Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 12-16-92 BOWl .FS 31287 SPECIAL MEETING --- ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1992 ~7:30 P.M. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Call to Order. Roll Call. Invocation. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. Statement of purpose. Mayor Bowers. Public hearing with regard to the location of a proposed project involving the realignment of Wells Avenue, N. W., from Williamson Road to Second Street. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager. a. Report of the City Planning Commission. b. Briefings: William F. Clark, Director of Public Works (Background Information) Gene R. Cress, Consulting Engineer, Mattern & Craig (Project Alignment Details) W. Robert Herbert, City Manager (Conclusion) Co Communication from John R. Kern, Director, Roanoke Regional Preservation Office. Adopted Resolution No. 31287-121692 approving the location of a proposed project involving the realignment of Wells Avenue, N. W., from Williamson Road to Second Street, N. W. (7-0) 7. Adjournment. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 18, 1992 File #514-200-77-247-258-20-66 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31287-121692 approving the location of a proposed project involving the realignment of Wells Avenue, N. W., from Williamson Road to Second Street, as more particuiarly set forth in Attachments § and 6 accompanying a report of the City Planning Commission under date of December 16, 1992. Resolution No. 31287-121692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regnlar meeting held on Monday, December 16, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. Gene R. Cress, Consulting Engineer, Mattern & Craig, 701 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson, City Pianning Commission Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Manager, Signals and Alarms IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 16th day of December, 1992. No. 31287-121692. A RESOLUTION approving involving the realignment of Road to Second Street, N.W. the location of a proposed project Wells Avenue, N.W., from Williamson WHEREAS, the City Administration has held numerous meetings since April, 1990, with groups and organizations concerned about the proposed realignment of Wells Avenue, N.W., from Williamson Road to Second Street, N.W.; WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission, on November 18, 1992, for the purpose of considering the proposed location as described in a report to the Planning Commission from the City Manager dated November 18, 1992, and attached supporting documentation; WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said public hearing; WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Roanoke were present and participated in said public hearing; WHEREAS, in 1969, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) prepared the Roanoke Valley Area Thoroughfare Plan in which VDOT recommended the construction of a four-lane, east-west connector; WHEREAS, in 1987, the Council requested VDOT to program this project; WHEREAS, this recommended improvement was contained in the 1995 Thoroughfare Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan adopted by the Planning Commission in 1977; and WHEREAS, this Council has considered all such matters, including those outlined in the Planning Commission's report dated December 16, 1992. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that this Council hereby finds that the proposed realignment of Wells Avenue, N.W., from Williamson Road to Second Street, N.W., as described in Attachments 5 and 6 accompanying the Planning Commission's report dated December 16, 1992, is in accordance with the City's comprehensive plan and approves the same. ATTEST: City Clerk. COMMENTS BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL WELLS AVENUE PUBLIC HEARING/SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, DEC. 16, 1992 (Presentation by Gene Cress) I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL BACK TO A TIME IN LATE JULYAWHEN WE WERE PREPARING TO BRING A RECOMMENDATION ON WELLS AVENUE BEFORE THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. THROUGH PUBLIC MEETINGS WE HAD ALREADY HEARD FEEDBACK ON ~R INITIAL PROPOSED ROUTE AND HAD GONE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD TO COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE ROUTE. BUT EVEN WITH THE NEW ROUTE, THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN ABOUT THIS ROAD~ ITS IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE MESSAGE IT MIGHT SEND TO THE COMMUNITY. I WITHDREW MY REQUEST TO APPEAR BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BEGAN MEETING WITH A GROUP OF CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED WELLS AVENUE WIDENING PROJECT. I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT CLEARLY, THAT WAS A VERy IMPORTANT ~.~ 2 NOT BECAUSE IT WOULD FOCUS ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE PROJECT, AS SOME HAVE ASSUMED. INSTEAD, IT GAVE US TIME TO STOP, LISTEN AND WORK TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF~ AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF DISCUSSION, SOME OF THE SEVEN GROUPS INVOLVED IN THE COALITION DECIDED NOT TO CONTINUE TALKS ON THE REALIGNMENT~ HOWEVER, I CONTINUED MEETING WITH A GROUP THAT INCLUDED REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE GAINSBORO NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, THE SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND, AND TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY, ALL OF WHOM OWN PROPERTY AND HAVE IMPLEMENTED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE GAINSBORO AREA. TODAY I AM RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL THATdWELLS AVENUE BE REALIGNED AND WIDENED FROM WILLIAMSON ROAD TO SECOND STREET, N.W., ALONG THE CURRENT WELLS AVENUE ALIGNMENT. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS WAS THE. CITY'S COMPROMISE ROUTE, SELECTED IN JULY AFTER NUMEROUSgMEETINGS WITH INTERESTED GROUPS. THE~ FIRST RECOMMENDATION INVOLVED AN ALIGNMENT 3 THAT WAS NORTH OF WELLS AVENUE, AND WOULD HAVE TAKEN 12 H~t~ES AND TWO BUSINESSES. THE ROUTE WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY ~.~,,,~ 5 TO ACQUIRE ONLY TWO ~HN.;F~F~, AND FIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, OF WHICH ARE~VACANT. FOUR TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NONE OF THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES HAVE KEN OUT AGAINST THIS PROJECT AT AN EETINGS OR PUBLIC HEARINGS, ~ ~.~ ~ ~-. ~ ~ ~'d.'~~, ~.'~-) IN ADDITION, I WORKED WITH THE COALITION REGARDING ADDITIONAL PROJECTS FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND'~,~ OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. ALTHOUGH DISCUSSIONS AND WORK WILL CONTINUE, WE HAVE AGREED TO A NUMBER OF GOALS THAT WE ARE CONTINUING TO ADDRESS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. THEY ARE: ~ 1. TO HAVE A ROAD DESIGN THAT WILL INCREASE THE AESTHETIC APPEAL OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH AND OTHER SITES ALONG WELLS AVENUE, WHILE PROMOTING A COMPLIMENTARY BLEND OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND NEW DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS FUTURE CHURCH EXPANSION~ ?"