Multiple Single-user restrooms - 50% rule

[Dinheru]

There have been some topics about this item, just not the situation I ran into.
(feel free to move to ADA code section if needed, but this is regarding non-ADA restroom

2018 code, but there are chapters in 2021,2024, IPC that are pretty much the same
Small assembly renovation in existing building. Occupancy under 50.
Based on 2902.2.1 I'm proposing 2 family/unisex restrooms instead of a 1 male/1 female RR . Inserting 50% 1109.2 exc 3 I'm proposing 1 ADA and 1 non-ADA based on the 50% rule
Restrooms are clustered.
I'm citing https://www.access-board.gov/ada/gu...lustered Single User Toilet Rooms,. 3, §216.8

1109.2 Exception 3:
Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location at least 50% but not less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible
Commentary code states that these provisions are allowed

Local code officials claim that non-ADA restrooms are never allowed, the exception from 1109 only applies to doctors offices.

Ever ran into this? Am I interpreting the code wrong?

 

[Tim Mailloux]

There have been some topics about this item, just not the situation I ran into.
(feel free to move to ADA code section if needed, but this is regarding non-ADA restroom

2018 code, but there are chapters in 2021,2024, IPC that are pretty much the same
Small assembly renovation in existing building. Occupancy under 50.
Based on 2902.2.1 I'm proposing 2 family/unisex restrooms instead of a 1 male/1 female RR . Inserting 50% 1109.2 exc 3 I'm proposing 1 ADA and 1 non-ADA based on the 50% rule
Restrooms are clustered.
I'm citing https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-6-toilet-rooms/#:~:text=, §203.2).-,Clustered Single User Toilet Rooms,. 3, §216.8

1109.2 Exception 3:
Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location at least 50% but not less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible
Commentary code states that these provisions are allowed

Local code officials claim that non-ADA restrooms are never allowed, the exception from 1109 only applies to doctors offices.

Ever ran into this? Am I interpreting the code wrong?

The AHJ is wrong.

 

[steveray]

The AHJ is wrong.

Sounds it.....Not to mention it says remodel so who knows if these bathrooms even need to be added or remodeled...

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Sounds it.....Not to mention it says remodel so who knows if these bathrooms even need to be added or remodeled...

i just looked at the 2018 code commentary for this exception, and the example given is a doctors office. I think thats where the AHJ is getting hung up.

Exception 3 specifies that where toilet rooms are clustered together (e.g., entrance doors next to each other or across the hall), not all need to be accessible.
In such configurations, typically found in a doctor’s office or drug test center, the requirement is reduced to a 50-percent minimum. If these toilet rooms are clustered in separate locations, such as in a multiclinic facility, the 50-percent minimum would be applied to each cluster. A single-occupant women’s bathroom adjacent to a single-occupant men’s bathroom is not considered a cluster since they each serve a different sex. The IPC does have an allowance that would let some small occupancies have two unisex single-occupant toilet rooms, rather than having the same rooms labeled men’s and women’s (see Section 2902.2.1). If these toilet rooms are clustered, they can use this 50-percent exception since they are the same type.

 

[steveray]

i just looked at the 2018 code commentary for this exception, and the example given is a doctors office. I think thats where the AHJ is challenged with a lack of intelligence.

FIFY...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I think the key is this part of the citation from Tim Mailloux:

The IPC does have an allowance that would let some small occupancies have two unisex single-occupant toilet rooms, rather than having the same rooms labeled men’s and women’s (see Section 2902.2.1). If these toilet rooms are clustered, they can use this 50-percent exception since they are the same type.

The IBC and IPC are still coming to grips with the concept of unisex toilet rooms rather than separate facilities for male and female. Now that society seems to be moving in the direction of 103,427 different genders, unisex is something we should expect to see more of.

 

[Yikes]

The IBC and IPC are still coming to grips with the concept of unisex toilet rooms rather than separate facilities for male and female. Now that society seems to be moving in the direction of 103,427 different genders, unisex is something we should expect to see more of.

The interesting thing is that even in the older plumbing codes (such as the UPC), the requirement is that "separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex", and multiple single occupancy restrooms can fully satisfy that requirement. With no more than one person at a time allowed in the single occupancy restroom, that person will always be separated from other people of a different sex (notwithstanding the obvious they/their plural jokes).

As far as I can recall, there is also no requirement in older plumbing codes for a particular single user restroom to provide a sign that permanently assigns that restroom to a specific sex. The practice of permanently labeling a single-user restroom as either "men" or women" was probably more due to social convention (such as making it easy to know which room had the urinal, and which was the clean one) than to a plumbing code signage requirement.
Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[steveray]

The interesting thing is that even in the older plumbing codes (such as the UPC), the requirement is that "separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex", and multiple single occupancy restrooms can fully satisfy that requirement. With no more than one person at a time allowed in the single occupancy restroom, that person will always be separated from other people of a different sex (notwithstanding the obvious they/their plural jokes).

