17 Occupants, B Occupancy, Interpret 403.1

[SanAntoniArch]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I have a Reviewer requiring two water closets per 403.1 for 17 occupants in a B occupancy. It's a chiropractors office.

I'm befuddled because I've never had anyone push for a second RR under 25 occupants. When I read Row No. 2 for B Occupancies, the box outlining the required number of Water Closets is shared across both Sexes, to me inferring that there's no requirement to separate the calculation.

It's always possible this Reviewer is interpreting correctly and all the others before had not, but I find it odd. Have done several TI's where the solution was a single unisex RR and only required to go up to two when it was serving an occupant load of 25+.

Am I on crazy pills? AHJ is on 2015 ICC's.

 

[rookieplumber]

funny, I'm looking at exactly this topic, and by no means am I an expert, but if you have 17 total occupancy limit.

17/2=8.5 each gender
So, 1 RR for the first 8.5 MALE (1 per 25)
1 RR for the first 8.5 Female. (1 per 25)
Grand Total: 2

That's my current understanding of when the table uses a single ratio without any separation in that box. It's just saying: calculate the w/c ratio TWICE for BOTH sexes once the total occupancy has been divided in half.

I can also see going with the grand total of 17 and reaching the single unisex Restroom calculation too, but maybe that's now how the reviewer is calculating it.

 

[rookieplumber]

I've been in plenty of dentist and chiropractor offices with a single unisex rest room. Even restaurants with 1 rest room for patrons. It's asking a lot for a small office to squeeze two rest rooms...especially if the stalls must be ADA compliant.

 

[mark handler]

????

 

[rookieplumber]

My thinking is that 403.2 means that even if there are 2 restrooms required, they don't have to be segregated by gender if it's under 25 total occupancy.

But 403.1.1 can be interpreted to just divide the total occupancy in half and apply the ratio to both genders.

 

[rookieplumber]

But I don't really grasp the reason nightclubs, for example, have identical W/C ratios split by a line between Male/Female. But Business have no line between Male/Female but use the same ratio twice for each gender. Why not just separate them by line? unless nightclubs want to segregate genders more than businesses?

What if you have a nightclub with 17 occupancy? do I still reach 2 total restrooms but don't have to segregate them by gender?

It makes more sense to me that when there is no line separating MALE/FEMALE then there is never a need to segregate by sex, BUT do you still divide the total occupancy in half and apply the ratio twice? That doesn't make sense.

There is a book "Commentary in IPC" I wonder if that has some kind of example within it that would explain this whole debate better. I do not have the subscription to ICCsafe that allows me to view the commentary book sections.

 

[SanAntoniArch]

View attachment 10117
????

Is this from 2015 though, this looks like it might be 2021 based on the later exceptions?

I think 2018 was the first to introduce number 4 which you circled.

Could just be the AHJ's I've other work in have been using more recent code so this hasn't been an issue. The Reviewer appears correct in their reading.

I think my approach from here will be to propose two unisex restrooms and have one be fully accessible (takes care of ADA and locally, TAS) and then have another restroom that isn't fully accessible and park the mop sink in there. Accessible facilities are available to all and I'm able to avoid the footprint of two fully accessible restrooms in a limited space.

I appreciate everyone brainstorming on this with me.

 

[rookieplumber]

I've got a lot to learn about this.

This is from the 2015 IPC 403.2

the exceptions are different. I'm puzzled why 2015 is being used here in 2023. By these exceptions it suggests you do need gender segregated rest rooms at 17 total occupancy. That must be the detail the reviewer is going with. In both 2015 and 2018 IPC the threshold is 15. But in 2021 it was increased to 25 for business occupancies.

2015



2018:

 

[rookieplumber]

Oops, just in 2015 is the threshold at 15. exception #4 is brand new 2018 and is when the threshold grew to 25.

 

[SanAntoniArch]

Update: I think Reviewer is now just over-zealous. I wrote back to him proposing we utilize the exception in 403.2.1, in which rather than having 1 Mens and 1 Womens WC, we have 2 Unisex (is more practical anyway for the use). I can then use a provision in Texas Accessibility Standards (Exception 4 of 213.2) which allows us to have only 50% of restrooms clustered for a "use" be fully accessible (in this case, 1 unisex accessible, 1 not).

Reviewer writes back and says they don't review for Accessibility (true) but is willing to reject the premise based on what his interpretation of the TAS is saying in that exception, and also has TAS references in 3 other comments. Seems he IS willing to review based on TAS but knows its beyond his brief? He says that "use" specifically refers to one restroom for each sex, but that sure seems rendered moot by the exception 403.2.1 allows...

These little towns around Austin and San Antonio have become real pains in the ass.