Countryside- A Great City Purchase or Not?
July 8, 2008
The purchase of Countryside golf course several years ago and the ensuing discussions about its fate represent a lot of good and bad about Roanoke politics in my mind. The City of Roanoke’s Housing plan and initiatives, strongly led by our city manager, are bold and make a lot of sense to me. Roanoke is attempting to diversify its housing options and wherever possible mix in low income housing with other types of housing. The concept is not to isolate low income housing and not to just increase low income housing as the only growing housing option in our city. This does not mean low income housing is discouraged, quite the contrary- it will continue to be needed, just needs to be approached by developers in a different, more diverse manner.
Roanoke is land locked with very little developable land left in our 43 square mile territory. The concept behind the Countryside purchase (before my time on council) was to obtain land that could then be used to increase our housing stock- especially for middle income range housing but to also have diversity of housing options within the development. Request for Proposals (RFPs) were announced. Initially, there was a lot of interest. Then there was only one potential taker but as that developer tried to make the project work financially, the project changed in scope. Additional land purchases were required, it became more commercial with more rental units and really not at all in keeping with the original intent. Ultimately, the project for this developer could not go forward. There has been little to no interest since then. Roanoke has continued to hire the current golf course management company for one more year.
This “additional year” is quickly coming to a close and council has asked the city administration to prepare a briefing on viable near term and long term options for this beautiful piece of property. The briefing has properly been delayed until new council members come on board. The briefing will occur in August- probably at our first meeting of the month on August 4th..
There are countless possibilities for this property. In my opinion, we appropriately tested the market for a large housing complex and it didn’t work. Maybe, in hindsight, we shouldn’t have bought the property- though it is a great piece of land and who knows what would happen to it if we didn’t buy it.
As you have hopefully read in my other postings- I believe quality of life amenities are key to our economic future. Therefore, I like many of the possible future uses for this property that are consistent with this strategy. Certainly at this point, I support keeping the attractive 18 hole course and would strongly consider management options that may help it be more profitable while providing solid maintenance and upkeep. Perhaps the course can become an incentive for those who live in the city- reduced fees, certain number of free fees, etc. Other short term options may be an athletic field complex. Much of the area could remain green with greenway additions. Some of the land is very suitable for housing projects while keeping the course- perhaps one house at a time in this economy. Some of the land that abuts I-581 and private property is ripe for commercial development especially if the Valley View interchange is improved. Longer term options could include improved indoor tennis facilities and a much needed competitive aquatic center for our region.
The good about all this is the City of Roanoke made a bold decision, stuck with a housing plan, tested the market and now most consider different options- one of which, of course, could be to just sell the property as is without any constraints. We are now faced with a different set of possible uses- some of which may be better than the original intent. The bad in my mind is that this discussion has been going on far too long and has impacted those who live in the area and have lived with uncertainty for many years. One worry, historically based, is that with long discussions and debates the bold option gets whittled to a mediocre option not at all in keeping with original intent and thus doomed for failure. Lets hope this summer and fall, Roanoke City Council can enter into good and meaningful discussions with public input but reach a decision for this property in a timely manner with clear, bold short term and long term plans that will improve the economic vitality for Roanoke for many years to come. We need to develop a strategic plan for the area that takes us many years down the road.
The decision is coming, so help out—-What are your thoughts???
Dave,
Countryside is an asset to this community as a beautiful golf course. But, it needs to be treated as such vs. kept on life support for ‘one more year’. We can ill afford to strip our open spaces for the sake of housing when we already have so many city areas crying for redevelopment.
Beyond Countryside, the Roanoke MSA needs more of a regional focus on the Roanoke River as it should be a gem shared by our community as opposed to the current polluted waterway avoided by the majority of our citizens.
Troy
If quality of life amenities are a primary concern, then clearly the existing golf course fits the bill. Underneath the layers of neglect, Countryside is actually a very good course designed by one of the nation’s preeminent architects. It has the potential to be a true gem, but no management company is going to invest in the required upgrades and maintenance without the certainty of a long-term agreement.
New swimming and tennis facilities would be a great addition, as would playing fields as long as they don’t interfere with the course layout. Surrounding the course with new commercial development would be a mistake as it will interfere with play and detract from the overall experience.
