Replies

1. 
   MarkH | Aug 31, 2015 11:56am | #1

   That would be a trip hazard, way too high, although I can't cite a code, I'm sure it's a bad idea.

2. 
   calvin | Aug 31, 2015 12:51pm | #2

   Patrick

   most prehung entry door systems are already built up at the interior of the threshold enough for vinyl floor finishes with a decent door mat.

   you run into problems when interior floor finishes are not thought about in advance.  Thick carpet, tile or hardwood or in the case of a remodel, a substantial mat might cause the bottom sweep of the door to drag.

   to place the unit on top of the plate would be way too much in any of those cases.

   plan your opening now with all the finishes and mat thickness figured out.  It's possible to block up the entry door unit whatever amount is nessesary to clear and not cause a trip hazard.

3. 
   deadnuts | Aug 31, 2015 08:23pm | #3

   Do what works for your particular situation

   There is no code issue with threshold height. Do what works for your finish material combinations. "Trip hazard" is a relative term. If you're planning for a particularly thick finish floor, throw rug, or combination thereof, then you made actually need 1.5". Consider the step height from throw rug to your exterior landing at  8" or less and I don't see that constituting a hazard. You're stepping over the door thresold no matter what you do.

   However, I wouldn't necessary leave the sole plate in place. Just leave your entry door R.O. taller than call out to accomodate whatever material you think you may need to pad up with. Personally, I would flash the subfloor to rough jamb as normal and pad up with PVC material (no chance of rot) at the thickness you ultimately need on top of that.

1. 
   MarkH | Sep 03, 2015 07:04am | #10

   Trip hazard is a relative term until someone trips and is injured.

1. 
   deadnuts | Sep 02, 2015 06:20pm | #4

   It will always be relative

   unless the residential code defines it as othewise.

   I'll continue to elaborate for the slow minded:

   Someone can trip, fall, and be injured under just about any circumstance that involves human mobility. However, that doesn't make everything we encounter during our daily motions a tripping hazard. For example, someone can trip existing over a shower curb and injure themselves. Sure, it may be attributable to clumsiness or infirmary, but it doesn't necessarily define shower curbs as tripping hazards. I doubt you will find any evidence of builder lawsuits involving code defined shower curb height. Likewise, you won't likely find any with door threshold heights either.

   Bottom line is that the residential code address safety first and foremost. You can find many code specific dictates when it comes to such areas as stairs, landing,egress, etc. Those are for saftey reasons. However, the code does not address door threshold height because (IMO) specific height differences between door thresholds and finish floor areas are not considered hazardous.

4. 
   deadnuts | Sep 02, 2015 10:26pm | #5

   Please

   Justice is also relative term; proven by juries everyday. It has nothing to do with the IRC. Plan reviewers and site inspectors don't need to be swayed by lawyers in order to determine compliance.

   Bottom line is that you don't know the finish floor conditions of the O.P.'s project. They may ultimatley make a 1.5" R.O. pad up perfectly acceptable from his or her perspective; which is the only one that matters in this case. Certainly there is no obvious or ignored safety issue.  For the record, we're discussing a home, not a retail operation. "Similar issue" only exisst in your delusional (and apparently paranoid) mind.

   BTW, example of slow mindedness:  4th grade retorts, like, "I know you are, but what am I". What, did they have to burn down the school house just to get you out of that grade?

1. 
   MarkH | Sep 03, 2015 06:21am | #7

   What is funny about your replies is your constant need to insult people.  I'm neither slow minded, delusional, or paranoid.  Actually you know nothing about me, thats why it's so funny.

   Well, two can play that game.  You are showing your mental inadequacies and  antisocial and narcistic personality on this forum.  Your behavior is unacceptable in person but It's easy to hide behind a keyboard and enjoy satisfying your cravings from your narcissistic personality disorder and Napoleon complex.  Maybe you're OK in person, but I seriously doubt it.

   Of course I know nothing about you except for your posts you peck out on your keyboard.

   Like Calvan said, use common sense  if there no written code. 

1. 
   deadnuts | Sep 03, 2015 07:05am | #11

   touche

   MarkH wrote:

    Actually you know nothing about me, thats why it's so funny.

   Yet you claim to know the scope of my legal experience and how much money I've made over my career. All (delusionally) inferred from my posts on this forum.

   I find that just as funny.

2. 
   DoRight | Sep 12, 2015 07:24pm | #19

   Who both ..

   sound like Donald Trump.  Arrested development.

2. 
   MarkH | Sep 03, 2015 06:56am | #8

   I think you should be aware of the code before you spout off about it.

