Is it a hotel or a conference center or something else?

[BayPointArchitect]

Rather than describe how we got here, our planning department has approved a new hotel.
The plan proposed by the architects show a two-story 5,418 S.F. area labeled "hotel". Fair enough.
But there is only one sleeping room and eighteen other accessory rooms.
While I agree that hotels have many different rooms with many different functions, I am not sure how to tell these architects that one sleeping room that is 4% of the total area does not equal a hotel. The plan looks more like a conference center or business office.

Thoughts? Advice?

As always, thanks in advance.

ICC Certified Plan Reviewer
NFPA Certified Fire Plan Examiner

 

[Inspector Gadget]

one sleeping room that is 4% of the total area does not equal a hotel.

I'm thinking you already found a way to say what you want to say.

 

[BayPointArchitect]

The architect is now saying that the area beyond the sleeping room is part of the "hotel suite". The suite being less than 50% of the total area of the "hotel".

 

[classicT]

Is calling it a hotel a zoning/planning issue?

I'd review it and use the obvious occupancy classifications as a mixed-use building, ignoring whatever they want to call the building as a whole. Stick to the IBC. Let zoning/planning worry about the overall label that gets put to the building.

 

[steveray]

And that is why I will never do zoning

 

[BayPointArchitect]

Is calling it a hotel a zoning/planning issue?

I'd review it and use the obvious occupancy classifications as a mixed-use building, ignoring whatever they want to call the building as a whole. Stick to the IBC. Let zoning/planning worry about the overall label that gets put to the building.

If I review it the way I see it, then I would color the plan differently to show a smaller "hotel" area that includes the ADA hotel room and restroom. That area would then need to be fire separated from all other areas of the "B" business office occupancy. Separate handicap entry-exit. Regardless, the stairway needs to be within a one-hour fire-rated enclosure. If those changes are made, then I have no other issues.

The problem (I think) is that the property owner sold this "hotel" idea to the surrounding residents as a quaint little hotel that looks like a large single-family home. He minimized (with his words) the attached office addition for his development-construction-law-firm company. Planning Department and the neighborhood approved based on the "mainly hotel with a little office" concept. There was a requirement that the "R" residential square footage is more than half of the overall building. In other words, the business office needs to be less than half of the area to meet the zoning requirements. It is not my job to care so much about that. I'm just having a hard time accepting the single sleeping room as anything other than a token.

The entire design process has been shifty - to say the least. And it seems like the owner and architects have painted themselves into a corner. Maybe not. If I add a hotel room to any office building can I reclassify the entire building as a hotel? Where does it say that I can not do that?

 

[e hilton]

From the virginia administrative code. Highlights theirs.

 

[classicT]

If I add a hotel room to any office building can I reclassify the entire building as a hotel? Where does it say that I can not do that?

It's clearly mixed use. There is not a single classification that is overarching. Forget the hotel aspect entirely as it relates to the concept of the building.

Break it up and classify each room/space according to its function as per Ch. 3. Looks like a mix of Group B, Group A, and Group R-1.

 

[BayPointArchitect]

It's clearly mixed use. There is not a single classification that is overarching. Forget the hotel aspect entirely as it relates to the concept of the building.

Break it up and classify each room/space according to its function as per Ch. 3. Looks like a mix of Group B, Group A, and Group R-1.

I did ask them to color code each type of occupancy according to its use. Then I was going to require fire separation between each type of occupancy. But then they gave me three different colors for three large areas - including a 5,418 S.F. hotel... with one lonely sleeping room.

I like the State of Virginia's definition of a hotel because it requires at least two lodging units.

 

[classicT]

I did ask them to color code each type of occupancy according to its use. Then I was going to require fire separation between each type of occupancy. But then they gave me three different colors for three large areas - including a 5,418 S.F. hotel... with one lonely sleeping room.

The sheet they provided you has color coding that means virtually nothing as far as I can tell. Maybe means something for planning and looking at general intent for zoning use.

What they need to give you is a breakdown of the occupancy of each area of the building. Based upon the occupancy classification, they need to determine allowable areas, occupancy separation requirements, egress, etc.

What you've provided from them is grossly inadequate for review.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It is definitely mixed uses, with the one ADA sleeping room possibly a hotel room, or possibly a boarding house room -- depending on whether it's for long-term or short-term occupancy.

As a mixed use building, it can be separated mixed uses, or non-separated mixed uses. It's up to the designer to decide which.

As to what the developer promised the zoning folks -- that has nothing to do with the building code.

 

[e hilton]

I like the State of Virginia's definition of a hotel because it requires at least two lodging units.

I could be as tacky as an engineer and say something like … you should learn to use google. But you seem like a nice guy so i won’t. However comma for your viewing pleasure … this is even better …

 

[ICE]

that has nothing to do with the building code.

You are quick to point that out… like it is a valid point. To say that what a developer has worked out with the planning department has nothing to do with the building code, well the extension of the concept incorporates the Building Department.

Building and Planning departments work towards a common goal. They answer to the same person(s). They share a roof and maybe an office. To imply that the keeper of the building code should ignore the work product of the Planning Dept. Is wrong.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You are quick to point that out… like it is a valid point. To say that what a developer has worked out with the planning department has nothing to do with the building code, well the extension of the concept incorporates the Building Department.

How? The zoning codes (usually) have their definitions, and building codes have their definitions. They often don't agree. The ZEO enforces the zoning regulations, the BO enforces the building regulations. Any overlap is accidental and unintended.

