Non-certified buildings in LEED boundary

Merve, in this case you would most likely exclude the building that won't apply for LEED from your boundary. You have some discretion in drawing the boundary around it—you could choose some way to divide the landscape and parking that is logical and equitable to the function of the buildings, or you could keep more of if in your boundary, and apply LEED standards to landscaping and parking measures, etc.

I have a project that aligns closely with Merve's question. A few follow up questions to Tristan's response:

1. Both my buildings are programmatically interconnected. If I take the a weighted average of the building areas to distribute the landscape and/or parking, is that an acceptable approach? Are there examples of other acceptable approaches?

2. If I choose to keep all of the landscaping and parking within the LEED boundary, can I use the area of the non-certifiable building to calculate the base ratios for parking spaces in Reduced Parking Footprint? 

3. Overall, do you agree that deducting the landscaping and parking associated with the non-certifiable building eases your way to LEED credits?

Thanks!

Still looking for guidance here. Any help is appreciated. 

Your LEED project boundary should be consistent across all credit and prerequisite documentation and should also reasonably align with the scope of work for the design/construction project. Are the "non-certifiable" building (what is its function?) and the associated shared parking being designed/constructed at the same time as the LEED building?

Summer,

Thank you for your reply. In response - the 'non-certifiable' building is a renovation of an existing building that is not planned for LEED certification. The LEED certifiable building is new construction and will be built on the same site. The renovation will take place first, following which the new construction and the the associated shared parking will be designed/constructed simultaneously. 

Both buildings are planned for department of sanitation's vehicle maintenance, storage and repair. There are personnel spaces too including offices, lockers, break rooms, multi-purpose rooms etc. The 'non-certifiable' building houses some of these spaces.  

I am looking for guidance on how to distribute the landscaping and parking areas between the two buildings. Is taking a weighted average of building areas an acceptable approach? 

Also, do you have any feedback on the pros and cons associated with separating the landscape+parking rather than not? 

Thanks!

Hi Pournamasi,

Usually, the LEED documentation defines non-certifiable buildings as buildings that do not comply with the Minimum Project Requirements: 1 Must Comply with Environmental Laws; 2  Must be a complete, Permanent Building or Space; 3 Must Use a Reasonable Site Boundary; 4 Must Comply with minimum Floor Area Requirements; 5 Must Comply with Minimum Occupancy Rates; 6 Must commit to sharing Whole-Building Energy and Water usage Data; 7 Must Comply with a Minimum Building Area to Site Area Ratio.

The building you are describing seems to be a building outside the LEED project scope. 

The way you decide your LEED boundary is free as long as it is not look gerrymandered. A weighted average of building areas seems to be a good method.

Dionisio,

Thank you for your response. Also thanks for clarifying the difference between 'non-certifiable' and 'building outside LEED project scope'. I had been using the term 'non-certifiable' rather loosely. 

Thanks again. 

Hi All, I'm currently working on a project under LEED certification. The project consists of a new construction (office building) connected through a bridge with ad existing building located in the same lot. The existing building will not be renovated or modified, except for the connection with the bridge and is out of the LEED scope of work, so we assume that this is not eligible.

May we registered for LEED certification only the new construction and include the existing building and the entire lot as part of the LEED boundary even if the existing building g will not be considered for the certification? Thanks.

As long as you can meet the LEED v4 prerequisites for whole building energy and water metering, you should be able to make a case for excluding the existing building from the LEED project boundary. That is, the new building should be served by separate energy and water systems and should be metered separately. You will want to address your site in a similarly reasonable way to exclude areas outside of the scope of work for your project.

Hi All, if the LEED boundary includes all contiguous land or land altered related to the project, and my project has two buildings one to be certified and the other not (parking garage), the LEED boundary must include both buildings? 

Why not include the parking garage in the LEED project? Treat it as an accessory structure to the certified building.

LEED project boundaries can also be donut-shaped.

I have a similar issue as Fabio, in that my project has a new 4-story addition to a one story building.  However, my new building is connected to the existing on the first floor with a large open gallery (museum).  The new building will have separate mechanical and water service and can be metered separately.  There are no new upgrades to the existing building finishes, mechanical or water systems.  The new 4-story building is being constructed on the entirety of the existing parking lot, leaving a zero-lot-line situation where the property line will be the outside face of the walls of the new footprint, leaving no site area and no new parking.  If my LEED boundary is the property line, should my calculations etc be based only on the new construction, even though this divides the first floor gallery in half?  Or should I include the existing portion even though it was not constructed to LEED standards and may skew my calculations (I'm thinking roof heat island effect for instance)?