|Owner / Applicant Information|
|The Mill Development LLC|
|3225 S HOYT AVE|
|RTM Consultants, Inc.|
|6640 Parkdale Place|
|Matte Black Architecture Inc|
|2021 E Wexley Rd|
|Element at The Mill|
|1841 W Ezekiel Dr|
|Project Type||New||Y||Addition||Alteration||Existing||Change of Occupancy|
|Project Status||F||F=Filed U or Null=Unfiled|
|IDHS Issued Correction order?|
|Violation Issued by:||NA|
|Local Building Official|
|Local Fire Official|
|Code Name:||Other Code (Not in the list provided)|
|2014 IBC, 718.104.22.168|
|Conditions:|| The variance request is to permit the ceiling membrane of the 1-hour rated horizontal assemblies to be interrupted with the double wood top plate of a wall assembly that is sheathed with Type X gypsum wallboard as permitted in the 2015 edition of the International Building Code. The current edition permits the ceiling membrane of a 1-hour rated horizontal assembly with the double wood top plate of a wall, but the wall is required to be rated.
The building is an apartment building, R-2 Occupancy. The building is 3-stories and Type VB Construction. The building will be protected throughout with an NFPA 13R automatic sprinkler system.
|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 we|
| 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:|| A double wood top plate wall assembly sheathed with Type X gypsum board has been determined to be an acceptable level of protection when penetrating the ceiling membrane of a 1 or 2-hour rated horizontal assembly per the Significant Changes to the International Building Code 2015 Edition, see attached.
What is proposed is not adverse to public health, safety, or welfare based upon the reasoning for the change in the code.
This variance has been granted for numerous projects.
|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 hardship is the difficulty in the constructability of the project. The floor and wall assemblies are constructed prior to the installation of drywall using normal construction methods. In order to comply with code either the drywall would have to be hung on the ceilings before the interior walls are constructed or all of the interior walls would have to be upgraded to 1-hour rated assemblies when not otherwise required by code.