£~ ~' ~'~'~ Se 4 INTENSIVE AND EXTENSIVE OUTREACH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL AND MINORITY CONTRACTORS, REGARDING THE HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER PROJECTS, SUCH AS PRE- BID MEETINGS, ETC. A MICRO BUSINESS LOAN POOL, WHICH WOULD CONSIST OF FUNDS TO ASSIST SMALL BUSINESSES WITH START-UP AND EXPANSION FUNDS. DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGY FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION AND NEW, CONSTRUCTION FOR GAINSBORO. THE STRATEGY WILL INCLUDE A NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF RESOURCES FOuR LOANS AND/OR GRANTS. A SUB-COMMITTEE HAS BEEN~D~V~L~-~ED FROM THE COALITION AND THE CITY. NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS WILL ALSO BE ASKED TO ASSIST WITH THE ASSESSMENT AND SUBSEQUENT PROCESS. CUSTOMIZED JOB TRAINING FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS INTERESTED IN WORKING AT A REOPENED HOTEL ROANOKE SO THAT A LARGE POOL OF TRAINED EMPLOYEES WILL BE AVAILABLE TO FILL JOBS IN THE HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER. 5 6. DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL PARK WITHIN GAINSBORO TO FULFILL THE NEED FOR A MINORITY BUSINESS INCUBATOR IN THE COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION, THE CITY AND COALITION HAVE AGREED THAT GOALS WILL BE ESTABLISHED FOR HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS AND MINORITY CONTRACTING OBJECTIVES. A JOINT CITY/COMMUNITY REVIEW COMMITTEE IS BEING ESTABLISHED TO MONITOR PROGRESS ON AN ON-GOING BASIS. OTHER ISSUES BEING DISCUSSED INCLUDE THE LEVEL OF MINORITY PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HENRY STREET PROJECT AND THE NEED FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GAINSBORO LIBRARY. { tt...-- FURTHER, THE CITY WILL OFFER TO FACILITATE AN EDUCATIONAL/INFORMATIONAL EFFORT FOR GAINSBORO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS ON THE IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND TO PURSUE SUCH DESIGNATION IF SUPPORTED BY RESIDENTS. THIS HAS BEEN THE PROCESS AND THE RESULTS TO DATE. CLEARLY, THIS IS MORE THAN A ROAD PROJECT AND I WILL BE COMING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL WITH SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS IN REGARD TO THE GOALS 6 I HAVE MENTIONED, SOME WITHIN THE NEXT THREE TO FOUR MONTHS, AND OTHERS AS THE~PROJECT'S PROGRESS ALLOWS US TO MOVE FORWARD. I HAVE ASSIGNED MR. CLARK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, TO SERVE AS THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE GOALS, AND I WILL BE REPORTING BACK TO COUNCIL AS WE PROCEED. BUT TONIGHT, I BELIEVE YOU WILL HEAR MORE THAN A SIMPLE DISCUSSION ABOUT REALIGNING WELLS AVENUE. I'VE HAD CITIZENS COME UP TO ME AND SAY, I'VE DRIVEN DOWN THAT ROAD. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL OF THE UPROAR IS ABOUT. AREN'T YOU JUST WIDENING THE ROAD AND TAKING THE DOG-LEG OUT~? AND I BEGIN TO EXPLAIN WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM MY MEETINGS WITH CITIZENS OVER THE PAST FOUR MONTHS. NO, IT'S NOT JUST A ROAD PROJECT. AND, IN FACT, ITS NOT JUST AN ISSUE OF JOBS AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. RATHER, IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE HISTORY OF THE GAINSBORO NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M NOT PRETENDING THAT I KNOW WHAT IT WAS LIKE IN THE DAYS OF URBAN RENEWAL, BUT I'VE LISTENED TO OTHERS DESCRIBE HOW IT 7 IMPACTED THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. WHILE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN CERTAIN BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY, URBAN RENEWAL DISRUPTED THE LIVES, THE TRADITIONS AND THE HISTORY OF LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. CLEARLY, MASSIVE URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS ARE SIMPLY NOT DONE TODAY FOR THAT VERY REASON. THE FACT THAT WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITIZENS AND TAKEN THE TIME TO LISTEN TO THEIR CONCERNS IS TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF LETTING HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS IMPORTANT. AND THE ROAD, AS WELL AS THE GOALS I'M OUTLINING TO YOU TODAY ARE CRITICAL. I'M NOT BUYING GOODWILL WITH THESE GOALS. LET ME MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. I AM NOT BUYING GOODWILL WITH THE GOALS WE HAVE SET. RATHER I HAVE COMMITTED TO THESE GOALS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND I MUST, AND WILL, FOLLOW THROUGH ON THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE CRITICAL TO OUR COMMUNITY, TO COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND TO RACE RELATIONS. WHEN I HAVE MET WITH AND LISTENED TO THE CITIZENS, I'VE 8 LEARNED THAT THEIR FEELINGS RUN DEEP. FOR MANY, IT IS AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY. AND WE ARE IN A POSITION NOW WHERE WE MUST EARN THEIR TRUST. WE WEREN'T HERE WHEN URBAN RENEWAL OCCURRED, BUT WE'RE HERE NOW AND WE NEED TO WORK TO BUILD THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THIS GOVERNMENT AND THE GAINSBORO NEIGHBORHOOD. MY RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU TONIGHT WON'T PLEASE EVERYONE. BUT I WOULD ASK THAT ANY JUDGMENT NOT BE MADE BASED SOLELY ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN GAINSBORO ~ YEARS AGO, BUT INSTEAD WHAT WILL BE THE RESULTS FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THE WORK IS COMPLETED. THAT'S NOT AN EASY THING FOR PEOPLE TO DO, BUT I THINK WE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO MORE FAIRLY JUDGE AT THAT TIME. IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO THANK ALL CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. I BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS PROCESS, THOUGH DIFFICULT AT TIMES FOR ALL INVOLVED, HAS BROUGHT FORWARD A BETTER PROJECT, IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. THANK YOU. Hugh C Miller, Director COMMONWEALTH of VIR( INIA Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 December 14, 1992 t:lT'f C:' ::'~: "': "':it = TDD: (804) 786-1934 Telephone (804) 786-3143 FAX: (804) 226-4261 The Honorable David A. Bowers Mayor of the City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mayor Bowers and City Council: I submit this written comment to be entered into the record of the Roanoke City Council meeting which will consider the proposed Wells Avenue alignment. A prior teaching commitment again makes me unable to attend the meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on December 16, 1992. On November 17, 1992, I wrote a three-page letter to Roanoke City Planning Commission on the same subject. That letter was copied to you and members of City Council, and I understand that it is part of the packet of materials which you have before you now. In brief, my letter of November 17 stated the following: The Virginia Department of Historic Resources has determined that the Gainsboro Neighborhood (see the attached map) is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because it represents the only surviving fabric of the black community associated with the post-1882 rise of Roanoke as a major rail center; our department and the Roanoke Regional Preservation Office have worked with Roanoke city officials for three years to minimize adverse effects which the Inner Loop Project will have upon the Gainsboro Neighborhood's historic resources; we have determined that if a Wells Avenue realignment is necessary, the alternative presently proposed by the city has far less destructive effect upon the historic resource of the Gainsboro Neighborhood than the city's earlier preferred alignment "C"; our department strongly recommended that the two houses slated for taking on Wells Avenue be relocated to compatible vacant lots on the same block of Gilmer Avenue, if the city finds it necessary to proceed with construction of the presently proposed Wells Avenue alignment; finally we commended Roanoke city officials for their renewed commitment to a revitalization of the Gainsboro Neighborhood to go hand in hand with plans for rehabilitation of Hotel Roanoke. Our department was pleased that the Planning Commission recommended relocation of the two historic residences on Wells Avenue at the conclusion of its deliberations on November 17, 1992. Roanoke Regional Preservation Office 1030 Penmar Avenue, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 (703) 857-7585 Mayor Bowers and City Council Page 2 December 16, 1992 We hope that City Council will