# R311.3.3 Storm and screen doors.



## Carpediem410 (Jun 4, 2021)

The jurisdiction uses the 2018 IRC. 

 There is a screened deck off the first floor (one story above ground level) with a set of 2 screened doors that exits to a set of stairs with the top step being flush with the deck.  

The screen doors swing out over the steps.

There is no landing.  

From the upper deck it is 34” vertically to the lower deck. There are 5 steps (I am counting the stair treads and including the top one that is flush with the upper deck).

This was all here when I moved in.  The lower deck needs to be removed and rebuilt so a permit is required. Lower deck is on the garage side of the house, behind the garage.

R311.3.3 Storm and screen doors says “Storm and screen doors shall be permitted to swing over exterior stairs and landings.”

I have been told this means ONLY if there are two or fewer risers - see R311.3.2 Floor elevations at other exterior doors - even though the code section on screen doors does not include that language or refer to that section.

Is this the way everyone reads this section?  

i was also told that reversing the swing of the screen doors will not solve the problem - because there are more than two risers. This seemed odd to me because in every house I have been in, the interior door to the basement swings in and there is no upper landing. Is this the way everyone reads this?  Are there  different rules for interior and exterior doors?

I am trying to find a code compliant solution that will not be cost prohibitive.

If I am stuck with the above rules, I see these as my code compliant options - 

Remove the doors - now I do not have a screened in porch. 

Remove the lower deck and replace the screen doors with a railing and balusters. I have a screened deck but no yard access.

Raise the lower deck so that there are only 2 risers from the upper deck to the lower deck. Expensive.

Build a freestanding deck extension outside the screened in deck where the existing lower deck is with stairs to ground level. More expensive but might look better.

Redo the entire thing (it’s all treated wood about 30years old - I have to stain it regularly - move to vinyl and trex) and run the deck the entire rear of the house (opposite side - not behind the garage) with French doors from the dining room (replace windows that are currently there) to an unscreened portion of the deck where I would put the gas grill and would have better kitchen access. Really really expensive but what I would have done if I had built the house.

I have no prices for any of these options - this is just my guess.

I am looking for any input, suggestions, thoughts.

Thanks.


----------



## steveray (Jun 4, 2021)

So you say you bought it that way? Did the jurisdiction ever approve it that way?


----------



## Carpediem410 (Jun 4, 2021)

I am 100% positive the prior owners did the lower deck with no permit.

I suspect the upper deck had no direct access to the yard and they removed a section of balusters, then added the steps and the lower deck to gain direct access to the yard.


----------



## Sifu (Jun 4, 2021)

I do not read it that way, for a number of reasons.  First, 311.3.3 (2018) is not a sub section of 311.3.2, it is a stand alone sub-section to 311.3.  Second, 311.3.3 (2012) has a slightly different wording, it says storm doors are allowed "to swing over *all* exterior stairs and landings", third, the intent is to slow someone's progress in an emergency instead of allowing them to push through a door and down the steps at full speed, without the awareness that a set of steps will send them sprawling.  I don't think that hazard exists to the same extent from a screened porch.

I acknowledge others may not see it the same way.  It is not a great idea to swing a door over a step, but a storm door that swings in is far less effective at keeping a storm out than an outswing door, though on a screened porch I suspect that isn't too big an issue.


----------



## Carpediem410 (Jun 4, 2021)

Sifu - thanks for the response.  I read it as a stand alone section as well.  And I thought the risk of tumbling down the steps was not as great with a screen door because you can see through it.

I wonder why they deleted “all” from the section in 2018 though - including “all” made it sound more like the 2 risers (exception to R311.3.2) did not apply.

I agree that swinging a door over a step is not the best - but I was told changing it to inswing is also not code compliant where there are more than 2 risers. (R311.3.2)

Is there any where I can locate some opinions about code interpretations on this section and why the language was changed?

Anyone else ever have this issue on interpreting this section before?

Thanks.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 4, 2021)

Need to read the IRC meeting minutes justifying the change. 
Why did you accept it like that at the time of purchase?


----------



## tbz (Jun 4, 2021)

1st of welcome 


The 2018 IRC section R311.3 Floors and landings at exterior doors
R311.3.1 Floors at Required Egress doors
This section does not apply as the exit is not part of the required Means of Egress

R311.3.2 Floor elevations at other exterior doors
This section notes the 2 riser exception, however this is a door exiting a home from inside to outside that is not a required MOE door.
thus your screen door does not apply in this section because its outside to outside, not inside to outside..


