Kelly: That's a good question. This is a sticky subject - we don't have specific guidance on this type of situation yet, but it should be included in the next version of the MPR Supplemental Guidance. I would recommend that you definitely exclude the footprint of the separate building. Something like a couple of feet ring around the perimeter of the separate building is probably fine too. But you'll need a good reason for additional excluded land that contributes to a donut hole in the middle of the LEED project site area. If an area is truly only supports the separate building's operations, as opposed to the LEED project building's operations, than excluding that area would be acceptable. In general, the rule of thumb is the (unfortunately) vague term ‘reasonable’ – if it looks like you drew a project boundary that makes sense and doesn’t leave specifically leave out land that would detract from compliance with a prereq or credit, it’s likely to get approved. If you’re really worried about something and want to get approval before your prelim review, send the question with a clearly labeled site plan to leedinfo@usgbc.org.
I wish I had firmer guidance for you, but it’s just not realistic for us to write policy for all eventualities – and we want to allow for some flexibility for project teams. I hope this at least points you in the right direction :).
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Kelly Knauss
HDR4 thumbs up
April 13, 2010 - 2:17 am
Under MPR#2 - Must be a complete, permanent building or space - there is an exception for horizontally attached buildings, where they may be certified independently if they comply with 2 conditions: they must be physically distinct and have unique addresses or names.
I have a group of buildings connected via tunnels and basements that I would like to consider as one building - if this group is physically distinct (separated by air above ground), can I consider them all one building for LEED EBOM?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
April 13, 2010 - 2:25 am
Kelly, sounds like an interesting set of buildings!Do they have separate identities and addresses? Do they have separate HVAC and plumbing? If the answer to both questions is "yes" then you probably need to do them as separate buildings, according to my reading of the MPRs and the MPR supplemental guidance (see the link above).
Kelly Knauss
HDR4 thumbs up
April 13, 2010 - 3:21 am
It is an interesting set of buildings, with their own individual challenges!
My LEED project is a water treatment plant that includes numerous structures that house each treatment process. They are distinct above ground due to the nature of each process and the large volumes of water being treated, but cannot function without each other.
It's my understanding that the process energy loads will need to be documented for the EA credits, and I'm concerned that separating out the structures will make it difficult or impossible to clearly separate out the process loads. Keeping them all as one building will require the entire treatment process to be optimized, which will result in much greater efficiency overall, and I'm concerned that the owner may choose to pursue LEED for the simplest (load-wise) portion of structures, negating the maximum efficiency potential.
Does this sound like a compelling enough argument to consider them as one building?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
April 15, 2010 - 7:06 pm
Kelly, have you reviewed the MPR supplmental guidance that I referred you to?It sounds to me like they might be considered one buliding, if they are unified in function and in physical address, and thus certifiable as one building, but it is a bit of an interpretation. You may want to contact GBCI for clarification.