Owner / Applicant Information

Gary

Ratcliff

The Barn

9950 US 231 S.

LAFAYETTE

47909

Phone

7655869485

[email protected]

Submitter Information

Melissa

Tupper

RTM Consultants, Inc.

6640 Parkdale Place

Indianapolis

Phone

3173297700

[email protected]

Designer Information

Andrew

Switzer

ARKOR Architects & Engineers

117 N. 4th Street

Lafayette

Phone

3154294070

[email protected]

Project Information

Ratcliff Barn

9950 US 231 S.

Lafayette

47909

County

TIPPECANOE

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:

7654239225

Email:

[email protected]

Local Fire Official

7654239225

Email:

[email protected]

Phone:

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 IBC, Table 1014.3,505.2.2

Conditions:

The travel distance from the existing mezzanine is approximately 110 feet. Code limits the common path of travel from a mezzanine with a single means of egress in a S Occupancy to 100 feet.

The project involves the conversion of an existing barn, Class 2 structure, to an event space. The building is classified as an A-2/S-1 Occupancy. The building is 1-story with mezzanine and Type VB Construction. The 1st floor is 5,090 square feet with a mezzanine that is 840 square feet.

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:

1. A fire alarm system in accordance with Section 907, IBC will be installed throughout the building.

2. Smoke detection will be provided throughout the building which is tied to the fire alarm system.

3. The mezzanine is not used by the public, and will be blocked off during events. The mezzanine is used for storage for the barn owner and it open to the rest of the barn.

4. Based upon the mezzanine not being used by the public and the fire alarm and smoke detection system, the travel distance from the existing mezzanine is not adverse to safety.

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:

It is a cost hardship for the owner to provide an additional stair from the existing mezzanine that will not be occupied by the public and is used for the owners personal storage. The mezzanine is open to the rest of the barn, making a fire readily apparent to the owner of the barn. A fire alarm and smoke detection system will be provided throughout the building.

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 IBC, 3401.1

Conditions:

The project involves the conversion of an existing barn, Class 2 structure, to an event space. The variance request is to permit the building to be evaluated using Ch 34.

The building is classified as an A-2/S-1 Occupancy. The building is 1-story with mezzanine and Type VB Construction. The 1st floor is 5,090 square feet with a mezzanine that is 840 square feet.

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:

1. A structural evaluation has been completed for the proposed building for compliance with Ch 16, see attached structural review from the engineer.

2. A fire alarm system installed in accordance with Section 907, IBC will be installed throughout the building.

3. Smoke detection will be provided throughout the building which is tied to the fire alarm system.

4. A shunt will be provided so that when the fire alarm is activated any music will be turned off, this is not required by code.

5. The maximum travel distance from the 1st floor to an exit is approximately 58 feet, code permits 200 feet.

6. 3 exits directly to the exterior have been provided from the banquet hall assembly room. The calculated occupant load of the building is 316 occupants. Code only requires 2 exits based upon the calculated occupant load.

7. The clear exit width to be provided from the banquet hall assembly room is 96" which will accommodate and occupant load of 480. Code only requires 63.2" to be provided for an occupant load of 316.

8. There will be no open flames.

9. Decorative lighting will be commercial grade and UL listed.

10. Decorative materials will be fire retardant treated.

11. Similar variances have been granted for Variance 17-09-61, The Legacy Barn; 17-08-45, Salomon Farm Equipment Barn; 17-08-43, Salomon Farm Heritage Barn; 17-06-65, Coffee Creek Ridge Event Barn; 17-01-16, Whippoorwill Hill Farm Event Barn; Variance 16-04-08, Junken Wedding Barn; 15-12-25, Fenneman Wedding Barn; 15-06-49, The Barn of Coatesville; and 15-09-29, The Loft at Walnut Hill Farm.

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:

Imposition of the rule would prevent the use of the structure for the proposed use. Given compliance with all applicable rules, the proposed conversion will not be adverse to safety.