Dave,
According to the City Manager low income housing was not planned for the property. The intent was to have “upscale” housing in order to increase the city’s tax base. Toll Brothers was an upscale developer picked for this purpose in 2005 who then eventually pulled the plug on the project. The City Manager informed us in a July 2005 meeting at William Fleming HS that the city has too much rental property and that the purpose of development of Countryside property was to increase the median price of housing in the city and there would be NO rental or low income housing. It was then emphasized that Roanoke City has too much low income housing and a comparison to Colonial Green project was made.
The Lawrence Group was contracted by the city in 2002-2003 for a study of the property and presented their opinion. The highlights of that opinion were that the property is irregular and bisected by the RPZ (runway 6 clear zone). The property was bisected by apartment complexes (the owners of Countryside estates apartments would not sell and even if they did it would be at least 4 million as assessed). Parts of the property (especially along Frontage Rd. - I-581) are in the flood plane. Fairways are too narrow for double loaded streets which a developer then would find adding streets not economic feasible.
Infrastructure costs - the discouragement of the FAA/VDOA of building residential housing in such close proximity to an airport and IN the runway 6 noise contour. Federal funds are still being disbursed to the homes for noise mitigation for homes in the area. The purposed residential additions include property that homes were torn down in the 1980’s due to the airport expansion. Now put them back?
There has been one fatal airplane crash where housing has been proposed. This occurred in 1994.
Localities are responsible through zoning to protect citizens from living too close to an airport. Roanoke City has none.
I would suggest becoming familiar with the land use options discouraged by the FAA. A golf course is specifically mentioned and allowed in a RPZ. However, any facility gathering groups of people like the possible athletic field may not be appropriate in the surrounding area. This information is on the VDOA and FAA websites.
The hundred plus residents living around the golf course purchased their homes for the beauty of living on a golf course. The reason that the current homes are of higher value is because of the golf course. Most of the available land around the fairways has been built on already. As I have learned through Council members like Mr. Carder and Mr. Bestpitch that discussion of purchasing the golf course was being attempted as far back as 2000. Documentation I optioned dates back to 2002. From 2000 many homes were being built and unsuspecting purchasers were happy to be buying homes on a golf course.
As a side note in 1982 Roanoke City took an option to buy this Golf Course for 1.5 million vs 4.1 million. The option then was not exercised. The property was more valuable then as there property included much more buildable land. We were not here nor were many of the even older homes.
The affect on these homeowners on any decisions for use of the property is dramatic. We have struggled to obtain information in the past as plans for the property have been kept behind closed doors. We are encouraged by the new Council that the promise of our involvement will be kept.
The land swap with the Airport Commission is coming up I believe at the July meeting. This swap is a widening of the RPZ and swapping for the property owned by the Airport Commission at Lewiston and Ranch. This property is that which homes were torn down. The 40 year lease with the Airport Commission for fairways ends the same time as the current lease with Meadowbrook. I now feel the reasons given by the Director of the Airport for now renewing the 40 year lease with Meadowbrook will be negated for the City and the lease for the fairways in the RPZ will be extended.
There will be a loss of the tennis building lease which generated revenue as the tennis teacher indicated he has given up trying to lease the building. He admits that the building may be too far gone to refurbish.
I had asked many times for a consultant to look at the possibilities of the property from a recreational amenity standpoint. A vision for the property. We have had our first greenways workshop that will bring the greenway through probably Frontage Road. Use of the pool and tennis area possibilities is the highest priority. The possibilities should include what amenity could the hotels benefit from - William Fleming - the community. Something attached to the golf course making it a package deal. This is where a consultant could help.
Rumor does have it that a long term lease of 5 years will be on the table while plans are made. The pool and tennis building had been managed and maintained by the former owners of Countryside (which are now the operators).
Dave,
Reading your blog it is hard to grasp where you are going with your thoughts for Countryside.
Sell it with no restrictions (sell us down the river).
Long discussion to include the community sounds like a good thing to me and not a bad thing. Especially since we have had NO discussions or input to this point.
A good thought was a Municipal Golf Course with reduced fees for residents, Fire/EMS, Police, etc. For example, the Sheriff’s Dept. had a tournament here.
What part do you consider “very suitable” for housing? Have you had someone look at it?
