Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-03-2008-5b5a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2008
>
Agenda - 06-03-2008
>
Agenda - 06-03-2008-5b5a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2012 11:48:05 AM
Creation date
8/28/2008 9:25:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/3/2008
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5b5a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20080603
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~~ <br />Concerns and Recommendations -Planning and OUTBOARD: <br />lot- with the same amount \ <br />7. Which has a smaller carbon footprint -~ a parking. deck or a parking <br />of spaces? <br />Applicant's Response: <br />While it is generally accepted that decked parking is more efficient (i.e. a smaller <br />carbon footprint) one must also consider the following influences: <br />1. Parking lots with shade trees that ultimately provide up to 60% shading will <br />have less heat island "footprint" than a 2-level deck of the same spaces. It will <br />also have less "mass" and therefore less heat retention after sundown. <br />2. Parking lots where stormwater runoff is captured for on-site reuse and where <br />infiltration is encouraged through the use of bio-swales, etc. do not pose <br />additional negative impervious surface impacts -over parking decks. <br />3. The construction of parking decks requires substantially more material; <br />transportation of materials, and generates more construction debris than a <br />.parking lot of the same capacity. <br />4. Parking lots consume far less economic resources making available more <br />capital for other improvements that promote sustainability and financial <br />viability. <br />8. Why have parking decks been eliminated form the plan? <br />Applicant's Response: <br />(See answer to Transportation concerns noted above} ~ \. <br />15. Exhibit 4 - In a period of l OOyr. drought are retention ponds sufficient for capturing and <br />holding water? Shouldn't a more effective method of gathering and storing water be <br />utilized? <br />Applicant's Response: <br />The proposed storm water retention/detention ponds are designed to provide a multiple <br />use benefit of stormwater quality (filtration/settlement) and stomwater reuse (irrigation and <br />chiller supply opportunities). The use of drought resistant plants in the landscape will <br />minimize the need for irrigation beyond initial establishment. At times of severe drought a <br />management a program for rationing irrigation use will be implemented. An on-site well will <br />be developed as needed for back-up in the event inadequate reclaimed water is <br />available for building coolipg. <br />/( <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.