Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010

824

Published on

Briefing presentation on Countryside Reuse.

Briefing presentation on Countryside Reuse.

Published in: Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
824
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
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 <ul><li>Timeline/Background </li></ul><ul><li>City Plans and Citizen Involvement </li></ul><ul><li>Planning Approach </li></ul>
    • 3. Background <ul><li>Vision 2001-2020 recommended housing cluster development </li></ul><ul><li>Purchased in 2005 for purposes of mixed-use development </li></ul><ul><li>Two attempts to identify a developer </li></ul><ul><li>Pursued continuation of golf course </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$1.5 million in capital improvements needed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extension of the operating agreement for 5 years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interim management agreement ($75,000 per year) </li></ul></ul>
    • 4. Public Golf Course Performance <ul><li>Nationally, 1990s &amp; 2000s were a period of overbuilding of courses. </li></ul><ul><li>Growing imbalance between supply of courses and demand by golfers beginning in mid-1990s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of courses up 24% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decrease of 8,000 rounds per course </li></ul></ul>National Golf Foundation, Golf Industry Report , Fall 2009
    • 5. Public Golf Course Performance <ul><li>Many courses trapped in a downward spiral </li></ul><ul><ul><li>60% report lowered maintenance standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Almost 90% deferring capital expenditures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>100-200 courses will close every year for the next 10 years. </li></ul>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 <ul><li>16 Virginia local governments surveyed </li></ul><ul><li>None posted net income for more than two years </li></ul><ul><li>9-hole courses do not fare better than 18-hole courses </li></ul><ul><li>Average subsidy is $302K </li></ul>
    • 8. &nbsp;
    • 9. Municipal Golf Course Performance <ul><li>1990s </li></ul><ul><li>New courses built in Roanoke MSA increased the supply of public courses by 50% (4 courses to 6) </li></ul><ul><li>Population increase for Roanoke MSA was 5.1% </li></ul>
    • 10. Municipal Golf Course Considerations <ul><li>Fundamentally different from other parks and recreation facilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>access provided to citizens </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>limited target market (average golfer income is in the $60-65K range) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expect an operating subsidy each year </li></ul><ul><li>Expect to fund capital improvements and ongoing repairs/maintenance/periodic replacements </li></ul>
    • 11. Current Situation <ul><li>Financial situation resulted in the need to defer capital improvements </li></ul><ul><li>No finalization of management contract given delay in improvements </li></ul><ul><li>Golf course closed </li></ul><ul><li>City staff directed to work with community on a process to develop alternative development strategies for the property. </li></ul>
    • 12. The Opportunity <ul><li>Scarce land resource for new development </li></ul><ul><li>Create new residential development </li></ul><ul><li>Create jobs through economic development </li></ul><ul><li>Enhance recreational amenities needed in the area </li></ul><ul><li>Add value to the area </li></ul>
    • 13. City Plans to be Considered <ul><li>Vision 2001-2020 </li></ul><ul><li>Peters Creek North </li></ul><ul><li>Parks and Recreation Master Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Greenway plans </li></ul><ul><li>Housing plan </li></ul>
    • 14. Community Involvement <ul><li>5 community meetings </li></ul><ul><li>6 focus groups </li></ul><ul><li>Open-house follow up </li></ul><ul><li>Excellent attendance </li></ul><ul><li>E-mail correspondence </li></ul><ul><li>Slideshare a useful involvement tool </li></ul>
    • 15. Community Involvement <ul><li>Neighborhood </li></ul><ul><li>Recreation </li></ul><ul><li>Economic Development </li></ul><ul><li>Realtors </li></ul><ul><li>Homebuilders </li></ul><ul><li>Planning Commission </li></ul>
    • 16. Common Ground <ul><li>All want something that adds value to the properties surrounding the former golf course </li></ul><ul><li>The City and the citizens are all concerned about property values </li></ul><ul><li>Urgency to find a path forward; uncertainty is harmful </li></ul><ul><li>Area near I-581 an important gateway </li></ul><ul><li>Land between Ranch Road, Mattaponi Drive, and Countryside Road most critical area in terms of adjacency. </li></ul><ul><li>Cove Road needs attention </li></ul>
    • 17. Planning Approach <ul><li>The property should be considered as a community-wide opportunity </li></ul><ul><li>Responsive to recommendations and needs identified in existing plans </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure development enhances community </li></ul><ul><li>Development that is financially sustainable </li></ul><ul><li>Creates a sense of place and is uniquely Roanoke </li></ul><ul><li>Respects a visible gateway to Roanoke </li></ul>
    • 18. Challenges <ul><li>RPZ restrictions </li></ul><ul><li>Topography </li></ul><ul><li>Street access </li></ul><ul><li>Airport Noise </li></ul><ul><li>Fragmentation of property </li></ul><ul><li>Variety of surrounding uses to be considered </li></ul>
