Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOURTS STUDY PHASE ICHARLOTTESVILLE - ALBEMARLE COURTS STUDY Phase I Program Development and Conceptual Design Executive Summary Packet March, 2001 CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE COURTS STUDY REPORT OUTLINE I. Executive Summary II. Committee Members List III. Alternative Facilities Concepts IV. General Commems Regarding Scenarios V. Scenario Descriptions A. High Street Concept Notes and Maps B. High Street Courtyard Concept Notes and Maps C. High Street/Market Street Concept Notes and Maps D. Market Street Concept Notes and Maps VI. Committee Straw Poll Results VII. Appendix A. Court Facilities Needs B. Site Selection Process SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COURTS STUDY STEERING COMMITTEE Executive Summary Members of City Council and Members of the County Board of Supervisors: On behalf of the Courts Study Steering Committee, we respectfully request your acceptance of this Phase I report on the expansion of City and County Court facilities in Charlottesville. PREAMBLE Increasing case load activity, coupled with deficient court facilities, led to the formation of a steering Committee to address the immediate court facility needs as well as those projected for the next twenty years. This report summarizes the current and future space deficits in the community courts, conceptual design options, public reaction and comment, and the recommendations of the Committee. To understand the role of this Committee's work in the overall project development process it is important to note the full range of activity involved. There are typically four phases: I.) Program Development and Conceptual Design with active public involvement; II.) Preliminary Design; m.) Construction Documents; and IV.) Phased Constmction. Our Committee's efforts have focused exclusively on Phase I, which includes the following elements: Conduct a physical conditions survey of existing court facilities, which include the City and County's Circuit and General District Courts and the jointly operated Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court; Study caseload projections for each of the courts and conduct a space needs analysis to define square footage and space adjacency requirements; Evaluate potential sites for the development of court facilities; Engage the public in dialogue concerning community values and objectives related to the court facilities; Develop three or four court expansion/development scenarios. The pages that follow detail our efforts with respect to each of these areas. It must be stressed that the nature of this report is conceptual. Neither detailed floor plans nor fully resolved building designs are included. Instead, the report attempts to articulate the nature of the current and future space problem, convey the sense of the community with respect to development, traffic_and neighborhood related issues, set forth the arguments and objectives of the jurisdictions and user groups, and finally present four conceptual solutions. The next step for the process is the detailed site laYout, building floor plans, fagade details, and other design issues, which will be developed in the. form of"schematic drawings" that are sufficiently informative to allow for more accurate cost estimates and plan approvals from jurisdictional and community bodies. For a project of this magnitude, we would expect Phase II to be completed within 12 months. Phase III involves the preparation.of construction drawings and bid documents and, depending on the scope of initial construction, could take between 9 and 12 months to complete. Phase IV, construction, would depend on the exact phasing of the project, which would be determined by the specific scenario that is shown to best meet the community's needs. THE SCENARIOS The Committee's task to arrive at three or four acceptable scenarios was indeed challenging. Any given scenario must at once address and reconcile a multitude of sometimes competing or divergent issues, with concerns including jurisdictional, operational, economic, neighborhood, preservation, historic, aesthetic, and parking. The Committee developed, early in its process and with the community input, a common set of values and objectives, helping to guide a balanced approach. Over the course of nearly two years, sixteen Committee members, sometimes with differing but nonetheless sincerely held views of these areas of interest sought to define those solutions that represented a fair and effective compromise among the issues. No one solution accomplishes all things for all people. Early in our process, there was hope that such an alternative would emerge, but the Committee quickly acknowledged that there were inherent differences in objectives relating to parking, for example; competing objectives stemming from neighborhood and community desires for certain architectural characteristics despite impacts on building functionality and security; and conflicting results generated by the attempt to preserve historic structures at the expense of Optimal site utilization. In the end, we recognize that each concept represents a viable and workable solution but also, for one group or another, a set of compromises. From an initial pool of more than 12 sites, the Committee narrowed the development alternatives to either one or both of two sites: the "High Street Site", which is the site of the current J&DR court and historic jail; and the "Market Street Site", which encompasses three parcels along Market between 7th Street and 9~ (the parking lot south of NGIC, the Lucky 7 Convenience Store and the Guadalajara Restaurant). The criteria used to narrow the sites included Site size, topography, location, and in some cases, economic or developmental opportunity costs. The Committee devised a set of Guiding Principles with which to critique the possible development scenarios, which are as follows: GUIDING PRINCIPLES Preamble: The new courts complex must meet the needs of the court system for the next 20 years in terms of functionality, security, service, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. Within the context of meeting these core needs, the following are goals ofthe new courts complex: The new courts should be located downtown. The scale and character of the new court buildings should be compatible with the surrounding structures. Every effort should be made to minimize neighborhood impacts of the new courts in terms of parking, traffic, and sensitivity to.neighborhood character. The courts should be within close proximity of each other. The Albemarle Circuit Court House should continue to be used for court purposes. Each site need not accommodate all parking needs. The Committee has arrived at four conceptual solutions for the expansion of our courts in downtown Charlottesville. Maintaining court functions in downtown is an essential community objective defined with widespread support early in the process. Three of the scenarios involve the expansion of the courts on predominantly one site, either the High Street or Market Street sites; one scenario involves using both sites. In every case, the scenarios involve renovations and additions to the existing City Circuit Court, and either renovations or both renovations and additions to the County Circuit Court. One scenario, the High Street Concept, proposes a single, larger, consolidated structure with an adjacent underground parking structure that is mostly concealed from view. This structure would contain about 180 parking spaces, and provide a landscaped area where the Community Attention Center is currently. This concept proposes the construction of a single courts building to be located towards the front.of the site at High Street. The design arguably represents the ideal building siZe and layout from the standpoint of functionality and security. This scenario involves the retention and renovation of the jail facility, but the jailer's residence would ha{~e to be demolished. Some concerns regarding the High Street Concept include building scale, neighborhood impact and the loss of the Community Attention Home, which would have to be demolished in order to build the parking garage. The second High Street scenario, 'the Courtyard Concept, presents a clustered series of smaller buildings surrounding a renovated jail complex and attempts to address scale and compatibility of design concerns. However, the design layout precludes the incorporation of a parking facility on the site. The positive aspects of the Courtyard Concept are aesthetics, site efficiency, and phasing ability. Concerns include the multiple entrances that must be individually secured, neighborhood impact; and the lack of on-site parking. A third