accept this recommendation, if Council adopts plans for construction of the presently proposed Wells Avenue realignment. Again our department pledges to offer continued preservation planning and technical assistance to Roanoke city officials and Gainsboro residents so that Hotel Roanoke and Gainsboro Neighborhood revitalization can proceed to complement one another as they must. Sincerely, ~ J n~R.K~rn, Ph.D. Director Attachment C~ Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., and Planning Commission Members Mr. W. Robert Herbert Mr. William F. Clark Mr. John R. Marlles Mrs. Evelyn D. Bethel The Rev. Kenneth B. Wright Mrs. Martha B. Boxley BOP.. STATEMENT OF BRUCE BRENNER ON BEHALF OF HENRY STREET REVIVAL COMMITTEE At the meeting of the Henry Street Revival Committee on December 9, 1992, the Committee carefully considered proposed plans for the realignment of Wells Avenue, N. W., within the City of Roanoke. The Committee was briefed on the plans by City Manager W. Robert Herbert and Director of Public Works William F. Clark. As you know, the Henry Street Revival Committee is advisory to the Mayor and City Council and has the specific responsibility of promoting and coordinating the revitalization of Henry Street which was once a thriving center of Black commerce, entertainment and culture within this City. After discussion of the proposed plans for realignment of Wells Avenue, the Committee, chaired by Dr. Noel C. Taylor, voted unanimously to endorse the current realignment plans. The Committee believes that, if the Henry Street project is to be successful, it must be accessible to the public. The current plan of realignment will allow improved access to the Henry Street project and will improve development opportunities. The Committee endorses the plan as being safe, attractive and convenient. RECE ~i:T. CITY C', :4 '92 DEO 1 ~oo~Po~ z~/p,o~,~9 Commission December 16, 1992 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Recommended Alignment - Wells Avenue I. Backaround: ae Roanoke Valley Area Thorouqhfare Plan, prepared by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in 1969, and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, recommended the construction of a four-lane, east-west connector in the Wells Avenue corridor. The need for this roadway is to accommodate growing traffic volumes in the downtown, Orange Avenue, and Gainsboro areas. The 1995 Thoroughfare Plan Element of the city's Comprehensive Development Plan adopted by the Planning Commission in 1977 and approved by City Council recommended the improvement of the Wells Avenue corridor to provide a reliever for the anticipated overloading of Orange Avenue. Be City Council, at its meeting on April 13, 1987, unanimously approved Resolution Nos. 28607 and 28608 which requested the VDOT to program projects for roadway widening and realignment to include: First Street/Gainsboro Road from Madison Avenue, N.W., to Salem Avenue, S.W. Wells Avenue, N.W., from Williamson Road to First Street, N.W. 3. Intersection of Orange Avenue and Gainsboro Road. These projects were subsequently included in VDOT's Six- Year Highway Improvement Program. Room 355 Municipa~ Building 215 Churah Avenue S.W Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344 Members of Council Page 2 December 16, 1992 De Downtown North Development Plan (also known as Focus '89), completed in May, 1989, recommended the construction of an inner-loop system (other segments include Williamson Road, Franklin Road, and Second Street/Gainsboro Road) to improve traffic circulation in and around downtown Roanoke (Attachment 1). Wells Avenue project is being studied by the City and VDOT in conjunction with improvements to Second Street and Gainsboro Road which is scheduled for construction in 1993-94. Various alternative alignments and traffic management scenarios have been studied (Attachment 2). City staff held numerous meetings with individual neighborhood groups and organizations including First Baptist Church, Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Corporation, ~istoric Gainsboro Preservation District, Inc., Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation, Virginia Tech, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., D-Day Memorial Foundation, and others to discuss project need and concerns. Community information meeting was held on June 30, 1992, for city to share project information with the entire neighborhood and other interested organizations. Approximately 175 persons attended. The city presented the project's purpose, need, alternatives considered. Issues that were discussed included project need; transportation planning; traffic flow and growth; traffic management options; project cost and funding; impact of project on plans for First Baptist Church, Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, Trade and Convention Center; mass transit; housing and relocation; truck traffic; community benefit; air pollution and noise levels; design treatments; validity of traffic projections; and future impact on Gilmer Avenue west of Gainsboro Road. Attachment 3 includes a list of responses to questions raised at the meeting. Previously preferred alignment (Alternative G) developed in response to neighborhood comments and concerns was presented on July 22, 1992, at a briefing for the Planning Commission's Transportation/Utilities/Facilities and Community Development Subcommittees. This proposed alignment which generally follows the existing Wells Avenue alignment maintains the inner-loop concept and addresses the need for east-west traffic movement identified in the Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan. City Administration, in response to continuing neighborhood concerns, requested that the August 5, 1992, Members of Council Page 3 December 16, 1992 Planning Commission public effort to better understand residents. hearing be postponed in an the issues of neighborhood City staff have had numerous meetings since late July with groups and organizations concerned about the proposed widening project. Issues which have been discussed include the design of the proposed highway, neighborhood impact, historic district designation, minority contracting and employment opportunities associated with the Hotel Roanoke/ Conference Center, job training, small business development, housing assistance and other concerns. City administration and members of a coalition consisting of representatives from the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Corporation, First Baptist Church, the Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund and Total Action Against Poverty have developed goals that address many of the above-referenced concerns and have agreed to continue meeting in an effort to address outstanding issues (see Attachment 4). II. Current Situation: City Administration is recommending that Wells Avenue be realigned and widened from Williamson Road to Second Street, N. W., generally along the current Wells Avenue alignment. The proposed alignment would require the acquisition of five (5) commercial structures (four of which are currently vacant) and two (2) residential structures. Final disposition of the residential structures recommended for acquisition has not been determined. Proposed aliqnment (Attachments 5 and 6) is similar to Alternative G but incorporates a nine (9) foot-wide landscaped median, street trees and period lighting along its entire length from Williamson Road to Second Street to create a "boulevard" effect. On-street parking will also be permitted along both sides of the proposed roadway, except during peak traffic periods, effectively reducing the number of travel lanes to one in each direction. Speed limits will be restricted to 25 miles per hour. Roanoke city Planninq Commission conducted a public hearing on the recommended alignment of Wells Avenue on November 18, 1992, at Addison Middle School. Approximately 75-100 persons were in attendance. Mr. William Clark, Director of Public Works, Mr. Gene Cress, Members of Council Page 4 December 16, 1992 Consulting Engineer with Mattern and Craig, and Mr. Robert Herbert, City Manager, summarized the request on behalf of the City administration. Fourteen (14) residents and representatives of groups and organizations addressed the Commission. A complete transcript of the public hearing is available from the Office of the City Clerk. Attachment $ includes a list of responses to questions raised at the public hearing. De ~ of the Wells Avenue project is on hold pending the approval of an alignment by the City Planning Commission and City Council. After an alignment is approved, approximately nine (9) months will be required to design the project before it can be presented at an official public hearing. During this design process, neighborhood meetings will be held at which the public will have an opportunity to provide input on the design of the project. The final project design will also be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to action by City Council. III. Issues: A. Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan B. Neiqhborhood and community impact. C. Environmental impact. D. Cost. IV. Alternatives: A. ~ Council approve preferred alignment· Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan is met in terms of the need for a four-lane roadway to provide acceptable travel for the 12,000 motorists that are expected to make use of Wells Avenue (between Williamson Road and Gainsboro Road) on a daily basis by the design year 2010 (currently this roadway handles 6,500 vehicles per day). While the Transportation Plan is not maintained in terms of a desired, through alignment for an east-west traffic movement, signage to alternate routes is expected to provide for acceptable traffic conditions. Neighborhood and community impact includes the displacement of two residences and five commercial structures (four of which are vacant). Proximity Members of Council Page 5 December 16, 1992 of the roadway to the residential neighborhood centered on Patton and Gilmer Avenues is lessened by the presence of a natural buffer created by existing topography. This buffer could be enhanced by landscaping or possibly by other measures that the public will have an opportunity to offer comment upon during the design of the project. The proposed Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center benefits by the creation of a parking area adjacent to this roadway. The roadway will serve as a primary access to the Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, thereby handling traffic entering and exiting this site as well as inner-loop traffic traveling beyond this site. Environmental impact on the neighborhood, in terms of noise levels, is expected to be minimized by the natural buffer which, in conjunction with landscaping, helps to soften any increase in noise levels caused by traffic growth. Truck traffic is projected to be at a nominal level, similar to what is presently using Wells Avenue. Air quality, considered on a regional basis, would improve due to overall reduction in traffic congestion that results from this roadway project. Cost is similar to Alternative G ($5 million) of which 98% of the funding is provided by VDOT through their annual highway allocation process. cit Council approve one of the other nine alignments that have been presented to the community (see Attachment 2). Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan is met in terms of the need for a four-lane roadway to provide somewhat acceptable travel for the 12,000 motorists that are expected to make use of a Wells Avenue/Gilmer Avenue corridor (between Williamson Road and Gainsboro Road) on a daily basis by the design year 2010 (note that this does not apply to Alternative F - Shenandoah Avenue, improvement of which is not recommended in the Transportation Plan. The grade separation of Shenandoah Avenue at Second Street would sever the inner-loop concept). Neiahborhood and community impact on residences and commercial buildings varies as shown on Attachment 7. For any alternative alignment, design features such as landscaping, street lighting, and special Members of Council Page 6 December 16, 1992 crosswalk treatments would be used to enhance the roadway. Other measures offered by the public during design of the project would also be considered. Impacts on the proposed Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center would vary depending upon the particular alignment. Environmental impact on the neighborhood would vary depending on the particular alignment. 4. Cost of each alignment is included in attachment 7. city 1. Council approve the "no build" alternative. Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan is not met in terms of the need for a four-lane roadway to provide acceptable travel for the 12,000 motorists that desire to make use of Wells Avenue (between Williamson Road and Gainsboro Road) on a daily basis by the design year 2010. Improvements to Orange Avenue alone would not be sufficient to provide an alternative for the projected traffic growth on Wells Avenue. Widening Orange Avenue would address the 42,800 vehicles projected to use Orange Avenue (between 1-581 and Gainsboro Road) daily by 2010. Currently 24,000 vehicles use the roadway on a daily basis. Other traffic management concepts such as one-way streets or reversible lanes are not applicable in this roadway corridor due to a relatively balanced traffic flow in both directions. Not building this roadway would cause alternative routes to become congested. Neiqhborhood and community impact does not include any residential or commercial structure displacement. Traffic access to the proposed Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center would function at a reduced level of service. Environmental impact on the neighborhood, in terms of noise levels, is minimized by the existing structures and natural buffer along Wells avenue which helps to soften any increase in noise levels caused by traffic growth. Truck traffic is projected to remain at a nominal level. Air quality, considered on a regional basis, would worsen due to traffic congestion that would result from not building this roadway project. Members of Council Page 7 December 16, 1992 Cost incurred to date by the City and VDOT for the Wells Avenue project is approximately $250,000. The City is responsible for reimbursing VDOT 95% of this entire sum if the project is canceled, in accordance with Resolution No. 28607 (City is already responsible for 5%). Costs incurred reflect preliminary engineering and mapping for the alternative alignments, as well as environmental assessments. IV. Recommendation: After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Mr. Price voting against the motion, Messrs. Ferguson and Bradshaw absent) to recommend approval of the recommended alignment of Wells Avenue. The proposed alignment is in accordance with the City's comprehensive plan and provides the best overall community solution to the problem of avoiding congestion by accommodating future traffic growth projected for this roadway corridor. In a related matter, the Planning Commission approved a motion recommending that City Council give serious consideration to: (1) relocating the existing residential structures on Wells Avenue; (2) extending the landscaping and period lighting proposed on Wells Avenue to Jefferson Street and Patton Avenues; and (3) insuring that the proposed parking areas associated with the proposed hotel and conference center project are adequately landscaped. Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission CAP:JRM:mpf Attachments cc: City Manager Director of Public Works Agent, Roanoke City Planning Commission Traffic Engineer GAINSBORO ROAD WOMETCO 2ND · HTRBBT - FP.A~KLIN ROAD Attachment 1 WELLS AVENUE ..: _ ~. PROPOSED INNER LOOP SYSTEM CITY OF ROANOKE Attachment 2 Attachment 3 WEIJ~S AVENUE IMPR~ PROJECT PUBLIC 0~'ESTION$/ANSNERS: CO~NITT INFORMATIO~ MEETING 6/30/92 ~D 7/31/92 Why do we need to provide better traffic access to downtown? It appears that currently traffic increases at peak times (8 am, $ pm), but moves quickly and dissipates in about 15 minutes. Traffic is expected to increase in the future, causing congestion in other corridors (Williamson Road, Orange Avenue, Second Street, etc.) In addition, volumes are expected to increase because of new growth in the downtown and the surrounding area. What are the reasons for the dashed versus solid lines on the map showing the various alternatives? There is no special meaning for the dashed versus solid lines. It is simply a way of illustrating the different alternatives. How do you explain the $12 million cost for Alternate E? Do you know the number of persons which would have to be relocated? Alternate E is longer than the other alternates and has a greater right-of-way that would have to be acquired· The number of persons %o be relocated has no: been determined; only the number of buildings to be displaced has been calculated· Has there been any consideration of the impact of increased air pollution and noise on ~/~e residential area? Air pollution and noise were considered as part of the environmental assessment for the 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road and Wells Avenue projects. Generally, air pollution studies are done on a Regional basis· Such studies were done as part of developing the 1995 Roanoke Valley Thoroughfare Plans. The improvements recommended by this plan were found to be consistent with the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality for this Region. Because the Wells Avenue project is one of the recommended improvement projects in this plan, it is consistent with the Regional Implementation Plan for Air Quality· With any highway project, reducing congestion improves the air quality. Being a state-funded project, the Virginia Department of Transportation's policy is that further air studies are not- warranted for a project of this magnitude. Likewise, the impact of noise on the neighborhood was considered for the combined projects. Due to the length and design nature of the projects, noise was not expected to increase enough to warrant further impact study or mitigation measures. Alternate E has the least impact on the Gainsboro neighborhood. Was cost the reason for ruling it out as an acceptable alternate? Did you consider First Baptist Church plans to expand to the north and the need for pedestrian access across Gllmer Avenue? Alternate E was ruled out for several reasons, including cost and the fact that it did not adequately serve the traffic management needs. Alternates A and C do not preclude pedestrian crossings or a pedestrian bridge across Gllmer Avenue. The new Alternate G recommended by the City follows the same alignment as Alternate E, but stops at 2nd Street. This alternate will keep the proposed roadway In the existing land area already set aside by First Baptist Church. What are the plans for the houses and the alley that are up on the hill between Gilmr Avenue and tho Hotel Roanoke? How will they be treated? This would be a design consideration that would be considered during a later phase of the project. At present, options which could be considered include special landscaping, fencing, etc. to buffer the residences along the alley. Why can't Alternate B stop at Second Street? With the short distance on Second Street between Wells Avenue and Gllmer Avenue, there is a storage capacity problem for vehicles desiring to make left-hand turns. The left-hand turn lanes would be limAted to about 5 cars because of the distance between the intersections. This does not adequately provide good e&et-~et~vement of traffic and negatively impacts the north-south traffic movement on Gainsboro Road. Since the Com~mnity Information Meeting, City engineers have given further consideration to this request and have proposed a new Alternate G which stops at 2nd Street. East-west traffic movmments going beyond 2nd Street would be encouraged to uae Jefferson Street to Gllmer Avenue using appropriate signage. 2 10. 11. 12. Have you planned for the new traffic related to the Hotel Roanoke and the new Trade & Convention Center? The inner loop concept was designed primarily to facilitate traffic movement in and around downtown. While the loop will assist the Hotel/Conference Center and the new Trade & Convention Center, there are other routes that will also serve these facilities such as 1-581 and Orange Avenue/Second Street. It seems that the inner loop should be designed to serve the people who l~ve in the area. Why can't the alternate stop at 2nd street? After the community information meeting, city engineers studied the alternatives further and have proposed a tenth alternative, Alternative G, which widens Wells Avenue generally along the existing corridor, straightens the crooked intersection at Jefferson Street, and stops mt Second Street. Appropriate signage would be utilized to direct traffic desiring to travel further west to use Jefferson Street to get to Gilmer Avenue. Also, see the answer to question 8. Why can't Alternate E stop at 3rd Street instead of 5th, thereby reducing the length and the cost of the alternate? To accommodate east-west traffic, it is important to connect and direct the traffic to an existing east-west corridor· Stopping Alternate E at 3rd Street would not accomplish the effective movement of traffic. It seems ~hatby funneling traffic onto Gllmer Avenue, you are establishing a future need to widen the road beyond 2nd Street and therefore, there are hidden costs which have not been accounted for in the analysis. Shouldn't the future costs of widening Me included in your evaluation of an alternate? There are no plans at present to widen Gllmer Avenue beyond Second Street. Even if improvements were made sometime in the distant future (15-20 years or more), it is uncertain what the specific improvements or costs would be. People a~e needed dowAtown, not cars. Has there been any consideration given to mass transit and use of the railroad as a means of transportation? Valley Metro currently serves the area. Unfortunately, the trend has been for more families to own more cars for individual transportation. Unless the tendency drastically changes, mass transit does not appear to be a solution for this particular project. 13. 14. Many attractions are proposed for this area, including a D-Da~ Memorial. Are you not adversely affecting these projects placing a four-lane road in the area and restricting pedestrian access to these attractions? There are many areas in Roanoke where a similar-sized roadway exists. Pedestrian access is important and will be incorporated into the design of the road. For example, on Second Street/Gainsboro Road at the Gainsboro Library, a pedestrian crosswalk is planned using decorative paving materials. None of th~ alternates are acceptable to tho~e'lghborhood. It is important that any alternate be sensitive to ~ho people who live in tho area. what is your documentation for the need for an east-west connector? what specifically.are the traffic volumes and how were they determined? The 1975-1995 Roanoke Valley Thoroughfare Plan projected future traffic volumes and recommended road improvements based upon those calculated volumes. The Plan indicated that traffic on Gilmer and Wells would approximately double in the number of vehicles per day (the existing volume ts approximately 6,500 vehicles per day). It is expected that to provide acceptable travel for the 12,000 motorists by the design year 2010, a four-lane road is necessary. Traffic volumes would also increase wlth new land uses in the area. 15. How will the project be funded? Will there bo any federal money involved? The road will be funded with 98% state money and 2% local money. There are no federal funds involved in the project. 