BC 2005 12 05 WORK SESSION - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 5, 2005 (Work Session) Page 427 vice Chairman Carruth reported that piedmont Preservation Foundation (PPF) was having difficulty securing a performance bond required in the proposed agreement between the County and PPF. He said the only risk was the possibility of the houses not making it to the property, and the house mover had insurance on each house to cover any destruction during the move. After discussion, the Board agreed by consensus to remove the requirement that PPF secure a performance bond as the risk would be covered by the house mover's certificate of insurance. Further, it was agreed by consensus to modify the contract to stipulate that any losses paid would go to the bank to recoup any monies drawn against the line of credit. Janet Magaldi, President of PPF, questioned the easement for the driveway for the two houses and also discussed parking for the two houses. She expressed concern about the ownership and control of the right of way if the County no longer owned the adjacent property at some time in the future. Mr. Day explained the easement was to provide emergency egress from the Sheriff's Department and was required by the City's development standards. He reported the County had not addressed the issue of providing parking for the two houses. Jonathan Marshall, Commerce obligation to provide access to adjacent to the County property. Director, the St. reported the County has a legal James Lutheran cemetery located After discussion, the Board by consensus agreed to include a provision in the contract that the easement along the driveway serving the Cline and Propst houses for use by the County would no longer exist if the County sells the property adj acent to the houses. The easement for the access to the cemetery will remain. Ms. Magaldi reported the house mover's contract states cannot be responsible for delays due to weather. She asked provision be made in the contract between the County and PPF to weather-related delays in moving the houses. The current proposal the houses to be moved by January 1. the company that some allow for calls for After lengthy discussion as to possible ways to deal with delays caused by the weather, the Board agreed by consensus to change the final date for the Cline and Propst houses to be moved from January 1 to February 1, 2006. Chairman Carpenter asked that the changes be forwarded to the County Attorney in order for the contract to be finalized as quickly as possible. Jail Proposal Alex Porter, President of Citizens for a Better Concord, and a number of other individuals were present for the meeting. He stated those in attendance and many others disagreed with the location and size of the large cell blocks. He said they understood the need for jail space and the Sheriff's Office and supported keeping the Jail downtown, but felt the facility should be in scale with existing buildings and should be limited to 200 to 250 inmates. Mr. Porter addressed the following issues in his presentation: (1) Facility should be built with state of the art technology to handle pre-trial or other routine court proceedings; (2) Jail and Public Safety Building should be built within present center city zoning and not within the rezoned property; (3) Additional beds should be located in a remote site or area that is not primarily residential; (4) Vacant corner at Corban and Union should be built out, preferably with a commercial or commercial fronted building; (5) Another tier could be added to the Annex to double the number of bed space; (6) Height of the proposed structures should not exceed the existing Courthouse; (7) Community board consisting of staff, County Commissioner, and representatives from various stakeholder groups should be appointed to assist in disseminating information and keeping everyone informed; and (8) Property at the rear of the Jail site should be placed into a conservation easement to protect the woods and gully. Deborah Arbes, architect I presented a three dimensional model that she had prepared of the Jail proj ect and surrounding area. She pointed out the location of the various buildings and the comparison of the size of the buildings. Dan McDonald, architect, stated that previous endorsements he had seen were endorsing the project with the condition that it was appropriate for the area for which it was being planned. However, he stated the proposed project