• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Getting around ADA the number of restrooms

mtlogcabin

mtlogcabin

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
9,512
Location
Big Sky Country
IBC 2018
[P] 2902.2 Separate facilities.
Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate facilities shall be provided for each sex.
Exceptions:
1. Separate facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and sleeping units.
2. Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a total occupant load, including both employees and customers, of 15 or fewer.
3. Separate facilities shall not be required in mercantile occupancies in which the maximum occupant load is 100 or fewer.
4. Separate facilities shall not be required in business occupancies in which the maximum occupant load is 25 or fewer.

I have a business occupancy (35 OL) that requires separate facilities. The Architect has designed one to be accessible compliant and the other non accessible compliant and labeled them both gender neutral/unisex restrooms.

They meet the code of providing the minimum number of restrooms. However no where in the code does it require the first two rest rooms to be accessible compliant. It does require separate restrooms based on sex not gender.

I am old school and believe both restrooms need to be accessible no matter what they label the occupants/rooms.
How are others addressing this and what code provision are you citing?
 
Congratulations on being "old", as am I. You are free to direct your architect to make them all accessible, exceeding code minimums is encouraged.
Code does not warranty full compliance with the ADA.
 
@ ~ @ ~ @

MT, from the `18 IBC, you can cite Section 1102.1 Design, and
1109.2, ...none of the Exceptions apply in your application.

@ ~ @ ~ @
 
There is a little more wiggle room than there used to be....

1109.2 Toilet and bathing facilities. Each toilet room and
bathing room shall be accessible. Where a floor level is not
required to be connected by an accessible route, the only toilet
rooms or bathing rooms provided within the facility shall
not be located on the inaccessible floor. Except as provided
for in Sections 1109.2.2 and 1109.2.3, at least one of each
type of fixture, element, control or dispenser in each accessible
toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible.
Exceptions:
1. Toilet rooms or bathing rooms accessed only
through a private office, not for common or public
use and intended for use by a single occupant, shall
be permitted to comply with the specific exceptions
in ICC A117.1.
2. This section is not applicable to toilet and bathing
rooms that serve dwelling units or sleeping units that
are not required to be accessible by Section 1107.
3. Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing
rooms are clustered at a single location, at least 50
percent but not less than one room for each use at
each cluster shall be accessible.

IF...they are allowed to be unisex, then they could be allowed to be non-accessible....
 
We have accepted one accessible gender neutral and one non-accessible gender neutral.

But, I'm not under ADA or IBC, so your mileage may vary.
 
MT, I agree with your opinion. At least on accessible Female Restroom and one accessible Male Restroom would be required here. Separate restrooms provided above and beyond the required number may be unisex.
 
3. Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location, at least 50 percent but not less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible.

That is exactly the code section the Architect provided this morning to state his design is compliant with the code.
I do not see how under this section I can require both toilet rooms to be accessible when clustered together.
Unless there is a definition of "cluster" that is more than 2 toilet rooms
 
If the requirement is for separate facilities for each sex then unisex or gender neutral is not in play.
If the requirement is for separate facilities for each sex then they both need to be compliant.
 
JPohling said:
If the requirement is for separate facilities for each sex then unisex or gender neutral is not in play.
If the requirement is for separate facilities for each sex then they both need to be compliant.
Click to expand...

This^^^^^ will be the "downside" of gender neutral....Less accessibility.....
 
I have not seen any single user restrooms constructed in CA that are not fully compliant no matter how they are signed
 
Rick18071 said:
ADAGUY what does the ADA say about this?
Click to expand...

2010 ADASAD was written before Unisex rose to the visibility it has today. If you provide a restroom it must comply to ADASAD at a minimum and to what ever state amendments to your codes that may exist.
 
mtlogcabin did not say whcih state the project was located in, but let's assume that for plan check purposes only the IBC applies, and for the owner's civil liability purposes they need to also comply with ADA (but you don't have to plan check for this).
1. IBC 1109.2.3 has already been addressed above by steveray.
2. 2010 ADAS 213.2 exception #4 states: "Where multiple single user toilet rooms are clustered at a single location, no more than 50 percent of the single user toilet rooms for each use at each cluster shall be required to comply with 603."
(603 is accessible toilet and bathing rooms.)
 
ADAguy said:
point made.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I will say that I AM looking for ways to enforce accessibility requirements for both single-use facilities (where only two are provided), but I cannot pinpoint language to support it.

Yikes said:
2. 2010 ADAS 213.2 exception #4 states: "Where multiple single user toilet rooms are clustered at a single location, no more than 50 percent of the single user toilet rooms for each use at each cluster shall be required to comply with 603."
Click to expand...

This language is consistent with 2018 IBC 1109.2 exception 3. It also includes the term "for each use" in that sentence. A male facility is one use, a female facility is another use, and as steveray pointed out and IBC [P] 2902.2.1 confirms, unisex facilities is a third use. The only thing that could stop this madness (IMO) is if there were a definition of "clustered." My jurisdiction posted a blog on our website in August of 2017 regarding clustered toilet rooms. In the blog, we determined that "clustered" referred to three or more toilet rooms. This was not influenced by the code language in this discussion, we did not recognize this problem when we posted the blog, and I don't know how much enforceable strength this will have if challenged.

2902.2.1 - "Single-user toilet facilities and bathing rooms, and family or assisted-use toilet rooms and bathing rooms shall be identified for use by either sex." (special note - this says "shall be" as though mandatory)
 
That appears to be the distinction that ADASAD failed to make, addressing that "each" maybe used by "anyone" regardless of their personal plumbing (smile), therefore accessible to "all".
 
I recently had a facility that required one fixture each in an existing building (small A2 to A2, level 2 alteration, downtown district). One room could be enlarged, but the other was deemed to be technically infeasible.

From the 2012 IPC 403.2.1 I allowed two family/assisted use rooms which are not required to be identified for exclusive use by either sex (results in two "unisex" rooms).
From the 2012 IEBC 705.1.10 (level 2 alteration) I allowed a fully compliant single family/assisted use toilet room to replace one of the existing rooms and the other to be made accessible to fullest extent possible (results in one fully compliant "unisex", and one non-compliant "unisex").
The building is not listed as historic, but it does fall under a "Landmark" designation by the town, which prohibits some alterations and puts it squarely in the cross-hairs of the town council, so I also looked the historic requirements. From the 2012 IEBC 1204.1.4, the same provision as 705.1.10 applied.

Right or wrong???
 
Somehow I knew that would come up. The rooms are hemmed in by the existing rated and load bearing demising wall, the existing hallway which is the MOE, and a change in elevation within the space. COULD both rooms be expanded rather than just the one..............maybe? Suffice it to say the CBO said OK, based on the circumstances and the definition.

From IEBC def.
"or because other existing physical
or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements,
spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance
with the minimum requirements for new construction
and which are necessary to provide accessibility."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top