concept, the Market Street Concept, consolidates the J&DR, General District Courts, their clerks, the County Sheriff and County Commonwealth's Attorney offices in one facility on the Market Street site. The court building would adjoin a public parking/mixed use facility where 295 spaces could be allocated for Courts use. This concept offers effective site utilization, creates a civic entrance to downtown, relieves traffic impact to the High Street area, and leaves the jail and Attention Home unaffected. Some possible negatives include decentralized court locations and prisoner transport concerns. A fourth scenario involves the use of both the High and Market Street sites. The fundamental idea here is to relieve any one site oftoo much mass and activity. The High/Market Concept proposes the construction of a new J&DR building on the High Street lot and the renovation of the existing J&DR facility for City/County adaptive reuse. The General District Courts for both jurisdictions would be housed in a new courts building on Market Street along with space for their Clerks' offices, the County Sheriff and County Commonwealth's Attorney. The Market Street court facility will adjoin a public parking/mixed use facility containing some 350 spaces, including spaces for judges and key court staff. The split concept is an attempt to pick up on the ideas of the courtyard (i.e., smaller buildings, more campus type atmosphere) and to relieve the High Street site and neighborhood of what might be perceived as Congested development. The separation of the courts poses difficulties for security, prisoner transport, and operations. CONCLUSION In an ideal world, this planning effort would culminate in a single recommendation with one development scenario that fully satisfies the objectives of all interested parties. We know that such an ideal scenario does not exist and, regardless, to draw such a conclusion is not the function of our Committee. Instead, we are presenting a manageable and carefully considered series of alternatives, pointing out their attributes and deficiencies and facilitate a process which ultimately allows the elected bodies to decide which one, in their view, satisfies the long term interest of our communities. The members of this Committee, together with our consultants, have worked hard to understand the problem, assemble the data, listen to our communities, and present workable solutions for your consideration. We recommend that the Council and Board of Supervisors advise the City Manager's Office and the County Executive Office to form a smaller joint staff Committee with representatives from both Council and the Board to assist the jurisdictions in reaching consensus around one of these concepts. Once a concept is identified, the process can proceed to Phase II. In closing, the Committee extends its appreciation to all those who have assisted in completing this most important phase of the project. In particular, we recognize Jay Moore and his staff at Moseley Harris & McClintock for their expertise and the fine quality of their efforts; Tonya Denckla and her staffat the Institute of Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia for their invaluable assistance with facilitation and the public process; and, perhaps most importantly, the community members, business owners, and others who have attended and participated in our dialogue sessions. The Courts Study Steering Committee SECTION II COMMITTEE MEMBERS Charlottesville/Albemarle Courts Study Steering Committee Committee Chair William M. Letted, Chief of Facilities, City of Charlottesville Committee Members Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive Jim Camblos, Commonwealth's Attorney, County of Albemarle Warner D. Chapman, Commonwealth's Attorney, city of Charlottesville Bob Downer, Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association Kathy Johnson-Harris, City of Charlottesville Planning Commission Satyendra Huja, Director of Strategic Planning, City of Charlottesville Anne Hemenway, North Downtown Residents Association Katie Hobbs, Albemarle Neighborhood Association Cornelia Johnson, Sheriff, City of Charlottesville Bill Mawyer / Joe Letteri, Engineering & Public Works, Albemarle County C. Jared Loewenstein, Albemarle County Planning Commission David Pettit, Chamber of Commerce Ed Robb, Sheriff, Albemarle County Kenneth Schwartz, City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review For more information please visit the City of Charlottesville web site at www.charlottesville.org or the Albemarle County web site at www.albemarle.org SECTION III ALTERNATIVE FACILITY CONCEPTS ALTERNATIVE FACILITY CONCEPTS Numerous possible sites and facility concepts were discussed and evaluated during the course of the study process. It was eventually determined that two sites merit serious consideration for expanding court facilities: the High Street site, and the Market Street site. Four distinct facility concepts utilizing one or both of the sites are described in this report. The comnfittee agreed early in the study process that both the County and City Circuit Courts should remain in their current locations for the foreseeable future. The County Courthouse has significant historic value and the Circuit Court cannot be relocated without approval of the County's voters. The City's current courthouse contains one of the finest courtrooms in the state, and the legal community feels strongly that it should continue to be used. For these reasons, each of the four concepts proposes the continued use of these two buildings for the respective Circuit Courts. Each building would need to be modified, however, to meet 20-year space needs. The High Street site consists of City, County and privately owned property in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of 4th and High Streets. This property is currently occupied by the existing J&DR Court building, the historic Jail and Jailer's residence. To make this site viable for expansion, the privately owned office buildings in the northeast corner of the 4th and High Street intersection would need to be acquired and demolished. The Market Street site consists of property along the north side of Market Street between 7th Street and 9th Street. There is currently a parking lot between 7th and 8th Streets, whereas the property between'8th and 9th Streets houses a convenience store and a restaurant. All of this property is currently privately owned and would need to be acquired, and the two structures demolished. In one concept (Market Street Consolidated concept), some of the property immediately north of the convenience store and restaurant would also need to be acquired, and two additional small, commercial structures would need to be demolished. The City Circuit Courthouse needs to be expanded to add another courtroom and to provide adequate space for the City Sheriff and the Circuit Court Clerk. An identical three level, 18,860 square foot addition is proposed in each of the four concepts to meet these needs. Since the courthouse property slopes downward to the north, this is possible without exceeding the height of the existing two~story building. The proposed addition would take the form of a separate wing, connected to the existing building by a "breezeway" enclosed with glass. The resulting courtyard would serve as a light well allowing windows in both the existing and new courtrooms. This building form would also help to break down its mass and make it more compatible in scale with surrounding buildings. A secure vehicle sallyport would be built on the lowest level, accessible from the rear, to allow secure transfer of detainees from vehicles to the building. The historic County Courthouse would continue to house the County Circuit Court in each of the four concepts. In those concepts where the County Commonwealth's Attorney would also remain there, the courthouse would eventually need to be expanded. To meet these space needs, a four story, 7,200 square foot addition on the western side of the existing structure will have to be erected. In those concepts where the County Commonwealth's Attorney would be relocated, the courthouse would be renovated but not expanded. In each of the four concepts the City Commonwealth's Attorney would remain in City Hail. Convenient access to the City Police Department is very important for the City Commonwealth's Attorney, and the committee agreed that this is the appropriate location for that office. Any expansion of these facilities will be done within the confines of City owned facilities. The court components whose locations vary from concept to concept are the City and County Generai District Courts and Clerks, the combined City/County J&DR Court and Clerk, the