5.1. SR 01-17-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E~Ri ver SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY GREAT RIVER REGIONAL LIBRARY SYSTEM CITY OF ELK RIVER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SITE ANALYSIS The use of example criteria for comparing alternative sites has been incorporated into this text. Three optional locations are being considered for the library campus. The locations of the sites are identified in the previous pages of this text. Individual site locations and approximate building areas are also located for analysis purposes. RECOMMENDATION Examination of all sites based upon pre-determined criteria suggested that none of the sites have fatal flaws but two of the sites have more limitations. The properties most important to this recommendation concluded that SITE OPTION C, the property across from City Hall on Orono Parkway is unanimously and confidently recommended. RATIONAL AND DISCUSSION A total of eighteen criteria were used to compare the three sites. Priority values (degree of importance) were assigned to each of the criteria. The process also allowed the establishment of weighting values. The results of this weighting process are shown in Figure 9: Criteria Ranking. It is acknowledged that differences in assigning these values may happen as a result of different priorities or different perceptions. The tabulation of scores assigned to each of the sites base upon their qualities is summarized in Figure 9: Site Option Scores. This combined with the priority issues brings focus to the discussion about the most significant attributes of the sites. The following criteria provided the comparisons, created the recommendation and helped summarize the key issues. · Size, Shape, and Site Expandability: The existing sites must be large enough to accommodate the current needs and future program expansions. o The largest site is Site C. Its shape allows building and parking to be located so that future expansion of both the building and parking areas can be accomplished with a number of different design configurations. o Site B is limited by the lakeshore and existing structures and fields - as well as requiring parking construction over geothermal wells. The shape of the available building area limits design options. Expansion requires more parkland be used. o While the shape of Site A is desirable in many respects, its shape may create orientation issues with the main entrance. Furthermore, expansion in the future may require that additional residential properties be acquired. KKE ARCHITECTS: 0606.1159.01 SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT - 35-