   The IRC code does address residential thresholds.  Yes, I am fully aware that the dimensions are referring to finished floor height,  so assuming the floor covering is 1.5" thick, it would be acceptable according to this section to place the door threshold on top of the plate.  Otherwise it may not be.

   Here is the link to where I got the text from.  http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2012/icod_ibc_2012_10_par082.htm

   Here is the text:

   International Building Code[ 2012 (Second Printing) ]

   Chapter 10 - Means of Egress

   SECTION 915 EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE

   1008.1 Doors.

   1008.1.7 Thresholds.

   Thresholds at doorways shall not exceed 3/4 inch (19.1 mm) in height above the finished floor or landing for sliding doors serving dwelling units or 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) above the finished floor or landing for other doors. Raised thresholds and floor level changes greater than 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) at doorways shall be beveled with a slope not greater than one unit vertical in two units horizontal (50-percent slope).

   Exception: In occupancy Group R-2 or R-3, threshold heights for sliding and side-hinged exterior doors shall be permitted to be up to 73/4 inches (197 mm) in height if all of the following apply:

       1. The door is not part of the required means of egress.

       2. The door is not part of an accessible route as required by Chapter 11.

       3. The door is not part of an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.

    

1. 
   deadnuts | Sep 03, 2015 06:58am | #9

   keep trying...

   You're apparently citing (and not fully I might add*) code for commercial buildings. Try citing something in the IRC that may be relevant.  Clue: It will start with an "R". Otherwise keep grasping at straws.

   *Even the commerical code seems to allow for a threshold height at an exterior door of up to one normal step height (7-3/4").

1. 
   MarkH | Sep 03, 2015 07:18am | #12

   Keep grasping at straws yourself

   You are correct on one issue, this is a commercial code, but does apply to R2 situations, but you are incorrect that the commercial code allows 7 3/4 for an entry door.

   Can you comprehend the code?  The exemptions are for special conditions, not entry doors.

   Exception: In occupancy Group R-2 or R-3, threshold heights for sliding and side-hinged exterior doors shall be permitted to be up to 73/4 inches (197 mm) in height if all of the following apply:

   1. The door is not part of the required means of egress.

   2. The door is not part of an accessible route as required by Chapter 11.

   3. The door is not part of an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.

1. 
   deadnuts | Sep 03, 2015 07:48am | #13

   try again

   Moot point because commerical code doesn't apply to OP.

   At any rate, I qualified my response with the word "seems" because I don't build commmercial buildings and therefore not required to have a working knowledge of commerical code. Not my field; never said it was.

   BTW, you've added the phrase "entry doors" to your commerical code citation. More delusion-- while treading on thin ice-- on your part. An entry door may not necessarily be a required means of egress; particularly when multiple exterior doors are part of a commerical design.

2. 
   MarkH | Sep 03, 2015 04:28pm | #14

   I said entry doors, you said exterior doors, just imagine I said exterior door for the conversation.  I used the term entry door but that means exterior door to me. I am now enlightened by your knowledge. 

   Oddly, IRC code appears to say nothing about threshold height from a finished floor.  I'm not going to look at state or local codes which may or may not have anything to say about it.

   So that's all.

   You win. 

5. 
   calvin | Sep 03, 2015 04:38am | #6

   Obviously

   common sense.

6. 
   oldhand | Sep 03, 2015 06:22pm | #15

   back to your question..

   The big  argument is interesting but to answer your question I'd say.....

   Bad idea? Yes, for sure.

   Standard practice? About never. If ever.

   If you do need to raise the threshold you would want rot resistant materials, weather sealed, flashed etc. as needed. 

   All that stuff about the codes has been batted about well enough you should be able to apply to your case as needed.

7. 
   wmheinz | Sep 07, 2015 11:48am | #16

   Code requirement...

   I don't see the big arguement that's going on here...the IRC is pretty specific...

   R311.3.1 Floor elevations at the required egress doors.

   Landings or finished floors at the required egress door shall not be more than 1¹/₂ inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold.

   Exception: The landing or floor on the exterior side shall not be more than 7³/₄ inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold provided the door does not swing over the landing or floor.

   By following the code (even at a doorway that is not a 'official' egress door) - you would be within 'standard practice'...  Assuming you want to meet this requirement...installing the door over the sole plate would be fine as long as you keep the final required 1 1/2" dimension in mind.  The critical dimensions you would need to confirm in this equation are the height of the finished floor and the height of the threshold being used - they can vary quite a bit.  Most thresholds allow for a 3/4 inch finished floor to butt up against the inside (hardwood, carpet, underlayment/vinyl combo, tile/wonderboard combo, etc).  I think 1 1/2" in addition to the top of these surfaces is excessive, but it's permitted. 