As far as I can recall, there is also no requirement in older plumbing codes for a particular single user restroom to provide a sign that permanently assigns that restroom to a specific sex. The practice of permanently labeling a single-user restroom as either "men" or women" was probably more due to social convention (such as making it easy to know which room had the urinal, and which was the clean one) than to a plumbing code signage requirement.
Let me know if I'm wrong.

We had it...On the conservative coast....

​

[P] 2902.4 Signage​

Required public facilities shall be designated by a legible sign for each sex. Signs shall be readily visible and located near the entrance to each toilet facility. Signs for accessible toilet facilities shall comply with Section 1110.

 

[mark handler]

We had it...On the conservative coast....

[P] 2902.4 Signage​

Required public facilities shall be designated by a legible sign for each sex. Signs shall be readily visible and located near the entrance to each toilet facility. Signs for accessible toilet facilities shall comply with Section 1110.

 

[steveray]

I have at least a couple pics of those saved that say "Whatever...Just wash your hands!"....Love it

 

[Yikes]

We had it...On the conservative coast....

[P] 2902.4 Signage​

Required public facilities shall be designated by a legible sign for each sex. Signs shall be readily visible and located near the entrance to each toilet facility. Signs for accessible toilet facilities shall comply with Section 1110.

Thanks! Good to know there's a signage requirement in the building code, and not just social convention. My main point was that the signage requirement isn't in the older plumbing codes, and the plumbing codes contain the requirement for separate facilities.
I'm conservative enough to think there are 2 sexes, and I'm also conventional enough to think the international symbols of skirt vs. pants can function as signage to symbolize sexes and not just genders (Scottish kilts notwithstanding). On a single-accommodation restroom, I think the sign below fulfills the letter-of-the-law requirement to have a legible sign "for each sex".

 

[steveray]

Thanks! Good to know there's a signage requirement in the building code, and not just social convention. My main point was that the signage requirement isn't in the older plumbing codes, and the plumbing codes contain the requirement for separate facilities.
I'm conservative enough to think there are 2 sexes, and I'm also conventional enough to think the international symbols of skirt vs. pants can function as signage to symbolize sexes and not just genders (Scottish kilts notwithstanding). On a single-accommodation restroom, I think the sign below fulfills the letter-of-the-law requirement to have a legible sign "for each sex".

View attachment 14909

2 sexes….several genders…I think…

 

[Yikes]

2 sexes….several genders…I think…

Right, and the plumbing code is still based on sexes, not gender expression of sexes. That said, unless the written and pictorial signage is going to specify anatomy or quantity of Y chromosomes, all functional signage is going to be designed from some relatively common social understanding of how to represent sex via gender presentation norms.

 

[Yikes]

 

[Joe.B]

Similar to what @mark handler shared

 

[mark handler]

 

[mark handler]

 

[mark handler]

 

[Joe.B]

Hahaha, very nice.

 

[steveray]

Single occs need the ISA here and most of those don't have braille...

1112.1​

Required accessible elements shall be identified by the International Symbol of Accessibility at the following locations:

1. 1.Accessible parking spaces as required by Section 1106. Pursuant to subsection (h) of section 14-253a of the Connecticut General Statutes, such spaces shall be designated by above-grade signs with white lettering against a blue background and shall bear the words “RESERVED Parking Permit Required” and “Violators will be fined” in addition to the International Symbol of Accessibility. When such a sign is replaced, repaired or erected, it shall indicate the minimum fine for a violation of subsection (l) of section 14-253a of the Connecticut General Statutes. Such indicator may be in the form of a notice affixed to such sign. Newly installed signs shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum above the floor or ground of the parking space, measured to the bottom of the sign.
2. 2.Accessible passenger loading zones.
3. 3.Accessible toilet or bathing rooms where not all toilet or bathing rooms are accessible.
4. 4.Accessible entrances where not all entrances are accessible.
5. 5.Accessible check-out aisles where not all aisles are accessible. The sign, where provided, shall be above the check-out aisle in the same location as the check-out aisle number or type of check-out identification.
6. 6.Family or assisted-use toilet and bathing rooms and single-occupancy toilet rooms.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

^^^ You left out items 7 through 13. But ALL of 1112.1 was amended by the state, so what we are stuck with doesn't affect most of the country.

 

[Paul Sweet]

We ate in a nearby barbecue restaurant this weekend. Their restrooms were labeled Boars, with a picture of Porky Pig, and Sows, with a picture of Petunia Pig.