# Curves for Women



## Min&Max (Apr 11, 2011)

Has anyone dealt with this type of business and how it relates to separate restrooms and fixture counts? Curves for Women is a business that is an exclusive place for women to workout/exercise. Given that they do not allow men to be members, are mens restrooms required. If they are required I would assume they have to be ADA accessible. Or would you consider a unisex ADA and a womens only non-ADA. Occupancy is 48 occupants.

Is it even legal to discriminate based on gender of a potential member? If they were looking to hire instructors would they be able to legally not hire someone based on gender alone? I think if the answer to either question is no they would need separate and equal facilities.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 11, 2011)

What about a repair/maintenance person? The exception to 2902.1.1 gets you out of the 50/50 split, but I'd be hard pressed to allow them to disregard the males altogether. Perhaps a separate facility that is "unisex"? A urinal wouldn't be required, and most of the time the fairer sex would have it for their use. Interesting problem. I think we might have had one of these in the past, will have to poke around a bit, see if we did, and what we did with it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 11, 2011)

We made them put in two separate restrooms no urinal, when we left they took down the mens sign. It was an older building and a leased space so get compliance when you can it maybe something else next year.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 11, 2011)

There have been lawsuits brought, but none successful that I am aware of.  In terms of discrimination, it's not entirely unlike Hooter's only hiring women for serving positions.  It seems there may be some exceptions for a private company whose business model would be undermined by elimination of the normally discriminatory practice.

It was several years ago, but I believe we allowed a womens restroom and a unisex restroom.  That's what will happen after the CO is issued, anyway.


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Apr 11, 2011)

Ditto - minimum one fixture available for the... visiting maintenance man within a Unisex/Family restroom.  And a letter from the building owner stating the anticipated ratio of women to men (48:0).

And then I am guessing three toilets available for 48 women.  Depending on which plumbing code you are using and what category a Curves fits into.


----------



## rshuey (Apr 11, 2011)

I agree with BPA. Also, pretty interesting occupant load. Pretty close to 50, eh?


----------



## Mule (Apr 11, 2011)

I don't think "who" is occupying the space even comes into play. What about the next tenant? You have to go on the use and require the amount of toilets and urinals based on the occupant load. Now I think you could make one unisex as long as the "total" amount of required units are provided.


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 11, 2011)

Mule is right, what about the next tennant? This place could be out of business in 6 months and a co-ed gym could open without needing a permit.


----------



## MarkRandall (Apr 11, 2011)

You need not design for the next tenant, it's the current tenant that counts. Additional facilities can always be added if needed when the next tenant comes along.

I don't know how strict letter of intent of code would treat this, but it's certainly a good case to have predominately women's facilities and a single accommodation room for the rare male that might be in the building. I do know the "who" factor does come into play for small children, so why not an all women's facility?


----------



## fatboy (Apr 11, 2011)

You can't worry about the next occupant, only on who/what is going into the space now. Common sense should dictate, but you can't.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 11, 2011)

You are right in the fact that you do not design for who might be the next tenant but if it is a smart building owner they will only want to do it once and have flexibility for future tenants. Getting the building owner to the discussion table is sometimes the hard part.


----------



## Mule (Apr 11, 2011)

MarkRandall said:
			
		

> I do know the "who" factor does come into play for small children, so why not an all women's facility?


Because the "who" factor in children is a use not a who.

You can't look at who......only the use. Does the code specify that you can use an alternative calculation based on who?

So you have a 5000 sq. ft building and the occupant says...I'm the only one that will be here so I only need one restroom.

SECTION 2902

MINIMUM PLUMBING FACILITIES

[P] 2902.1 Minimum number of fixtures. *Plumbing fixtures*

*shall be provided for the type of occupancy* and in the minimum number

shown in Table 2902.1. Types of occupancies not

shown in Table 2902.1 shall be considered individually by the

building official.

You don't have to worry about the next tenant because you have calculated the number of facilities required by the use. A C of O is not required when the use doesn't change. That's why you provide facilities based on use. You don't have to worry about the next guy because it is already taken care of.

If the use changes then you would require that use to conform.


----------



## Mule (Apr 11, 2011)

Okay.....the commentary specifies......

if statistical data is submitted

and approved by the code official for an

occupancy. Example occupancies that might require a

modified distribution would be an all-women’s health

club, a males-only boarding school, a convent or a

monastery.

Soooooo I guess i stand corrected. IF the BO okays it then.......................


----------



## permitguy (Apr 11, 2011)

We're talking about two required water closets, right (I'm a little rusty on the IPC)?  I don't see how having separate restrooms - one signed for women, the other signed for unisex - is against the intent of the code.  You're still providing facilities for each sex if you do it this way, and the exception to 403.1.1 states "the total occupant load shall not be required to be divided in half where approved statistical data indicates a distribution of the sexes of other than 50 percent of each sex."

The next tenant (assuming another B), takes the unisex sign down, puts a men's sign up, and they're good to go.  It's not the end of the world.

Edit:  We posted at the same time.


----------



## peach (Apr 11, 2011)

2 restrooms; one women, on unisex.. or both unisex.. it's a 30 minute low impact workout..


----------



## RJJ (Apr 11, 2011)

I have had two! First one already meet the requirements for fixtures. They need to adjust for ADA. The other has a max of 25 per session oc allowed. They have one ladies room full compliance. One Unisex ADA. Plus they did not have enough room for any more machines in the space.

Now I have a new one where you ride bikes! 15 people OC. Only one unisex bath. No Showers etc. How would you make that call?


----------



## Frank (Apr 12, 2011)

Gym gets 1 WC per 65 women.

By code modification, allow womens restroom only based on female only occupancy--if subsequently goes coed need permit and add men's room.

By statistical data get occupant load of 100% women so required male count is 0 WC.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Apr 12, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> Gym gets 1 WC per 65 women.By code modification, allow womens restroom only based on female only occupancy--if subsequently goes coed need permit and add men's room.
> 
> By statistical data get occupant load of 100% women so required male count is 0 WC.


We recently approved this modification in an office building and it was their choice to have a single unisex just in case.


----------



## Frank (Apr 13, 2011)

The cases we approved were 1500 sq ft existing strip mall spaces with one unisex accessible bathroom that is typical for B or M uses.  They did not want to have to build a second restroom something about loss of usable square footage and the $10k.


----------

