I am currently working on a remodeling project for a local restaurant. Currently they have two bathrooms (one male and one female) however neither is ADA compliant. We are making considerable improvements to the project and would like to offer an ADA bathroom to the patrons. We do not have enough space to provide a separate ADA men's and ADA women's bathrooms but we do have enough space for one unisex ADA restroom and one non-ADA unisex restroom. The code states that we must have 2 bathrooms based on our occupancy. Does anyone know if you can use unisex bathrooms to meet ADA and occupancy compliance? The project is in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Thank you in advance for any help:)
poop876
Sep 28, 16 10:59 pm
Existing restrooms? Chapter 34! $
20% upgrade for accessibility and they can't make your tear down walls to upgrade!
Ashley, why come here? Go to your state, or local building codes, look for amendments to IBC, and if that isn't any help, call the building code official, or AHJ.
urbanity
Sep 29, 16 9:24 am
I am working on a similar situation in California. California adopted the ADA as the model code for public accomodations.
There is a mens restroom and a womens restroom, both are non-compliant. I reconfigured one restroom to be an accessible unisex, and the other is as accessible as I can make it, but it will be non-compliant unisex.
"technically infeasible" is the verbiage you're going to have trouble with. You can do unisex, if it is technically infeasible to comply with the requirements of ADA. But, a lot of code officials look at "technically infeasible" in different ways.
Lack of money doesn't make it technically infeasible. Not wanting to take space from other functions doesn't make it technically infeasible.
Your best bet is to ask the AHJ and be done with it. You can get a lot of answers here, but people are going to disagree. I deal with some of the most strict building officials I can think of, and they wouldn't let it fly without there being a structural issue or something equally problematic.
senjohnblutarsky
Sep 29, 16 9:45 am
Going on, "Technically Infeasible" is actually defined in the ADA.
Definition: With respect to the alteration of a building or a facility, something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.
So, really... very few things are technically infeasible. The only thing you can then claim is the 20% thing. Because the only thing limiting most structural modifications is money.
gruen
Sep 29, 16 3:25 pm
Also-bathrooms are one of the least important things to spend the 20% on. Start with accessibility from the parking lot into the building, then to the primary function. Have you spent 20% yet?
senjohnblutarsky
Sep 29, 16 4:23 pm
Per ADA, the order is:
Entrance, Route to altered area, Restrooms, Phones, Drinking fountains, and then, when possible, "additional accessible elements such as parking, storage, and alarms."
Not sure why they don't include parking with the accessible route.
Good Evening,
I am currently working on a remodeling project for a local restaurant. Currently they have two bathrooms (one male and one female) however neither is ADA compliant. We are making considerable improvements to the project and would like to offer an ADA bathroom to the patrons. We do not have enough space to provide a separate ADA men's and ADA women's bathrooms but we do have enough space for one unisex ADA restroom and one non-ADA unisex restroom. The code states that we must have 2 bathrooms based on our occupancy. Does anyone know if you can use unisex bathrooms to meet ADA and occupancy compliance? The project is in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Thank you in advance for any help:)
Existing restrooms? Chapter 34! $ 20% upgrade for accessibility and they can't make your tear down walls to upgrade!
You might be interested in "Toilet Talk" – gender inclusivity in public restrooms, featuring special guest Susan Surface, on Archinect Sessions #42, it might not answer specific questions of code but speak to larger issues.
Ashley, why come here? Go to your state, or local building codes, look for amendments to IBC, and if that isn't any help, call the building code official, or AHJ.
I am working on a similar situation in California. California adopted the ADA as the model code for public accomodations.
There is a mens restroom and a womens restroom, both are non-compliant. I reconfigured one restroom to be an accessible unisex, and the other is as accessible as I can make it, but it will be non-compliant unisex.
There are some great resources at http://www.accessibilityonline.org/ao/
"technically infeasible" is the verbiage you're going to have trouble with. You can do unisex, if it is technically infeasible to comply with the requirements of ADA. But, a lot of code officials look at "technically infeasible" in different ways.
Lack of money doesn't make it technically infeasible. Not wanting to take space from other functions doesn't make it technically infeasible.
Your best bet is to ask the AHJ and be done with it. You can get a lot of answers here, but people are going to disagree. I deal with some of the most strict building officials I can think of, and they wouldn't let it fly without there being a structural issue or something equally problematic.
Going on, "Technically Infeasible" is actually defined in the ADA.
Definition: With respect to the alteration of a building or a facility, something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.
So, really... very few things are technically infeasible. The only thing you can then claim is the 20% thing. Because the only thing limiting most structural modifications is money.
Also-bathrooms are one of the least important things to spend the 20% on. Start with accessibility from the parking lot into the building, then to the primary function. Have you spent 20% yet?
Per ADA, the order is:
Entrance, Route to altered area, Restrooms, Phones, Drinking fountains, and then, when possible, "additional accessible elements such as parking, storage, and alarms."
Not sure why they don't include parking with the accessible route.
The 20%, nothing to do with the OPs question.