Laserfiche WebLink
<br />KKE ARCHITECTS: 0606.1159.01 <br /> <br />SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT <br /> <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />River <br /> <br />SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY <br />GREAT RIVER REGIONAL LIBRARY SYSTEM <br />CITY OF ELK RIVER <br /> <br />o The lake and the park at Site.!! clearly offer the greatest potential views and have <br />exceptional qualities for small-scale developments. The question for some <br />discussion is the impact another building at the proposed location has on the <br />views and aesthetic qualities of the spaces that already exist. While positive for <br />the Library, imposition of the building and associated parking and roadways may <br />actually reduce the green space and aesthetic qualities of the park. <br /> <br />· Site Development Costs: The existing conditions dictate the potential costs for the <br />development of each site. Preliminary site development costs were prepared based <br />upon the program assumptions and preliminary site design concepts. <br /> <br />o Expanding construction at Site A includes additions and remodeling that are <br />projected to cost approximately $48,000. If the building is to be demolished and <br />rebuilt, the site development costs are projected to be nearly $101.000. <br /> <br />o The area identified as Site B has the most expensive site development <br />implications. Allowances must be made for soils correction and some <br />assumption for exceptional roadway construction to the site. The preliminary <br />estimate is about $182.000. <br /> <br />o The recommended Site C has site development costs projected to be about <br />$87.000 for a new structure. Unlike Site A, no demolitions are required and no <br />roadways or soil corrections are required that must be anticipated for Site B. <br /> <br />The scoring indicates that both of the sites A and B offer good opportunities for construction of <br />the replacement library. Costs associated with relocating and temporary provisions during <br />construction impact Site A negatively. The "retained asset value" of constructing on a.new site <br />offers financial benefits beyond the first cost construction pricing. <br /> <br />TABULATIONS AND TABLES <br /> <br />An additional test of the criteria based recommendation was to weigh scores and tabulate the <br />results. Both methods of scoring and the assignment of values shown in Figure 10 and Figure <br />11 confirm the fact that both Option B and Option C are good selections. Option A is a good <br />location, but creates access and other suitability issues during construction and in the event of <br />any future expansions. <br /> <br />The critical site evaluation has much to do with the recommendation of Site Option C as the <br />most appropriate location. The three optional locations have design issues and cost issues that <br />can be explored. Based upon this method the following priorities for site location can be <br />established. Regardless of the method, Site Option C is preferred. <br /> <br />Establishing a building footprint of approximately 14,000 square feet illustrates that there <br />remains adequate space for future expansion, parking, and outdoor activities at Site Option C. <br /> <br />- 38- <br />