When are you coming out to look at it?
Agreed on both fronts Troy- the year of life support is up and we need to develop a strategic plan for the area that includes proper maintenance. The same absolutely is true with the River and several council members are pushing for that.
Valerie- sorry I was confusing- trying to throw into the mix many of the options I have heard for discussion. I believe my personal stance is pretty clear here. As you know I asked for a briefing on this matter many months ago and again about one month ago at which point we were told it would be in August- so shouldn’t be new news from Monday as your blog indicates. But either way- it was my intention with this blog to keep people repeatedly posted on upcoming decisions to allow as much input as possible. Low income housing was not part of the original plan- you are right- but the plan did not end up sticking with higher income housing alone. Again, the problem was a lack of strategic plan that could be implemented over many years- at this point that plan should include the course, better management, greenspace and park-rec (quality of life) amenities as much as possible with other potential development- some housing on some clearly available lots around the course and some commercial in appropriate areas. I am sure the briefing will cover all this and offer a lot in terms of management.
Thank you, Dave, for your response.
No, I would not have known that on August 4th Council would receive a briefing I could attend had it not been brought up at Council Monday. There is some misconception that citizens know what is to be discussed at briefings and when. If it is included on the agenda it is late Thursday or Friday before the Monday briefing and can be easily missed.
The community needs to be involved this time around. The delay in decisions regarding the property is not our fault and we should not be punished for the missteps in trying to put a square peg into a round hole. So I say there is no rush for a decision (other than lease issues) to be made now that there is a different plan for the parcel.
I had hoped you would include me or another neighbor in your tour. Mr. Nash is a good surrogate however.
I would argue the point of there being residential lots not in the RPZ available for housing.
Will you commit to having a study for the property by a consultant to present a “vision” for the property?
This property is just as important as Reserve Avenue and the Market building at least in my mind. As you stated this is rare valuable land in the City and it deserves a best use professional evaluation.
Dave,
I appreciate that you are embracing the conversation on Countryside. For far too long, there have only been one way conversations. The perception of the people around Countryside is that they were excluded from the dialog concerning the fate
of their neighborhood. In my opinion, more than listening or conversations are
needed. A different kind of development is needed. What’s needed is for city planners to truly listen to the people and then develop plans and strategies from their ideas, a transparent and inclusive process.
As for Countryside, the City was wise to purchase the course. Without the purchase, the club could have fallen into decay and ill-conceived development schemes may have leaked in. The City also gained an incredible golf course and recreation facility. It’s a shame that the golf and recreation properties have been allowed to decay.
I grew up on Countryside Golf course. I know every space of the golf course as well as the streams, woods, and fields. The course, designed by preeminent course designer, Ellis Maples (Pinehurst #2), has a championship lay-out. With proper upkeep, it could complement the new exclusive course being built in the Mt. Pleasant area. With its proximity to the airport and hotels, it is a natural place for the business traveler to stop. The course makes money now and could make even more later if the city were to actually invest in it.
The current demolished pool and beaten tennis facility are ripe for recreational redevelopment. Imagine the benefit to the northwest area if a recreation center was developed on that space. The facility could have a natural tie-in with William Fleming. The city could build a competition indoor pool, something the county neglected to do with its multigenerational center two miles away.
I can’t see developing ball fields at Countryside. There’s simply not enough space to do that justice. I can see the development of a series of walking trails and greenways weaving through the property.
I would encourage you to copy and paste these three links and read more that I’ve written about the recreational potential of Countryside on the blog I share with Valerie.
http://savecountryside.blogspot.com/2007/04/learn-to-swim.html
http://savecountryside.blogspot.com/2007/04/place-to-gather.html
http://savecountryside.blogspot.com/2007/04/view-from-outside.html
Thom Ryder
Thanks Kar (see amphitheatre post and discussion thread)- I will indeed keep getting more issues out there and you are welcome to start issue discussions on the forum section of this blog.
Thom- very good comments- I really really wish I could play golf but I agree about recreational opportunities. As far as other park-rec and land uses, you are right, I am not sure how much land is available and what will fit in- just what I have heard on the grapevine. All the more reason for a real strategic plan focused on green, outdoor and quality of life amenities.