   The last thing you want to happen to a finished installation is the building inspector pulling out a tape measure, find your threshold too high and require you to rip it out.  Or, someone getting injured tripping over it and their lawyer pull out his tape measure.

1. 
   deadnuts | Sep 07, 2015 12:21pm | #17

   depends on how you're interpreting the code

   With all due respect, this code is specific to landings and finished floor heights releative to an egress door threshold. It does not specifically address threshold height, per say.

   As long as you maintain code relative to step height and door swings, you can have just about any combination of finish floor and threshold height you want as long as the finsih floor height difference is under 1.5". I can see where someone may want a threshold roughed in at 1.5" (or greater), but not someone wanting a difference in finish floor and threshold greater than 1.5". That's really two different animals...and what would be the point in the latter? Personally, I see any inspection issue* being addressed with a modificaiton in finish floor material choice rather than ripping any doors out.

   *such as a particuarly thick throw rug that an owner wants in place which an inspector deems "unfinished".

1. 
   mark122 | Sep 07, 2015 10:13pm | #18

   really???

   deadnuts wrote:

    Personally, I see any inspection issue* being addressed with a modificaiton in finish floor material choice rather than ripping any doors out.

   *such as a particuarly thick throw rug that an owner wants in place which an inspector deems "unfinished".

   wow, the inspectors in your part of the world must be the cream of the crop if they go for that.

8. 
   patrickM | Sep 14, 2015 11:26am | #20

   Thank you everyone

   Just wanted to thank you all for your input on this.  It confirmed my suspicion that even if there were no specific code against this it just seems like a bad idea.

   Even with the finished floors in it is still over 1-1/2".  The back doors where it is tiled is much worse than the front where it is hard wood flooring.  The builder simply installed all of the exterior doors over the sole plate and we constantly trip over in when checking on the house.

   Unless it is against a specific building code I'm afraid I have no recourse.  I'm really unhappy with it and they are a reputable builder. Not sure what can really be done.

1. 
   deadnuts | Sep 14, 2015 10:54pm | #21

   Simple

   Here's what can be done about it:

   1. Take the door(s) out

   2. Cut out the sole plate

   3. stick sole plate(s) under the header(s)

   4. Reflash your sills.

   5. Patch in drywall if necessary

   6. Re-set doors

   7. Re-trim inside and out

   Done.

   However, I bet your concern is not how to go about  doing the work, but rather who's going to do (or pay to do) the work; right?

1. 
   patrickM | Sep 16, 2015 09:16am | #22

   not sure what to do

   deadnuts wrote:

   Here's what can be done about it:

   1. Take the door(s) out

   2. Cut out the sole plate

   3. stick sole plate(s) under the header(s)

   4. Reflash your sills.

   5. Patch in drywall if necessary

   6. Re-set doors

   7. Re-trim inside and out

   Done.

   However, I bet your concern is not how to go about  doing the work, but rather who's going to do (or pay to do) the work; right?

   You are exactly right.  I'm afraid I know what would have to be done to lower them, but unfortunately unless I can cite a particular code I'm stuck in the "well this is how we do it" trap.  

1. 
   calvin | Sep 16, 2015 05:50pm | #23

   Patrick

   might be regional....

   but over 40 yrs a carpenter and have never seen a door set on top of the plate.

2. 
   deadnuts | Sep 17, 2015 10:39pm | #26

   wrong forum

   "not sure what to do"? Give me a break. You're interest in this forum seems  geared more toward building a legal case rather than learning about building. Wrong forum.

   My advice is to quit being such a cheapskate and hire someone to do what you already know you want done. While it will take some labor, you're not sacrificing much, if any, material to get these doors re-set. It's not that big of a deal.  If you think you were clear on what you wanted the first time around and have no intention of paying that same person to do it again, then hang your hat on your original contract in court. Maybe find a legal forum to help you out there. 

   If nothing else, take solace in making this a learning experience.  This can be evidenced with future due diligence and contracts being more specific.

9. 
   DanH | Sep 16, 2015 06:47pm | #24

   I think one has an argument that what was done is not at all standard practice, and does not meet the standard of "workmanlike quality" or some similar statement that appears in most constuction contracts.

10. 
    oldhand | Sep 16, 2015 07:16pm | #25

    standard pracice?

    I live in a backwater but in 40 years I've never seen such procedure even done by a home owner or hack.