Board approves canopy variance for Coca-Cola warehouse with required sprinklers under canopy

The Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals on Sept. 10 approved a variance allowing a canopy used for active loading at a Coca-Cola warehouse to remain within the open-yard zone required for an unlimited-area building, subject to conditions including installation of a fire-suppression system under the canopy. The motion carried after the board heard staff analysis, applicant testimony and fire-marshals’ input.

Dan Lyons, senior project manager for Clayco Construction, told the board the steel canopy (described in the hearing as a "bridal load canopy") would be used for active loading and unloading, would be noncombustible, and would not house storage or public occupancy. The applicant described the canopy’s use as limited to brief, daily loading operations (four trucks per day estimated), and said the canopy’s roof and structure would be noncombustible steel with concrete bases.

Nut graf: The variance resolves whether the canopy counts toward the building area for the unlimited-area calculation under IBC Section 507. The city’s staff analysis said the canopy falls within the horizontal projection of the building roof and would reduce the required open yard below the code minimum; city staff recommended denial. Fire officials and the applicant agreed on mitigation steps — including a sprinkler system under the canopy — that the board accepted as sufficient conditions for approval.

City staff explained the city’s interpretation that an uninterrupted 60-foot open yard is required for an unlimited-area classification under IBC 2018 and that the canopy projection into the yard would, without mitigation, violate that requirement. Scott (city staff) summarized the staff analysis that the canopy projects to within 24 feet of the northern property line and therefore does not meet the 60-foot or the reduced 40-foot yard allowances. The city recommended denial based on the yard width and the canopy’s open nature.

Mike Wilson of the fire marshal's office said the canopy’s noncombustible construction, the applicant’s operational limits (no storage beneath), and the proposed installation of a sprinkler system under the canopy provided acceptable mitigation. Wilson said the fire department also reviewed apparatus access and found adequate clearance and turnaround on the site; he added that the department would not object to the variance if the sprinkler condition were included.

The applicant agreed to add a dry (or antifreeze) sprinkler loop beneath the canopy despite code exemptions for wholly noncombustible, unoccupied exterior areas. With that commitment, the fire marshal said the department would not object.

Board action: A motion to approve the variance listed findings: the canopy is noncombustible with no storage, its use is limited to active loading, a fire suppression system (dry system) will be installed beneath the canopy, and the fire marshal did not object. The board recorded that the canopy provides clearance for fire apparatus and does not impede fire-department access. The motion passed on a roll call vote; the chair announced "vote passes." The staff will prepare findings and conditions to be included in the written order.

Ending: The board approved the canopy variance with conditions intended to limit fire risk and preserve firefighting access; the applicant must include the fire-suppression system and maintain the operational limitations discussed at the hearing.