City Council Regular Meeting Monday, July 20, 2026, 6:30 PM 106 Center Street Members of the public may attend the City Council meeting either in person or by joining via Zoom either online or by telephone at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86346794494 Meeting chat link https://us02web.zoom.us/launch/jc/86346794494 Meeting ID: 863 4679 4494 --- One tap mobile +13092053325,,86346794494# US +13126266799,,86346794494# US (Chicago) AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Meeting Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Minutes a) June 15, 2026 Work Session Minutes b) June 15, 2026 City Council Minutes 5. Open Forum This is the time for the public to speak. Open Forum will be limited to one-half hour. No person may speak more than 5 minutes or more than once. Each subject will have a limit of 10 minutes. Council members may ask questions of the speaker. With the agreement of the Council, such matters taken up during the “Open Forum” may be scheduled on the current or a future Agenda. Members of the public interested in speaking on an agenda item may direct a request to be recognized to the Mayor. 6. City Council Communications, Questions, and Reports a) Council Work Group Updates b) Elections Update 1 Page 1 of 223 c) Construction Updates d) South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Update 7. Meet Excelsior 8. Consent Agenda a) Review Verified Claims under $20,000 and Approve Verified Claims over $20,000 b) Resolution 2026-38 Calling for Public Hearing on Assessment for 2022-2023 Street and Utility Improvements Project (MCES L20) c) Second Reading and Approval of Ordinance No. 696 Amending City Ordinance, Appendix E, Section 24 Signs d) Resolution 2026-37 Appointing Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for the 2026 State Primary and General Election e) 2026 Goal Report - Second Quarter f) May Financials g) Second Quarter Gambling Report h) Fat Oil Grease (FOG) Program Ordinance - Rescheduled i) Division Street Watermain Lining Project - Approve Pay Voucher No. 1 j) Third and Center Street SUIP - Approve Pay Voucher No. 1 k) Parks and Recreation Bench Donation - John "Punk" Seamans l) Parks and Recreation Bench Donation - Michael McNulty 9. Public Hearings a) Appeal of HPC Decision to Deny Site Alteration Permit for Partial Demolition of the Tonka Theater Building, 26 Water Street (7:00 PM) b) Ordinance No. 697 Amending City Ordinance, Appendix E, Chapter 15, Section 15-4 Nonconforming Structures to Clarify Definitions of "Expansion" (8:00 PM) 10. Petitions, Requests, and Communications 11. Ordinances and Resolutions 12. Reports of Officers, Boards, and Committees 13. Unfinished Business 14. New Business 15. Adjournment 2 Page 2 of 223 3 Page 3 of 223 City of Excelsior City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, June 15th, 2026 106 Center Street – Entrance located off Center Street 5:30 P.M. – 6:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Ringate called the work session to order at 5:32 PM. Present: Mayor Ringate and Councilmembers Caron, O’Hanlon, Bildsoe, and Vogel Also Present: City Manager Luger, Assistant City Manager Lindberg, City Clerk Vokovan, and City Attorney Tolar. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA O’Hanlon moved to approve the work session agenda. Bildsoe seconded. Motion carried 5/0. 3. NEW BUSINESS (a) Greenwood Involvement in South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Operating Committee Mayor Ringate provided an update. (b) Proposed Changes to the Excelsior Fire District Joint Power Agreement (JPA) Caron provided an update. 4. ADJOURNMENT Bildsoe moved to adjourn. Vogel seconded. Motion carried 5/0. The work session adjourned at 6:21 PM. Respectfully submitted, Hilary Vokovan City Clerk Page 4 of 223 City of Excelsior City Council Meeting Minutes Monday, June 15th, 2026 106 Center Street, Excelsior, MN 55331 – Entrance is located on Center Street 6:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Ringate called the meeting to order at 6:31 PM. Present: Mayor Ringate and Councilmembers Caron, O’Hanlon, Bildsoe, and Vogel. Also Present: City Manager Luger, Assistant City Manager Lindberg, City Clerk Vokovan, Public Works Director Amundsen, Finance Director Palmer, and City Attorney Tolar. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bildsoe moved to approve the agenda. Vogel seconded. Motion carried 5/0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (a) June 1st, 2026 Work Session Minutes (b) June 1st, 2026 City Council Minutes Bildsoe moved approval of both sets of minutes. O’Hanlon seconded. Motion carried 5/0. 4. OPEN FORUM This is the time for the public to speak. Open forum will be limited to one-half hour. No person may speak more than 5 minutes of more than once. Each subject will have a limit of 10 minutes. Council members may ask questions of the speaker. With the agreement of the Council, such matters taken up during the “Open Forum” may be scheduled on the current or future Agenda. Members of the public interested in speaking on an agenda item may direct a request to be recognized to the Mayor. Bruce Kelly, 165 Maple Street expressed concern about parking for Art on The Lake and charitable gambling proceeds. Matt Mueller, Marine Max Excelsior expressed concern about wake boarding restrictions. Gabriel Jabor, 985 Minnetonka Blvd expressed concern about wake boarding restrictions. Rich Anderson, Orono LMCD Representative expressed concern about wake boarding restrictions. 5. City Council Communications, Questions and Reports (a) Council Work Group Updates None. (b) Public Works Construction Updates Public Works Director Amundsen provided an update. (c) Mini Master Park Plan Popup Event at Concerts in The Commons Page 5 of 223 June 17, 2026 from 5:00 PM to 8:30 PM Mayor Ringate provided an update. (d) Candidate Filing Information City Clerk Vokovan provided an update 6. Meet Excelsior Representative Myers and Senator Johnson Stewart – 2026 Bonding Updates – 6:45 PM Representative Myers was present to provide an update on bonding for the City of Excelsior. Councilmembers expressed gratitude for the legislators. Excelsior Fire District Interim Chief Basinger – 7:00 PM Interim Chief Basinger introduced himself and provided district updates. 7. Consent Agenda (a) Review Verified Claims under $20,000 and Approve Verified Claims over $20,000 (b) 2026 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project – Authorize Advertisement for Bids Bildsoe pulled item “B” for further clarification. Bildsoe moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Caron seconded. Motion carried 5/0. 8. Public Hearings (a) Resolution 2026-34 Proposal to Adopt a Street Reconstruction Plan Resolution 2026-35 Intent to Issue General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds – 7:15 PM Mayor Ringate opened the public hearing at 7:29 PM. Mayor Ringate closed the public hearing at 7:30 PM. No public comment. Bildsoe moved to approve Resolution 2026-34 Proposal to Adopt a Street Reconstruction Plan. Vogel seconded. Motion carried 5/0. Bildsoe moved to approve Resolution 2026-35 Intent to Issue General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds. Vogel seconded. Motion carried 5/0. 9. Petitions, Requests and Communications Rotary Charitable Gambling Donations Resolution 2026-33 Authorizing and Accepting Donations for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department and Excelsior Fire District Caron moved to approve Resolution 2026-33 Authorizing and Accepting Donations for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department and Excelsior Fire District. O’Hanlon seconded. Motion carried 5/0. 10. Ordinances and Resolutions (a) Discussion of Amplified Sound for Special Events Resolution 2026-36 Setting License and Permit Fees and Utility Rates – 8:00 PM Assistant City Manager Lindberg provided information and Council discussed. Caron moved to approve Resolution 2026-36 Setting License and Permit Fees and Utility Rates. Bildsoe seconded. Motion carried 5/0. 11. Reports of Officers, Boards and Committees None. 12. Unfinished Business None. Page 6 of 223 13. New Business (a) Fat Oil Grease (FOG) Ordinance Discussion – 8:30 PM Public Works Director Amundsen provided information. Council discussed. A public hearing will be set at the July 20, 2026 Council Meeting. 14. Adjournment Bildsoe moved to adjourn. O’Hanlon seconded. Motion carried 5/0. The City Council adjourned at 8:36 PM. Respectfully submitted, Hilary Vokovan City Clerk Page 7 of 223 Item: 6.b. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Administration Item Name: Elections Update Summary: Candidate Filing o July 14, 2026 – July 28, 2026 until 5 PM o File at City Hall 261 School Ave, Third Floor, Excelsior, MN o Filing information can be found at the City Website Early Voting – Primary Election o Starting July 24, 2026 (Excelsior will start on July 27, 2026, since City Hall is closed on Fridays) Public Accuracy Test – Primary Election o July 29, 2026 at 6 PM o Council Chambers 106 Center Street, Excelsior, MN Primary Election Day o August 11, 2026 7 AM – 8 PM o Mount Calvary Lutheran Church 301 County Road 19, Excelsior, MN Recommended Action: Information only. Page 8 of 223Budget: Attachments: None Page 9 of 22307/14/2026 CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF EXCELSIOR CHECK DATE 06/10/2026 - 07/14/2026 Check Date Check Amount Bank GEN WELLS F 06/10/2026 3561(E) 15,211.74 06/10/2026 3562(E) 900.00 06/10/2026 3563(E) 8,661.41 06/10/2026 3564(E) 2,711.70 06/11/2026 93708 228.18 06/11/2026 93709 384.00 06/11/2026 93710 801.81 06/11/2026 93711 40.31 06/11/2026 93712 17,613.50 06/11/2026 93713 1,725.00 06/11/2026 93714 60.93 06/11/2026 93715 701.43 06/11/2026 93716 1,702.37 06/11/2026 93717 348.45 06/11/2026 93718 89.25 06/11/2026 93719 1,313.44 06/11/2026 93720 137.70 06/11/2026 93721 3,019.86 06/11/2026 93722 1,336.05 06/11/2026 93723 211.29 06/11/2026 93724 12,238.75 06/11/2026 93725 100.00 06/11/2026 93726 372.82 06/11/2026 93727 5,705.25 06/11/2026 93728 18,852.41 06/11/2026 93729 80.00 06/11/2026 93730 1,100.00 06/11/2026 93731 58.89 06/11/2026 93732 1,532.81 06/11/2026 93733 210.60 06/11/2026 93734 306.35 06/11/2026 93735 183.88 06/11/2026 93736 101.04 06/11/2026 93737 594.83 06/11/2026 93738 77.00 06/11/2026 93740 404.18 06/11/2026 93741 13.64 06/11/2026 93742 2,412.36 06/11/2026 93743 950.00 06/11/2026 93744 7,500.00 06/11/2026 93745 60.00 06/11/2026 93746 30.20 06/11/2026 93747 183.02 06/11/2026 93749 2,585.35 06/11/2026 93750 0.16 Page 10 of 22306/11/2026 93751 5,306.62 06/11/2026 93752 177.00 06/11/2026 93753 15,000.00 06/11/2026 93754 91.00 06/18/2026 3577(E) 9,737.74 06/20/2026 3585(E) 95.04 06/20/2026 3586(E) 18,728.65 06/20/2026 3587(E) 617.50 06/20/2026 3588(E) 52.00 06/20/2026 3589(E) 973.61 06/22/2026 93755 288.02 06/22/2026 93756 836.20 06/22/2026 93757 9,075.00 06/22/2026 93758 8,946.00 06/22/2026 93759 1,384.20 06/22/2026 93760 84.99 06/22/2026 93761 59.51 06/22/2026 93762 950.00 06/22/2026 93763 57.37 06/22/2026 93764 212.60 06/22/2026 93765 271.31 06/22/2026 93766 401.16 06/22/2026 93767 5,024.22 06/22/2026 93768 3,600.00 06/22/2026 93769 100.00 06/22/2026 93770 3,391.00 06/22/2026 93771 266.94 06/22/2026 93773 313.51 06/22/2026 93774 220.00 06/22/2026 93775 129.68 06/22/2026 93776 156.94 06/22/2026 93777 1,048.67 06/22/2026 93778 2,660.00 06/22/2026 93779 75.00 06/22/2026 93780 270.09 06/22/2026 