Owner / Applicant Information

Martinson

Rob

409 Mass Ave, LLC

409 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE

INDIANAPOLIS

46204

Phone

3175848442

[email protected]

Submitter Information

Jason

Burk

HALSTEAD architects

1139 Shelby Street

INDIANAPOLIS

Phone

3176841431

[email protected]

Designer Information

Brian Robert

Slator

Slator + Associates, LLC

14004 Rooselvelt Blvd

Clearwater

Phone

7273664001

[email protected]

Project Information

World of Beer Bar + Kitchen

409 Massachusetts Ave

INDIANAPOLIS

46204

County

MARION

Project Type

New

Addition

Alteration

Existing

Change of Occupancy

Project Status

F=Filed U or Null=Unfiled

IDHS Issued Correction order?

Violation Issued by:

Local Building Official

Phone:

3173274104

Email:

[email protected]

Local Fire Official

3173274104

Email:

[email protected]

Phone:

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 InBC, Section 1009

Conditions:

2014 Indiana Building Code (2012 IBC with IN Amendments) - Section 1009 | 1009.4, 1009.5 & 1009.7 - Building contains an existing stairway which is not compliant with the current building codes; existing stairway width is 30", existing headroom is less than 6'-8" at top and bottom treads, and existing tread / riser dimensions are 10" and 7.5" respectively.

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= 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 stairway in question is NOT a required egress stair; it IS convenient "back-of-house" vertical circulation for kitchen and staff to communicate between the basement kitchen and storage areas and the dining areas on the first floor. Technically this stair could be abandoned in place, but it makes more sense from a functional perspective to legalize the stair as-is for employee use. Additionally, if the stair is approved as-is, it provides an additional exit during an emergency situation, which is far more beneficial than the code minimum single egress allowed for spaces with less than 50 occupants. In fact, the stair features mentioned previously are allowed to be considered as contributing elements to obtain points for Chapter 3412.6.11, thus they must be more worthwhile to the egress system than no stairs would be. As such we would argue that these features improve egress beyond the minimum required by code in this existing building and therefore legalizing this stair will have no negative impact on the public health, safety or welfare.

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.

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:

The stair is currently situated between two narrowly spaced load-bearing masonry walls. Replacement of the stair with something code compliant would render the entire corridor around the stair useless and would substantially reduce the employees' ability to access the back of house spaces throughout the tenant area. Additionally, the work would require substantial structural modifications which would be much more costly than the code- approved, but not desirable, option of abandoning the stair in place.

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2009 ANSI A117.1 - 404.2.4

Conditions:

2014 Indiana Building Code (2012 IBC with IN Amendments) - 2009 ANSI A117.1 - 404.2.4 - Historic façade includes a storefront entrance which has a non-compliant threshold.

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

Facts:

There is a second egress which will be modified to be compliant with the ANSI A117.1 requirements. Otherwise, the slight change in elevation does nothing to encumber occupants from escaping through the exit.

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.

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:

The building is located in a historic district where changes to the existing storefront system are typically not allowed. This is not an unusual condition for the Mass Ave block and likely has been allowed in the past through Chapter 34 compliance and / or other variances.

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 InBC, 1003.2

Conditions:

2014 Indiana Building Code (2012 IBC with IN Amendments) - 1003.2 (also 1208.2 is accessory to this) - The existing basement bottom of framing elevation is set at 7'-6" above finish floor (AFF). After electrical power and lighting is installed, the finished ceiling will be set at 7'-0" AFF. There will be some areas where the bottom of the finished ceiling will be 6'-8" due to bulkheads, openings, and / or duct work passing overhead. Because this is an existing building, it is cost prohibitive to remove / lower & replace the entire floor.

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

Facts:

Other than ceiling height, the exit access is unaffected. The code allows for 7'-0" AFF ceiling heights in some areas already, some of which are scheduled for the basement level. 6'-8" is the currently allowed minimum head height for doors. Variances for 7'-0" finished ceiling heights have been been approved in the past for means of egress and occupied spaces.

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.

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:

The space is existing and difficult to change without significant cost implications.