Hi Eliot, Our project has two vehicle entries on its north side. There is an internal street that connects these two streets, but neither passes all the way through the project site because of adjacent zoning. One of the streets entering the site on the north is slated to connect continuously with segments to the south in the city master plan to create a major collector street. But, I have no clear idea of when that improvement will occur. Do you have any idea of whether this will prevent us from meeting the prerequisite or not? Otherwise, would you suggest submitting a CIR? Thanks in advance! Colin Day
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Sorry Colin, but you need to clarify: 1) what part of Option 1 are you asking about, intersection density or through-connections; and 2) is it correct that your project developer has no control over implementation of the city's master street plan?
Eliot
Eliot,
I am referring to the through connections portion of the prerequisite. The developer does not have any bearing over the city's master plan, but I do have confirmation from the city that the does indeed plan to extend one of the streets within the site to the south, but there is no tentative date set for that improvement.
Well, the requirement says "...and build" the through-connection, so that suggests the City would have to construct the street no later than your project's expected Stage 3 time frame. So if you're submitting for Stage 1 or 2, you might be able to explain that the right-of-way is being set aside per the City's street plan, and the City may build it by the time you come back for Stage 3. The risk is if it doesn't get built by Stage 3 you may not be able to achieve the prereq at that stage. If that's an unacceptable risk, you were probably right about submitting a CIR. The larger issue you're up against with NPDp3 is its emphasis on connecting the project to facilities that exist at the outset.
Eliot,
Thanks for that info- it is what I had expected.
I am curious about your comment "The larger issue you're up against with NPDp3 is its emphasis on connecting the project to facilities that exist at the outset." What facilities are you referring to?
Thanks!
Sorry, I meant it as a catch-all for streets and non-motorized ROWs, ie circulation facilities.
Eliot,
Thanks for the clarification. We have well over the required internal connectivity (intersections per square mile). What we do not have is entry every 800 feet around the project boundary because of adjacent zoning. This is the problem, I believe. Am I correct?
Thanks!
Yes, it sounds like that's the crux of it. Whereas adjacent zoning isn't considered, be sure to take maximum advantage of the physical obstacle exemptions listed in the prereq. And possibly modifying the project boundary placement can sometimes help achieve the 800 feet.
Eliot
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.