93781 74.25 06/22/2026 93782 143.23 06/22/2026 93783 231.00 06/22/2026 93784 175.00 06/22/2026 93785 15.10 06/22/2026 93786 590.00 06/22/2026 93787 141.00 06/24/2026 3572(E) 16,784.34 06/24/2026 3573(E) 900.00 06/24/2026 3574(E) 8,602.64 06/24/2026 3575(E) 2,945.59 06/25/2026 93789 3,667.00 06/25/2026 93790 2,449.05 06/25/2026 93791 585.97 06/25/2026 93792 6,780.00 06/25/2026 93793 10,014.50 Page 11 of 22306/25/2026 93794 59.99 06/25/2026 93795 38.86 06/25/2026 93796 43.78 06/25/2026 93797 226.77 06/25/2026 93798 171.17 06/25/2026 93799 1,850.00 06/25/2026 93800 15.10 06/25/2026 93801 687.14 06/29/2026 3576(E) 145.19 06/29/2026 93802 4,980.00 07/01/2026 93803 9,081.90 07/01/2026 93804 1,789.31 07/01/2026 93805 75.00 07/01/2026 93806 464.50 07/01/2026 93807 1,639.00 07/01/2026 93810 91.62 07/01/2026 93811 95.62 07/01/2026 93812 1,044.19 07/01/2026 93813 30.00 07/01/2026 93814 173.00 07/01/2026 93815 41.91 07/01/2026 93816 35.96 07/01/2026 93817 1,862.07 07/01/2026 93818 644.78 07/01/2026 93819 97.61 07/01/2026 93820 112.24 07/01/2026 93821 25.99 07/01/2026 93822 175.88 07/01/2026 93823 3,767.50 07/01/2026 93824 40.35 07/01/2026 93825 6,750.00 07/01/2026 93826 575.00 07/01/2026 93827 6.00 07/01/2026 93828 342.63 07/01/2026 93829 728.04 07/01/2026 93831 8,586.54 07/01/2026 93832 100.00 07/01/2026 93833 2,763.25 07/01/2026 93834 82.50 07/01/2026 93835 21.98 07/01/2026 93836 15.10 07/06/2026 3579(E) 2,384.55 07/08/2026 3580(E) 15,731.52 07/08/2026 3581(E) 900.00 07/08/2026 3582(E) 8,819.62 07/08/2026 3583(E) 2,805.63 07/13/2026 93837 364.00 07/13/2026 93838 950.00 07/13/2026 93839 540.99 07/13/2026 93840 614.15 07/13/2026 93841 63.71 Page 12 of 22307/13/2026 93842 600.00 07/13/2026 93843 22.27 07/13/2026 93844 11,981.42 07/13/2026 93845 403.03 07/13/2026 93846 1,480.58 07/13/2026 93847 382.50 07/13/2026 93848 149.85 07/13/2026 93849 3,320.03 07/13/2026 93850 211.29 07/13/2026 93851 13,722.36 07/13/2026 93852 100.00 07/13/2026 93853 118.09 07/13/2026 93854 84.00 07/13/2026 93855 156.94 07/13/2026 93856 18,852.41 07/13/2026 93857 4,179.33 07/13/2026 93858 556.00 07/13/2026 93859 277.05 07/13/2026 93860 462.21 07/13/2026 93861 1,661.57 07/13/2026 93862 4,249.00 07/13/2026 93863 9.68 07/13/2026 93864 934.73 07/13/2026 93865 1,676.72 07/13/2026 93866 231.00 07/13/2026 93867 60.00 07/13/2026 93868 15.10 07/13/2026 93869 750.00 07/13/2026 93870 211.32 07/13/2026 93871 267.16 07/13/2026 93872 114.66 07/13/2026 93873 770.38 07/13/2026 93874 16.92 07/13/2026 93875 62.49 07/13/2026 93876 465.37 GEN TOTALS: Total of 182 Check 408,759.30 Less 0 Void Checks 0.00 Total of 182 Disbur 408,759.30 Page 13 of 22307/14/2026 CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF EXCELSIOR CHECK DATE 06/10/2026 - 07/14/2026 Check Date Check Amount Bank GEN WELLS FARGO 06/11/2026 93739 69,076.69 06/11/2026 93748 183,671.00 06/22/2026 3570(E) 89,801.67 06/22/2026 3571(E) 263,903.00 06/22/2026 93772 79,692.00 07/01/2026 93809 29,076.50 07/01/2026 93830 38,490.00 GEN TOTALS: Total of 7 Checks: 753,710.86 Less 0 Void Checks: 0.00 Total of 7 Disbursements: 753,710.86 Page 14 of 223 Item: 8.b. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Morgan Dawley, City Engineer Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Public Works Item Name: Resolution 2026-38 Calling for Public Hearing on Assessment for 2022- 2023 Street and Utility Improvements Project (MCES L20) Summary: At the December 20, 2021 Regular Council meeting and following a Public Hearing, the Council ordered the improvements for the 2022-2023 Street and Utility Improvements Project (MCES L20). Minnesota Statutes require that the City Council adopt a resolution declaring the costs to be assessed, ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment, and calling for the public hearing on the assessments. Attached is a resolution with the language required by Minnesota Statutes to set the date for the public hearing for August 17, 2026. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2026-38 – Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for Public Hearing on Assessments for 2022-2023 Street and Utility Improvements Project (MCES L20). Budget: Attachments: 1. Resolution 2026-38 Page 15 of 223 RESOLUTION 2026 - 38 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2022- 2023 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (MCES L20) WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the 2022-2023 Street and Utility Improvements project (MCES L20), which includes the following areas: • William Street – from College Avenue to approximately 90 feet southwest of George Street • College Street – from Water Street to William Street • Water Street – from State Highway 7 to Oak Street • Grathwol Lane – from Water Street to western terminus • Oak Street – from William Street to approximately 280 feet southeast of Beehrle Avenue The cost for such improvement is $4,739,964 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $1,137,592 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $5,877,556. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $2,080,753 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $205,728. 2. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 20 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2027 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.93 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. 3. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the consulting City Engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he/she shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his/her office for public inspection. 4. The City Clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the Council Page 16 of 223 thereof. 5. A hearing shall be held at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, August 17, 2026, in the Council Chambers located at 106 Center Street to pass upon such proposed assessment. All persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. She shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. 7. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the Finance Director, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid prior to November 13, 2026. An owner may at any time, thereafter, pay to the City of Excelsior the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Excelsior on this 20th day of July 2026. Approved: __________________________________ Gary Ringate, Mayor Attest: ____________________________ _________________________________ Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk Kristi Luger, City Manager Page 17 of 223 Item: 8.c. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Julia Mullin, Community Development Director, Jess Long, City Planner Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Community Development Item Name: Second Reading and Approval of Ordinance No. 696 Amending City Ordinance, Appendix E, Section 24 Signs Summary: UPDATE Background At the City Council meeting on June 1, 2026, the Council approved the First Reading and scheduled the second reading and approval for July 20, 2026, of Ordinance 696 amending Excelsior’s sign ordinance. At that meeting, Council considered a draft prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission and held a public hearing. The goal of revising the Sign Ordinance is to: 1. Make the ordinance easier to use (for businesses and staff) by reorganizing it and adding tables and graphics to display information. 2. Ensure that maximum sign sizes are appropriate for the scale of Excelsior’s commercial properties. 3. Review policy on illuminating signs. 4. Increase clarity about signs that are prohibited. 5. Increase clarity about temporary signs and how they are administered. 6. Update definitions and standards to reflect today’s sign technology. The Council requested that staff provide more information on the following items: 1. Review of existing sandwich board signs to confirm that proposed size requirements in zoning amendment are appropriate. Staff measured sandwich board signs on Water Street between Lake and Third Streets to provide some context for the recommended maximum size. The signs ranged in size from 5.3 sf – 8.4 sf; and heights ranged from 38” to 45”. Staff recommends a maximum sign size of 40” in height and a total area no greater than 7 sf. This recommendation is based on finding the signs outside Excelsior Books and the Sitting Room, 24” x 40”, and 6.7 sf to be pedestrian scaled, easily leaving 5’ clearance on the sidewalk, and Page 18 of 223being visible but not imposing. The typical white plastic signs (with handles on top) were 45” tall and 8.4 sf. The city’s parking sign for the public parking garage, placed at West Drive and Third Street, is 29.5” tall and 10.9 sf, which is large but this sign is meant to be seen from vehicles and from a distance, and the larger size makes sense. 2. Is 75 sf for maximum wall sign size in the General Commercial district too large? The “Inspiri” sign at 361 Morse Avenue, facing Hwy 7, is the largest wall sign and is 73 sf. There are large wall signs on the Ridgeview Clinic on Hwy 7 but they are smaller. 75 sf is the existing maximum size and staff recommends that we keep it. 3. Staff did a visual survey of storefronts along Water Street and found that windows generally are not more than 25% covered with signage. Staff took into consideration decals (that are signs), posted flyers, menus, etc. The windows of Vagabondo at 406 Second Street are more than 25% covered in decals, but most of the decals (the floral designs) are not considered “signs”; they are decorative; signage does not cover more than 25% of the windows. Staff recommends that we allow windows to be covered up to 25% with signage. Example of storefront window; “Re/Max Advantage Plus” is sign; one flyer on door; parking QR code in window; additional lettering in window that falls within the 6 sf of lettering the code excludes from total signage. Page 19 of 223 Example of window more than 25% covered; up to three signs, less than 4sf each, posted inside window are permitted. Page 20 of 223 Example of window more than 25% covered; however, floral decals are not considered signs; “Gnocchi” is considered a sign and falls within 6 sf of window lettering excluded from total signage and contributes to window coverage. 5. Existing monument signs – Do we want to prohibit from DT historic district? Currently, there are none. The HPC recommends that we prohibit them. Based on Council feedback, staff revised the draft and a redlined version is attached for review. Additionally, a clean copy of the proposed Ordinance amendment is attached and recommended for approval. Page 21 of 223 Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council waive the second reading and approve Ordinance 696 which repeals the existing sign ordinance (Section 24, Signs) and replaces it with proposed Ordinance 696, and amends Section 2 Rules and Definitions and Section 15 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots and Signs. Budget: Attachments: 1. 1_ REDLINE Ord 696_ Signs_ CC_07_20_2026 2. 2_ Ord 696_ Signs_ CC_07_20_2026 Page 22 of 223July 20, 2026 ORDINANCE NO. 696 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX E, SECTION 2 RULES AND DEFINITIONS, SECTION 15 NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS AND SIGNS, AND SECTION 24 SIGNS, TO UPDATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Excelsior hereby ordains as follows: ARTICLE 2. RULES AND DEFINITIONS Section 1. Appendix E, Article 2, Rules and Definitions, is amended to add the following: Sign related. Abandoned sign. Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains without a message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one year or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership or management of such business shall be deemed to be abandoned. Signs which are present because of being legally established nonconforming signs or signs which have required a conditional use permit or variance shall also be subject to the definition of an abandoned sign. Artificial light. Illumination resulting from internal or external artificial light sources, including glare and Formatted: Font: Italic reflected light byproducts of artificial light sources. Formatted: Font: Not Italic Awning: A structure made of fabric, metal, or other material, affixed to a building in such a manner that the structure serves as a protective cover over a door, entrance, walkway, or window. Awning Sign: A sign with copy painted or affixed flat to the surface of an awning which does not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limits of such awning. Banners. Attention getting devices which resemble flags and are of a paper, cloth, or plastic consistency. Formatted: Font: Italic Billboard. (See off-premises sign.) Formatted: Font: Not Italic Blade Sign: See Projecting Sign. Changeable copy sign. Changeable copy sign, electronic. Commercial Sign: Any sign which serves to advertise and/or identify a product, service, or activity conducted on or off the premises on which the sign is located. Conduit for Illuminated Signs: A protective piping system that houses and safeguards electrical wiring to attach to a power supply, ensuring a safe and organized installation, typically made of metal or plastic to shield wiring from moisture, dust, UV exposure, and physical damage. Conduit conceals wiring for a clean and professional appearance. Copy. The wording on a sign surface either permanent or removable letter form. Formatted: Font: Italic Double-sided sign. Dynamic display. Page 1 of 18 Page 23 of 223July 20, 2026 Electronic graphic display sign. Feather sign: A freestanding temporary sign consisting of a piece of flexible cloth, plastic or other similar material that is attached lengthwise to a single pole and designed to flutter/wave in the wind. Flag. Any fabric or similar lightweight material attached at one end, usually to a pole, so as to allow movement of the material by atmospheric changes and which contains distinctive colors, patterns, symbols, emblems, insignia or other symbolic devices. Flashing sign. Freestanding sign. Ghost sign. Ground or low profile sign. Illuminated sign. A sign illuminated by an artificial light source either directed upon it or illuminated from an Formatted: Font: Italic interior source. Interpretive Panel: A signage that provides information that interprets, via photographs or text, a natural, historical, or cultural resource, event, or site. Panels shall be located only on sites directly related to the information contained in the sign. Feather sign: A freestanding temporary sign consisting of a piece of flexible cloth, plastic or other similar material that is attached lengthwise to a single pole and designed to flutter/wave in the wind. Lawn Sign: A freestanding temporary sign consisting of a piece of corrugated, plastic or other similar material that is attached to a wire “H-shaped” stake and inserted into the ground. LED Sign Lighting: Lighting that uses light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to produce illumination. Marquee. Message sign. Monument Sign: A freestanding sign that contains a solid or enclosed base and where the sign support post(s) is/are not visible. Base shall be constructed of materials that are consistent with and complementary to the building on the parcel. Multivision sign. Any sign composed in whole or part of a series of vertical or horizontal slat or cylinders that Formatted: Font: Not Italic are capable of being rotated at intervals so that partial rotation of the group of slats or cylinders produces a different image and when properly functioning allows on a single sign structure the display at any given time of one or two or more images. Multiple tenant site. Any site which has more than one tenant, and each tenant has a separate ground level Formatted: Font: Not Italic exterior public entrance. Page 2 of 18 Page 24 of 223July 20, 2026 Mural: A mural is an unlit painting, mosaic, fresco, photograph, or other artwork attached or applied directly to the exterior of a structure by or on behalf of the building owner. A mural does not include commercial signage, graffiti, billboards, campaign signs or ghost signs. Murals (like ghost signs) are considered public art, rather than and are not signs. Noncommercial Sign: Any sign that is not a commercial sign. Neon sign. Electric sign lit by luminous gas-discharge tubes that contain rarefied neon or other gases. Formatted: Font: Italic Off-premises sign. A sign which directs the attention of the public to a business, activity conducted, or Formatted: Font: Italic product sold or offered at a location not on the same parcel where the sign is located. For purposes of this Appendix E, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such parcel and any sign located in an easement or other appurtenance shall be considered an off-premises sign. Official sign. Outdoor signage. Portable sign. A sign so designed as to be movable from one location to another and which is not permanently attached to the ground, structure, or sales display device. A temporary sign. Prohibited signs. Signs not allowed in the city. Formatted: Font: Italic Projecting Sign: A type of sign that extends outward from a building or structure, typically mounted at an angle to the façade building, making it visible from a distance to pedestrians or drivers, and containing a business’s graphics, text, or logo. Public entrance. Any passage or opening which affords entry and access to the general public or customer. Formatted: Font: Italic Pylon sign. A freestanding sign mounted on top of a single post which is greater than 10 feet in height. Formatted: Font: Italic Reader board. A message sign with an electronic changing message. Formatted: Font: Italic Roof sign. A sign constructed, or attached, wholly or in part upon or over the roof of a building. Formatted: Font: Italic Sandwich board sign. Two boards with messages, hinged at the top and used on sidewalks or yards for Formatted: Font: Italic advertising. Sign. Any letter, word or symbol, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or communicative purposes. Sign area. The area within the marginal lines of the surface of a sign. It is that area which is included in the Formatted: Font: Italic smallest rectangle or series of geometric figures used to circumscribe the message, figure or symbol displayed thereon. Temporary sign. A sign constructed or displayed for a specified period of time. Formatted: Font: Italic Time and/or temperature sign. A sign that displays the current time and/or temperature. Formatted: Font: Italic Valance: A type of decorative fabric placed at the bottom and horizontally of an awning or canopy. Video display sign. Wall Sign: A sign affixed, attached, posted, printed, or painted directly to the exterior wall of a building, and which is parallel to the building wall. Window sign. A sign affixed to the interior or exterior of a window in view of the general public. This does Formatted: Font: Italic not apply to merchandise on display. Page 3 of 18 Page 25 of 223July 20, 2026 Sacred community. Formatted: Justified --------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE 24. SIGNS Section 2. Appendix E, Article 24, Signs, is repealed and replaced with the following: Sec. 24-1. Intent. The purpose of this section is to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Excelsior through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial set of regulations governing the installation, display, and use of signs serving as a visual media to persons on public or private properties within the City of Excelsior. These regulations are intended to: (a) Preserve and protect property values and civic beauty, and not allow signs which detract from this objective due to excess size, height, number, visual impact, undesirable location, maintenance (or lack thereof), spacing, or illumination. (b) Provide for signs which are compatible with their surroundings and appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain. Page 4 of 18 Page 26 of 223July 20, 2026 (c) Control signs which invade privacy, constitute a public nuisance, or increase the likelihood of accidents by distracting attention or obstructing vision. (d) Establish standards which will permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity for effective communication but will avoid excessive and unreasonable visual competition among sign displays. (e) Allow a reasonable freedom of choice, while promoting a concern for the visual amenities for those persons designing, displaying, erecting, or utilizing signs in the City of Excelsior. (f) Assure that the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Excelsior is preserved. Sec. 24-2. Signs - prohibited (a) Feather signs. (Except with Special Event Permit, Chapter 10, Article XIV.) (b) Sign or sign structures that obstruct any window, door, fire escape, stairway or opening intended to provide ingress or egress for any building structure. (c) Balloons attached to signs, and stringers. (d) Signs that are tacked, painted, or posted on trees, fences, bridges, towers, similar public structures, utility posts, or other such supports. (e) Roof signs. (f) Billboards. (g) Signs with rotating, moving parts, or electronically changeable copy. (h) Signs placed on or affixed to vehicles and/or trailers which are parked on a public right-of-way, public property, or private property so as to be visible from a public right-of-way where the apparent purpose is to advertise a product or direct people to a business or activity located on the same or nearby property. (i) Content classified as “obscene” as defined by Minn. Stats. § 617.241. (j) Pylon signs. (add 10’ to graphic) (k) Multivision signs. (l) Video display signs. (m) Electronic graphic display signs. (n) Illuminated signs which change in color or intensity of light, flash, scroll, or are animated other thanexcept electronic reader boards for time and temperature, or official signs, and non-electronic reader board signs, Page 5 of 18 Page 27 of 223July 20, 2026 signs with copy stating open or closed and barber poles as permitted under Commercial zoning allowances of this article. (o) Exterior neon signs. (For discussion.) (p) Inflatable signs. (q) Monument signs in the DC historic district. (r) Any sign, signal, marking or device which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles any official traffic control device, railroad sign or signal, emergency vehicle signs, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic-control device or any railroad sign or signal shall be prohibited. (s) Signs within an easement, except for signs installed by authorized governmental agencies or approved by the holder of the easement. (t) Signs that resemble any official marker erected by a governmental agency or that displays such words