R311.3.3 Storm and Screen Doors
This is a section all on its own and as thus I would venture to say per this section the door swing is allowed over the exterior steps.


However, based on the lower deck not being permitted, the building department could require you to remove it all together.


----------



## Carpediem410 (Jun 4, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> Need to read the IRC meeting minutes justifying the change.
> Why did you accept it like that at the time of purchase?


Because when I bought it long ago, I didn’t know it was not built to code.


----------



## Carpediem410 (Jun 4, 2021)

tbz said:


> 1st of welcome
> 
> 
> The 2018 IRC section R311.3 Floors and landings at exterior doors
> ...


Thank you for the welcome! And thank you for the detailed response. That was very very educational.  And makes sense to me.

I am aware  the building department could make me remove the lower deck.

I intend to remove the lower deck entirely and have it rebuilt to code and with a permit. It has other issues that I discovered after I started looking at it and replacing the entire thing seems to be the way to go - that’s what started this - although finding a contractor right now is not easy. And then there is the price of lumber.

I am trying to come up with a plan for the lower deck that meets code and doesn’t look ugly - or cost a million dollars.  

I intended to rebuild it almost as it is - and then this issue with the screen doors came up.  I had read the code section about screen doors (it is in the deck package they give homeowners) and I was confused so I thought I would ask about it here.

I am considering a 36” landing outside the screened doors and then stairs to the lower deck.  I don’t think I  listed that as an initial solution. I think that will look ok and satisfy the code official - and not cost too much extra.


----------



## Carpediem410 (Jun 4, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> Need to read the IRC meeting minutes justifying the change.
> Why did you accept it like that at the time of purchase?


Any idea where I could locate those minutes?


----------



## e hilton (Jun 5, 2021)

Carpediem410 said:


> Any idea where I could locate those minutes?


Do you really care why?   
Are you by chance in montgomery county?   Just curious.   They are not fun to deal with for commercial permits.


----------



## tbz (Jun 7, 2021)

Carpediem410 said:


> I am considering a 36” landing outside the screened doors and then stairs to the lower deck.  I don’t think I  listed that as an initial solution. I think that will look ok and satisfy the code official - and not cost too much extra.


Add the landing anyway you can, and I suggest 48 not 36, when on decks you normally get more than 1 or 2 there at a time during gatherings and you will find the extra room well worth it,

the single person everyday use does not really change much to the home owner, its the party visitor who will benefit most by the redesign and no swing over the steps.


----------



## Sifu (Jun 7, 2021)

I don't think the code change removing "all" was purposeful, it doesn't look like it was black-barred in the revised language so not sure you would find it even in the code change proposals, which you may be able to find on the ICC website.


----------



## Carpediem410 (Jun 7, 2021)

Sifu said:


> I don't think the code change removing "all" was purposeful, it doesn't look like it was black-barred in the revised language so not sure you would find it even in the code change proposals, which you may be able to find on the ICC website.


I might poke around but I’m leaning toward the landing.


----------



## Carpediem410 (Jun 7, 2021)

tbz said:


> Add the landing anyway you can, and I suggest 48 not 36, when on decks you normally get more than 1 or 2 there at a time during gatherings and you will find the extra room well worth it,
> 
> the single person everyday use does not really change much to the home owner, its the party visitor who will benefit most by the redesign and no swing over the steps.


Thanks for the suggestion - I’d like to get it right this time.


----------



## Carpediem410 (Jun 7, 2021)

e hilton said:


> Do you really care why?
> Are you by chance in montgomery county?   Just curious.   They are not fun to deal with for commercial permits.


Curious - usually language is changed for a reason. 

Not Montgomery county - that’s a pricey area!


----------



## Sifu (Jun 8, 2021)

2012 had "all", 2015 did not.  No black bar in my edition.  Checked the monograph for code change proposals from 12 to 15 and there didn't appear to be one for that section.  There was one for the section just before it, and the section just after it, but nothing for it.  I guess I am a little puzzled that a change is made without any oversight.  Not sure it matters a lot in this case but the word "all" could have consequences elsewhere.


----------