16; What kind of traffic is to usa the road? 17. 18. The road is intended for cars and not for' industrial use, 41though there will likely be a small percentage of trucks, as found in normal everyday travel. Wh~t other creative altarn~tives h~va been considered to manage traffic other ~han & ne~ re&d? For example, one way traffic during peak hours. Consideration of the No-Build Alternative included such options as one-way traffic during peak hours. Because traffic is relatively balanced in both directions, traffic management concepts such as one-way streets or reversible lanes are not workable. Alee, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the projected traffic needs of tho area. Do your traffic statistics include tho existing N&W buildings as occupied offices or do they assume a new use? The Traffic Network Model and traffic projections for the 4 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. design year are based upon the land uses in existence at the time the projections are made. When the projections for this traffic were made, the N&W office buildings were occupied and included in the model. However, the Hotel Roanoke renovations and the Conference Center were not included in the model. The model itself is for the entire Roanoke Area Region which includes Salem, Roanoke, and Vinton and portions of Roanoke County. A change in a few land uses, such as the N&W offices, would not invalidate the model as programmed, nor the projected volumes. The projections are still considered to be accurate for the present situation. It seems that these types of disruptive projects are always placed through black neighborhoods rather than other city neighborhoods. Why? Have you considered locating the project to the south? Controversial projects occur city-wide. Gainsboro has not been singled out for the road project. There is a traffic management need in the area. Other neighborhoods have also had to deal with new roads in residential ne£ghborhoods. The new Peters Creek Road Extension affecting the Greater Deyerle neighborhood is an example. Another example is the Franklin Road project entering Old Southwest. Parking is a problem as well as traffic. If you increase the downtown traffic, where are the employees going to park? Where are the people going to live? What are the costs for relocation? Parking needs in the downtown are continually being evaluated and new parking garages are being constructed based upon the need. The City will continue to look at parking issues. If someone displaced by the project desires to remain in the neighborhood, assistance will be available to help them relocate in the area. The costs for relocation are estimated and included in the estimated total project cost. It appears that the traffic projections for 2010 are erroneous because of changes in the area with the Hotel, the HaW Buildings, Trade & Convention Center, etc. How can you make a decision when thole figures are erroneous? See answer to question 18. Wh~t il the :ilion for the differences in costs different alternates? between the Cost for the alternates include such things as construction requirements, land acquisition, and relocation assistance. Did you undertake a destination study? How can you adequately determine the best locations for access? The Roanoke Valley Thoroughfare Plan collected the necessary 24. 25. 26. 27. data to evaluate traffic movement and improvement needs. How will you determine adequate or comparable housing? If someone is to be relocated, how will they be assisted? Will you consider such things as the advantages of living near community services (transportation, shopping, etc.)? There are specific state regulations for relocation. A summary of these are printed in the Virginia Department of Transportation's right-of-way booklet entitled "A Guide for Property owners and Tenants". Specific questions may be directed to VDOT, Salem District Office. A recent newspaper article quoted a consultant's report as stating that there was no impact on the scenic value of the neighborhood. How does the road benefit this community? The report referred to was from the Environmental Assessment which was conducted for both 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road and Wells Avenue projects. The report stated the following: Visual Impacts "The proposed corridor is not of outstanding scenic quality. The proposed improvements will have some visual impact on the landscape, particularly, the new grade separation of the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks. The proposed action will be landscaped to integrate it into its surroundings and will not cause an adverse effect on the aesthetics of the area. It is likely that it could provide the impetus for overall improvements to the neighborhood." The road benefits the community by improving access into and through the area and reduces future traffic congestion. Both residential and commercial development will benefit from the improved access. How is the State involved in this project? Has funding been set aside for ~his project? This project was included in the state's 6-year highway plan for the City of Roanoke. Funding is set aside annually in the amounts needed. This neighborhood is significant historically and culturally to t/le City as aw hole. Thea rea offers tourist opportunities and deserves special attention. Here you considered things such as & =rower road, reduced speeds, Or o~her design fe&turll? Once a corridor is selected, citizen input on design features will be considered. 28. 29. 30. 31. It seems that the City's actions (this project, Wometco, Civic Canter, etc.) continue to adversely affect the Gainsboro Community. When will there be more sensitivity to this black community? The City is not intentionally disrupting the Gainsboro neighborhood or the black community. The City is sensitive to neighborhoods and to the people living in them. The design of this project will be sensitive to neighborhood concerns. Alternate F, Shenandoah Avenue, should receive further consideration. Shenandoah Avenue does not connect with 2n~ Street or with 10th Street, and therefore, does not meet the overall traffic management objectives. The 1990 Census figures indicate that the population of Roanoke has declined. Has this not also reduced the need for new roads? Considering you can get any where you want in less than thirty minutes, it seems that there is not a need for new roads. Although the population of the city has been reduced, the traffic volumes have not necessarily been lowered. Families have more cars and are driving more. Traffic is not necessarily related only to the number of residents of the City. It appears that this project is a "done deal". What process is to be followed for the project to be changed? A final decision on the project has not been made. Formal public hearings before the City Planning Commission and City Council are to be held in the very near future. City Council must approve the project. After approval of the location of the road, the City and the Virginia Department of Transportation will also hold a formal Location and Design Public Hearing. 32. What is ~he City's second choice for an alternate route? A second choice (Alternate G) has been recommended to the City Manager as a result of citizen input from the Community Information Meeting on 6/30/92. 33. Has a tunnel been considered as opposed to the overland route? Yes, a tunnel alternate, Alternate C1, was considered at the request of several citizens. Because of the topography of the area and the shale type soil, a tunnel is not a feasible alternative. Construction is limited to the hill between Gilmer and Wells and could only be undertaken using a cut and cover technique, requiring displacement of the structures over the tunnel. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. It seems that for $5 million, you could figure out a way tr get from Orange Avenue to Second Street through some type of ramp, thereby eliminating the need for the east-west connection. Have you considered this possibility? Improvements to Orange Avenue were considered. However, even with future Improvements, the roadway will not accommodate the traffic connection needs to Second Street without Improvements to other corridors. Ramps in the vicinity of Orange Avenue and Second Street would be very costly, would affect the YMCA building and possibly others. In addition, It only addresses one particular traffic movement: that Is, ~outh-bound 1-581 to Gainsboro Road. With the preferred Alternate C, was there any consideration given to the plans to expand the Hotel Roanoke? Alternate C does provide more flexibility for the development of the Hotel Roanoke. However, the alternate also provides better movement of east-west traffic than other alternates. If residential property Is taken for the project and is used for commercial, will there be any compensation paid? Will there be ~ny special compensation paid for the historic value of the property? All properties taken by the project will be appraised et fair market value. If the value includes commercl&l or historic considerations, then that will be part of the compensation to the property owner. No provision see-- to have been m~de for a southern connection to complete the traffic loop for downtown access. How do you plan to nuul&ga traffic effectivelyond not shunt traffic into this neighborhood? There are provisions for a southern connection - existing Franklin Road between Second Street and Williamson Road. Improvements to Franklin Road west of 2nd Street are currently under construction. Other east-west routes also help to meet traffic demands (i.e. Elm Avenue, Church Avenue, and Campbell Avenue). ~any concerns have been expressed at the meeting tonight. It seems that decisions wtll be made behl~ closed doors. How will we be insured that our complaints ara heard and are responded to? Many public meetings are planne~i to hoar your concerns. The Community Information Meeting was the first. Public hearings will be hold before the City Planning Commission and City Council. The City intends to listen to your concerns and respond to your questions and comments. 8 39. 40. It appears that First Baptist Church is being blocked in by this project. There should have been more communication regarding this road project before we built our facility. Our plans for future expansion are being adversely affected. It seems that consideration has been given to expansion for St. Andrews and Hotel Roanoke, but not to First Baptist. The Wells Avenue project has been in the planning since 1969. When the church built in the area, the appropriate right-of- way was reserved. Since that time, the recommended improvements to the road changed and new alignments have been considered. After the Community Information Meeting, an additional'alignment (Alternate G) has been recommended which would be constructed in the right-of-way set aside for this purpose. A more creative and equitable plan for managing traffic is needed. Additional study should be undertaken prior to presenting these alternatives to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Following the Community Information Meeting, additional study was undertaken resulting in the recommendation of Alternate G. This alignment generally follows the existing Wells Avenue corridor. November 12, 1992 Reiease Da~e: M..Michelle Bono Public Information Officer Attachment 4 City Presents Update on Wells Avenue Talks City Manager Bob Herbert and members of a coalition concerned about the proposed Wells Avenue widening project, today released the preliminary results Of their discussions. The coalition is part of a former group which began meeting in late July at the request of Herbert to help city admini- strators better understand the issues and concerns of the Gainsboro neighborhood. The coalition includes representatives from the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Corporation, First Baptist Church, the Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund, and Total Action Against Poverty, all of whom own property and have implemented development projects in the Gainsboro area. Herbert said the city will recommend to'the Planning Commission and City Council that Wells Avenue be realigned and widened from Wllliam~on Road to Second Street, N.W., along the current Wells Avenue alignment. This was the city's compromise route, selected in July after numerous meetings with interested groups. (The city's first recommendation involved an alignment that was north of Wells Ave. and would have taken 12 houses and two businesses.) The compromise route would require the city to acquire only two houses, which are vacant). and five commercial buildings (four of - more Mullkil~l Buildillg, Room 36~ 215 Ch~ch A~., $.W. Roano~,VA 24011 Office of Public Information (703) 981-2336 - 3 - Development of a Professional Park within Gainsboro to fulfill the need for a minority business incubator in the community. In addition, the city and coalition have agreed that goals will be established for housing, employment, business and minority contracting objectives. A Joint city/community review committee will be established to monitor progress on a semi- annual basis. Other issues are being discussed including the level of minority participation in the planning and development of the Henry Street project and the need for certain improvements to the Gainsboro library. Further, the city will offer to facilitate an educational/ informational effort for Gainsboro neighborhood residents on the impacts and benefits of historic designation and pursue such designation if supported by residents. "We don't want this road," said the Rev. Carl Tlnsley, the official coalition spokesperson, "but if it is a necessity to widen Wells Avenue, we want to make sure that its construction is the least invasive and brings the most benefits possible to the Gaineboro neighborhood." "?hat has been the focus of our work," he said. "We recognize that our coalition is addressing only some of the pressing issues pertaining to the revitalization of the Gainsboro community. It is not our intent to serve as the exclusive representatives of the neighborhood. The coalition is looking forward to input from the citizenry at the public hearing," he Attachment 5 Attachment 6 ~o~ oo~ ~< < ATTACHMENT 8 ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WELLS AVENUE ALIGNMENT PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 18, 1992 QUESTIONS/ANSWERS e Will there be a signal light at Second and Gilmer Street? Approval of the preferred alignment would require the installation of a signal light at the intersection of Wells Avenue with Second Street. The need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Gilmer Avenue and Second Street wonld be considered as part of the design process based on traffic demands. What happens to the area on Henry (First) between Gilmer and WelLs Avenue? The new Second Street/Gainsboro Road will encompass most of the indicated area. A small portion of the area remaining after the construction of the highway will be available for an addition to the parking lot at new First Baptist Church to replace parking lot spaces lost to the Wells Avenue right-of-way. Which groups or organizations established the goal for jobs? A specific goal for minority participation relative to minority hiring in future Hotel Roanoke jobs has not been determined. A coalition of organizations, including Total Action Against Poverty, Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund, First Baptist Church and the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Corporation, prompted by the plans for Wells Avenue presented this concern to the City Manager. A specific goal for this issue will be established by a committee of neighborhood and City representatives. Which group approved the alignment? The Roanoke City Planning Commission is the only group that has recommended approval of the proposed alignment to City CounciL What did the four groups do to get the City to offer these promises? The four groups referenced in question 3 presented their concerns to the City Manager and met regularly with him to discuss solutions. 