as "Stop" or "Danger", which are not erected by legal authority. (u) All other signs not expressly permitted by this ordinance. Sec. 24-3. Signs - general requirements and standards (a) Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated, or defaced shall be reprinted, repaired, or replaced by the owner or agent of the building upon which the sign stands. The ground around any sign shall be kept free of weeds and litter in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code. (b) The construction of all permitted signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of the Minnesota Building Code. (c) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the city building official. (d) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor interfere with any electric light, power, telephone, or telegraph wires or the supports thereof. (e) A sign and/or its structural components shall not move as a result of wind pressure. (f) The sign height shall be measured from the grade of the lot at the location of the sign as approved by the Zoning Administrator. (g) An awning sign shall be printed on the awning valance only. (h) A freestanding sign or sign structure (excluding sandwich boards) shall be constructed so that the two sign faces are set at an angle less than twenty (20) degrees unless the total area of both sign faces does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for the parcel. (i) No sign or sign structure shall protrude over the public right-of-way except: a. projecting signs may protrude a maximum of five (5) feet), b. wall signs may protrude a maximum of six (6) inches; c. awning, canopy, and marquee signs may protrude a maximum of five (5) feet). All signs protruding over public right-of-way or over any public or private access route (sidewalk, etc.) shall be located a minimum of eight (8) feet above surface grade. Page 6 of 18 Page 28 of 223July 20, 2026 . (Fix graphic.) (j) Sandwich board signs: a. may only have two sign faces b. shall be displayed only during business hours. c. shall not impede pedestrian traffic or access to other public improvements. d. shall be located on the ground in front of and within five (5) feet of the main entrance of the business it is advertising. e. shall be a maximum of three and a half (3.5) feet forty (40) inches in height and shall be no greater than seven (7) square feet in size. f. shall be made of wood or metal material. g. if related to Sspecial Eevents, such as event parking, or event parking, shall be reviewed the zZoning aAdministrator h. number of sandwich boards allowed: (a) one (1) sandwich board per business, per street frontage. (b) one (1) additional sandwich board if for valet parking, only during hours of valet service operation. (k) Interpretive panels are not subject to sign requirements and require approval of zoning administrator. (l) Temporary or permanent window signs or business graphics, whether printed or attached, may not coverexceeding more than 25% of window areaspace in which they are displayed. (m) Sign Size Calculation Page 7 of 18 Page 29 of 223July 20, 2026 The area of a sign or area within a sign frame shall be used to calculate the square footage of the sign area. Should letters or graphics be mounted directly on a wall or fascia or in such a way as to be without a frame, the dimensions for calculating the sign areasquare footage shall be as in the definition of sign area, as found in Article 2 of this Appendix E. Any symbols, flags, pictures, working figures or other forms of graphics printed on or attached to windows, walks, awnings, freestanding structures, suspended by balloons or kites or on persons, animals or vehicles shall be considered as a sign. (n) Obsolete Signs The owner or agent of the building and property shall remove any sign that has become obsolete including by reason of termination of the business or vacation of the premises within thirty (30) days. (o) All signage shall comply with citythe design standards and the requirements of the Heritage Preservation Commission, where applicable, as found in Chapter 20 of the Code. (p) Signs for motor fuel facilities a. Signs for motor fuel facilities shall be regulated by the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the facility is located, except that within a sign, with an area not to exceed ten (10) square feet shall be allowed for non-electronicic changeable copy identifying current fuel process in accordance with Minn. Stats. 239.751 Sec. 24-4. Signs—no permit required. (a) Identification signs for one- and two-family dwellings, provided that such signs are less than two (2) square feet in area, address numbers exempted. Landmark property identification signs are subject to HPC approval. (b) Pedestrian, vehicular-traffic, and parking directional signs in parking lots, provided such signs are less than eight (8) square feet in area and less than five (5) feet in height, provided such sign does not constitute traffic hazard. Page 8 of 18 Page 30 of 223July 20, 2026 Max 8 sq. ft. 5’ (c) Traffic control signs, non-commercial governmental signs, local notices, railroad crossing signs, and temporary non-advertising safety or emergency signs. (d) Signs denoting the architect, engineer, contractor, or owner as follows: One non illuminated sign when placed upon a work site, which does not exceed an aggregate of ten (10) square feet for residential property and thirty-two (32) square feet in area and eight (8) feet in height for non-residential property. Such signs must be removed within one (1) year of the date of issuance of a building permit or when the project is completed, whichever is sooner. (e) Non-commercial speech signs of any size and number may be posted on private property with the permission of the property owner beginning 46 days before the state primary in a state general election year until ten (10) days following the state general election, and thirteen (13) weeks prior to any special election until ten (10) days following the special election. Sign installation shall comply with the Fair Campaign Practices Act contained in Minn. Stats., Chapter 211B. (f) Real estate signs as follows: (1) Temporary signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or buildings provided that such signs are less than ten (10) square feet for residential property and thirty-two (32) square feet for other property, have a maximum height of ten (10) feet, unless located on the building, and provided that only one (1) sign is permitted for each property. The signs must be removed within seven (7) days following the lease or sale. (2) If parcel is located in the Downtown Historic District, a Temporary Sign permit is required. (g) Flags or insignia of any government or governmental agency. (h) Three (3) signs, not exceeding two (2) square feet each, posted on the interior of a window. (i) Up to three (3) lawn signs. (j) Existing historic signs as allowed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. (k) Maintenance of signs including repainting without changing the wording, composition, size, or colors; or minor nonstructural repairs, (except electrical repairs) shall not require a permit. Sec. 24-5. Signs—permit required. (a) The following signs are allowed with the issuance of a sign permit. Page 9 of 18 Page 31 of 223July 20, 2026 Table A. WALL SIGNS Zoning District Number Allowed Max Area One (1) or DC & CC (Single 27 sf per sign Tenant) Two (2) if located on street corner with double frontage DC & CC (Multi- One (1) per tenant located 27 sf per sign Tenant) on first floor One (1) or MU (Single Tenant) 27 sf per sign Two (2) if located on street corner with double frontage One (1) per tenant located MU (Multi-Tenant) 27 sf per sign on first floor One (1) or GC (Single Tenant) 75 sf per sign Two (2) if located on street corner with double frontage One (1) per tenant located GC (Multi-Tenant) 75 sf per sign on first floor One (1) Sacred community, or other public places 32 sf per sign Two (2) if located on street [1] corner with double frontage [1] Exemptions to height and area requirements may be reviewed under a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in Article 4 of this Appendix E. Table B. FREESTANDING SIGNS AND MONUMENT SIGNS Collaborative sign Zoning District Number Allowed Max Height Max Area outside of Historic District DC One (1) free 6 ft maximum 27 sf maximum standing sign in Page 10 of 18 Page 32 of 223July 20, 2026 front yard of residential structure used for commercial purpose No monument signs allowed One (1) free standing sign in front yard of residential structure used for CC commercial purpose Freestanding: 6 ft maximum Or 27 sf maximum Monument: 4.5 ft One (1) monument maximum sign One (1) free standing sign MU Or One (1) monument sign May substitute for a One (1) free collaborative standing sign 8 ft maximum 75 sf maximum monument sign GC Or between multiple lots. Max area of 75 One (1) monument sf and max height sign 15 ft. One (1) free standing Sacred communities, or Or 8 ft maximum 32 sf maximum other public places One (1) monument [1] sign [1] Double frontage lots may have two signs, one for each frontage. Exemptions to height and area requirements may be reviewed under a Conditional Use Permit. Table C. PROJECTING SIGNS Zoning District Number Allowed Max Area Additional General Requirements Page 11 of 18 Page 33 of 223July 20, 2026 One (1) per Bottom of sign must be a minimum of eight (8) ft DC & CC tenant located Eight (8) sf above the ground. Sign and bracket shall extend no on first floor more than five (5) ft from building façade. One (1) per MU & GC tenant located Ten (10) sf on first floor R-1 & R-2 (Home One (1) Eight (8) sf Occupation) Table D. AWNINGS SIGNS Number Number Allowed Zoning Allowed Additional General Corner lot Maximum Dimensions District Single with Requirements frontage double frontage Must be a minimum of eight (8) Seven (7) square feet and eight (8) ft above the ground. Maximum All Districts One (1) Two (2) inches in height. Signage must be extension of five (5) ft from placed on valance. building façade Sec. 24-6 Signs – Additional District Requirements (a) Downtown Commercial (DC) and Cottage Commercial (CC) Districts. (1) Businesses shall not display more than three (3) permanent signs, of any type. Businesses may display one (1) additional sign on the rear elevation of the building at a business entrance. (1) Window lettering signs of less than six (6) square feet shall be excluded from this regulation. (2) Business located on second floor may list business name on first floor primary entrance door. (3) More than three (3) signs shall be allowed for multi-tenant buildings, provided that size requirements are met and the aggregate square footage of sign space as outlined above is complied with and an administrative permit is approved by the zoning administrator in accordance with article 8 of this Appendix E. (4) No individual sign shall exceed twenty seven (27) square feet in area, nor shall two or more signs be so arranged and integrated as to create a sign area of over forty (40) square feet. (5) Wall Signs. a. Multi-tenant buildings shall have wall signs of similar design. Each tenant is allowed one (1) wall sign in accordance with Table A except that a tenant space which has its only entrance on the side of the building not abutting a public street shall be allowed one (1) sign meeting the size requirements of Table A and located on the