Court Services Unit (Juvenile Probation), the County Commonweaith's Attorney, and the County Sheriff. The manner and location in which parking is provided also varies between the concepts. Those components that are the same for every concept, as detailed above, are not further discussed in the scenario descriptions. Security Implications Of Alternative Concepts The four scenarios providing court facilities outlined in this report each have different implications on the efficiency and management of security. The more buildings involved and the farther apart they are, the more difficult itis to efficiently manage court security. This is not to say that each individuai building cannot be made secure, it is more an issue of efficient use of staff and space. Each building's public entrance should have deputies posted at ail times during business hours to screen everyone entering with metal detection and x-ray machines. These security measures are designed to protect the Judges, witnesses, Clerks, other court personnel and the Public using the facility. Numerous buildings require additionai space,' equipment, and personnel to provide entrance security than fewer buildings require. The same principle applies to vehicle sallyports, centrai detainee holding areas, and similar facilities. Increasing the number of separate locations for court facilities will require a larger sheriff's staff to properly secure all of the facilities, compared to the staff size required to secure fewer locations. Safety and security issues are critical in planning court facilities. Violent incidents and fatalities have occurred in courthouses in Virginia. Judges and others in the court system have been threatened in Albemarle and Charlottesville. The potential for violent incidents in Charlottesville and Albemarle must be taken seriously, and court facilities must be planned accordingly. This includes measures such as providing separate circulation paths through the building to the courtrooms for the court staff, the prisoners, and the public, and securing staff work areas from unrestricted public access. Waiting areas need to be sufficient for opposing parties to be separated from one another to reduce the possibility of confrontations, or of influencing or intimidating witnesses. Optimaily, each court facility should have a single public entrance with sufficient space for screening all that enter with metal detection and x-ray devices. Because of insufficient or improperly arranged space, the current court facilities lack most of these fundamentai security measures needed to protect the Judges, other personnel, and the hundreds of citizens who must use the court facilities every day. The process of transporting prisoners to and from court can also be impacted by the selected facility strategy. Ideaily, all prisoners would be brought to a single location and transferred securely via a single vehicle sailyport. This arrangement is useful' to process a large volume of prisoners in the minimum amount of time, and'also reduces the number of locations where a dangerous incident can occur during prisoner transfer. This ideal approach is probably not feasible since there will be at least three separate court buildings under any of the concepts considered. However, consolidating all of the District Courts at High Street or building a new J&DR facility there could make it possible to connect the existing County Courthouse to the new building via a secure tunnel. Both buildings could then utilize a single vehicle sallyport that would be located in the new building. The expanded City Circuit Court would also have a vehicle sallyport. If the Market Street site is utilized, a third vehicle sallyport will be needed for the facility on that site. It is important to understand that each of the proposed new court buildings, as well as the expanded CitY Circuit Court, in each concept would have the security features necessary to make each building safe. Each building will be equipped with vehicle sallyports, holding cells, public entrance checkpoints, and separation of public, staff, and secure detainee circulation paths. It is also possible to'add a vehicle sallyport at the County Courthouse, although it might be aesthetically incompatible with the historic building. To address this issue, a secure tunnel connection between the County Courthouse and a new building, or a renovated J&DR Court building, across High Street would provide for a more efficiently secured Court complex. In summary, all of the concepts provide the required security, but some will facilitate more efficient security management than others. High Street Concept The High Street Concept proposes the construction of a four level, 85,600 square foot building on the southern part of the High Street site. Only two levels would be visible above High Street, and the building would be entered on its third level, at grade with High Street. The level below High Street would be at grade on the building's north side because of the downhill slope of the site toward the north. There would also be a full basement comprising the fourth and lowest level, which would be completely below grade and therefore windowless. The new building would house the City and County General District Courts and Clerks, and combined J&DR Court and Clerk, and the County Sheriff. Up to 20 enclosed parking spaces could be accommodated in the basement. Because it is necessary to demolish the existing J&DR Courts building to build the proposed new building, the exact phasing of the construction becomes important in this concept. In order to keep the existing J&DR building in operation during construction, the new building would have to be built in two phases. The first phase would consist of the western part of the new building, approximately 60,000 square feet in area. This portion would provide for roughly the 10-year projected space needs of the court components it would house. Once completed, the J&DR Court and Clerk would move into it along with the County General District Court and Sheriff. The City General District Court might also move in at that time, but further study of that issue is needed before a final phasing sequence is determined. The Court Services Unit would not be located in the new building. Since it, too, would, need .to move out prior to demolition of the old J&DR building, a new two story, 12,000 square foot building is proposed for the Court Services Unit on 4 Street behind the City Circuit Courthouse. Once the Court Services Unit is relocated to its new building, the old J&DR building can be torn down. This will make possible the construction of Phase 2 of the new District Courts building. This additional 25,600 square feet would provide sufficient space for the 20-year needs of the building occupants. Since the exact timing of the need for Phase 2 depends on the actual rate of growth eXperienced by the courts, it is possible that Phase 2 will be needed relatively soon after Phase 1 is completed, i.e., within as few as 5 years. The only alternatives to the phased construction approach is to relocate the J&DR Court and Court Services Unit to an interim facility away from the site so that the existing J&DR building can be demolished to allow the entire new building to be constructed at one time. This will obviously incur relocation costs and possibly be more disruptive to court operations. However, phased construction of the new building may require that some Phase 1 spaces be reconfigured when Phase 2 is built'. This will add cost and create disruption as well. The High Street Concept also includes a three level parking deck on the northern part of the site, including the property currently occupied by the Community Attention Home. The parking deck would be primarily underground, allowing for a landscaped green space that would serve as a transition zone between the new Courts complex and the residential area to the north. It would be entered at grade from 4th Street, and its total capacity of approximately 180 cars. The Community Attention Home would have to be demolished and a new facility built elsewhere to make this possible. However, its removal would make it possible for the historic Jail to remain, along with its brick perimeter wall. The Jail would be renovated to make it a true asset to the community, but the Jailer's residence would have to be demolished to implement this concept. Additional parking, approximately 115 spaces, would have to be funded at an alternate site that is within reasonable walking distance of the Courts. The basement of the new District Courts Building would be connected to the corresponding underground parking level of the deck m allow vehicular access to the secure Vehicle sallyport and any parking