2021 IBC Canopy applicable code sections

[aarondahl]

Howdy!
I have a car dealership project with a service drive canopy attached to the service building on one side, then open on the other 3 sides. The sales building is ~5' from the opposite side of the canopy. We have confirmed the canopy complies with Section 3105. The AHJ is contending this canopy is an extension of the service building and we must "demonstrate compliance with Section 705.3". I do not consider this as a reasonable intepretation of the code. There are no walls to the canopy, they are trying to enforce a firewall on the sales building (which is mostly glass). I am trying to determine my best approach to respond.
Thanks in advance.

 

[steveray]

Site plan? The service building with the canopy is a separate building from the sale building?

 

[aarondahl]

 

[Tim Mailloux]

At first glance you have two buildings on the same lot and need to comply with 705.3 by either providing rating exterior walls protection the two buildings or complying the with fire separation distance identified in table 705.5. Based on the proximity of the two existing buildings to one another I would say the original architect went with the fire separation distance option so they did not have to provide rated exterior walls. The new canopy structure is certainly an addition to Service Building and not in compliance with the required fire separation distance. One option you have is to see if both buildings together could be considered one building on the same lot (see exception below), but this would require you get an architect involved.



705.3 Exception #1: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be either regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are of different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction.

 

[aarondahl]

Thank you. This is all new construction, so I am going to use the Exception 1. We have enough space around the two buildings together to reach unlimited area. The Fire Dept. is who specifically wants the Sales building called BLDG 1 and the service building called BLDG 2. From code perspective, we could have categorized both buildings as one building although the sales building does not touch the canopy (sales builidng is ~24' high, u/s canopy is ~28').

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The IBC definition of "building":

[A] BUILDING. Any structure utilized or intended for
supporting or sheltering any occupancy.

Since this canopy doesn't appear to be an extension of the showroom building or the service/shop building, I'd say you have three buildings, not two. So you need to see if you can qualify the complex under the provisions for multiple buildings on the same parcel.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

This being a car dealership, I am presuming the parking lot it going to be filled with new vehicles permanently on display, not sure if you will meet the intent of the 60' open perimeter required around the building to be an unlimited area building. One of the main reasons for the 60 foot open perimeter is to provide fire fighters with ample access around the building at all times. All those cars may negate that.

 

[steveray]

This being a car dealership, I am presuming the parking lot it going to be filled with new vehicles permanently on display, not sure if you will meet the intent of the 60' open perimeter required around the building to be an unlimited area building. One of the main reasons for the 60 foot open perimeter is to provide fire fighters with ample access around the building at all times. All those cars may negate that.

He is showing fire lanes.....