Residents press city on ‘close‑proximity’ building rules after excavation incident at Enclave townhomes

Roseville — Homeowners from the Enclave detached‑townhome development asked the city July 14 to adopt rules that would require protections when foundations are built within 10 feet of neighboring buildings, after an April excavation and water‑main break raised concerns about soil erosion and potential foundation damage.

Residents’ concerns and request: Several Enclave homeowners told the council they worry that recent excavation activity and a water main break during construction may have eroded soils next to existing foundations. "There is no insurance company that insures against movement of Earth," said resident Caitlin Barsad, urging the city to act sooner than a March 2026 statewide code update. John Barstead, who described himself as a civil engineer and builder, said the developer had a geotechnical study prior to purchase and that the April water main break could have altered bearing capacity where trenches were flooded.

Staff position and legal limits: Janice Gunlock, community development director, told the council the city cannot adopt building ordinance provisions that are more restrictive than the state residential building code except in narrow circumstances. Minnesota statute allows municipalities to adopt more restrictive local provisions where geological conditions warrant and only with approval of the state building official. The City of Minneapolis used that route and obtained state approval for city‑specific close‑proximity rules; Roseville staff said the state building official advised adding close‑proximity language to the statewide residential code, and the Met Council technical advisory committee has recommended similar language for the next residential code update slated for March 2026.

Board discussion and next steps: Staff recommended waiting to see whether the state code revision incorporates the close‑proximity language; if not, staff advised pursuing a Roseville‑specific amendment with state building official review. Council members asked staff to obtain and review the developer’s geotechnical study and to report back on what measures were taken after the April water‑main break. City staff also noted homeowner recourse channels — state contractor licensing and homeowner recovery fund claims and contractor insurance — and said staff will collect the geotechnical report and provide additional information to residents and the council.

Why it matters: The area at issue includes a variance and unusual lot geometry that led to 10‑foot separations; council members said the case highlights the tension between zoning exceptions and building‑safety outcomes and asked staff to explore procedural changes that could provide homeowners more documentation or protections at the permitting stage.