in the building's basement. The basement could be connected via a.pedestrian tunnel to the County Courthouse to facilitate secure prisoner, transfer to that building. This would eliminate open-air transfer of prisoners from vehicles to the County Courthouse, or the need for construction of a vehicle sallyport there. This concept keeps all City and County Court facilities (except the City Commonwealth's Attorney) in close proximity to each other. It also maximizes the use of the High Street site by accommodating all district court functions, the County Sheriff, and also around 180 parking spaces. Consolidated facilities makes security easier to manage and offers operating cost advantages. The historic County Courthouse will ultimately have to be expanded to add approximately 8,000 more square feet in this concept. This will be necessary in order to provide for the 20-year needs of the County Circuit Court, Circuit Court Clerk, and Commonwealth's Attomey, which would remain in the building. The size and scale of the proposed new District Court Building in this .concept have generated serious concern on the part of some about its impact on the adjacent neighborhood, as has the potential impact on traffic that the parking deck might generate. The removal of the Jailer's residence has created concern as well. The functional advantages of consolidating all the courts and al'so provide a significant number of dedicated parking spaces on the site have been viewed as substantial advantages by others. High Street Courtyard Concept The High Street Courtyard Concept evolved from an effort to determine how the same Court components in the 'High Street Concept could be accommodated on the High Street site without demolishing the historic Jail or Jailer's residence. This results in an L-shaped building located along the western (4th Street) and northern edge of the site. Along with the existing J&DR building and the old Jail complex, an outdoor "courtyard" is formed at the center of the site. The courtyard would be approximately eight to ten feet below the level of High Street, and is envisioned as a landscaped "outdoor room" connected via a pedestrian crosswalk to Jackson Park and the County Courthouse across High Street. The design of these features could be integrated with the Court Square improvements currently being considered by the City. The new building would have three levels, two of which would be visible above High Street. The lowest level would be one level below High Street, roughly at grade with the courtyard and the northern part of the site. The wing of the "L" adjacent to High Street would house the J&DR Court and Clerk in about 35,000 square feet, and would be entered by the public from High Street on the middle level. The northern wing of the "L" at' the rear of the site would house the City and County General District in about 41,000 square feet. This three-story wing would be very close to the Community Attention Home and other two-story residential structures to the north. The public would enter this wing from 4t~ Street at its lowest level. The two separate public entrances are not ideal from a security standpoint, but are proposed because the L shape of the building will make proper~ublic circulation from a single entrance throughout the building difficult to implement. The 4th Street public entrance might also be difficult to find. The two wings would both be served by a single secure vehicle sallyport accessed from 4th Street near the General District Court entrance. This adjacency of public and detainee entrances would be less than ideal. An underground tunnel can be constructed from the new J&DR building to the County Courthouse for secure underground prisoner transport. In this concept, the old J&DR building would remain in use. It would be renovated so that the Court Services Unit could remain in the building, which is large enough to accommodate its 20- · year space needs. The renovation would take place after the new J&DR building is ready and the J&DR court has moved into it. A new building to house the County Sheriff is proposed on 4th Street behind the City Circuit Courthouse. This two story, 6,700 square foot building is needed beCause there is insufficient space in the County Courthouse to meet the 20-year needs of the Sheriff, and the new District Court building is not large enough to house it either. The new District Court building and the Sheriff's building could be built in as many as three separate phases, or all at once. Phasing of the construction is thus very flexible. There is no parking deck on the site in this concept, resulting in the least on-site parking of any of the four concepts. The necessary secure parking for judges will be difficult to provide. Any final design layouts should try to incorporate secure parking under or around the new buildings. Two hundred ninety-five spaces for public and staff parking allocated for Courts use are proposed within a parking deck on Market Street near 9th Street, four to five blocks away. This concept offers some of the advantages of consolidation seen in the High Street Concept, although in a less efficient layout. As with the High Street Concept, the County Courthouse would need to be expanded to provide sufficient space for the 20-year needs of the Circuit Court and Clerk and the Commonwealth's Attorney. It could also be connected to the new District Courts building with a secure tunnel below High Street for detainee transfer from the new building's vehicle sallyport. High Street/Market Street Concept This approach utilizes both the High Street and the Market Street sites in order to reduce the density and scale of construction at the High Street site. This would be accomplished by locating the J&DR Court at High Street, where it would be housed in a new three level 36,000 square foot building at the comer of 4th and High Streets. As with the courtyard concept, this building would be entered on its middle level from High Street. Only two levels would be visible above High Street, with the lowest level below the street on the sloping site. A secure vehicle sallyport on the lowest level would be accessed from 4th Street. Sufficient secure parking Can be accommodated at the High Street site by constructing a one story enclosed garage attached to the back of the building. The old Jail and Jailer's residence would remain. The old J&DR building would be utilized for Court Services just as in the Courtyard concept, and this concept would also create an identical "outdoor room" at the center of the site. The Market Street site would be utilized for construction of a new four story, 65,800 square foot building to house the City and County General District Courts, the County Sheriff, and County Commonwealth's Attorney. The new building would be south of the existing NGIC building and adjacent to a proposed new public parking deck, in which 295 spaces will be funded and made available for Courts' use. The building and parking deck could be connected, providing for secure parking for judges, probably on the lowest level where it could be partitioned off easily from other parking areas. It may also be possible to locate up to 20 spaces secure parking spaces in the basement of the new building. By closing 8th Street, the proposed parking deck could be made somewhat larger. The historic County Courthouse would not need to be expanded in this concept since the Commonwealth's Attomey would move into the new Market Street building. However, space within the courthouse would still have to be renovated and reallocated for use by the Circuit Court and Clerk. Also, a secure tunnel connection to the new J&DR building across the street is recommended for secure prisoner transport. Construction phasing for the two new buildings in this concept is flexible. Either could be built independently of the other. This concept successfully responds to concerns about appropriate building scale relative to adjacent neighborhoods. However, the separation of the J&DR and General District Courts and the location of both General District Courts away from the other courts on High Street both complicate detainee transport and security management. This could make it more difficult for court staff to move between buildings, and entail higher operating costs. Market Street Consolidated Concept The Market Street Consolidated concept proposes construction of a four story, 116,000 square foot facility to house the City and County General District Courts and Clerks, the J&DR Court and Clerk, the Court Services Unit, the County Commonwealth's Attorney, and the County Sheriff on Market Street at 9th Street. In addition, the building would have an enclosed basement for 40-70 secure parking spaces for Judges and