Business Use with Assembly Spaces and Accessory Use rules

[Hoktfonix]

Thoughts on this scenario:
Business use building, office use, with assembly areas (meeting rooms) within the office use.
Assuming all of the meeting rooms meet this criteria:

then the meeting rooms would never be classified as assembly use.
But how many meeting rooms can I have?
What if 1/3 or 1/2 of the space is meeting rooms, but each individual room has an occupant load of less than 50?
Then each room stays as a group B occupancy, but does this create a complication if 1/2 the space is being used as an assembly area, or that fact that it's not contiguous makes it okay? (assuming other items are accounted for in the occupant load - restrooms, egress, etc.)

The meeting rooms are being considered accessory to Group B in this scenario, so the total can't exceed 10% of the floor they occupy:

If the total floor area is:
45,000 s.f.
4,500 s.f. can be accessory (assembly/meeting rooms)
So if lease space is 9,000 feet, I could have 6 meeting rooms that are 735 s.f. each (49 occupants at 1:15) and that would only be 4,410 s.f. (less than 10% of the floor)

OR, is the 10% rule irrelevant because its not an accessory occupancy, it's just a B occupancy since less than 50 people does not classify as an assembly occupancy?


Two questions then:
Is it allowed to have 4,410 s.f. of assembly and still be a B/accessory, as long as each room is less than 50 persons?
Does the 10% rule apply here?

 

[Sifu]

I think you may be conflating the accessory mixed use strategy with the small assembly space "accessory to". If an assembly space meets the definition of a small assembly space then it is B, no mixed use strategy needed. If there is no separate classification then there is no 10% limitation. If the primary occupancy classifications are all B, and the assembly spaces are all accessory to the primary classification then they are all B. A question that could eventually be asked is what is the real primary classification, but it doesn't sound like it based on your scenario.

 

[steveray]

That’s a lot of meeting rooms…they must get nothing done…

 

[Inspector Gadget]

If the total floor area is:
45,000 s.f.
4,500 s.f. can be accessory (assembly/meeting rooms)
So if lease space is 9,000 feet, I could have 6 meeting rooms that are 735 s.f. each (49 occupants at 1:15) and that would only be 4,410 s.f. (less than 10% of the floor)

How does the applicable code in your area define "floor area?" Is it wall-to-wall, for each storey? Is this a one-storey structure?

 

[Hoktfonix]

How does the applicable code in your area define "floor area?" Is it wall-to-wall, for each storey? Is this a one-storey structure?

Total floor area is gross in this case, including all outside walls. Multi-story building

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Total floor area is gross in this case, including all outside walls. Multi-story building

So that 10% exclusion is on total floor area, not storey area?

 

[Hoktfonix]

I think you may be conflating the accessory mixed use strategy with the small assembly space "accessory to". If an assembly space meets the definition of a small assembly space then it is B, no mixed use strategy needed. If there is no separate classification then there is no 10% limitation. If the primary occupancy classifications are all B, and the assembly spaces are all accessory to the primary classification then they are all B. A question that could eventually be asked is what is the real primary classification, but it doesn't sound like it based on your scenario.

In what scenario would you question the real primary classification? A-3 is the only one that is a catch-all Assembly use but there feels to be a general idea of what those are, lecture hall or community hall might be like a meeting room, but even though those don't have definitions they feel more specific to a function.

So that 10% exclusion is on total floor area, not storey area?

10% is per story, I was using total floor area of that story, sorry that may not have been clear.

What about Sifu's response above, thoughts on that? If they all stay as B occupancy, then they would they even be considered an accessory use since they are not A and therefore not a different use?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

What about Sifu's response above, thoughts on that? If they all stay as B occupancy, then they would they even be considered an accessory use since they are not A and therefore not a different use?

Can't comment; I'm a Canuck and we use different codes. I was just questioning whether an interp was similar.

Given your answer, though, any area > 10% of each floor would push you past the exclusion limits.

 

[Sifu]

In what scenario would you question the real primary classification?

An area where the primary function is for assemblies of people in meeting rooms, for education, lectures, banquets, etc. rather than sitting at a desk. I had one a few years ago in a typical office building. They wanted to take an entire floor and make it nothing but meeting rooms, and call them accessory to the business offices (because it was the way it worked best for them...$$$$). It was a conference center sandwiched between office floors, complete with associated amenities. I don't really believe code addressed this type of thing under the "accessory to" provision in 303.1.2 because these would have been for use by anyone, inside or outside the building and assembly was the primary use. For that I felt mixed use A3 and B was the correct path (not accessory because they exceeded the 10% per floor). It wasn't a pleasant experience for anyone and it went up the chain. It went away.