    • 19. Planning Opportunities <ul><li>Largest land area currently available in Roanoke </li></ul><ul><li>No environmental cleanup issues </li></ul><ul><li>Visibility </li></ul><ul><li>Strong neighborhood association </li></ul><ul><li>Address identified needs of the area </li></ul><ul><li>Proximity to WFHS </li></ul><ul><li>Greenway route </li></ul><ul><li>Can be approached in different pieces with unique character </li></ul><ul><li>Proximity to retail, airport, I-81 </li></ul><ul><li>Good to excellent adjacent development </li></ul><ul><li>Potential for expansion of Trane </li></ul>
    • 20. Planning Areas
    • 21. Central Frontage A Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi <ul><li>8 areas </li></ul><ul><li>Relative size shown </li></ul>Schematic 16 12 42 17 14 21 15 72 <ul><li>137 acres are City-owned </li></ul><ul><li>72 acres RRAC </li></ul>
    • 22. Central Frontage A Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi
    • 23. <ul><li>Positive Features </li></ul><ul><li>Existing street frontages </li></ul><ul><li>Strong adjacent residential </li></ul><ul><li>Good topography </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Narrow shape </li></ul><ul><li>A portion is noise impacted </li></ul><ul><li>Comments </li></ul><ul><li>Most critical areas in terms of resident interest. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing residential uses make the area a candidate for some form of residential. </li></ul><ul><li>Residential lots could be divided along existing street frontages. </li></ul><ul><li>Resulting lots would need to be relatively shallow. </li></ul><ul><li>If divided for residential, likely to be remaining area for open space (possibly deeded or leased to adjoining owners). </li></ul><ul><li>Some adjoining owners have expressed interest in acquisition. </li></ul>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. <ul><li>Positive Features </li></ul><ul><li>Terrain </li></ul><ul><li>Access </li></ul><ul><li>Existing street frontages </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Noise impact – extended centerline of runway 6 – located within the 65 DBL contour. </li></ul><ul><li>Comments </li></ul><ul><li>Most of the land is not suitable for residential development due to airport noise impact. </li></ul>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. <ul><li>Positive Features </li></ul><ul><li>Western portion has exceptional views </li></ul><ul><li>Good existing access streets </li></ul><ul><li>Western portion is relatively flat </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Flood plain </li></ul><ul><li>Pond/wetland </li></ul><ul><li>Access to eastern portion </li></ul><ul><li>Comments </li></ul><ul><li>Single-family residential would be appropriate in terms of use, but laying out traditional lots would be a challenge. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Airport has expressed interest in acquiring “navigation easements” to limit height of structures and trees due to flight patterns. </li></ul>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. <ul><li>Features </li></ul><ul><li>Visibility from I-581 </li></ul><ul><li>Adjacent high quality office/industrial uses </li></ul><ul><li>Potential greenway linkage </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Flood plain and steep topography limit usable acreage. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing structures could be a liability if not reused. </li></ul><ul><li>Narrow shape </li></ul><ul><li>Comments </li></ul><ul><li>Potential to complement other properties. </li></ul><ul><li>Consider adjacent higher-intensity, higher density uses. </li></ul><ul><li>Appearance is important along this gateway. </li></ul>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. <ul><li>Positive Features </li></ul><ul><li>Large contiguous parcel of land </li></ul><ul><li>Visibility from I-581 </li></ul><ul><li>Potential greenway linkage </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Flood plain </li></ul><ul><li>Steep slope </li></ul><ul><li>Limitations on use </li></ul><ul><li>Approach lighting towers </li></ul><ul><li>Cannot create water features or uses attractive to birds. </li></ul><ul><li>No occupied structures </li></ul><ul><li>Under control of Airport Commission; use subject to TSA mandates. </li></ul><ul><li>Comments </li></ul><ul><li>Potential uses severely limited (no structures and no public assembly) </li></ul><ul><li>Passive uses </li></ul>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. <ul><li>Positive Features </li></ul><ul><li>Large contiguous parcel. </li></ul><ul><li>Good terrain. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing buildings could be an asset. </li></ul><ul><li>Central area is the most usable portion of the property. </li></ul><ul><li>Open to a wide variety of potential land uses. </li></ul><ul><li>Potential greenway linkage </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Existing buildings could be a liability, depending on land use. </li></ul><ul><li>Disconnected street access </li></ul>Central 42 acres
    • 39. Mixed density residential Light, small-scale commercial Recreation/Sports complex Central 42 acres
    • 40. Recommended Path Forward <ul><li>Create a master plan with a focus on each unique area </li></ul><ul><li>Continue process that keeps the community engaged in planning </li></ul><ul><li>The Planning Commission should have a prominent role </li></ul><ul><li>Involve other professionals (planners, lawyers, engineers, real estate, marketing, etc.). </li></ul><ul><li>Approximately 6 months to develop a master plan </li></ul><ul><li>Different parts of the property may develop at different times, depending on market, opportunities, and participation by developers </li></ul>
    • 41. Conclusion <ul><li>The land is an opportunity to meet long-standing community needs and goals </li></ul><ul><li>Questions and discussion </li></ul>

    ×