10. 11. What did the City do to get the four groups to accept those promises? After listening to the concerns of the four groups referenced in question 3, the City Manager agreed to work with the neighborhood representatives to try to address the issues. When did the thrust of all of the City's involvement move away from historic designation? The City's involvement in this project was never limited to the issue of historic designatiom City staff have had numerous meetings with groups and organizations to identify a variety of concerns and issues. Historic designation is still an important concern. How can you assure that any jobs that might exist from the Hotel Roanoke project will go to the residents of Gainsboro or minority people in this area? As the City does with many new businesses coming to the City, a customized job training program will be set up through the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium. A contractual arrangement will be offered to the hotel operator for the recruiting of personnel, provision of classroom education, and specific job-related skills training to the hotel operator's specifications. Where possible, former hotel employees may be used as mentors and trainers. Who is to be in charge of the housing rehabilitation and new construction in Gainsboro? A joint task force consisting of representatives of neighborhood organizations, housing authority staff, and City staff have been formed to do an assessment of housing conditions in Gainsboro, determine what programs are needed, and to determine the resources necessary to accomplish the project. This task force has met several times and expects to have their assessment and program evaluation completed by January. How much money has been appropriated for housing rehabilitation and new construction in Gainsboro? The amount of money to be appropriated for housing in Gainsboro will be determined following evaluation of the joint task force's assessment and recommendations. When is housing rehabilitation and new construction in Gainsboro expected to start and to be completed? One of the objectives of the joint housing task force is to determine a plan and schedule for housing improvements. We will know more after they have completed their assessment and program evaluation. 12. 13. 14. How much money is allocated to the microbusiness loan pool and who is the administrator? A second joint task force consisting of representatives of neighborhood organizations and City staff has been formed to address this need and to develop an implementation plan and schedule. What is the criteria for getting a loan from the mlcrobusiness loan pool and where are the businesses to be located? This is one of the issues that will be determined by this task force, hopefully in time for the FY'94 CDBG budget process beginning in January. Where is the professional park to be located? Who is to establish and maintain it? These questions are also currently being reviewed by a third task force consisting of representatives of neighborhood organizations and City staff. 15. Where is the money coming from to house and foster new minority business? Probably the money will come from a combination of public and private 16. Where is the future church expansion to occur? First Baptist's Master Plan envisions expansion to the north. The proposed Wells Avenue alignment will not conflict with those plans. 17. Why won't the City prepare 3 dimensional models of the proposed highway alignment? 18. 19. Various maps and renderings of the proposed road alignment and design have already been prepared and have been made available for public review. A 3.dimensional model would be very expensive and not add anything to information already presented. What type of jobs are proposed for the Hotel Roanoke if it reopens? Will there be opportunities for minorities for managerial positions? It is estimated that a renovated Hotel Roanoke and adjacent conference center would create approximately 200 construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs. As mentioned before, special efforts will be pursued to recruit and train minorities and other local workers for these jobs. Does the City plan to establish a network of black colleges to try to encourage black people to come to Roanoke to management positions? The City's Department of Personnel Management already has staff assigned to actively recruit minority candidates from black colleges and universities. 20. If we can move traffic south on two-lane roads, why is it that we have to have 2, 4- lane highways to move traffic north? The Roanoke Valley Area Thoroughfare Plan identified a number of existing two.lane roads throughout the City in need of widening and improvement. One of these was portions of Elm Avenue. A portion of Franklin Road has already been widened to accommodate traffic volumes. David A. Bowers Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 240l 1-1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 December 10, 1992 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 10 of the Roanoke City Charter, I am calling a Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on Wednesday, December 16, 1992, at 7: 30 p.m., in the Roanoke Civic Center Exhibition Hall. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a public hearing on the Wells Avenue Realignment Project. Sincerely, ~avid A. Bowers Mayor DAB: sw pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Mr. Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor Mr. Willard N. Claytor, Director of Real Estate Valuation ~,-' NU'J':.,~ - 1124-0575'? PU!'iLiSFiER.' $ F[ ~ - ~75.9,) CITY L',F ROA~U~F C/O ~EY F PARKS~' CITY CL~KS OFFICE RO04 455 MUNICIPAL bLO~ ROANOKE VA 2~011 Ctl-Y .,L : . '92 DEC14 P3:12 STATE OF VIRGI"IIA CITY OF ROANOKE AFFIDA¥[T UF PObLIC~.TIOq I, CTdE UNOF~,S[GNED) AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF TiE TIMi:S-i~'ORLD COR- PORAIION', ~HICi-i CFJ~PORATIL)P~ iS PUBLISHER OF THE EOA~OKE lIMES & ~ORLD-NEWS, A DALLY NEWSPA°ER PU~L~SHeD [~ ROA,qOKE~ Itq THE STAT~ OF VIRGINIA, D(] CERTIFY THAT THE ANNFX~') F~OTICE ~AS PU~LISHED IN SAIO N~WSPAPC~IS ,.]~ Tt~- F[)LLOwI~G DATES 11127/<)2 WITNESS, .~2J~,_')Trt.DAY OF DECEMBER I<)92 .......... ~ ....... :_u_~____ AUTH] ~IZ~O SIGNATURE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, December 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Exhibit Hall of the Roanoke Civic Center, 710 Williamson Road, N.W., on the proposed realignment of Wells Avenue, N.W. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. GIVEN under my hand this 25th day of November , 1992. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. Please publish in full twice, once on Friday, November 27, 1992, and once on Friday, December 4, 1992, in the Roanoke Times and World-News. Send publisher's affidavit and bill to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 '92 ['!01,/ 1¢-) j~2'~,8 .... Office of the City Mar!~ger November 19, 1992 Ms. Mary F. Parker City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mary: I request City Council Members to authorize the establishment of a public hearing to be held on December 16, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. at the Roanoke Civic Center regarding the realignment of Wells Avenue. Please contact me in the event you have any questions pertaining to this matter. WRH/dh Sincerely, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Room 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (703) 981-2333