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%?

Post a reply

Devon Bertram

Sustainability Manager

YR&G

LEEDuser Basic Member

151 thumbs up

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:21

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 Director

Verde (LLC)

LEEDuser Basic Member

0 thumbs up

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 17:11

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

Add new comment

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

You are currently logged in under an enterprise account

FAQs about SSc5.1 :

Predeveloped SItes

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

Add new comment