Dave
Dave,
Thank you for creating this site as a way to communicate with your constituents. Most major cities in America have municipal golf courses that add to the quality of life and recreation for their citizens. It would be a shame to lose the course. Once it is gone, Roanoke will never get it back. The course needs help in the form of funding to bring it back to the championship course that it once was. A good advertising campaign wouldn’t hurt either. The available land near the tennis building and old pools could very well be used to create a swimming center (indoor or out) as well as another tennis facility (again indoor or out) and possibly a skating rink that can be melted in summer to use the surface for basketball or roller hockey.
I suggest this, because the town where I grew up, Amherst, New York, has all of that. They issue ID cards for a small fee that allows residents to use the facilities and get them a discount at the golf courses (there are 3). I encourage you to view their recreational brochure here: http://www.amherst.ny.us/pdf/recreation/brochure.pdf
Hopefully, this will help generate some ideas on how to continue to keep the golf course and improve its usage.
Roanoke cannot afford to throw away the only public, open area, green space, and recreation area in the NW part of the city. Roanoke does not needs more ball fields in lieu of the course. Roanoke needs different recreational activities, like tennis, swimming (more than just 2 pools), and golf.
Finally, with the housing and mortgage crisis, Roanoke, does not need more housing. Roanoke needs to improve what it has and help turn depressed areas of the city around like the Gainesboro neighborhood. This is where City Council needs to focus, along with bringing more and better jobs to the city.
Thanks.
I would love to see Countryside stay as it is to give our visitors the first glance how important OPEN GREEN space and PARKS are to this City and Valley.
field softball/baseball complex, named after Roy Stanley on land that is NOT quite as noticable from I-81. Leave the beauty to see. Take the softball fields down at Rivers Edge, convert to 2 or 3 more soccer fields, then you have a first class soccer complex at Rivers Edge.
How about builing a FIVE(Not 4)
Then build this complex that would bring in revenue like Salem did with Moyer.
Also, then drop ALL the single site fields throughout the city to 2nd tier fields where neighbors could use, saving daily maintenance and moving all that maintenance to ONE location. ALL the softball/baseball legues could play at one location. Ask how long it takes to do all the fields in the City, Norwich, Wasena, Fallon Park, Huff Lane, Breckingridge, Jackson, etc., etc. Take ALL the money we spend at those sites (I know there are others as well) every day, combine to this complex. Keep the old ones clean for the community. Then make this a revenue generator as well. Add a bigger water park like the little one in Dublin’s Randolph Park. Take a look at that park, make it bigger. then the Valley could bring in BIG events more often which create a ton of economic tax money. Ask Salem. BUT, Salem and even the new Botetourt Complex can not handle these events. Check with Rock Hill, build it, they will come. NO MORE HOUSING to be seen as visitors come into the city, please. River’s Edge/Victory Stadium probably would be the best place for this complex simply because of noise and lights. Then switch the soccer fields to Countryside and you KEEP what looks like beautiful open space.
You then can use those for big outdoor green events such as Green Hill in West Salem. Can you imagine the opportunities this would provide and keep “most” people happy. Talk to the City Council that made the decision at Rock Hill’s Cherry Park. It is widely used as waling trails that we are FINALLY using, events, seasonal activities and athletics. Roy Stanley would be smiling, I am certain if he could see Countryside saved and a COMPLEX built in his name. Maybe we only need a beautiful 9 hole course and the park hidden behind it.
Dave,
Prime example of why I think more Roanoke County citizens need to start trying to change things in the city. What ultra liberal thinking for a government to try and do something that the private sector should do. Now Supvisor Altizers GenCenter project is a black eye to us conservatives; however I see more of this type of attitute out of the city. When the city ask for State of Virginia tax help then is when I get really mad.
The Cty of Roanoke is ate up with bad government philosphy and liberal thinking. That is BAD for all surrounding localities.
Why should the City of Roanoke jump into the land developement business and think that they know best what “best use” of the land lmown as CountrySide should be???
If the City had a Rev. Noel Taylor like Mayor (it certainly was NOT Nelson Harris) and a council full of Ralph Smith type conservatives then maybe Roanoke City could solve some of its problems and grow!!
