • Good topography
    • Challenges
    • Narrow shape
    • A portion is noise impacted
    • Comments
    • Most critical areas in terms of resident interest.
    • Existing residential uses make the area a candidate for some form of residential.
    • Residential lots could be divided along existing street frontages.
    • Resulting lots would need to be relatively shallow.
    • If divided for residential, likely to be remaining area for open space (possibly deeded or leased to adjoining owners).
    • Some adjoining owners have expressed interest in acquisition.
    Mattaponi/ Countryside 17 acres Ranch/ Mattaponi 16 acres
  • 24. Single-family residential or open space or some of both Mattaponi/ Countryside 17 acres Ranch/ Mattaponi 16 acres
  • 25. Central Frontage A Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi
  • 26.
    • Positive Features
    • Terrain
    • Access
    • Existing street frontages
    • Challenges
    • Noise impact – extended centerline of runway 6 – located within the 65 DBL contour.
    • Comments
    • Most of the land is not suitable for residential development due to airport noise impact.
    Portland 12 acres
  • 27. Portland open space or agriculture reserved for future neighborhood commercial and civic space (square) Portland 12 acres
  • 28. Central Frontage A Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi
  • 29.
    • Positive Features
    • Western portion has exceptional views
    • Good existing access streets
    • Western portion is relatively flat
    • Challenges
    • Flood plain
    • Pond/wetland
    • Access to eastern portion
    • Comments
    • Single-family residential would be appropriate in terms of use, but laying out traditional lots would be a challenge.
    • 4-unit condos, townhouses, or patio homes with 4 units or fewer per building would be good options because a driveway, rather than a new street, could be used for access. Such units could use the land efficiently and leave opportunities for meaningful open space.
    • Airport has expressed interest in acquiring “navigation easements” to limit height of structures and trees due to flight patterns.
    Laurel Ridge 21 acres
  • 30. Single-family residential + a natural area or townhouses Laurel Ridge 21 acres
  • 31. Central Frontage A Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi
  • 32.
    • Features
    • Visibility from I-581
    • Adjacent high quality office/industrial uses
    • Potential greenway linkage
    • Challenges
    • Flood plain and steep topography limit usable acreage.
    • Existing structures could be a liability if not reused.
    • Narrow shape
    • Comments
    • Potential to complement other properties.
    • Consider adjacent higher-intensity, higher density uses.
    • Appearance is important along this gateway.
    Frontage A 15 acres Frontage B 14 acres
  • 33. Commercial office/ flex space or townhouses + stormwater Management area Frontage A 15 acres Frontage B 14 acres
  • 34. Central Frontage A Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi
  • 35.
    • Positive Features
    • Large contiguous parcel of land
    • Visibility from I-581
    • Potential greenway linkage
    • Challenges
    • Flood plain
    • Steep slope
    • Limitations on use
    • Approach lighting towers
    • Cannot create water features or uses attractive to birds.
    • No occupied structures
    • Under control of Airport Commission; use subject to TSA mandates.
    • Comments
    • Potential uses severely limited (no structures and no public assembly)
    • Passive uses
    RPZ 72 acres
  • 36. commercial agriculture/ community garden or greenway/walking trails or passive open space or solar power array RPZ 72 acres
  • 37. Central Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi
  • 38.
    • Positive Features
    • Large contiguous parcel.
    • Good terrain.
    • Existing buildings could be an asset.
    • Central area is the most usable portion of the property.
    • Open to a wide variety of potential land uses.
    • Potential greenway linkage
    • Challenges
    • Existing buildings could be a liability, depending on land use.
    • Disconnected street access
    Central 42 acres
  • 39. Mixed density residential Light, small-scale commercial Recreation/Sports complex Central 42 acres
  • 40. Recommended Path Forward
    • Create a master plan with a focus on each unique area
    • Continue process that keeps the community engaged in planning
    • The Planning Commission should have a prominent role
    • Involve other professionals (planners, lawyers, engineers, real estate, marketing, etc.).
    • Approximately 6 months to develop a master plan
    • Different parts of the property may develop at different times, depending on market, opportunities, and participation by developers
  • 41. Conclusion
    • The land is an opportunity to meet long-standing community needs and goals
    • Questions and discussion