• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Section R311.4

G

globe trekker

Registered User
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,739
I have an existing residence that is enclosing a porch area on the rear of the house.

Presently, I cannot confirm that a 3' - 0 " x 6' - 8" door is installed in the structure

( per Section R311.4.1 in the `06 IRC ).

The plans indicate that when the enclosure is built, they will be installing a set of

2' - 6" x 6' - 8" French doors in the "new" enclosed area.

If they do not have a 3' - 0 " x 6' - 8" door at the front, I am asking that they

install one at the rear [ instead of the two 2' - 6" x 6' - 8" French doors, or two

3' - 0" x 6' - 8" French doors ]. The problem is that they want to build a new

deck outside the the "new" enclosed area and there are steps leading up onto the

deck, which will restrict access to exiting away from the residence.

Essentially, persons exiting the house will go through the new compliant Exit Door

at the rear [ if required ], travel horizontally approx. 2.5 ft. and then up 2 risers

onto the deck.

If they do not currently have a compliant exit door at the front and they want to

install the two - 2' - 6" x 6' - 8" doors at the rear, how would "exiting to the

exterior" be accomplished? How far away from the "habitable portions of the

residence" ( per Section R311.4.1 ) is required?

Are there another code sections that I can refer to regarding this?

Thanks! :)

.
 
R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs.

Additions, alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all of the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated. Additions, alterations or repairs shall not cause an existing structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building.

With that said what code was the building constructed under? FYI a 3'0" x 6'8" exit door was required in the 1983 edition of CABO
 
They aren't making the structure any "less" compliant by adding the doors in the rear. IF the front door or any door for that matter was compliant at the time and they are not altering the structure to make it less compliant than what it is now then I would say the exterior door they are installing is okay. This is the same thing mtlogcabin stated in a different mule lanquage.
 
mtlogcabin,

Much thanks for the code reference! I don't know what codes were in place

[ if any ] and what was allowed. Unfortunately, in this state, there is not

a requirement to adopt a building code statewide, and even if some were

in place when the house was constructed, that does not mean that any

resemblance of conforming to them was actually adhered to. This state

is still struggling to crawl in to the 20th century, ...in a lot of areas.

My question(s) are presuming that the house does not currently have a

compliant 3' - 0" / 6' - 8" door at the front or rear. If they have one at the

front of the house, then my questions are mute. If they do not have a

compliant door installed, then they could install one or them at the rear while

performing this addition. If they choose this option, then how will access to

the exterior be accomplished? I think that the code section you provided

will do for my needs.

Mule,

Thanks for your "mule type" input! :D Always good to have a lot of flavors

of language added to this code forum fabric.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2006 IRC R311.4.3 Landings at doors. There shall be a floor or landing on each side of each exterior door.....

Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches in the direction of travel.

so regardless of size of door installed they will have to kick the start of the stairs to the deck out .5 feet
 
88twin,

Agreed! How will this allow for navigation up two risers if the front door is not compliant?

It has been my understanding that the "required" 3'-0" / 6'-8" door will allow for the

physically challenged people to exit the structure. Won't steps prevent such exiting?

.
 
R311.4.1 Means of egress.......The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path

...from all portions of the dwelling to the EXTERIOR of the dwelling.....not accessible means.

also doesn't say how far away from , just out of.
 
R311.4.1 Exit door required......The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path

...from all portions of the dwelling to the EXTERIOR of the dwelling.....not accessible means.

also doesn't say how far away from , just out of.
 
88twin,

Much thanks for your input as well!

So, as long as the occupants can step outside the "required" exit door; if only

the width of their own feet distance from the interior, then the exit door has

met the requirement of "exiting from"?

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There needs to be the one compliant door and if there is a level change outside of the door (or inside, for that matter) there needs to be a compliant landing. I believe the one compliant exit door SIZE has changed (less wide) in the 2009 code, which I believe means that you can assume that the new size (smaller) is as "safe as or equal to" the 3' wide door required earlier.
 
I don't think whether or not the entry door met code at the time it was built is a factor in what you require for the addition. The comments about what is required in a 3-x6-8 door and the threshold height and not going through a garage etc. are all germaine IF the house must be brought up to code. But unless there is a local requirement to bring the rest of the house up to code as a conditon of permittng the addition, I don't see where it can be any more than a suggestion to the owners.
 