FWIW, I have had many projects that wanted to remodel older office spaces, entire floors, and entire buildings, that proposed large conference rooms, that would not have fit in the small assembly space parameters. So we have a change of occupancy classification, now a mixed use, and accessory occupancy as a mixed use strategy is the way to go...only now all such spaces must be counted per floor. Only a few times do I remember someone actually submitting entire floor plans showing the areas of all such spaces. Usually I think a realization was made that it might shine light in corners that nobody wanted seen.

 

[steveray]

An area where the primary function is for assemblies of people in meeting rooms, for education, lectures, banquets, etc. rather than sitting at a desk. I had one a few years ago in a typical office building. They wanted to take an entire floor and make it nothing but meeting rooms, and call them accessory to the business offices (because it was the way it worked best for them...$$$$). It was a conference center sandwiched between office floors, complete with associated amenities. I don't really believe code addressed this type of thing under the "accessory to" provision in 303.1.2 because these would have been for use by anyone, inside or outside the building and assembly was the primary use. For that I felt mixed use A3 and B was the correct path (not accessory because they exceeded the 10% per floor). It wasn't a pleasant experience for anyone and it went up the chain. It went away.

FWIW, I have had many projects that wanted to remodel older office spaces, entire floors, and entire buildings, that proposed large conference rooms, that would not have fit in the small assembly space parameters. So we have a change of occupancy classification, now a mixed use, and accessory occupancy as a mixed use strategy is the way to go...only now all such spaces must be counted per floor. Only a few times do I remember someone actually submitting entire floor plans showing the areas of all such spaces. Usually I think a realization was made that it might shine light in corners that nobody wanted seen.

Exactly what I was thinking.....Is it an office building/ space or a meeting venue.....?

 

[Hoktfonix]

An area where the primary function is for assemblies of people in meeting rooms, for education, lectures, banquets, etc. rather than sitting at a desk. I had one a few years ago in a typical office building. They wanted to take an entire floor and make it nothing but meeting rooms, and call them accessory to the business offices (because it was the way it worked best for them...$$$$). It was a conference center sandwiched between office floors, complete with associated amenities. I don't really believe code addressed this type of thing under the "accessory to" provision in 303.1.2 because these would have been for use by anyone, inside or outside the building and assembly was the primary use. For that I felt mixed use A3 and B was the correct path (not accessory because they exceeded the 10% per floor). It wasn't a pleasant experience for anyone and it went up the chain. It went away.

FWIW, I have had many projects that wanted to remodel older office spaces, entire floors, and entire buildings, that proposed large conference rooms, that would not have fit in the small assembly space parameters. So we have a change of occupancy classification, now a mixed use, and accessory occupancy as a mixed use strategy is the way to go...only now all such spaces must be counted per floor. Only a few times do I remember someone actually submitting entire floor plans showing the areas of all such spaces. Usually I think a realization was made that it might shine light in corners that nobody wanted seen.

Why would they be worried about shining light, what code violation would exist there? Because it's over the 10% rule they would rather not show it, or concerned about a change of occupancy that they don't want? If its truly conference rooms, then its a change of occupancy if it doesn't fit 10% or small assembly, but might still be a B use rather than an A use?

 

[Hoktfonix]

Exactly what I was thinking.....Is it an office building/ space or a meeting venue.....?

Seems like the intent is for small gatherings that the office staff oversees, people visit the space for the purpose of meetings, but a meeting venue isn't specifically listed in A-3 either. Perhaps a gray area if the space is designed to not trigger any assembly uses? But even if it's an assembly use, under 10% is okay it seems. Occupant load certainly goes up, so that needs to be addressed for restrooms/egress, but I don't know that I'm seeing other code implications. Although, right now it feels like skirting the rule, so local AHJ may not like it either way.

 

[Sifu]

Why would they be worried about shining light, what code violation would exist there? Because it's over the 10% rule they would rather not show it, or concerned about a change of occupancy that they don't want? If its truly conference rooms, then its a change of occupancy if it doesn't fit 10% or small assembly, but might still be a B use rather than an A use?

Sometimes just privacy....nobody wants to share information. Sometimes, it can be a business license issue they are afraid of, though I stay in my lane. As for code, unpermitted work and/or permitted work that didn't really get enough attention from a plans examiner. Probably no surprise, but there are many office buildings with large conference rooms submitted under the "but it's not 10% of the SPACE, ignoring the FLOOR part". Also probably not a surprise, it sometimes doesn't get caught.