# Shared wash room



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

How is that there are restrooms out there that have separate rooms for men and women that contain only the water closets and that the lavatories are shared in a common area?

The only thing I'm finding in the IPC (any version) requires separate facilities for both men and women, which means that the lavatory must be in the same room as the water closet (Reference 403.2 and 405.3.2).

Anyone have any thoughts?


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 23, 2011)

If there is no door to where the water closet is located and the shared area, then IMO It meets the intent of the code.

I have seen elementary schools try something similar, and have been in gyms where the set up is just like that.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 23, 2011)

What is the sq ftg?

What is the occupancy?


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> If there is no door to where the water closet is located and the shared area, then IMO It meets the intent of the code.I have seen elementary schools try something similar, and have been in gyms where the set up is just like that.


In this case, there are doors to each water closet area off the wash area.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 23, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> In this case, there are doors to each water closet area off the wash area.


Sounds very European.  My God man, men and women standing shoulder to shoulder at the lavatory.  What is this world coming to?  We should quarantine the entire area, until we can stop the spread and establish a vaccine.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 23, 2011)

Seriously though, I would think as long as there are facilities on site which encorporate a lavatory and sink into the same room to offer the required privacy, everything should be okay.


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

LOL!  Yes it does Papio.  Unfortunately, the jurisdiction that this project is being reviewed under doesn't like it.  Maybe they need a vacation to Europe.


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

View attachment 1153

	

		
			
		

		
	
Here's a screen shot of the layout.

View attachment 505


View attachment 505


/monthly_2011_11/shared.JPG.856c3231c0d79cf1d4ed350b1b615453.JPG


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 23, 2011)

I see that layout all the time for elementary schools.  Code wise, here is how I would handle it (2006 IPC):

If the jurisdiction is persistent on calling this a uni-sex toilet room, then 403.1.1 permits fixtures within that toilet room to be counted towards your minimum required fixtures.  If none of the exceptions in 403.2 for separate facilities are applicable, then I would make sure you provide, at a minimum, and in addition to the so-called "uni-sex" toilet room, separate single fixture men's and women's toilet rooms with a lavatory and toilet.

good luck to you.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 23, 2011)

In the drawing it looks like they may have not had the clearances to install lavs in the restrooms. Also, some people, including me, don't like to touch the doorknob to open the door after we wash our hands.


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

My next step was going to be offering two unisex restrooms if the occupant load is such that only one water closet per sex is required.

Thanks Papio and GB.  Mark, I'm not sure on the occupant load.  I was trying to see if there were other trains of thought out there before I went back to the designer to check fixture counts.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 23, 2011)

The question boils down to, are Hand-washing facilities a part of toilet facilities?

Or are Hand-washing facilities separate?


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 23, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> View attachment 1153
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That layout is not code compliant, the intent of the code is to promote health safety and the door between the water closet and lavatory is a no no. I never did quite understand the stall door being ok, but then I'm not as smart as the guys who make this stuff up.

When I was a kid.

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because......

WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

*

No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.*

*

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem*.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound,* **no cell** **phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!*

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

*

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,* made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

*

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them !*

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.*

**They actually sided with the law!*

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

*We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned*

HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 23, 2011)

And of course now we have laws/codes so people will think twice about washing their hands. To much brain power involved to doubt the wisdom of it all.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 23, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> ...the door between the water closet and lavatory is a no no. !


What code section?

What Code?

What state?


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The question boils down to, are Hand-washing facilities a part of toilet facilities? Or are Hand-washing facilities separate?


Exactly!  In this case, the occupant load warrants two water closets per sex and at least one lavatory per sex.  I personally don't have a problem sharing a hand washing area with the opposite sex.  I just want my privacy when I use the water closet.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 23, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> What code section?


IPC 405.3.2 Public Lavatories. In employee and public toilet rooms, the required lavatory shall be located in the same room as the required water closet.