Thanks for these very useful comments that will certainly play a role, at least in my thinking, this August. Though James I am not sure I fully understand all your thoughts- I do agree with the concept that government cannot and should not be all things to all people and to provide things the private sector should- in most cases. Though you are missing my point, and what many feel- including most forward thinking and growing cities- about the need for quality of life amenities and green space and use of natural amenities as the best way to grow our city and attract more people to live here. There are many examples of this and many are listed above your comment. But your thoughts are valid and will be considered- should the city be in the golf course business?
thanks
Dave
As I read more comments posted here, and speak with my neighbors in the Countryside area….I have yet to find one resident that thinks the golf course should be taken away. The space that is availbe where the pools and tennis facility are are more than large enough to add qaulity faclities that can be used by both students of Fleming and the community.
Please let Valeria or Mr. Nash know when you are going to tour the area, they have many great ideas on how to develop some of the area without removing the golf course. I would also be happy to take some time and point out areas and places to you.
The City of Roanoke needs to worry about improving what is here, funding the school system for improvements in employee salary and building renovation, bringing more businesses to downtown, and filling existing structures that are empty and vacant.
And just for the record…..there is a large plot of land opposite Valley View (west side of 581) that has been for sale for years……that would be an ideal place for additional commercial/residential/recreational spaces…it was 60 acres, not sure what is now).
And again, thank you for allowing us to comment on important decisions.
-CM
Brilliant!
I believe that keeping Countryside a public golf course is one of the most important decisions you and City Council will make in a long long time.It is greenspace we so desperately need and a place where young and old alike can learn to play golf at a reasonable price. Why not work out a plan with the Hotel Roanoke with a golf package that includes hotel reservations and golf? I play golf elsewhere in Roanoke but I strongly fell that the golf and tennis and pool are a wonderful asset and should be upgraded for our citizens and visitors to enjoy!!! Please please take up the banner and march forward to keep this land out of the hands of developers. Thanks for listeniing, Nancy Revercomb
Thanks Nancy- I hear you. The complications come with the fact that a lot of golf courses have trouble breaking even- so if we go into longterm plans to run a course it will cost some money- the question is how much and how much can we afford- the trade off is how to make it a true benefit, a quality of life amenity for students, elderly, citizens etc that make the cost worth it. There are many that also think it can be profitable. My thoughts at this point are to clarify the airport needs and then request proposals to manage the course for a good while- probably at least 10 years- after which some of the questions I posed above should be answered in a more reliable fashion. I agree that is should become a green and quality of life asset for all of us!
-Dave
At the briefing Monday there was an option on the presentation for a consultant. From your last post and comments by Council members Monday it would seem that this would be a good way to get an perspective on a “vision” for the property.
I hope you will involve us this time.
Court Rosen had a good suggestion on discounts or free play at Countryside to promote economic development. Remember the empty J&J building is sitting right beside Countryside. The workshop on Phase III of the Greenway I attended has it coming down Frontage Road and even coming adjacent to the J&J property.
The $55,000 being paid for the acre of Countryside for the Trane expansion should be earmarked for Countryside improvements. I brought this up at April 6th Council meeting and members indicated that it seemed like a good idea.
It will be before you on August 18th at 7:00.
[...] highest and best use of the City’s limited resources, and the thread on Trinkle’s blog Speak Out Roanoke revealed how adverse the Countryside lobby is to the idea of low-income housing at the course is [...]
Earlier this week at our council meeting, the countryside issue came back up in the form of a motion to get more financial information on the actual costs of the city operating a golf course. The motion passed and many countryside supporters felt betrayed given our earlier meeting when there was a decision to put out a RFP for the management of our course.
The fact is, in my mind, the motion this week certainly should be supported and to me was a given- as we got responses on the management of our course, what they were offering and how much it might cost the city in terms of yearly dollars and capital improvement dollars, we would naturally need to review the financials very carefully and with the help of our administration and financial advisors. To not do so, to vote against getting such information, doesn’t really make sense to me. It may have been a cart before the horse type of issue- but either way, we are going to need financial guidance on the responses we get to manage the course.
The responses may be fiscally sound and they may not be. We have not tested the viability of operating the golf course for a substantial amount of time- 5 to 10 years. Given the economic slow down and the lack of responses to develop the land, my opinion was we should test the market to see if it is financially feasible to continue to operate the golf course. We may not even get a response, which will then again bring up the discussion of what other options there are, including to sell the land with even less restrictions than our original rfp for development had.