same wall as the tenant's only entrance. No signage is permitted for tenant entrances immediately adjacent to residentially zoned property. Page 12 of 18 Page 34 of 223July 20, 2026 b. Wall signs, if painted, shall not be applied directly onto unpainted brick or stone masonry. Exceptions may be made for concrete block. A backdrop shall be applied for painted wall signs and attached to brick or stone masonry (6) Awning Signs. a. Awnings installed on buildings in the DC District shall not obscure significant architectural features. (b) Mixed Use Commercial (MU) and General Commercial (GC) Districts. (1) Businesses shall not display more than three permanent signs, whether such signs be projecting, wall, freestanding, window, or awning, including signs for rear entrances. (2) Window lettering signs of less than six square feet shall be excluded from this regulation. (3) More than three signs shall be allowed for multi-tenant buildings, provided that the aggregate square footage of sign space as outlined above is complied with and an administrative permit is approved by the zoning administrator in accordance with article 8 of this Appendix E. (4) No individual sign surface shall exceed twenty seven (27) square feet in area (seventy five (75) square feet in area in the GC district), nor shall two (2) or more signs be so arranged and integrated as to create a sign area of over forty (40) square feet ( one hundred (100 ) square feet in area in the GC district). (5) Wall Signs. a. Multi-tenant buildings shall have wall signs of similar design. Each tenant is allowed one (1) wall sign in accordance with Table B except that a tenant space which has its only entrance on a side of the building not abutting a public street shall be allowed one (1) sign meeting the size requirements of Table B and located on the same wall as the tenant's only entrance. No signage is permitted for tenant entrances immediately adjacent to residentially zoned property. (6) Awning Signs. a. Awnings installed on buildings in the MU District shall not obscure significant architectural features. (c) Residential Districts (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4). (1) The following zoning districts are allowed one (1) wall sign per household for a home occupation: a. R-1, R-2, one (1) wall sign not to exceed two (2) square feet, with a distance of six (6) inches from the back of the sign to the wall face. (2) Sacred communities and other public places may have one (1) monument sign up to six (6) feet in height and one (1) wall sign. Total signage area must be no greater than thirty-two (32) square feet. (3) Residential subdivisions or multi-family complexes, four (4) units or more, may have one (1) wall or one (1) monument sign. Total signage area must be no greater than thirty-two (32) sf and height no greater than four (4) feet. Page 13 of 18 Page 35 of 223July 20, 2026 Sec. 24-7. Temporary Signs – Administrative temporary permit required. (a) Temporary signs shall require an administrative permit. he following signs shall require an administrative permit in compliance with Article 8 of this Appendix E. Banners, flags, posters, pennants, ribbons, displays, streamers or spinners used as a sign on private property. (b) Administrative permits, for temporary signage, may be issued for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. Three (3) such permits may be allowed for each premises per calendar year, with the exception that each new commercial or industrial business, may be allowed one (1) additional fourteen (14) day permit, to announce the opening of the new business, provided such business has been issued a current Certificate of Occupancy for that business space. Permits may be issued for consecutive fourteen (14) day periods. (c) For all uses in the Public Institutional district and Sacred Communities in all districts temporary signage shall be limited to a period not to exceed thirty (30) days annually. There shall be no more than three such signs on any parcel and the total signage shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. (d) Temporary on-premises signs shall not be placed in the public right of way. (e) Temporary signs, off-premises. Off-premises temporary signs shall be limited to noncommercial Excelsior entities, displayed no more than ten (10) business days, and located on private, city property or in the public right of way. (f) The Zoning Administrator shall be authorized to issue a temporary conditional administrative permit to alleviate hardships associated with public road construction projects. Sec. 24-8. Sign Setbacks. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed in Residential Districts: Sign Setbacks (Excluding Monument Signs[1]) in Residential Districts R1 R2 R3 R4 Front Yard Setback 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) Side Yard Setback 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet (feet) Rear Yard Setback 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) [1] No part of any monument sign shall be closer than ten (10) feet from any lot line, or from the public right-of-way. (b) The following minimum requirements shall be observed in Commercial Districts: Sign Setbacks (Excluding Monument Signs [2]) in Commercial Districts DC CC GC MU Front Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) Page 14 of 18 Page 36 of 223 July 20, 2026 Side Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) Rear Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) [2] No part of any monument sign shall be closer than ten (10) feet from any lot line, or from the public right-of-way. Sec. 24-9. Permits Required. (a) Sign Permits. No sign shall hereafter be erected, re-erected or altered, including the replacement of the business message, unless a permit for each sign has been obtained, unless no permit is required pursuant to Section 24-5. In addition, electrical permits from the State of Minnesota shall be obtained for all electric signs. Applications for a sign permit shall be made in writing on forms furnished by the Planning Department. Such application shall contain the location by street and number of the proposed sign structure, the erector, a scale drawing of the sign indicating material copy, and color location. Maintenance of signs including repainting without changing the wording, composition, size, or colors; or minor nonstructural repairs, (except electrical repairs) shall not require a permit. (b) Sign Permit Fees. Permit fees shall be in accordance with the City fee schedule as adopted by City Council. A double fee shall be charged if a sign is erected without first obtaining a permit for such sign. Permit fees shall be reduced by 50% for properties designated as historic. (c) Revocation of Permit. The Planning Department is hereby authorized to revoke a sign permit upon failure of the holder thereof to comply with any provision of this Chapter. (d) Expiration of Permit. (1) A permit shall expire if the sign is not installed within one hundred eighty (180) days after issuance. Sec. 24-10. Noncommercial speech. Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that advertising or business signs are permitted, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs. Sec. 24-11. General provisions regulating use of artificial light sources for illuminated signs. (a) No internal lighting or back lighting of signs shall be allowed, regardless of the light source. (a)(b) Backlit signs are permitted. (b)(c) Signage shall utilize illuminating devices mounted above and facing down or below and facing up toward the sign. Artificial light sources shall not be placed at any height taller than is essential to accomplish the intended purpose. (c)(d) All lighting shall be of a warm color and glare or reflected light which is a by-product of all light shall be kept to a minimum. (d) All signage shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards found in Section 16-5 of this Appendix E. (e) The light source shall not be directly visible and shall be arranged to reflect away from adjoining premises. (f) The illumination source shall not be placed so to cause confusion or hazard to traffic, or to conflict with official or traffic signs, signals, or lights. This includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. (g) All artificial illumination of signs shall be turned off at the close of business or at 11:00 p.m., whichever occurs later. Page 15 of 18 Page 37 of 223July 20, 2026 (h) Neon signs may be allowed in the Downtown Historic District with HPC approval consistent with Chapter 20. (h) Lighting underneath awnings, and up- and down-lighting of building facades, is prohibited (i) Electrical wiring for sign illumination shall be concealed with conduit. The conduit and electrical wiring for the light source shall be installed and arranged inconspicuously utilizing low-profile conduit, paint or cover, running conduit behind structures such as walls, furniture, or architectural features, raceway channels, or undergrounding. (j) Sign conduit shall be installed in a way thatTo minimizes damage to the building, . Cconduit that is drilled through exterior walls to the interior of a building shall be drilled through the mortar joints, not masonry, and shall be weatherproofed and sealed to prevent moisture intrusion. The mortar joint shall be wide enough to accommodate the conduit without compromising stability. If the conduit is larger than the mortar joint, drilling through the wall shall be prohibited. Sec. 24-12. Enforcement. (a) It shall be the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to administer and enforce the provisions of this section. (b) If any provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged void or of no effect, for any reason whatsoever, such decision shall not affect the validity of any of the other provisions of this ordinance. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, to erect, alter, repair, move, equip, or maintain any sign or sign structure or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance. (d) Nonconforming signs shall be regulated as provided in Article 15 of this Appendix E. Sec. 24-13. Removal. (a) The Zoning Administrator shall remove any sign immediately and without notice if it reasonably appears that the condition of the sign is such as to present an immediate threat to the safety of the public. Any cost of removal incurred by the City shall be assessed to the owner of the property on which such sign is located or may be collected in appropriate legal proceedings. (b) Signs in violation of this Ordinance placed on public property or in the public right-of-way are subject to immediate removal. (c) The owner, lessee, or manager of the property where a sign is located shall remove or correct a sign within thirty (30) days of the receipt of written notice from the Zoning Administrator that the sign is in violation or prohibited by this Appendix E. Sec. 24-14. Variance. The City Council may approve a variance, in conformance with article 6 of this Appendix E. ARTICLE 15. NONCONFORMING, USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS AND SIGNS Section 3. Appendix E, Article 5, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots and Signs, is amended as follows: Page 16 of 18 Page 38 of 223July 20, 2026 Sec. 15-6. Nonconforming signs. Any sign that existed lawfully on the effective date of the sign regulations of this Article that remains or becomes nonconforming by reason of adoption of these sign regulations or because of subsequent amendments to these sign regulations are considered nonconforming signs and their continuance is allowed in accordance with the following regulations: (a) Ordinary repairs and maintenance, including the removing and replacing of outer panels is permitted, provided that the panels are replaced with identical panels and then no structural alterations or other work that extends the normal life of the nonconforming sign is permitted. (b) Single panels on nonconforming multi-panel signs for multi-tenant buildings may be changed to reflect tenant changes. (c) Besides (a) and (b) of this section, nonconforming signs may not be changed unless they are brought into compliance with the sign ordinance. (d) No repair or alteration that increases the size of a nonconforming sign is permitted. (e) No nonconforming sign may be moved in whole or in part to any other location on the same or any other premises unless every portion of such sign is made to conform to all regulations of these sign regulations. (f) If a nonconforming sign is abandoned or the described business discontinued for a continuous period of thirty (30) days or more, it must be discontinued, and any subsequent sign must conform to all of the sign regulations in this article. (g) If a nonconforming sign must be removed temporarily or is misplaced, the responsible party for that sign may receive administrative approval to continue the sign upon written request within the thirty (30) day period of allowance of (f). Section 4. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.06 of the Excelsior City Charter. Adopted by the Council of the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, this ______ day of _________ 2026. Gary Ringate, Mayor ATTEST: Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk Kristi Luger, City Manager First Reading of Ordinance: June 1, 2026 Second Reading and Adoption: July 20, 2026 Publication of Ordinance: July 30, 2026 Page 17 of 18 Page 39 of 223July 20, 2026 Effective Date: August 31, 2026 Page 18 of 18 Page 40 of 223July 20, 2026 ORDINANCE NO. 696 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX E, SECTION 2 RULES AND DEFINITIONS, SECTION 15 NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS AND SIGNS, AND SECTION 24 SIGNS, TO UPDATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Excelsior hereby ordains as follows: ARTICLE 2. RULES AND DEFINITIONS Section 1. Appendix E, Article 2, Rules and Definitions, is amended to add the following: Sign related. Abandoned sign. Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains without a message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one year or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership or management of such business shall be deemed to be abandoned. Signs which are present because of being legally established nonconforming signs or signs which have required a conditional use permit or variance shall also be subject to the definition of an abandoned sign. Artificial light. Illumination resulting from internal or external artificial light sources, including glare and reflected light byproducts of artificial light sources. Awning: A structure made of fabric, metal, or other material, affixed to a building in such a manner that the structure serves as a protective cover over a door, entrance, walkway, or window. Awning Sign: A sign with copy painted or affixed flat to the surface of an awning which does not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limits of such awning. Banners. Attention getting devices which resemble flags and are of a paper, cloth, or plastic consistency. Billboard. (See off-premises sign.) Blade Sign: See Projecting Sign. Changeable copy sign. Changeable copy sign, electronic. Commercial Sign: Any sign which serves to advertise and/or identify a product, service, or activity conducted on or off the premises on which the sign is located. Conduit for Illuminated Signs: A protective piping system that houses and safeguards electrical wiring to attach to a power supply, ensuring a safe and organized installation, typically made of metal or plastic to shield wiring from moisture, dust, UV exposure, and physical damage. Conduit conceals wiring for a clean and professional appearance. Copy. The wording on a sign surface either permanent or removable letter form. Double-sided sign. Dynamic display. Page 1 of 17 Page 41 of 223July 20, 2026 Electronic graphic display sign. Feather sign: A freestanding temporary sign consisting of a piece of flexible cloth, plastic or other similar material that is attached lengthwise to a single pole and designed to flutter/wave in the windFlag. Any fabric or similar lightweight material attached at one end, usually to a pole, so as to allow movement of the material by atmospheric changes and which contains distinctive colors, patterns, symbols, emblems, insignia or other symbolic devices. Flashing sign. Freestanding sign. Ghost sign. Ground or low profile sign. Illuminated sign. A sign illuminated by an artificial light source either directed upon it or illuminated from an interior source. Interpretive Panel: A sign that provides information that interprets, via photographs or text, a natural, historical, or cultural resource, event, or site. Panels shall be located only on sites directly related to the information contained in the sign. Lawn Sign: A freestanding temporary sign consisting of a piece of corrugated, plastic or other similar material that is attached to a wire “H-shaped” stake and inserted into the ground. LED Sign Lighting: Lighting that uses light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to produce illumination. Marquee. Message sign. Monument Sign: A freestanding sign that contains a solid or enclosed base and where the sign support post(s) is/are not visible. Base shall be constructed of materials that are consistent with and complementary to the building on the parcel. Multivision sign. Any sign composed in whole or part of a series of vertical or horizontal slat or cylinders that are capable of being rotated at intervals so that partial rotation of the group of slats or cylinders produces a different image and when properly functioning allows on a single sign structure the display at any given time of one or two or more images. Multiple tenant site. Any site which has more than one tenant, and each tenant has a separate ground level exterior public entrance. Mural: A mural is an unlit painting, mosaic, fresco, photograph, or other artwork attached or applied directly to the exterior of a structure by or on behalf of the building owner. A mural does not include commercial signage, graffiti, billboards, campaign signs or ghost signs. Murals are considered public art and are not signs. Noncommercial Sign: Any sign that is not a commercial sign. Page 2 of 17 Page 42 of 223July 20, 2026 Neon sign. Electric sign lit by luminous gas-discharge tubes that contain rarefied neon or other gases. Off-premises sign. A sign which directs the attention of the public to a business, activity conducted, or product sold or offered at a location not on the same parcel where the sign is located. For purposes of this Appendix E, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such parcel and any sign located in an easement or other appurtenance shall be considered an off-premises sign. Official sign. Outdoor signage. Portable sign. A sign so designed as to be movable from one location to another and which is not permanently attached to the ground, structure, or sales display device. A temporary sign. Prohibited signs. Signs not allowed in the city. Projecting Sign: A type of sign that extends outward from a building or structure, typically mounted at an angle to the façade building, making it visible from a distance to pedestrians or drivers, and containing a business’s graphics, text, or logo. Public entrance. Any passage or opening which affords entry and access to the general public or customer. Pylon sign. A freestanding sign mounted on top of a single post which is greater than 10 feet in height. Reader board. A message sign with an electronic changing message. Roof sign. A sign constructed, or attached, wholly or in part upon or over the roof of a building. Sandwich board sign. Two boards with messages, hinged at the top and used on sidewalks or yards for advertising. Sign. Any letter, word or symbol, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or communicative purposes. Sign area. The area within the marginal lines of the surface of a sign. It is that area which is included in the smallest rectangle or series of geometric figures used to circumscribe the message, figure or symbol displayed thereon. Temporary sign. A sign constructed or displayed for a specified period of time. Time and/or temperature sign. A sign that displays the current time and/or temperature. Valance: A type of decorative fabric placed at the bottom and horizontally of an awning or canopy. Video display sign. Wall Sign: A sign affixed, attached, posted, printed, or painted directly to the exterior wall of a building, and which is parallel to the building wall. Window sign. A sign affixed to the interior or exterior of a window in view of the general public. This does not apply to merchandise on display. Sacred community. Page 3 of 17 Page 43 of 223July 20, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE 24. SIGNS Section 2. Appendix E, Article 24, Signs, is repealed and replaced with the following: Sec. 24-1. Intent. The purpose of this section is to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Excelsior through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial set of regulations governing the installation, display, and use of signs serving as a visual media to persons on public or private properties within the City of Excelsior. These regulations are intended to: (a) Preserve and protect property values and civic beauty, and not allow signs which detract from this objective due to excess size, height, number, visual impact, undesirable location, maintenance (or lack thereof), spacing, or illumination. (b) Provide for signs which are compatible with their surroundings and appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain. (c) Control signs which invade privacy, constitute a public nuisance, or increase the likelihood of accidents by distracting attention or obstructing vision. Page 4 of 17 Page 44 of 223July 20, 2026 (d) Establish standards which will permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity for effective communication but will avoid excessive and unreasonable visual competition among sign displays. (e) Allow a reasonable freedom of choice, while promoting a concern for the visual amenities for those persons designing, displaying, erecting, or utilizing signs in the City of Excelsior. (f) Assure that the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Excelsior is preserved. Sec. 24-2. Signs - prohibited (a) Feather signs. (Except with Special Event Permit, Chapter 10, Article XIV.) (b) Sign or sign structures that obstruct any window, door, fire escape, stairway or opening intended to provide ingress or egress for any building structure. (c) Balloons attached to signs. (d) Signs that are tacked, painted, or posted on trees, fences, bridges, towers, similar public structures, utility posts, or other such supports. (e) Roof