Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />E~t~, <br />River <br /> <br />SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY <br />GREAT RIVER REGIONAL LIBRARY SYSTEM <br />CITY OF ELK RIVER <br /> <br />FiQure 11: Site Option WeiQhted Score Tabulation <br />(Weighted Based Upon Weight and Rank) <br /> <br />An alternative method of establishing priorities is tabulate each site using a weighted score <br />system. This method provides a check that addresses the comparative value for each of the <br />three possible site locations. <br /> <br />STAFF IN PUT Weighted <br />CRITERIA WEIGHT A B C <br />Design and Site 0.85 0.90 1.37 <br />Comprehensive Plan ',",'" 7 1 0.13 0.07 0.20 <br />10 'j <br /> 1 <br />Availability of Utilities 5 0.10 0.03 0.07 <br />Size & Shape 9 0.06 0.12 0.18 <br />Site Expandability 12 ~. 1 0.08 0.16 0,24 <br />Shared Amenities 8 0.05 0.16 0.11 <br />Soil Conditions 5 0.10 0.03 0.07 <br />Views/Aesthetic Qual. 19 ! 0.07 0.20 0.13 <br /> '...' 'i>EJ.' ~ <br /> " '1 <br />Safe Site Access 11 , i 0.15 0.07 0.22 <br />Pedestrian Access 8 0.11 0.05 0.16 <br />Community Criteria 0.42 0.30 0.60 <br />Proximity to housing 5 0.07 0.03 0.10 <br />Access to Highways 7 0.09 0.05 0.14 <br />Visability 12 0.08 0.16 0.24 <br />I <br />Acceptable adjacent uses 9 0.18 0.06 0.12 <br />Cost Criteria 0.57 0.36 0.63 <br />Site Purchase 8 0.05 0.11 0.16 <br />Site Development Cost 9 0.18 0.06 0.12 <br />Utilities Costs 7 0.14 0.05 0.09 <br />Road Development Costs 8 0.11 0.05 0.16 <br />Assessments 7 0.09 0.09 0.09 <br />Total Score 150.00 1.84 1.56 2.6 <br /> 31% 26% 43% <br /> <br />KKE ARCHITECTS: 0606.1159.01 <br /> <br />SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT <br /> <br />- 41- <br />