Owner / Applicant Information

Brent

Benge

Hotel Indy Properties, LLC

PO BOX 40243

INDIANAPOLIS

46240

Phone

3173748594

[email protected]

Submitter Information

Carrie

Ballinger

RTM Consultants, Inc.

6640 Parkdale Place, Ste J

Indianapolis

Phone

3173297700

[email protected]

Designer Information

William

Browne, Jr., FAIA

RATIO Architects, Inc.

101 S Pennsylvania St

Indianapolis

Phone

3176334040

[email protected]

Project Information

141 E Washington Hotel

141 E Washington St

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:

3173278700

Email:

[email protected]

Local Fire Official

3173278700

Email:

[email protected]

Phone:

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014IBC Sec.3412.6.11,1015.2.1

Conditions:

Existing exit stairways, and extensions of the stairways to new 6th floor, will be separated by less than one third of the overall diagonal of the building.

The building is an existing 5-story plus basement office building, constructed in 1969. The project includes Chapter 34 conversion of the existing building to a hotel with 1st floor restaurant as well as the addition of a 6th floor penthouse level with rooftop bar. The building has approximately 12,827 square feet per floor. The building will be classified as Type IB Construction and will be evaluated as non-separated A-2/R-1 Occupancies. The building will be provided with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout.

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. The building will be protected throughout with an automatic sprinkler system per NFPA 13.
2. The building will be provided with a fire alarm system and smoke detection throughout.
3. Stairways are enclosed with 2-hour construction and 90-minute doors.
4. A new exit passageway will be provided on the 1st floor from one of the exit stairways.
5. The maximum travel distance is less than 100 feet, code permits 250 feet.

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 exit stair locations are existing, with extensions of the existing stairs being provided to the new 6th floor. It is a cost hardship to provide a new exit stair in the existing building.

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 IBC Sec.3412.6.11, 1018.4

Conditions:

Corridors on 6th floor will have dead ends of 55 feet. Code permits maximum dead end of 50 feet with sprinkler protection per NFPA 13.

The building is an existing 5-story plus basement office building, constructed in 1969. The project includes Chapter 34 conversion of the existing building to a hotel with 1st floor restaurant as well as the addition of a 6th floor penthouse level with rooftop bar. The building has approximately 12,827 square feet per floor. The building will be classified as Type IB Construction and will be evaluated as non-separated A-2/R-1 Occupancies. The building will be provided with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout.

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. The building will be protected throughout with an automatic sprinkler system per NFPA 13.
2. Corridors on floors 2-5 are compliant, with dead ends permitted to be up to 70 feet by way of evaluation per Sec. 3412 for the change of occupancy.
3. The building will be provided with a fire alarm system and smoke detection throughout.
4. The maximum travel distance is less than 100 feet, code permits 250 feet.
5. Based upon permitted dead ends of 55 feet on other floors, the additional dead ends on new 6th floor will not be 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:

The corridor layout is the most efficient use of the space, given the location of existing stairways in the building.

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 IBC Sec. 3004.1

Conditions:

Hoistway venting will not be provided for new elevators to be installed in the existing buildings. An elevator with 4 ore more stops requires hoistway venting where the building contains an R Occupancy.

The building is an existing 5-story plus basement office building, constructed in 1969. The project includes Chapter 34 conversion of the existing building to a hotel with 1st floor restaurant as well as the addition of a 6th floor penthouse level with rooftop bar. The building has approximately 12,827 square feet per floor. The building will be classified as Type IB Construction and will be evaluated as non-separated A-2/R-1 Occupancies. The building will be provided with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout.