I was going with the description given "If they do not have a 3' - 0 " x 6' - 8" door at the front" meaning if this rear exit (being new construction) needs to now supply the required compliant egress exit. I think that is an interesting question.
 
Another question: Assuming one compliant exit door, what about the secondary doors, can their thresholds be higher, can their heads be lower, can their landings be smaller? Major sliding door manufacturers, Andersen, Pella, etc. make sliding doors with high thresholds and low headers, I asked once why and was told they do that to make them retrofit inside existing doors.
 
Yankee,

Thank you for your succinct eloquence! That was the question that I was

trying to ask, albeit, ...being long-winded in the process.

Construction Arbitrator ( Conarb ),

Interesting points! Seems that there isn't a requirement for other doors.

.
 
yankee

I don't think the size of the required exit door has changed (smaller).I think the 09' code just clarified the

minimum clear opening and how it's measured.
 
I think the whole thing depends on WHEN the structure was built. Surely there is an appraisal district that has when the house was built.

Or another flavor.....put the ionas on the applicant to provide documentation of when the structure was built. If they can't provide documentation then.....install a 3'0" door.
 
Mule,

In this case, it really doesn't matter when the house was built. I do not have

the resources to be able to require compliance of much of anything. I WILL

ask the homeowner if there is a 3'-0" / 6'-8" door at the front of the house

now, if not, then I will address that with them.

I initially asked the questions because: (1) I wanted to know if I had a

"code leg" to stand on, (2) I wanted to know, (3) I was 'Jones-ing' for

some code banter :D , and (4) I wanted to know what, if any, options

are available.

.
 
globe trekker said:
Mule,In this case, it really doesn't matter when the house was built. I do not have

the resources to be able to require compliance of much of anything. .
Click to expand...
I think it does matter. If the structure was built when the code required a 3'0" door and they don't have one...then you do have a leg to stand on.

But then again from some of your comments it sounds like your State needs to get in gear.....What about local adoptions of the codes? Didn't your city/county have any codes?
 
Globe,

Adopt the 2009 IRC, R311.2 will allow at least one door to have a 32" min. clear width opening!

I know this helps right now!

PC1
 
Since most homes have a compliant front door, the bigger question is the secondary doors and whether they have to be compliant with any codes?
 
As long as their egress is served by the one compliant door, then, no, I don't think so.
 
Mule,

Yes, our AHJ DID adopt the 2003 I-Codes & the 2006 I-Codes, in word only and not actual

enforcement. Are you crazy? Enforce the codes, why heck, ...`ol Bubba can't even say

codes, much less know what they are. This jurisdiction "picks and chooses" what to

enforce and what not to enforce, regardless of the potential [ increase ] in the revenue

stream. Apparently we do not need any money, ...we're just fine, as long as the

mini-kingdoms [ the elected officials ] don't get upset. Yes sir, its "seeeee-lective

enforcement" here! :eek: ALWAYS favoring the contractors... It is what it is!

Pcinspector1,

We will not be adopting the `09 I-codes, ...at least not any time soon! Our

statewide building officials association said "Not no, but heck no!" to ICC.

We are collectively discussing whether or not to adopt the `12 codes or not.

ICC really "pulled the rug out from under" a lot of people with the

Minneapolis debacle. It is still having repercussions.

Also, even if we did adopt the `09 or the `12 I-codes, it would still be

"business as usual" around here. The codes are but a mere suggestion

and not anything to get too concerned about. If the enforcement staff

actually wants to enforce what has been adopted, then they either

"dumb down" real quick, selectively enforce to those that will agreeably

comply, or start looking for work elsewhere. In the past, I have

witnessed where that "looking for work elsewhere" has been expedited,

...meaning that inspectors or dept. heads had to go, ...NOW! :eek:

I commiserate greatly with Uncle Bob and others. It makes for a

very long day and "doing time" until retirement. ** Big Sigh **

Again, "much thanks" to you all for your input.

FWIW, I enjoy this forum greatly! I DO hope that Jeff, RJJ

& others will continue to provide this site to us.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top