We have a project with a main facility and a separate non-occupied, non-certifiable equipment/storage building. Per MPR3 this secondary building should be treated as an extension of the main building pursuing LEED cert. (language copied below).
NON-LEED-CERTIFIABLE BUILDING ON SITE
"If there is a non-LEED-certifiable building within the LEED project boundary, the project team can include the non-certifying building within the project boundary in ALL relevant submittals that are allowed and appropriate for each individual credit and prerequisite, essentially treating the non-certifying building as an extension of the certifying building."
(pg 26 of the MPR guidance).
I'm assuming we should treat this secondary building as part of the total building gross SF for the purposes of MPR7 building-to-site area ratio?
Any thoughts/suggestions?
Thanks!
Anya
Jon Clifford
LEED-AP BD+CGREENSQUARE
LEEDuser Expert
327 thumbs up
March 27, 2015 - 9:47 pm
Gross Square-Footage (GSF) is based on conditioned area, so if your ancillary building is heated or air conditioned, include its area in the GSF. If it does not qualify as “conditioned” (using ASHRAE-90.1 definition), do not include the secondary building in the project’s GSF.
Anya Fiechtl
ArchitectBuro Happold
74 thumbs up
July 29, 2015 - 5:49 pm
Thanks Jon,
A slight clarification and additional question for you or anyone else reading this: The building does have some heating, but only to keep plumbing pipes from freezing (there is a bathroom and some mechanical equipment in the space). So you might say it is "conditioned", but definitely not regularly occupied. In that case would we include it in the GSF?
Also, should we include this ancillary building in our energy model and calculations for EAc1 Energy Performance?
Thanks again!
Anya
Jon Clifford
LEED-AP BD+CGREENSQUARE
LEEDuser Expert
327 thumbs up
July 30, 2015 - 7:11 pm
You are right that you should include the conditioned portions of the non-certifiable ancillary building in the GSF and in the energy model for EAp2 & EAc1. Note that ASHRAE sets a threshold for how much heating qualifies as conditioned. Work with your MEP designers and your energy modelers to determine what counts. Also check out the modeling masters in the EAp2 LEEDuser forum, http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/EAp2.
In LEEDonline, you will enter area data for both the building and the site into Project Information Form PI2. The form will calculate the building-to-site ratio. This form also links to the forms for EAp1, EAp2, EAc1, EAc2, EAc6, MRc1.1 & MRc1.2 for consistency across all prerequisites & credits. (You will want to use the same number in your recycling storage area narrative for MRp1 too.)
Finally, I have noticed that LEED often uses the terms Gross Floor Area (GFA) and Gross Square Footage (GSF) interchangeably, but the LEED Glossary defines the terms slightly differently. The GFA definition is more complete, more closely matches ASHRAE, and makes it much clearer what to include and what to leave out.
Anya Fiechtl
ArchitectBuro Happold
74 thumbs up
July 30, 2015 - 8:43 pm
Jon, just backing up a tad here - could you point me to where LEED references conditioned space for inclusion/exclusion from GSF and building-to-site area ratio? I'm not seeing any mention of conditioned space in the MPRs.
Interesting note on the GSF vs GFA, but I'm guessing these were intended to have the same definition. PIf2 actually asks for "Total gross square footage / gross floor area:___" (so if LEED uses the two terms in the same sentence, I assume they are truly interchangeable).
Following ASHRAE's definition, it's likely that this building will not be considered conditioned simply because the heating is minimal. Just not sure if that (conditioned status) technically excludes it from the GFA. We also happen to have electric vehicle parking/charging as part of the ancillary building function, so maybe that excludes the whole (or part) of the floor area, per the GFA definition?
As for EAp2 and EAc1, even if the building is not considered conditioned under ASHRAE's definition, or excluded from GFA because of the electric vehicles, we still need to account for the energy use of the heating (and lighting) either in the energy model, or enter it separately into the EA forms. I'm wondering how best to approach that, but will re-post a more in-depth question to the forum page you linked above. Thanks for the tip.
Jon Clifford
LEED-AP BD+CGREENSQUARE
LEEDuser Expert
327 thumbs up
July 31, 2015 - 12:00 am
As I understand it, the energy models should include the energy use of non-certifiable buildings regardless of whether the areas of those buildings are included in the GFA. Also, the GFA reported on PIf2 should match that used in the energy models. (I have had Reviewers pick apart square-footage discrepancies and insist upon using conditioned space only.)
The distinction may be buried somewhere in ASHRAE-90.1. However, ASHRAE may allow some exceptions that I have not yet encountered. (For example, I have not worked with naturally ventilated buildings, which could include unconditioned enclosed spaces that ASHRAE might consider GFA.)
Check out the EAp2 forum. The INCREDIBLY enlightened experts there should be able to help you pinpoint what is in and what is out. They should also be able to tell you how to account for vehicle charging in the models.
Jon Clifford
LEED-AP BD+CGREENSQUARE
LEEDuser Expert
327 thumbs up
August 4, 2015 - 10:31 pm
Just as I expected, Marcus came through with a brilliant response on the EAp2 forum: http://www.leeduser.com/comment/redirect/59216.