Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010

Countryside Property Development City Council Briefing September 20, 2010

Contents
Timeline/Background
City Plans and Citizen Involvement
Planning Approach

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)

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

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

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

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

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%

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

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.

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

City Plans to be Considered
Vision 2001-2020
Peters Creek North
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Greenway plans
Housing plan

Community Involvement
5 community meetings
6 focus groups
Open-house follow up
Excellent attendance
E-mail correspondence
Slideshare a useful involvement tool

Community Involvement
Neighborhood
Recreation
Economic Development
Realtors
Homebuilders
Planning Commission

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

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

Challenges
RPZ restrictions
Topography
Street access
Airport Noise
Fragmentation of property
Variety of surrounding uses to be considered

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

Planning Areas

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

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

Single-family residential or open space or some of both Mattaponi/ Countryside 17 acres Ranch/ Mattaponi 16 acres

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

Portland open space or agriculture reserved for future neighborhood commercial and civic space (square) Portland 12 acres

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

Single-family residential + a natural area or townhouses Laurel Ridge 21 acres

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

Commercial office/ flex space or townhouses + stormwater Management area Frontage A 15 acres Frontage B 14 acres

Positive Features
Large contiguous parcel of land
Visibility from I-581
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

commercial agriculture/ community garden or greenway/walking trails or passive open space or solar power array RPZ 72 acres

Central Frontage B RPZ Laurel Ridge Portland Mattaponi/ Countryside Ranch/ Mattaponi

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.
Challenges
Existing buildings could be a liability, depending on land use.
Disconnected street access
Central 42 acres

Mixed density residential Light, small-scale commercial Recreation/Sports complex Central 42 acres

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

Conclusion
The land is an opportunity to meet long-standing community needs and goals
Questions and discussion

Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010

by City of Roanoke on Sep 17, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 6

Statistics

Countryside Property Development: City Council Briefing September 20, 2010 — Presentation Transcript