| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
Other Code (Not in the list provided) |
|
|
|
|
|
2012 IBC/ 2014 Ind. Ammedments |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
We are looking to keep the project within budget, and would like to substitute a less costly alternative to save considerable expense, without compromising the fire rating or safety.
We are looking into revising the design of the glass walls at the entrance lobby and stair, for a cost effective solution. These walls are designed to have a 1-hour fire rating from the adjacent tenant spaces. Our original design calls for a 1-hour fire rated storefront window system. We are proposing instead to use Tyco Model WS Specific Application Window Sprinklers to protect tempered glass in gasketed frames at areas indicated on the attached drawings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEMONSTRATION THAT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE ARE PROTECTED: |
|
|
|
|
|
1=Non-compliance with the rule will not be adverse to the public health, safety or w |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2= Applicant will undertake alternative actions in lieu of compliance with the rule to ensure that granting of the variance will not be adverse to public health, safety, or welfare. Explain why alternative actions would be adequate (be specific).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facts: |
|
The glass walls at the lobby area are designed to have a 1-hour fire rating from the adjacent tenant spaces. Our original design calls for a 1-hour fire rated storefront window system. We are proposing instead to use Tyco Model WS Specific Application Window Sprinklers to protect tempered glass in gasketed frames at areas indicated on the attached drawings. Tyco states that successful testing has shown that these sprinklers can protect glass for a two-hour test period with no cracking or visible damage to the glass, even when a hose stream was directed at the glass. Product information is attached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEMONSTRATION OF UNDUE HARDSHIP OR HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imposition of the rule would result in an undue hardship (unusual difficulty) because of physical limitations of the construction site or its utility services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imposition of the rule would result in an undue hardship (unusual difficulty) because of major operational problems in the use of the building or structure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
|
Imposition of the rule would result in an undue hardship (unusual difficulty) because of excessive costs of additional or altered construction elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imposition of the rule would prevent the preservation of an architecturally or a historically significant part of the building or structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facts: |
|
Fire rating the large quantity of glass at the lobby has come in at nearly $1 million over budget. Working with our engineers of record, the proposed water-wall method would be substantially less costly, with keeping the same or better level of protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|