other key personnel. Public parking is not recommended in the basement for secUrity reasons. The single public entrance Would address the intersection of Market and 9th Streets. As with the previous concept, a new public parking deck is proposed adjacent to the new building, and in it, 295 parking spaces would be funded for Courts use. This concept proposes the closure of 8th Street to maximize the size of the parking deck. As with the previous concept, the parking deck and new building could be connected. The existing J&DR building on High Street would no longer be needed as a court facility under this approach, and could be adapted for another use. The old Jail and Jailer' s residence could remain, and it would not be necessary to acquire and remove the two office buildings at the comer of 4th and High Streets. The County Courthouse would need to be renovated for reallocation of space vacated by the Commonwealth's Attorney and Sheriff. It might be necessary to add a vehicle sallyport to the County Courthouse for secure transfer of detainees from vehicles to the building. A tunnel connection across High Street is feasible if the J&DR building were renovated and equipped with a sallyport, but this would only be appropriate if the City or County have other Court or civic related functions within the building. A tunnel connection to the new vehicle sallyport in the City Circuit Court addition would probably be cost prohibitive since it is so far away. This approach maximizes use of the Market Street site, and minimizes impact on the High Street site. This will help mitigate traffic concerns around the High Street site by removing all the District Courts. Specific long-term use of the High Street site was not addressed by the committee and would need to be determined. The High Street site, which is comprised of mostly public land, would be left for possible future expansion of the Courts after the 20-year limit of the needs study that has been conducted. The Committee recognizes the potential for adaptive re-use of the J&DR building for court use or potential future expansion of the courts. Possible uses of this building include housing the County Commonwealth's Attorney's Office and the County Sheriff, as well as provide secure parking under the structure for secure prisoner transport via a tunnel, and secure parking for Judges. The proposed Market Street building is similar in scale to buildings to the south and to the nearby NGIC building, but is larger than nearby buildings to the north. There is a multi-unit condominium building dir~tly north of the site that may be negatively impacted due to the close ' proximity of the proposed structure. However, this scenario offers the advantage of a consolidated District Courts building as seen in the High Street Concept, but has the disadvantages created by separating the District and Circuit Courts (security management, prisoner transport, and staff issues). The Market Street / 9th Street interseCtion can be characterized as a gateway to the downtown area, and the new building could establish a strong civic presence and image at this comer. SECTION IV GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING SCENARIOS 10. 11. General Comments Regarding Scenarios: All four scenarios provide for the functional needs of the County and City Courts projected for the year 2018. All scenarios require the purchase of land. All scenarios require review by the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR), because they involve construction in a designated "Historic" district. All scenarios are comprised of buildings that meet stringent security standards. However, the security of each overall scenario depends on the means and length 'of prisoner transport as well as the number of public entrances that have to be monitored. It will be important for City Council and the Board of Supervisors to explore and determine the ultimate use of the historic j ail complex, as its use could have implications for the operations of the Courts. In three of the four scenarios (all but the Market Street Consolidated), funds have been programmed for the restoration of the Jail and, as appropriate, the Jailer's house. The amounts are to restore the buildings to allow for some future use, as a tourist attraction or for some type of court related function. In three of the four scenarios (i.e., those involving the High Street site), the preservation of the Jail and, as appropriate, the Jailer's House, has a major impact on the way in which the site could be developed. One option explored by the committee was the relocation of the Jail and Jailer's House. The cost of relocation was determined to be prohibitively expensive. In three of the four scenarios (all except the High Street Concept) the Community Attention Home is retained. In the High Street Concept, funds have been allocated for the reconstruction of the facility at an alternate location. One of the four scenarios (the High Street Concept) provides significant parking as part of its site development. All other concepts rely on the future public garages proposed in the City's recent Parking Study Master Plan. Secure parking for Judges and other key personnel should be provided for Courts facilities (new and renovated), as well as secure access to sallyports for prisoner transport, in any final design of the Courts complex. The Market Street scenario involves the least disruption to the Court operations during construction of the new facilities. 12. 13. 14. 15. The City Commonwealth's Attorney Office has opted to stay in its present location, and its future space needs will be met within City facilities. An increase in the amount of traffic going to the Courts complex could affect the surrounding neighborhoods. Once a scenario is selected by City Council and the Board of Supervisors, traffic modeling can quantify these concerns, and to find'potential solutions for traffic problems that may arise. Some scenarios allow for more flexible phasing of construction work over time. The projected cost of each of the four scenarios fall within the range of $49-$56 million dollars. This range was established by applying an annual inflation factor of 5% to the current year's estimated cost, and assume that construction will start in the year 2004. SECTION V SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS HIGH STREET SITE CITY CIRCUIT MARKET CITY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT J&DR COURT COUNTY COURTHOUSE CITY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY STREET SITE High' Street Concept Basic Description Renovation and 4 story addition (8,000 S.F.) to the existing County Circuit Courthouse Renovation and 3 story addition (18,860 S.F.) to the existing City Circuit Courthouse Construction ora 2 story Court Services Unit Building (12,000' S.F.) on 4th Street, with small, paved parking lot behind building Construction ora 3 story, plus basement, building (85,600 S.F.) to house the City and County J&DR Court facilities, General District Courts, their respective Court Clerks, and the County Sheriff's office Construction ofa 3 level, underground parking deck that will house 180 spaces, with a landscaped area or green space at grade Approximately 115 additional parking spaces will be made available within a reasonable distance (no farther than Water Street) Construction of an underground tunnel system'for prisoner transport between new facilities and Circuit Courts Renovation of the Jail Notes: Requires demolition of the Jailer's House, the brick wall around the Jail, and the Community Attention Home. Offers close proximity of all Courts fimctions. Building layout maximizes use of the site. Consolidated facilities makes security easier to manage and results in lower operational costs. If City of Charlottesville does not construct a new parking facility on Market Street, there is a potential additional cost of purchasing land to provide offsite parking. Offers the possibility of 20 secured parking spaces on site for Judges and other Court'-s personnel. Offers the greatest amount of dedicated, on site parking spaces. Scale of the proposed complex could be perceived as impacting the adjacent neighborhood. 