countryside property development: city council briefing september 20, 2010

Countryside PropertyDevelopment

City Council BriefingSeptember 20, 2010

Contents1. Timeline/Background

2. City Plans and Citizen Involvement

3. 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

2008 Construction Cost Estimates

Low High

New Course $7.4 million $8.5 million

Full Renovation $5.9 million $8.4 million

Greens Renovation $1.05 million $1.3 million

Irrigation Renovation $1.6 million $2.7 million

Source: From CB Richard Ellis, Inc., Golf Market Analysis (2008)Table information from Golf Course Builders Association of America

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

Central

Frontage A

Frontage B

RPZ

Laurel Ridge

Portland

Mattaponi/Countryside

Ranch/Mattaponi

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/Countryside17 acres

Ranch/Mattaponi16 acres

Single-family residential

or open space

or some of both

Mattaponi/Countryside17 acres

Ranch/Mattaponi16 acres

Central

Frontage A

Frontage B

RPZ

Laurel Ridge

Portland

Mattaponi/Countryside

Ranch/Mattaponi

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.

Portland12 acres

Portland

open space or agriculture

reserved for futureneighborhood commercial and civic space (square)

Portland12 acres

Central

Frontage A

Frontage B

RPZ

Laurel Ridge

Portland

Mattaponi/Countryside

Ranch/Mattaponi

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 Ridge21 acres

Single-family residential

+ a natural area

or townhouses

Laurel Ridge21 acres

Central

Frontage A

Frontage B

RPZ

Laurel Ridge

Portland

Mattaponi/Countryside

Ranch/Mattaponi

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 A15 acres

Frontage B14 acres

Commercial office/flex space

or townhouses

+ stormwater Management area

Frontage A15 acres

Frontage B14 acres

Central

Frontage A

Frontage B

RPZ

Laurel Ridge

Portland

Mattaponi/Countryside

Ranch/Mattaponi

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

RPZ72 acres

commercial agriculture/community garden

or greenway/walking trails

or passive open space

or solar power array

RPZ72 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.• Potential greenway linkage

Challenges• Existing buildings could be a liability, depending on

land use.• Disconnected street access

Central42 acres

Mixed density residential

Light, small-scale commercial

Recreation/Sports complex

Central42 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