Our project is a small TI inside a larger building on a campus with other buildings. The project falls under Case 1, Option 1. We submitted documentation demonstrating that the parking spaces provided for our TI space do not exceed the local zoning regulations and we’ve provided the required preferred parking spaces.
Our preliminary review comments stated that we need to “Provide documentation such as a zoning regulations and calculations which confirm that the minimum zoning level has not been exceeded at the campus level.”
Thinking that the review team did not understand that our project falls under Case 1, Option 1, and thus holding us to the requirements of Case 2, Option 1, we emailed the review team for clarification. We received the following response, "the review team recognizes that Option 1 applies to this project. However, the parking spaces for this project are located in a parking lot that serves buildings other than the project building. Under these circumstances, the project team must demonstrate that the overall parking capacity of all of the buildings served by the parking lot does not exceed zoning requirements."
I have searched through LEED Interpretations, Addenda, and of course the LEED ID+C Reference Guide, and I see nothing that supports this requirement. Can anyone shed some light on this before I go back to the review team for further clarification?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 4:36 pm
I was going to say that the review comment is concerned about gerrymandering, but I don't really see the logic.Have you received any clarification?
Lisa Milano
3 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 4:58 pm
We finally scheduled a conference call with GBCI to clear up this issue since we could find no addenda, interpretations, etc supporting the technical advice. We were able to work things out with them and in the end, we have provided a narrative confirming that the number of parking passes provided to the TI space occupants does not exceed the minimum parking spaces per zoning regulations. We also explained that occupants whom do not have parking passes are discouraged to park in the lot because they have to pay high rates which are not reimbursed. In addition, we explained the parking enforcement system in greater detail. We have submitted our documentation for final review, so we shall see...fingers crossed. I'll be sure to post the final outcome.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 5:00 pm
Lisa, thanks for the follow up here. Did GBCI ever explain if there was some requirement that they were attempting to enforce, that other projects might want to know about?
Lisa Milano
3 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 5:11 pm
I better wait until the final review is over before I speak freely : )
Sadie Martin
22 thumbs up
May 31, 2013 - 7:29 pm
Have you heard if they accpeted this approach? We were questioned on this credit in our design review becasue we have a similiar situation. We were also questioned about the carpool/vanpool portion of the credit becasue these spaces are open to the entire campus, not just this project even though they are located right out the door from the project. The reviewer suggested we either make a note that these spaces are only for the tenents in our project (not an option) or do a study for the entire building. Even if we ran the calculations for the entire building, anyone on the campus can use these spaces.
Lisa Milano
3 thumbs up
June 4, 2013 - 4:49 pm
GBCI did accept our approach. It came to light during our conference call with GBCI that the reviewer of this credit was incorrect in requiring the project to "provide documentation such as zoning regulations and calculations which confirm that the minimum zoning level has not been exceeded at the campus level."
We had to provide a detailed narrative explaining the parking situation and confirming that the number of parking passes provided to the tenants will not exceed the minimum number of parking spaces required by local zoning regulations and that there will be a disincentive for tenant occupants not holding parking passes when they attempt to park on site.
We really had to jump through the hoops on this one, but in the end we got the points we knew we deserved.