0 F 0 Ct/-}, © ON SITE COUN[Y CIRCUI] COURT ~ CLI~RK CITY CIRCUIT COURT & CLERK COUNTY GENERAl DISTRICT COURT & CI[RK CITY GFNERAI DISTRICT COHRT AND CI FRK J&DR COURT & CLERK COl JRT SERVIi"FS I ~NI'I~ COUNTY COMMONWEALTI FS ATTORNEY COUNTY SHERIFF CITY SII[RIH OFF SITE CITY COMMONWEALTI~ 'S ATTORNEY I © High Street Courtyard Concept Basic Description Renovation and 4 story addition (8,000 S.F.) to the existing County Circuit Courthouse Renovation and 3 story addition (18,860 S.F.) to the existing City Circuit Courthouse Renovation of the current J&DR Courthouse to house the Court Services Unit Construction ora 2 story building (6;650 S.F.) to house the County Sheriff on Fourth Street with small parking lot in the back (16 spaces) Construction ora 3 story City and County J&DR building (34,750 S.F.) on High Street Construction ora 3 story building (41,000 S.F.) for City and County General District Courts, and Court Clerks Renovation of the Jail and Jailer's House Funding of 295 parking spaces in proposed Market Street garage Allocation of parking for court personnel and users to be provided in City garages either on Market or Water Street. Construction of an underground tunnel system to provide secure prisoner transport between new facilities and the County Circuit Court Notes: Courtyard layout c fbuildings would compliment the design of the City's proposed renovation of the Court Square area The historic Jail (excluding wall) and Jailer's House would be preserved Provides the least amount of on site parking (25 spaces) Consolidation of facilities on High Street reduces security risks associated with prisoner transport Phasing of the construction would be flexible Multiple entrances leads to higher operational costs, for security, thanthose associated with single, larger buildings Retains Community Attention Home / £ F 4 ~ 0 0 $ r $ 0 c°°~rk4~° s sr6[, Oo~,~ $ r o 4 l ! city pP41~OPo$ceO s. &. % i HIGH STREET COURTYARD CONCEPT /'/ ! ON SITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT & CLERK CITY CIRCUIT COURT & CLERK COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT & CLERK CI1Y IGLNf~RAL DISIRICI CUUR1 & CLERK I&DR COURT & CLERK COURT SERVICES UNIT CITY SHERIFF COUNTY SHERIFF COUNTY COMMONWEALTH~S ATTORNE~ OFF SITE CITY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY /: tit'S $ ir HIGH STREET COURTYARD CONCEPT High street/Market Street Concept Basic Description Renovation (interior) of the existing County Circuit Courthouse Renovation and 3 story addition (18,860 S.F.) to the existing City Circuit Courthouse Renovation of the current J&DR Courthouse for use by the Court Services Unit Construction ofa 3 story.J&DR Courts building (36,000 S.F.) with 1 story enclosed garage behind facility for secure parking Construction ora 4 story, plus basement, building (65,800 S.F.) on Market Street to house City and County General District Courts, Court Clerks, County Sheriff, County Commonwealth's Attorney, and possibly up to 20 secured parking spaces under the building Renovation of the Jail Funding of 295 parking spaces in proposed Market Street garage, in addition to spaces for secure parking for judges and key Court staff. Allocation of parking for court personnel and users to be provided in City garages either on Market or Water Street. Construction of an underground tunnel system for prisoner transport between new facilities and Circuit Courts Notes: The historic Jail (excluding wall) and Jailer's House would be preserved Courtyard layout of buildings would compliment the design of the City's proposed renovation of the Court Square area Separation of sites would make regulating security more complex Scenario has implications for prisoner transport between High Street and Market Street facilities Potentially higher operational costs for dispersed courts facilities Flexible phasing of construction possible Scale of buildings on High Street and Market Street sites comparable to surrounding neighborhoods The space behind the historic Jail will be used for green space. It could be considered as a site for future Courts expansion or parking Requires closing 8th Street Retains Community Attention Home ! £ F 0 l: ~ rrovr, tON % STREET CONCEPT ON SITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT & CL£RK CITY CIRCUIT COURT & CLERK J&DR COURT & CLERI~ COUI~ I SERVICES UNI I CITY SHERIFF OFF SITE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT & CLERK CITY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT AND CLF, RK COUN I ¥ COMMONWEAL IH'S Al IORNEY CITY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY $ HIGH strEeVMarKeT STREET CONCEPT ON SITE COUNTY G~NEtIA! DISTRICT COURT & CI~ERK CITY GI~NERAL DISTRICT COURT & CLEIIK COUNTY COMMONWEALTH'S A~EORNE¥ COUNTY ~1~ ERIFF OFF SITE £OUNTY £ IRCUIE COUR1 & CI. ERK CITY CIRCUIT COl JRT & CLERK ]&DR COUIIT & CI. ERK COUI~T SERVICES L~NIT CITY SH£RIFF HIGH STREET/MARKET STREET CONCEPT Market Street Consolidated Concept Basic Description Renovation (interior) of the existing County Circuit Courthouse Renovation and 3 stow addition (18,860 S.F.) to the existing City Circuit Courthouse Construction ofa 4 story building, plus basement, (116,000 S.F.) on comer of 9th and Market Streets to house the General District Courts, their Clerks, J&DR Courts, their Clerks, Court Services Unit, the County Commonwealth's Attorney, and the County Sheriff's Office with 40-70 secure parking spaces under building Funding of 295 spaces in proposed'Market Street Garage Allocation of parking for court personnel and users to be provided in City garages either on Market or Water Street. Renovation of current J&DR. Court for City/County adaptive re-use, with secure parking under building. Construction of an underground tunnel system for prisoner transport between renovated J&DR Court (Elk's Lodge) and the County Circuit.Court Notes: Maximizes use of Market Street site Court building could provide a civic entrance to the downtown area Buildings would be in scale with surrounding neighborhoods Long term use of the High Street site would have to be addressed, as recommended by the adaptive re-use of the J&DR Building Scenario has implications for prisoner transports between High Street and Market Street fac'ilities Central location of all Courts functions, except Circuit Courts, in a single building Historic Jail complex unaffected by new construction Additional parking will be available in public parking .garage adjacent to Market Street building, as proposed by the City's Parking Study Could relieve traffic impact to neighborhoods adjacent to the High Street site Scale of the proposed complex could be perceived as negatively impacting the adjacent condominium development Requires closing 8th Street Retains Community Attention Home /'/ t ON SITE CITY CIRCUIT COt. JRT & CLERK COUNTY CIRCUIT court · CLERK CITY il IERI[[ OFF SITE COUNTY GENEIL~,L DISTRICT COURT AND CLI~RK CITY GENERAl DI~IRICT COUR'I AMD CLERK J&DR COURT AND CLERK (,OUR I SER¥1CEy~ IJNI I CITY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY COUNTY COMMONWEALTH'ti ATTORNEY COUNTY SHERIff MARKET STREET CONCEPT ON SITE COUNTY GENERAL I)I~TRICT C~URf & CLERK C TY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT & CLERK }&DR COURT & CLERK COURT SERVICES UNIT COUNTY COMMONWEALTH~ ATTORNEY COUNTY SHERIFF OFF SITE CITY CII~CU~T COURT & CLERK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT & CLERK CITY COMMONWEALTI I~S ATTORNEY CITY SHERIFF MARKET STREET CONCEPT SECTION VI COMMITTEE STRAW POLL RESULTS Court Study Steering Committee January 23, 2001 "Straw Poll" Results Compiled by the Institute for Environmental Negotiation 6 3 3 8 I 8 4 0 3 2 6 5 6 3 3 3 SECTION VII APPENDIX COURT FACILITY NEEDS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Overview of the Court SFstem in Charlottesville and Albemarle The court system in Virginia provides for three separate courts at the local level. These are the Circuit Court, the General District Court, and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&DR) Court. The Circuit Court handles felony criminal cases, civil cases (i.e. lawsuits over $10,000), as well as certain types of appeals from the other two courts. The Circuit Court also handles divorces and child adoption matters. The General District .Court handles traffic cases, misdemeanor criminal cases (less serious than felonies), and civil cases less than $10,000. The J&DR Court handles any case involving a juvenile (under 18 years old), criminal cases involving members of the same family, and also child custody and child support payment matters. Charlottesville and Albemarle each have their own separate Circuit Courts and General District Courts. There is a combined City- County J&DR Court. Each court has a Clerk's Office that administers court business and maintains court records. The Circuit Court Clerks are elected officials who, in addition to court responsibilities, must maintain various types of local records such as property deeds. All other Court Clerks are appointed directly by the appropriate Judges. The J&DR court works very closely with the Court Services Unit, which is a branch of the state's Department of Juvenile Justice. The Court Services Unit has an office located in Charlottesville to administer probation and other matters for the local