The bottom line is we need to see what our responses are to operate the course, give these responses very close financial scrutiny- including weighing the course as a quality of life amenity that may not make much money (the real issue may be how big a loss we can sustain given our review of other municipal courses)- then make a decision.
At this point, I hope we can test the true viability of a municipal course over many years, but of course we will need the assistance of our finance department and as much information as we can get before a decision can be reached.
Any further comments on this- pretty quiet out there!
Dave
Dave,
The source of my frustration is that I emailed to you the financing of Countryside as sent to me by Jesse Hall. I think that was a year ago. I think Mr. Nash is correct in regard to the debt being “apples” and the continued cost of operations is “oranges”.
You must admit the current operator not knowing from year to year whether the lease would be extended has left no incentive for capital improvement. Now that it has been over three years it needs city funds to get it back in shape.
Look at it like if you were renting an apartment that the landlord said he might demolish in a year would you remodel the bathroom?
I know “2″ waiting who are waiting to respond to the RFPs. One can’t get a return phone call from the administration. I would expect anyone reponding to the RFP would want the city to share in the expense of getting it back in shape.
How much money is in the amphitheater fund? Since nothing is immediate on that - pay off the loan. There has already been over 1/2 million of interest only on it that could have been saved. Bonds can be issued for the amphitheater when you are ready. This will go over like a “lead ballon”
Two personal issues that I have been dealing with for the past year have come to a head. First, as a young professional, I have grown to love Roanoke and look forward to calling it my home. Secondly, a year ago I took up the game of golf. I started at Ashley Plantation and after a couple of rounds I decided that I was hooked and proudly became a member. Then I played Countryside. Call it what you will but when I play at Countryside I feel I am at home. Having to dodge trees along with dodging 581 while navigating through the terrain with planes buzzing above may sound like a scene from caddyshack, a far cry from a manicured Ashley plantation, but it is a great place to learn the game and a great location for running into the core of Roanoke’s best.
With Countryside being an asset to the city for the forseeable future we must understand what Countryside needs to be. Yes, it would be nice to expand with ball fields, swimming pools and tennis courts but what the success of Countryside depends on is basic TLC. Instill in the community that golf is not a game for a privelaged few but a game for all. There needs to be a strong understanding between Roanoke and the future managing group that Countryside will be a place where the community will be involved and be able to in return have an economically feasable chance to learn the game. Teenagers and young alike are usually the most fundamentally strong business persons we have. If we can offer reduced or if possible free greens fees to a staff of volunteers who can help with the daily needs from clubhouse operations to course management we can instill a sense of pride and personal responsibility for the course. Private courses will hold functions where hotdogs and hamburgers are provided and volunteers divide up the course and fix divots, pull weeds and remove trash. Just one idea of golf giving to a community and a community vesting itself to a location.
Finally, I know that having a group of teenagers pulling weeds for free golf is not the formula for financial success. But this may be the perfect oppurtunity for Roanoke to abide by it’s “take things slow” policy. Golf is a game that takes time and patience, in return we are rewarded with cherished memories with friends, family and strangers alike. Find a way to make Countryside profitable, afordable, and a community gathering place for all generations.
“A young man stood next to his grandfather with a tough second shot positioned behind a tall tree. The grandfather explained to his grandson that when he was younger he’d not go around the tree but above the tree with success everytime. The youngster grabbed a club and struck the ball sending it into the tree and bouncing out shortly afterwards. The grandfather turned to the young man and said ‘Of course when I was your age the tree was much shorter’.”
Brandon,
You have said what is in the hearts of those who have played at Countryside thoughout the years. Living on the 12th fairway I see fathers and sons, young and old, and diversity of cuture. These are not rich or even middle class. I don’t play golf but visit the clubhouse and “yes” it is like walking into a family member’s home.
I would like to use your comment in a Commentary in The Roanoke Star-Sentinel. Email me at savecountryside@cox.net
[...] her pledge to improve conditions in our schools–can take the bold step of suggesting that the City consider dumping Countryside as quickly as possible. A rapid transition from paid to volunteer staff for the club and grounds composed of members of [...]