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. The 2015 International Building Code has eliminated the requirement for venting of elevator hoistways.
2. Reference to hoistway venting has been eliminated from the 2010 Edition of the ASME A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators.
3. Elevator hoistway vents, when opened, could potentially draw smoke and heat into the elevator hoistway.
4. The building will be protected with an automatic spirnkler system throughout. Recent studies inicate that sprinklered buildings do not pose a threat for smoke and heat spread through elevator shafts.
5. Similar variances have been granted for 4-, 5- and 6- story buildings, including 19-05-68e, 18-12-12d, 18-10-48d, 18-10-45d, 18-09-18b, 18-08-14c, 18-06-60f, 18-04-28, 18-04-25, 17- 09-38b, 17-09-52, and 17-09-62d.

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:

Venting of elevator hoistways appears to be a vestige of decades-ago theories about smoke spread in nonsprinklered buildings. At this point, the intent of the hoistway venting in current codes is not clear. In addition to potentially drawing smoke into the hoistway from the building, hoistway venting also has a detrimental effect on energy conservation. In addition to potential adverse affects noted, hardship is the cost to install and maintain elevator vents.

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 IBC Sec. 1007.8

Conditions:

A two-way communication system will not be provided at the elevator landings on each floor. The system is required on each accessible floor that is one or more stories above or below the level of exit discharge.

The building is an existing 5-story plus basement office building, constructed in 1969. The project includes Chapter 34 conversion of the existing building to a hotel with 1st floor restaurant as well as the addition of a 6th floor penthouse level with rooftop bar. The building has approximately 12,827 square feet per floor. The building will be classified as Type IB Construction and will be evaluated as non-separated A-2/R-1 Occupancies. The building will be provided with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout.

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. Cell phones are widely used for communication, and will provide a more readily available means of communication for the purpose intended.
2. This variance has been approved numerous times before, (18-10-48e), (18-09-18a) (18- 08-43a), (18-06-60a), (18-03-32a), (17-10-13), (17-03-82d), (17-06-38d), (16-09-71d), (15-09- 73), (17-02-52a),(17-06-52e), (17-09-62f), and others.
3. The building will be protected throughout with an automatic sprinkler system.

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:

Hardship is the cost for a 2-way communication system that would likely never be used.

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 IBC Sec. 1009.1

Conditions:

Egress stairs serving the new 6th floor will not comply with current code for certain dimensional requirements, including tread rise and run. Additionally, new stair flights to the 6th floor will be constructed substantially similar to the existing stairs.

The building is an existing 5-story plus basement office building, constructed in 1969. The project includes Chapter 34 conversion of the existing building to a hotel with 1st floor restaurant as well as the addition of a 6th floor penthouse level with rooftop bar. The building has approximately 12,827 square feet per floor. The building will be classified as Type IB Construction and will be evaluated as non-separated A-2/R-1 Occupancies. The building will be provided with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout.

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. The building will be protected throughout with an automatic sprinkler system per NFPA 13.
2. The use of existing stairs for the existing basement through 5th floors are compliant by way of evaluation per Sec. 3412 for the change of occupancy.
3. The building will be provided with a fire alarm system and smoke detection throughout.
4. Based upon the legal use of the stairs for the other floors, the additional use of the stairs for the new 6th floor will not be 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:

Construction of stairs in compliance with current code stair dimensions would require extensive demolition and reconstruction of existing structure, and would therefore be cost prohibitive.

Variance Details

Code Name:

Other Code (Not in the list provided)

2014 IBC Sec.3412.6.11, 1014.3

Conditions:

Common path of travel from 4 corner guest suites on each upper level will be 85-90 feet, exceeding the permitted 75 feet.

The building is an existing 5-story plus basement office building, constructed in 1969. The project includes Chapter 34 conversion of the existing building to a hotel with 1st floor restaurant as well as the addition of a 6th floor penthouse level with rooftop bar. The building has approximately 12,827 square feet per floor. The building will be classified as Type IB Construction and will be evaluated as non-separated A-2/R-1 Occupancies. The building will be provided with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout.

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:

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:

Common path of travel is slightly exceeded due to the centralized location of exit stairs. The exit stair locations are existing, with extensions of the existing stairs being provided to the new 6th floor. It is a cost hardship to provide a more remote stairway in the existing building to comply with common path.