signs. (f) Billboards. (g) Signs with rotating, moving parts, or electronically changeable copy. (h) Signs placed on or affixed to vehicles and/or trailers which are parked on a public right-of-way, public property, or private property so as to be visible from a public right-of-way where the apparent purpose is to advertise a product or direct people to a business or activity located on the same or nearby property. (i) Content classified as “obscene” as defined by Minn. Stats. § 617.241. (j) Pylon signs. (add 10’ to graphic) (k) Multivision signs. (l) Video display signs. (m) Electronic graphic display signs. (n) Illuminated signs which change in color or intensity of light, flash, scroll, or are animated except electronic reader boards for time and temperature, official signs, non-electronic reader board signs, signs with copy stating open or closed as permitted under Commercial zoning allowances of this article. (o) Page 5 of 17 Page 45 of 223July 20, 2026 (p) Inflatable signs. (q) Monument signs in the DC historic district. (r) Any sign, signal, marking or device which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles any official traffic control device, railroad sign or signal, emergency vehicle signs, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic-control device or any railroad sign or signal shall be prohibited. (s) Signs within an easement, except for signs installed by authorized governmental agencies or approved by the holder of the easement. (t) Signs that resemble any official marker erected by a governmental agency or that displays such words as "Stop" or "Danger", which are not erected by legal authority. (u) All other signs not expressly permitted by this ordinance. Sec. 24-3. Signs - general requirements and standards (a) Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated, or defaced shall be reprinted, repaired, or replaced by the owner or agent of the building upon which the sign stands. The ground around any sign shall be kept free of weeds and litter in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code. (b) The construction of all permitted signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of the Minnesota Building Code. (c) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the city building official. (d) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor interfere with any electric light, power, telephone, or telegraph wires or the supports thereof. (e) A sign and/or its structural components shall not move as a result of wind pressure. (f) The sign height shall be measured from the grade of the lot at the location of the sign as approved by the Zoning Administrator. (g) An awning sign shall be printed on the awning valance only. (h) A freestanding sign or sign structure (excluding sandwich boards) shall be constructed so that the two sign faces are set at an angle less than twenty (20) degrees unless the total area of both sign faces does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for the parcel. (i) No sign or sign structure shall protrude over the public right-of-way except: a. projecting signs may protrude a maximum of five (5) feet), b. wall signs may protrude a maximum of six (6) inches; c. awning, canopy, and marquee signs may protrude a maximum of five (5) feet). All signs protruding over public right-of-way or over any public or private access route (sidewalk, etc.) shall be located a minimum of eight (8) feet above surface grade. Page 6 of 17 Page 46 of 223July 20, 2026 . (Fix graphic.) (j) Sandwich board signs: a. may only have two sign faces b. shall be displayed only during business hours. c. shall not impede pedestrian traffic or access to other public improvements. d. shall be located on the ground in front of and within five (5) feet of the main entrance of the business it is advertising. e. shall be a maximum of forty (40) inches in height and shall be no greater than seven (7) square feet in size. f. shall be made of wood or metal material. g. if related to Special Events or event parking,shall be reviewed the zoning administrator h. number of sandwich boards allowed: (a) one (1) sandwich board per business, per street frontage. (b) one (1) additional sandwich board if for valet parking, only during hours of valet service operation. (k) Interpretive panels are not subject to sign requirements and require approval of zoning administrator. (l) Temporary or permanent window signs or business graphics, whether printed or attached, may not coverg more than 25% of window area in which they are displayed. (m) Sign Size Calculation The area of a sign or area within a sign frame shall be used to calculate the square footage of the sign area. Should letters or graphics be mounted directly on a wall or fascia or in such a way as to be without a frame, Page 7 of 17 Page 47 of 223July 20, 2026 the dimensions for calculating the sign areashall be as in the definition of sign area, as found in Article 2 of this Appendix E. (n) Obsolete Signs The owner or agent of the building and property shall remove any sign that has become obsolete including by reason of termination of the business or vacation of the premises within thirty (30) days. (o) All signage shall comply with city design standards and the requirements of the Heritage Preservation Commission, where applicable, as found in Chapter 20 of the Code. (p) Signs for motor fuel facilities a. Signs for motor fuel facilities shall be regulated by the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the facility is located, except that within a sign, with an area not to exceed ten (10) square feet shall be allowed for non-electronic changeable copy identifying current fuel process in accordance with Minn. Stats. 239.751 Sec. 24-4. Signs—no permit required. (a) Identification signs for one- and two-family dwellings, provided that such signs are less than two (2) square feet in area, address numbers exempted. Landmark property identification signs are subject to HPC approval. (b) Pedestrian, vehicular-traffic, and parking directional signs in parking lots, provided such signs are less than eight (8) square feet in area and less than five (5) feet in height, provided such sign does not constitute traffic hazard. Page 8 of 17 Page 48 of 223July 20, 2026 Max 8 sq. ft. 5’ (c) Traffic control signs, non-commercial governmental signs, local notices, railroad crossing signs, and temporary non-advertising safety or emergency signs. (d) Signs denoting the architect, engineer, contractor, or owner as follows: One non illuminated sign when placed upon a work site, which does not exceed an aggregate of ten (10) square feet for residential property and thirty-two (32) square feet in area and eight (8) feet in height for non-residential property. Such signs must be removed within one (1) year of the date of issuance of a building permit or when the project is completed, whichever is sooner. (e) Non-commercial speech signs of any size and number may be posted on private property with the permission of the property owner beginning 46 days before the state primary in a state general election year until ten (10) days following the state general election, and thirteen (13) weeks prior to any special election until ten (10) days following the special election. Sign installation shall comply with the Fair Campaign Practices Act contained in Minn. Stats., Chapter 211B. (f) Real estate signs as follows: (1) Temporary signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or buildings provided that such signs are less than ten (10) square feet for residential property and thirty-two (32) square feet for other property, have a maximum height of ten (10) feet, unless located on the building, and provided that only one (1) sign is permitted for each property. The signs must be removed within seven (7) days following the lease or sale. (2) If parcel is located in the Downtown Historic District, a Temporary Sign permit is required. (g) Flags or insignia of any government or governmental agency. (h) Three (3) signs, not exceeding two (2) square feet each, posted on the interior of a window. (i) Up to three (3) lawn signs. (j) Existing historic signs as allowed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. (k) Maintenance of signs including repainting without changing the wording, composition, size, or colors; or minor nonstructural repairs, (except electrical repairs) shall not require a permit. Sec. 24-5. Signs—permit required. (a) The following signs are allowed with the issuance of a sign permit. Page 9 of 17 Page 49 of 223July 20, 2026 Table A. WALL SIGNS Zoning District Number Allowed Max Area One (1) or DC & CC (Single 27 sf per sign Tenant) Two (2) if located on street corner with double frontage DC & CC (Multi- One (1) per tenant located 27 sf per sign Tenant) on first floor One (1) or MU (Single Tenant) 27 sf per sign Two (2) if located on street corner with double frontage One (1) per tenant located MU (Multi-Tenant) 27 sf per sign on first floor One (1) or GC (Single Tenant) 75 sf per sign Two (2) if located on street corner with double frontage One (1) per tenant located GC (Multi-Tenant) 75 sf per sign on first floor One (1) Sacred community, or other public places 32 sf per sign Two (2) if located on street [1] corner with double frontage [1] Exemptions to height and area requirements may be reviewed under a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in Article 4 of this Appendix E. Table B. FREESTANDING SIGNS AND MONUMENT SIGNS Collaborative sign Zoning District Number Allowed Max Height Max Area outside of Historic District DC One (1) free 6 ft maximum 27 sf maximum standing sign in Page 10 of 17 Page 50 of 223July 20, 2026 front yard of residential structure used for commercial purpose No monument signs allowed One (1) free standing sign in front yard of residential structure used for CC commercial purpose Freestanding: 6 ft maximum Or 27 sf maximum Monument: 4.5 ft One (1) monument maximum sign One (1) free standing sign MU Or One (1) monument sign May substitute for a One (1) free collaborative standing sign 8 ft maximum 75 sf maximum monument sign GC Or between multiple lots. Max area of 75 One (1) monument sf and max height sign 15 ft. One (1) free standing Sacred communities, or Or 8 ft maximum 32 sf maximum other public places One (1) monument [1] sign [1] Double frontage lots may have two signs, one for each frontage. Exemptions to height and area requirements may be reviewed under a Conditional Use Permit. Table C. PROJECTING SIGNS Zoning District Number Allowed Max Area Additional General Requirements Page 11 of 17 Page 51 of 223July 20, 2026 One (1) per Bottom of sign must be a minimum of eight (8) ft DC & CC tenant located Eight (8) sf above the ground. Sign and bracket shall extend no on first floor more than five (5) ft from building façade. One (1) per MU & GC tenant located Ten (10) sf on first floor R-1 & R-2 (Home One (1) Eight (8) sf Occupation) Table D. AWNINGS SIGNS Number Number Allowed Zoning Allowed Additional General Corner lot Maximum Dimensions District Single with Requirements frontage double frontage Must be a minimum of eight (8) Seven (7) square feet and eight (8) ft above the ground. Maximum All Districts One (1) Two (2) inches in height. Signage must be extension of five (5) ft from placed on valance. building façade Sec. 24-6 Signs – Additional District Requirements (a) Downtown Commercial (DC) and Cottage Commercial (CC) Districts. (1) Businesses shall not display more than three (3) permanent signs, of any type. Businesses may display one (1) additional sign on the rear elevation of the building at a business entrance.Window lettering signs of less than six (6) square feet shall be excluded from this regulation. (2) Business located on second floor may list business name on first floor primary entrance door. (3) More than three (3) signs shall be allowed for multi-tenant buildings, provided that size requirements are met and an administrative permit is approved by the zoning administrator in accordance with article 8 of this Appendix E. (4) No individual sign shall exceed twenty seven (27) square feet in area, nor shall two or more signs be so arranged and integrated as to create a sign area of over forty (40) square feet. (5) Wall Signs. a. Multi-tenant buildings shall have wall signs of similar design. Each tenant is allowed one (1) wall sign in accordance with Table A except that a tenant space which has its only entrance on the side of the building not abutting a public street shall be allowed one (1) sign meeting the size requirements of Table A and located on the same wall as the tenant's only entrance. No signage is permitted for tenant entrances immediately adjacent to residentially zoned property. b. Wall signs, if painted, shall not be applied directly onto unpainted brick or stone masonry. Exceptions may be made for concrete block. A backdrop shall be applied for painted wall signs and attached to brick or stone masonry Page 12 of 17 Page 52 of 223July 20, 2026 (6) Awning Signs. a. Awnings installed on buildings in the DC District shall not obscure significant architectural features. (b) Mixed Use Commercial (MU) and General Commercial (GC) Districts. (1) Businesses shall not display more than three permanent signs, whether such signs be projecting, wall, freestanding, window, or awning, including signs for rear entrances. (2) Window lettering signs of less than six square feet shall be excluded from this regulation. (3) More than three signs shall be allowed for multi-tenant buildings, provided that the aggregate square footage of sign space as outlined above is complied with and an administrative permit is approved by the zoning administrator in accordance with article 8 of this Appendix E. (4) No individual sign surface shall exceed twenty seven (27) square feet in area (seventy five (75) square feet in area in the GC district), nor shall two (2) or more signs be so arranged and integrated as to create a sign area of over forty (40) square feet (one hundred (100) square feet in area in the GC district). (5) Wall Signs. a. Multi-tenant buildings shall have wall signs of similar design. Each tenant is allowed one (1) wall sign in accordance with Table B except that a tenant space which has its only entrance on a side of the building not abutting a public street shall be allowed one (1) sign meeting the size requirements of Table B and located on the same wall as the tenant's only entrance. No signage is permitted for tenant entrances immediately adjacent to residentially zoned property. (6) Awning Signs. a. Awnings installed on buildings in the MU District shall not obscure significant architectural features. (c) Residential Districts (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4). (1) The following zoning districts are allowed one (1) wall sign per household for a home occupation: a. R-1, R-2, one (1) wall sign not to exceed two (2) square feet, with a distance of six (6) inches from the back of the sign to the wall face. (2) Sacred communities and other public places may have one (1) monument sign up to six (6) feet in height and one (1) wall sign. Total signage area must be no greater than thirty-two (32) square feet. (3) Residential subdivisions or multi-family complexes, four (4) units or more, may have one (1) wall or one (1) monument sign. Total signage area must be no greater than thirty-two (32) sf and height no greater than four (4) feet. Sec. 24-7. Temporary Signs – Administrative temporary permit required. (a) Temporary signs shall require an administrative permit. (b) Administrative permits, for temporary signage, may be issued for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. Three (3) such permits may be allowed for each premises per calendar year, with the exception that each new commercial or industrial business, may be allowed one (1) additional fourteen (14) day permit, to announce the opening of the new business, provided such business has been issued a current Page 13 of 17 Page 53 of 223July 20, 2026 Certificate of Occupancy for that business space. Permits may be issued for consecutive fourteen (14) day periods. (c) For all uses in the Public Institutional district and Sacred Communities in all districts temporary signage shall be limited to a period not to exceed thirty (30) days annually. There shall be no more than three such signs on any parcel and the total signage shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. (d) Temporary on-premises signs shall not be placed in the public right of way. (e) Temporary signs, off-premises. Off-premises temporary signs shall be limited to noncommercial Excelsior entities, displayed no more than ten (10) business days, and located on private, city property or in the public right of way. (f) The Zoning Administrator shall be authorized to issue a temporary conditional administrative permit to alleviate hardships associated with public road construction projects. Sec. 24-8. Sign Setbacks. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed in Residential Districts: Sign Setbacks (Excluding Monument Signs[1]) in Residential Districts R1 R2 R3 R4 Front Yard Setback 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) Side Yard Setback 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet (feet) Rear Yard Setback 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) [1] No part of any monument sign shall be closer than ten (10) feet from any lot line, or from the public right-of-way. (b) The following minimum requirements shall be observed in Commercial Districts: Sign Setbacks (Excluding Monument Signs [2]) in Commercial Districts DC CC GC MU Front Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) Side Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) Rear Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet 3 feet 3 feet (feet) [2] No part of any monument sign shall be closer than ten (10) feet from any lot line, or from the public right-of-way. Page 14 of 17 Page 54 of 223 July 20, 2026 Sec. 24-9. Permits Required. (a) Sign Permits. No sign shall hereafter be erected, re-erected or altered, including the replacement of the business message, unless a permit for each sign has been obtained, unless no permit is required pursuant to Section 24-5. In addition, electrical permits from the State of Minnesota shall be obtained for all electric signs. Applications for a sign permit shall be made in writing on forms furnished by the Planning Department. Such application shall contain the location by street and number of the proposed sign structure, the erector, a scale drawing of the sign indicating material copy, and color location. Maintenance of signs including repainting without changing the wording, composition, size, or colors; or minor nonstructural repairs, (except electrical repairs) shall not require a permit. (b) Sign Permit Fees. Permit fees shall be in accordance with the City fee schedule as adopted by City Council. A double fee shall be charged if a sign is erected without first obtaining a permit for such sign. Permit fees shall be reduced by 50% for properties designated as historic. (c) Revocation of Permit. The Planning Department is hereby authorized to revoke a sign permit upon failure of the holder thereof to comply with any provision of this Chapter. (d) Expiration of Permit. (1) A permit shall expire if the sign is not installed within one hundred eighty (180) days after issuance. Sec. 24-10. Noncommercial speech. Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that advertising or business signs are permitted, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs. Sec. 24-11. General provisions regulating use of artificial light sources for illuminated signs. (a) No internal lighting of signs shall be allowed, regardless of the light source. (b) Backlit signs are permitted. (c) Signage shall utilize illuminating devices mounted above and facing down or below and facing up toward the sign. Artificial light sources shall not be placed at any height taller than is essential to accomplish the intended purpose. (d) All lighting shall be of a warm color and glare or reflected light which is a by-product of all light shall be kept to a minimum. (d) All signage shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards found in Section 16-5 of this Appendix E. (e) The light source shall not be directly visible and shall be arranged to reflect away from adjoining premises. (f) The illumination source shall not be placed so to cause confusion or hazard to traffic, or to conflict with official or traffic signs, signals, or lights. This includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. (g) All artificial illumination of signs shall be turned off at the close of business or at 11:00 p.m., whichever occurs later. (h) Neon signs may be allowed in the Downtown Historic District with HPC approval consistent with Chapter 20. (h) Lighting underneath awnings, and up- and down-lighting of building facades, is prohibited (i) Electrical wiring for sign illumination shall be concealed with conduit. The conduit and electrical wiring for the light source shall be installed and arranged inconspicuously utilizing low-profile conduit, paint or cover, running conduit behind structures such as walls, furniture, or architectural features, raceway channels, or undergrounding. (j) To minimizedamage to the building, conduit that is drilled through exterior walls to the interior of a building shall be drilled through the mortar joints, not masonry, and shall be weatherproofed and sealed to prevent Page 15 of 17 Page 55 of 223July 20, 2026 moisture intrusion. The mortar joint shall be wide enough to accommodate the conduit without compromising stability. If the conduit is larger than the mortar joint, drilling through the wall shall be prohibited. Sec. 24-12. Enforcement. (a) It shall be the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to administer and enforce the provisions of this section. (b) If any provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged void or of no effect, for any reason whatsoever, such decision shall not affect the validity of any of the other provisions of this ordinance. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, to erect, alter, repair, move, equip, or maintain any sign or sign structure or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance. (d) Nonconforming signs shall be regulated as provided in Article 15 of this Appendix E. Sec. 24-13. Removal. (a) The Zoning Administrator shall remove any sign immediately and without notice if it reasonably appears that the condition of the sign is such as to present an immediate threat to the safety of the public. Any cost of removal incurred by the City shall be assessed to the owner of the property on which such sign is located or may be collected in appropriate legal proceedings. (b) