See all forum discussions about NC-2009 SSc4.4
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 SSc4.4 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 SSc4.4
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 SSc4.4»
FAQs about SSc4.4 :

How does one account for off-site parking. Should the LEED boundary encompass this parking? Or alternatively may the project pursue the "no new parking" option?

If a project does not provide parking onsite but provides a shuttle service to new parking offsite, is that considered “no new parking” since the new parking is not onsite?

Does rebuilding an existing parking area with fewer spaces mean “no new parking”?

If a non-residential project wants to use Option 4, which references the  ITE Parking Generation Study, where does one upload and submit required documentation? There is no Option 4 choice in the credit form.

How do you designate preferred parking if the parking facility is not under the owner's control?

How does one apply minimum zoning requirements to a project when it is part of a larger complex or campus?

Are there standards regarding how to document the spaces that will be dedicated as reserved?

How does a carpool/vanpool relate to a shared car service/company when it comes to the preferred parking requirements of this credit?

Should I consider motorbikes and parking spaces for them under this credit? What about fleet vehicles?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 SSc4.4:Alternative Transportation—Parking Capacity

LEED for Retail: Qualifying for Option 4 (Parking Capacity)

Default Avatar
John Klein
Sr. Architect
HDR Engineering
LEEDuser Basic Member
21 thumbs up

LEED for Retail Option 4 Path 1 states "size parking capacity must meet but not exceed minimum local zoning requirements". However, it is silent regarding a situation where there are no local zoning requirements (ITE study not referenced, etc.) Has anyone attempted to qualify for these 3 points with a site that does not have minimum local zoning requirements? Thanks!

4
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user davidp
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED Specialist
SERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1361 thumbs up

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 22:42

I think it's reasonable to still reference the ITE study and use that path to show compliance. I suspect this is an omission, but if you want to know for sure you might need a CIR. Alternatively you could go in with a few extra points as a buffer (always the recommended strategy), take your chances, and make a compelling case if it gets questioned. Or you could even suggest this should be added as an addenda: (select ‘General LEED Questions’ and then ‘LEED Addenda’) at the LEED Questions contact page https://www.usgbc.org/ContactUS/LEEDContact.aspx?CMSPageID=2433

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.