CCP 10202025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

36 sheeting. AET acknowledged that every situation is unique, so they were not comfortable 37 formally consulting with the City beyond this input. 38 39 This input reveals the following: 40 Construction of new homes at The Enclave will not exceed the 1:1 standard 41 recommended by AET to justify additional mitigations. 42 Horizontal excavations alone do not pose a threat to the structural integrity of an 43 existing foundation and wouldn't unless a vertical excavation equal to approximately 44 10' below the footing were to occur. To date, while excavations at The Enclave have 45 occurred within the entire 10' horizontal setback, vertical excavations are limited to 46 the depth of the basement and footing, which is approximately 10', equating to a 47 ratio of 1:0.5, not 1:1. 48 It's unlikely any of the other 200-600 properties depicted on the map previously 49 shared with Council as having the potential to be impacted by a proposed ordinance 50 would exceed the 1:1 standard. 51 The industry accepted 1:1 standard likely explains why the City has not experienced 52 known issues to-date, even though there are hundreds of instances where 53 residential construction is occurring within 10' of existing foundations. 54 The City of Minneapolis ordinance is not relevant to Roseville based on the context 55 in which it was adopted. This context includes instances where residential projects 56 occur at 0-2' setbacks with very deep excavations adjacent to existing, shallower 57 foundations that are 100+ years old (and therefore weaker and not built to current 58 residential building code standards). 59 Based on this input, staff would not recommend moving forward with an ordinance as the 60 draft ordinance language previously shared remains too vague to ensure it can be 61 implemented reasonably across the entire City. Further, the technical expertise obtained, if 62 incorporated into an ordinance, would not apply to The Enclave or most other instances of 63 close-proximity residential construction in the City. The State continues to pursue language 64 for adoption into the next residential building code and, if adopted, would likely include 65 guidance on how the new standard should be interpreted and applied. Rather than pursue 66 a local ordinance that creates overly burdensome standards that would not result in 67 meaningful protections, and which would have to be repealed upon the State's adoption of 68 the updated residential building code next year, staff would recommend waiting for the 69 State. 70 71 Understanding the homeowner's association (HOA) at The Enclave remains concerned, 72 staff could require the HOA and/or the underlying property owner to provide consent for 73 excavations that occur on the zero-foot setback side of a home. This would allow the 74 association and/or affected property owner to use their authority to ensure concerns about 75 excavations between homes are addressed. Requiring the underlying property owner's 76 consent to grade beyond a property line is something our engineering staff has required 77 elsewhere, so adding this requirement to new homes at The Enclave would be consistent 78 with past practice. It hadn't been required for the existing homes because easements 79 already exist to allow for construction, however, should the HOA or affected property owner 80 wish for greater protections, gathering written consent before releasing the building permit 81 would provide the opportunity for those expectations to be communicated. At the very 82 minimum, staff will not issue permits that include egress windows on the zero-foot setback Page 2 of 4 Qbhf!4!pg!:29