J&DR Court. The City and County each have their own elected Commonwealth's Attorney, who prosecutes all criminal cases in each °fthe three courts for their locality. Both Commonwealth's Attorneys have assistants and other staff members. The City and the County also each have their oWn Sheriff. Each Sheriff's department is responsible for the security and safety of the courts in their locality, and also for transporting prisoners to and fxom the courts. (The Albemarle County Sheriff's department currently handles security and prisoner transport for the combined J&DR Court.) In addition, the Sheriffs' departments are responsible for civil process, which is the delivery of court documents like subpoenas to people who are involved in court cases. Together, all of the different Charlottesville and Albemarle courts and other .agencies now directly employ about 170 people. Each day they interact with hundreds of people such as jurors, witnesses, plaintiffs, defendants, researchers, attorneys, police officers, the media, trial spectators, and others. The City and County are required bylaw to provide adequate, safe, and secure facilities in which the courts can conduct their business. Current Court Facilities Currently the court facilities for the City and the County are located in five different buildings. The County and City each have a Courthouse on High Street. The J&DR Court occupies a converted facility which formerly housed a fraternal organization, with a small building known as the J&DR Court Annex adjacent to it. The Charlottesville City Hall houses some City Court functions. These huildings are listed below along with' the functions housed in each. Also shown are the net and gross floor areas of each building. Generally speaking, net area is normally considered to be usable space. In other.words, it is the pan of the building taken up by courtrooms, offices, and other spaces in which business is actually conducted and work performed. Gross area is the net area plus the amount of area taken up by shared hallways, elevators and stairs, walls, mechanical equipment rooms, public restrooms, and other such spaces. Building Functions Housed Building Net Building Gross Area (SF) Area (SF) City Courthouse City Circuit Court 11,847 City Circuit Court Clerk City Sheriff County CourthouseCounty Circuit Court County Circuit Court Clerk County General District Court County General District Court Clerk County Sheriff County Commonwealth's Attorney 22,133 15,862 31,720 J&DR Court J&DR Court J&DR Court Clerk Court Services Unit 9,872 13,236 J&DR Court Annex County Circuit Court Clerk Storage County Sheriff 2,112 2,534 City Hall City General District Court 5,434 City General District Court Clerk City Commonwealth's Attorney 5,434 TOTAL 51,398 68,786 . Court Case Load~ and Their Relationship to Space Needs A major factor in the work load of the courts and related agencies is the courts' case load, or the number of cases they must handle. Case load has a direct impact on the number of Judges required, the number of personnel required for the Clerks' offices, Albemarle County General District Court New Cases t988-1997 and Trends Ahead 25,000 ::~:~i~:~-:_:~' ""~ ~Z~ ...... ~' "~ ..... - · '~j'~ 15,000 "~'~:~;~:~ .... ~'" ~ ' 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1~3 19~ 1~5 19~ 1~ 1~ 1~9 !000 2005 2010 2015 Albemarle County J&DR District Court New Cases t988-1997 and Trends Ahead 0oo 000 000 000 ooo 000 o00 000 ~000 o 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 City of Charlottesville Charlottesville City General District Court New Cases 1988-1997 and Trends Ahead 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 o 1988 1989 199o 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005 2OlO 2o15 Commonwealths' Attorneys offices, Sheriffs' offices, the Court Services Unit, and on the number of people who interact with the courts every day. As a result, case loads have a direct impact on how much space is required for the court facilities. The table below shows historical data for the years 1988 and 1997, as well as projected case load trends for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courts. The trends show substantial increases in the number of cases, which will result in the need for additional court facility space to accommodate the growth. Court Case Load Trends - Annual Commenced Cases 1988 1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 %Change 2000 - 2015 Albemarle County 1,170 1,802 1,970 2,289 Circuit Court 2,607 2,925 + 62% Albemarle County 21,250 22,928 23,680 24,668 General District Court 25,658 26,647 + 16% Charlottesville 1,142 1,667 1,603 1,794 1,984 2,174 + 30% Circuit Court Charlottesville General District Court 21,497 23,661 23,549 25,101 26,652 28,704 +21% J&DRCourt 4,172 8,570 10,407 12,870 15,333 17,797 + 108% Graphical AnalFsis of Case Load Information Albemarle County Albemarle County Circuit Court Commenced Cases 1988-1997 and Trends Ahead Charlottesville City Circuit Court Commenced Cases 1988-1997 and Trends Ahead 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 5~ 1988 1989 1990 1991 1982 198~ 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010, 2015 Charlottesville City J&DR District Court New Cases 1988-1997 and Trends Ahead 12,00l 10,001 8,00 4,00, 2,00 1988 1989 1990 '1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 Court Space Need~ [or Charlottesville and Albemarle A detailed study of the space needs of the courts has been conducted by a consultant team with extensive experience in this area. As part of this process, the consultants met with representatives of each component of the City's and County's Court systems, and observed all of the existing court space and facilities. The study produced a detailed analysis of the space and functional requirements for court facilities for the next twenty years. Detailed space-by-space breakdowns'were prepared for each fimction for current needs as well as for 10 years and 20 years into the future. Projections beyond 20 years were not developed as their reliability decreases for more distant time frames. The study shows not only that additional space will be'needed in the future as the result of anticipated case load increases, but that that there is a considerable Shortage of space for the current needs of the Courts. This shortage is the result of continual case load growth in the past, along with changes in the way the courts must conduct their business and handle security-changes which were not anticipated when the current facilities were built or renovated. This growth and change has exceeded the capacity of the existing facilities to adequately and safely house the courts, resulting in serious problems and safety risks in their daily operation. The table below corrrpares the net area in square feet currently provided for each court component with the net area needed now to accommodate accumulated growth and change, and with the net area Which will be needed in 20 years to accommodate further growth. Comparison of Net Area Currently Occupied to Net Area Required (SF) Currently Needed Now Needed in 20 Occupied Years Circuit Courts 21,905 22,749 35,218 General District Courts 7,661 14,342 19,306 J&DR Court 9,134 17,794 24,542 Commonwealth's Attorneys 3,626 7,566 9,692 Sheriffs 4,144 11,057 12,370 Shared Supp°rt Space 0 6,168 6,168 TOTAL 46,470 79,676 107,296 Functional and Safet~ Considerations for Court Facilities Court facilities require much more than just courtrooms and Judges' offices in order to work properly. The courtrooms require adjacent witness waiting rooms for the separation of prosecution and defense witnesses. Secure holding cells are required for keeping prisoners adjacent to the courtroom. Separate cells must be available for male and female prisoners and to separate adults from juveniles. Juries must have space to deliberate. Office areas, conference rooms, service counters, visitor waiting areas and other types of spaces are required for the Clerks', attorneys' and Sheriffs' staffs and for the Court Services Unit. Records and files require considerable space as some records must be maintained indefinitely, and these accumulate over time. In addition to the amount of space required, other issues also need to be considered when planning court facilities. The way in which the spaces are arranged and located relative to one another is critical to the efficient operation of the courts. The Clerks' offices need to be located with their respective courts because of the constant interaction required between them. Holding cells need to be adjacent to courtrooms to minimize downtime while prisoners are brought into the courtroom and removed from it. The Court Services Unit and Sheriffs' departments interact constantly with the courts and need to be located with them or nearby in order to maximize staff efficiency, as do the Commonwealth's Attorneys' offices. Factors such as the ability to share courtroOms by locating courts in the same building can increase the efficiency with which the courts are able to use the available space. Increasing the number of locations for court facilities requires a larger Sheriff's staffto secure all of the facilities, compared to the staff size required for fewer locations. Safety and security issues are also critical in planning court facilities. Violent incidents and fatalities have occurred in courthouses in Virginia. Judges and others in the court system have been threatened in Albemarle and Charlottesville. The potential .for violent incidents in Charlottesville and Albemarle must be taken seriously, and court facilities must be planned accordingly. This includes .measures such as providing separate circulation paths through the building to the courtrooms for the COurt staff; the prisoners, and the public, and securing staff work areas from unrestricted public access. Waiting areas need to be sufficient for opposing parties to be separated from one another to reduce the possibility of confrontations, or of influencing or intimidating witnesses. Optimally, each court facility should have a single public entrance with sufficient space for screening all that enter with metal detection and x-ray devices. Because of insufficient Or improperly arranged space, the current court facilities lack most of these fundamental security measures needed to protect the Judges, other personnel, and the hundreds of citizens who must use the COurt facilities every day. These are just some of the issues that are important in the Planning of court facilities. All of these and others must be considered carefully when making decisions about howto provide court facilities to meet the needs of Charlottesville and Albemarle now and in years to come. Site Selection Process Early in the process of locating feasible site(s) for the expanded Courts facilities, the Committee worked to assess each possibility's pros and cons. To evaluate the sites fairly, many criteria were considered: parcel zoning; the proximity to Court Square, the Mall, and neighborhoods; functionality; lot size; current site use; projected site preparation costs; pedestrian traffic; vehicle traffic; area parking; historical/archaeological value; development value; potential lost tax value; and relevant environmental issues. From these original criteria, the Committee created a set of Guiding Principals to help assess the relative merits of site'and design scenarios. These are as follows: Preamble: The new courts complex must meet the needs of the court system for the next 20 years in terms of functionality, security, service, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. Within the context of meeting these core needs, the following are goals of the new Courts complex: 1. The new courts should be located downtown. 2. The scale and character of the new court buildings should be compatible with the surrounding structures. 3. Every effort should be made to minimize neighborhood impacts of the new courts in terms of parking, traffic, and sensitivity to neighborhood character. 4. The courts should be within close proximity of each other. 5. The Albemarle Circuit Court House should continue to be used for court purposes. 6. Each site need not accommodate all parking needs. Initially, the Committee considered sites that were within reasonable walking distance, no greater than 7 blocks, from the historic County Circuit Court. The attached map highlights this area that was initially considered by the Committee. This area included the following sites: the City Yard; Jefferson School; Carver Recreation Center; Food King site; Biotech Lab site; the UVA Patent Foundation site; the County Office Building site; the Omni Hotel Parking lot; the Charlottesville Ice,Rink; old Woolworth building; H&R Block site (Water Street site); Wachovia/Central Fidelity site; the NGIC site; the parking lot adjacent to the NGIC building (the Market Street site); the Michie Annex; and the J&DR Court site (the High Street site). In this first phase of the site selection process, the Committee considered the conversion of existing buildings for Court uses, as well as how the size of the site might accommodate mUltiple functions by constructing single or multiple buildings. Most of the sites identified in this first phase were ruled out due to small lot size, distance from the existing Circuit Courts, and/or the value the present or intended future use of the site represented to the community. At first, the Food King site seemed appropriate for further ' consideration, but was eventually ruled out due to the distance from the historic County Courthouse. For these reasons, all but the Water Street, NGIC, High Street, and Market Street sites were eliminated from discussion. These final four sites were considered in great detail by the Committee. The Water Street Site is currently owned, in part, by the City and is large enough to accommodate the new Court complex needs. No major demolition woUld be required for construction, the site can accommodate mixed-use development and much of the parking needs for the complex could be met on site. However, it is relatively distant from the existing Circuit Courts, which could be confusing to Courts users and cause security issues relating to prisoner transport. Also, part of the site is privately owned, and the site is near residential neighborhoods that might require buffering from any potential Courts complex. Most importantly, it is considered one of the prime development opportunities for the City. These reasons constituted the rationale behind the removal of the Water Street site from further consideration by the Committee. The National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) building site was also considered for a lengthy time before removal from consideration. The site is flat, near 'existing parking, and large. The building itself was also considered for its partial or full conversion to courtrooms and/or court related functions. The building was constructed with thick reinforced concrete that was necessary to conform to the national security standards that make for a safe building, but one that is nearly impossible to renovate and reconfigure to courtroom standards. It was determined that it would cost at least as much to convert the building to courtrooms as it would to build a new facility, and would be significantly less functional overall. It was determined to be feasible to convert some of the building for court support space, but again it would not be a good use of space. The Committee felt that overall, the building could not provide a value commensurate with expenditures of space conversion. In addition to this, the City of Charlottesville requested Congress to earmark this building to be used solely for the purposes of economic development, which would exclude its use for Courts related functions. For these reasons, the Committee removed this building from further consideration as a Court complex. Sites Still Under Consideration The High Street site consists of the majority of the block in the north east comer of the High'and 4th Street NE intersection near the existing Courts, including two privately owned buildings along High Street, and is large enough to accommodate the new court complex needs. Most of the site is already in public ownership and used for court facilities, as well as being the site of the historic jail. Contours of the land might allow for interesting design solutions. Development of the site may burden the nearby neighborhoods with additional traffic, but there are means of mitigating these problems. Three scenarios incorporate some or all of this site: the High Street Concept, the High Street Courtyard Scenario, and the High Street/Market Street Scenario. The Market Street site is along the north side of Market Street and stretches from 7th to 9th Streets, which encompasses the NGIC parking lot area, the Lucky 7 convenience store, and the Guadalajara Restaurant. The site is flat, near existing parking, large, and development of this site could beautify an important entrance to the City. However, it is privately owned, a potentially difficult shape, and is near newly bUilt condominiums. Despite these possible drawbacks, the Market Street site is a potentially excellent site to develop a Courts complex. Two scenarios have been detailed which explore this possibility, the High Street/Market Street Scenario and the Market Street Consolidated scenario. These scenarios will be outlined in detail later in this report.