AG 2007 07 23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wit. ~~ (t)it ~ J . t ~ 1~~Y , M1~/IMM~-~w~w. SITE EVALUATION Conclusion Of the four sites idemified as potential jail locations, three immediately presented themselves as too small to accommodate both jail and law enforcement construction as well as [he required staff parking. • Site 1, while informally considered in the parr m be the most likely candidace for jail expansion, was found to 6e too small to accommodate the projected jail and law enforcement space need without conumtting a building of at least eight stories, both a violation of the Unified Development Ordinance and a questionable aesthetic decision for its visual impact on downtown Concord. Consvu<tion on Site 1 would also block any opportunity for the existing courthouse to expand in the future. • Site 2 presented the same space limitation concerns as Sire 1. ~Y~6ile there appears to be sufficient area mconstruct ajail/law enforcement building, there is very little room for parking, indicating that the County would be required to acquire additional adjacent property immediately. The separation of jail and courts is also problematic, since inmates would have to be driven from one facility to the other. • Site 3, while slightly more Favorable to construction than Sims I and 2, still presents the problem of little or noon-site parking, and would require the acquisition of additional property. In addition, the size of the site precludes future jail expansion without the acquisition of additional property. • Site /appears to present the best opportunity for new jail construction and staff parking requirements. Both needs could be me[ on the existing site wi[h [he acquisition of limited additional property; it is recommended that the nvo private residences' located on Corban Court be purchased by the County and demolished. Sire 4 could be expanded to include additional property along Corban Avenue and Union Street South, to either provide more flexibility in providing the jail location or to allow future courts construction. The scoring matrix presented on the next page provides some quantifiable means of comparing the sites. Sires 1 and 2 had idemical scores, while Site 3 scored slightly higher because of its larger size and relatively flat topography. Sire 4, however, scored significantly higher, based primarily on its greater size and close proximity m the existing courthouse. April'?004 1 7 G~~ ~.