Building and Planning departments work towards a common goal. They answer to the same person(s). They share a roof and maybe an office. To imply that the keeper of the building code should ignore the work product of the Planning Dept. Is wrong.

What common goal do they work toward? In my state, on of the legislatively-mandated purposes of zoning codes is the preservation of property values. Public safety is NOT one of the legislative mandates for zoning regulations. Public safety, health and welfare ARE the stated purposes of the building codes. The building code isn't interested in preserving property values.

I must respectfully disagree with your premise.

 

[bill1952]

The ZEO enforces the zoning regulations, the BO enforces the building regulations. Any overlap is accidental and unintended.

I can't believe my jurisdiction is the only one but the ZEO and BO here are the same person. It's a one person office. It's all linked together.

 

[BayPointArchitect]

e hilton, your candor is much appreciated! I will forward that definition to the permit applicant which includes "ten or more persons or more than five or more rooms."

The hotel area of the building being questioned is said to be for short-term use (less than 30 days). There is also a third story boarding house consisting of four rooms. But I don't want to muddy the waters with that. The previous plan (this project has evolved) included those other four rooms as being part of the hotel. When we explained that an unenclosed stairway (open at the bottom) is not allowed in a hotel, they changed the upper floor (where the stairway has one-hour doors) to an R-3 boarding house because an (unenclosed) exit access stair is allowed for R-3 occupancies. We will deal with the open-unenclosed stairway at the hotel level after we determine an acceptable type of occupancy based on (1) zoning allowance and (2) building code definition and (3) life safety code definition of 16 or more people and (4) the state definition of no less than ten people or no less than five rooms.

In our city of 300,000 people, we have a separate planning department located across the hallway from the building safety department. Smart design professionals will deal with their local planning department and zoning issues first before hiring the team of MEP engineers. Because the architect and/or civil engineer can first determine that a project that is not feasible (according to zoning regulations and neighborhood resistance) before wasting other professional design fees to work out the construction details.

In my mind, the easy solution is to include all five lodging units as part of the hotel in order to meet the State definition. Then argue that you can accommodate 16 people in order to meet the Life Safety definition of a hotel. Then enclose the bottom of the stairs despite the fact that the building owner wants to maintain the aesthetics of this grand stairway. Otherwise, it doesn't work to have an open stairway inside the hotel. While these stairs provide an exit from other levels, the stairs need to be fire separated from all other areas at the level of exit discharge.

You guys are awesome.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I can't believe my jurisdiction is the only one but the ZEO and BO here are the same person. It's a one person office. It's all linked together.

In many of the smaller towns in my state the BO is also the ZEO. That doesn't change the fact that they are separate offices, enforcing separate regulations, and at all times the ZEO/BO has to be mindful of which hat he/she is wearing. Zoning regulations are unrelated to building codes. In this state, they are authorized under totally separate statutes. The fact that in some instances the same person may hold both offices doesn't change that.

Until a few years ago, my town's BO was also the ZEO, the Deputy Fire Marshal, and the Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer. Would anyone then argue that the inland wetland regulations are related to the building code just because the same person holds that office?

 

[Paul Sweet]

Could the open stair be considered as an exit access stair?

If not, can they add doors with smoke detector hold-opens at the lobby?

Is the building sprinklered?

Is the Common Area on the ground floor for the sole use of the ADA room occupant? If not, having to travel through a room filled with strangers to get to the bathroom, and having to share a bathroom with them, could raise some accessibility issues

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The hotel area of the building being questioned is said to be for short-term use (less than 30 days). There is also a third story boarding house consisting of four rooms. But I don't want to muddy the waters with that. The previous plan (this project has evolved) included those other four rooms as being part of the hotel. When we explained that an unenclosed stairway (open at the bottom) is not allowed in a hotel, they changed the upper floor (where the stairway has one-hour doors) to an R-3 boarding house because an (unenclosed) exit access stair is allowed for R-3 occupancies. We will deal with the open-unenclosed stairway at the hotel level after we determine an acceptable type of occupancy based on (1) zoning allowance and (2) building code definition and (3) life safety code definition of 16 or more people and (4) the state definition of no less than ten people or no less than five rooms.

Unenclosed exit access stairs are "a thing" under the IBC, but they have limitations. Going from memory, I believe you can't use an unenclosed exit access stair as a required means of egress for more than half the required number of exits from a floor/story. Second, when using an open stair as exit access, the exit access travel distance is measured from the most remote point on the upper story to the stair, down the stair, and to the exit on the level of exit discharge. Third, again from memory, I don't think you can use an open exit access stair to traverse more than one story, which would mean that you can't use an exit access stair as egress from the third floor.

 

[walker.t]

But there is only one sleeping room

You can call “Baloney Sausage” on this one with a clear conscience. A hotel with only one guest room that doesn’t even have a private bathroom, they’re not going to be in business long as a hotel - but we all know that’s not what their business is about.

I'm thinking you already found a way to say what you want to say.

What he said.

 

[TheCommish]

I can't believe my jurisdiction is the only one but the ZEO and BO here are the same person. It's a one person office. It's all linked together.

Most of Massachusetts the BO is the ZEO, as i recall the law state unless the appointing authority appoints another person the BO is the ZEO

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I can't believe my jurisdiction is the only one but the ZEO and BO here are the same person. It's a one person office. It's all linked together.

It used to be that way in my home town, too. The two are still different offices, fulfilling different purposes and enforcing different codes. If one person happens to occupy both offices, he/she must be careful to remember which hat he/she is wearing at all times.