| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
Other Code (Not in the list provided) |
|
|
|
|
|
714.4.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
The inspector is requiring a variance be filed with his office stating where the interior wall framing interrupts the ceiling membrane assembly it is acceptable to use 2015 building code 714.4.2 . This states interior walls with double top plates and type X drywall with fire caulk at penetrations is allowed and thus separating the 1 hour ceiling rating from the wall. Indianapolis follows the 2014 code which does not allow this exception, making interior walls be the same rating as the ceiling assembly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Use of a Double top plate with the described Type X Gyp will meet the requirements of the section 714.4.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
Floors 2-5 are in various stage of completion including but not limited to painting, vinyl wallcovering,millwork and carpeting.This would virtually be impossible and would create a considerable financial hardship not to mention the impact to the scheduled hotel opening this summer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
Other Code (Not in the list provided) |
|
|
|
|
|
2014 IBC 714.4.1.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
The Building Inspector is requiring a variance be filed with this office approving that it is acceptable to follow 2015 IBC 714.4.2 Exception 7 allowing a non-rated wall with a double top plate to penetrate a 1-hour ceiling membrane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
This project was submitted under the 2014 Indiana Building Code (2012 IBC) ¿ Section 714.4.1.2 Membrane Penetrations states that a ceiling membrane is permitted to be interrupted with a fire-resistance rated wall assembly that is rated not less than the rating of the horizontal assembly.
The non-rated walls that are penetrating the 1-hour horizontal assembly are installed per 2015 IBC section 714.4.2 exception 7. This allows a non-rated wall to penetrate the 1-hour horizontal assembly given that it is built with a double wood top plate, sheathed in Type X gypsum board, and has all penetrating items through the double top plates protected per Section 714.4.1.1 and 714.4.1.2 and the ceiling membrane is tight to the top plates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
The walls in question are currently constructed using 2x4 wood studs, double wood top plates, 3-1/2¿ batt insulation, Type-X gypsum board, and fire caulking at all top-plate penetrations. With an exception to the protection of the shower control valves and outlet boxes, these walls are built in a manner consistent with 1-hour rated walls. Given that more recent versions of the IBC (2015 & 2018) allow for a less stringent installation of walls that penetrate horizontal assemblies, we feel that the current construction method will not negatively impact public health, safety, and/or welfare.
The cost of fire-rating every miscellaneous penetration over the course of this project would have been substantial, and retroactively fire-rating these walls to the degree described in the 2012 IBC at this stage of construction would be extremely detrimental to the project's schedule and budget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|