Optn 4: 25% less Pkng. than App. Std. in '03 ITE Pkg. Gen. study

V. Miller

WSP

LEEDuser Basic Member

53 thumbs up

July 25, 2010

Post a reply

Tristan Roberts

Representative

Vermont House of Representatives

LEEDuser Expert

7780 thumbs up

Sun, 07/25/2010 - 13:08

Hi, there is a post that reviews the ITE study and what it contains here on LEEDuser.For better or for worse, the information in the study is fairly unique and probably impossible to summarize in a brief form for LEED.

Luis Lagomarsino

Director

Ing.L.Lagomarsino & Asoc

LEEDuser Basic Member

4 thumbs up

Tue, 10/26/2010 - 19:54

I am pursuing this credit through case 1, option 4 but on leedonline form option 4 does not appear as an option. Must I go through an alternative compliance approach?

Tristan Roberts

Representative

Vermont House of Representatives

LEEDuser Expert

7780 thumbs up

Fri, 10/29/2010 - 19:48

Yes, Option 4 was added relatively recently so may not be included in LEED Online. You should document as an altternative compliance path, as you suggest.

Daniel Brum

Director

Integrative Consulting

LEEDuser Basic Member

2 thumbs up

Wed, 05/23/2012 - 19:03

When using Option 4 (2003 ITE study) for SSc4.4, we should provide 25% fewer parking spaces than which rate indicated in ITE study: minimum, maximum or average? We are working on a shopping center new project that is being built in a city in Brazil that has no minimum local zoning requirements. We understand that the most reasonable approach is to consider the maximum rate for weekdays, which are the highest one (6.17 per 1000 sqft).