Commentary : In employee and public toilet rooms, the required lavatory must be located in the same room as the required water closet or in an adjacent room connected by openings without doors. This provides the user with the necessary sanitary facilities to promote proper hygiene and to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. ...


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 23, 2011)

That was 2009 commentary, but it is the same in the 2003 IPC


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

GB, how about if the doors to each water closet area were eliminated?


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 23, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> GB, how about if the doors to each water closet area were eliminated?


The commentary says that meets the intent of the code. I would still say that they would have to make the fixture count on the lavs meet the requirements of both sexes.


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The commentary says that meets the intent of the code. I would still say that they would have to make the fixture count on the lavs meet the requirements of both sexes.


Thanks!  They've got the fixture count based on the occupant load; I just verified that.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 23, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> IPC 405.3.2 Public Lavatories. In employee and public toilet rooms, the required lavatory shall be located in the same room as the required water closet.Commentary : In employee and public toilet rooms, the required lavatory must be located in the same room as the required water closet or in an adjacent room connected by openings without doors. This provides the user with the necessary sanitary facilities to promote proper hygiene and to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. ...


   Thank You

=========


----------



## mark handler (Nov 23, 2011)

Now the question for codegeek is this project under the IPC, because that section is not in the UPC


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 23, 2011)

Yes, it is under the IPC.


----------



## Examiner (Nov 23, 2011)

The purpose of the lav in the same room is to allow one to wash up prior to leaving the room.  Women are not going to like washing hands or primp next to men.  Women like to put there purses on something like a vanity and adjust makeup looking in a mirror.  I know that not all women restrooms have a vanity.

I think the Code is quite clear on the requirement of separate sex restrooms with all the whistles and bells for each sex fixtures to be in their own room, not shared.

Once the occupant load requires separate sex restrooms then that is what is required for all fixtures.  The Table lists the minimum number of fixtures for each sex.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 23, 2011)

The reasons for separate facilities are two fold.

1.) It is human nature to want privacy while performing the act of waste elimination and a perceived lack of privacy such as hearing the other sex in the next room may lead to the prevention waste elimination

2.) Safety of female patrons. A placard is no barrier to entry into a female restroom, however if a female were to hear a male in the room she would be immediately aware of a potential problem. If there is no separation then there is no immediate situational awareness and many women may perceive the facility as unsafe and waste elimination is prevented.

It is however all about the toilet not really about the lavatory, even though in the layout above I would think that privacy would be at a modicum, and would say it might violate the spirit of the code if not the actual intent.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 23, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> IPC 405.3.2 Public Lavatories. In employee and public toilet rooms, the required lavatory shall be located in the same room as the required water closet.Commentary : In employee and public toilet rooms, the required lavatory must be located in the same room as the required water closet or in an adjacent room connected by openings without doors. This provides the user with the necessary sanitary facilities to promote proper hygiene and to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. ...


So it is okay to use the handle and latch on the partition door, but not okay to have another partition/wall door between the lavatory and toilettes?  The semantics boils down to differentiating between a partition and a wall such as it defines a room.  If CG lowers the top of wall below the ceiling line (how much does a wall make versus partition) then the door is simply a partition door and the three areas (men's toilets, women's toilettes and lavatory area) become one room?  405.3.2 is met in letter but not intent?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 23, 2011)

Examiner said:
			
		

> Once the occupant load requires separate sex restrooms then that is what is required for all fixtures.  The Table lists the minimum number of fixtures for each sex.


Uni-sex fixture may count towards the minimum required number.  Separate facilities are required only when the exception do not apply, and are not required to account for all fixtures.  For example, if a minimum of one toilet and lavatory are required for both male an female occupants, and the exceptions are not applicable, the design could then provide for a separate single fixture male and female facilities/rooms, as well as provide a multifixture uni-sex facility/room.

Is this a "what happens at Boston Legal stays at Boston Legal" code?


----------

