Roseville council declines immediate excavation ordinance; directs permit checks and landowner consent for Enclave lots

Roseville City Council on Oct. 27 heard extended testimony about potential local rules to limit residential excavations near neighboring foundations, and council members agreed not to adopt a standalone ordinance immediately. Instead, council directed staff to rely on permit-review procedures, require written landowner consent when excavation will extend beyond a legal property line, and flag remaining vacant Enclave lots for special attention during permitting.

Community Development Director Janice Gunlock told the council the issue returned after an earlier Sept. 8 discussion and professional outreach. “We would not recommend that you proceed with a local ordinance,” Gunlock said, summarizing a registered design professional’s advice that mitigation typically is only required when excavations exceed a 1-to-1 horizontal-to-vertical ratio. She added that the proposed state residential-code change is expected next year and could require repeal of any local rule the city adopted now.

Why it matters: residents at the Enclave homeowners association told the council they want stronger local protections after recent excavation work exposed adjacent foundations and damaged utilities. Several homeowners, including Captain Barstad and John Barstead, urged the council to act now to avoid future damage and argued adopting language similar to Minneapolis would be a fast fix. Barstad said residents were uneasy about waiting for a state change and cited a geotechnical report from Kelo Engineering (04/13/2020) that “calls out 4 geotechnical related concerns and recommends that additional measures be taken and even states that shoring be done when excavating.”

Council members said they had heard competing technical advice. Staff reported a consultant familiar with Minneapolis’ ordinance advised that mitigations are usually unnecessary unless excavation violates a 1:1 slope measured from the bottom of an existing footing. The consultant also warned that the technical language and site-specific engineering judgment make local enforcement complicated. Council members expressed concern both about leaving the Enclave lots underregulated and about adopting vague language that could apply citywide and unintentionally trigger expensive reviews on unrelated projects.

In lieu of a local ordinance, staff told the council they will: - Flag remaining vacant lots in the Enclave so permit reviewers are aware excavation adjacent to existing foundations is likely. - Require underlying landowner consent in writing when permit plans show excavation beyond a property line, and allow the consenting owner to specify protective conditions. - Continue coordinating with registered design professionals and follow state code developments and apply engineering review during the building-permit process where appropriate.

Council comments stressed that the city’s immediate toolset is the permitting and engineering review process. “If there’s excavation beyond the property boundary … then they have to get underlying landowner consent,” the city manager said in the discussion summarizing staff’s intended approach.

Residents reiterated concerns about past incidents at the site, including erosion and a broken water main that led to an OSHA citation. Staff said emergency shoring and other immediate steps are options if a weather event or unexpected soil condition creates a hazard.

The council did not take a recorded formal vote to adopt an ordinance; members instead expressed a consensus to delay local adoption and use permitting and landowner-consent measures while awaiting the state’s residential-code language.

What’s next: Staff will implement the permit-level steps described above, keep Enclave residents informed of actions, and return to council if staff recommends specific ordinance language once the state publishes interpretive guidance.