This is mainly a tight math problem to find out to what extent is there flexibilty with the final assessment of square footage allowance
Total Site: 96,369 sq.ft. @ 20% = 19,274 sq.ft.
Building Footprint: 38,893 sq.ft. (Campus/MultipleBuildings)
Remaining Area: 57,476 sq.ft. @ 50% = 28,738 sq.ft.
When we use the greater 28,738 sq.ft. we are 1,335 sq.ft. short.
Is there any flexibility with the shortfall of approximately 4.6% less than the greater required. I could discuss the inequities between the 20% and 50% that's for another day
Is there any flexibility for the 4.6%?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Devon Bertram
Sustainability ManagerYR&G
214 thumbs up
July 1, 2012 - 5:21 pm
Hi Carl,
I would not count on there being flexibility with the required square footage to meet the credit requirements, especially because it's more than just a few percent less than the required amount.
Good luck!
Devon
Carl DI Giacomo
Managing DirectorVerde (LLC)
July 5, 2012 - 1:11 pm
Devon
Thanks for the comment. You probably are correct yet there always is that ever apparent "but". LEEDs intention as part of its mandate is to maximize all areas for sustainability. When that becomes very close to being accomplished on a very tight infill I find it somewhat suspect if they become more rule driven without the use of "common sense" when the point(s) in question can lose its value because of code restrictions and municipal by-laws
Carl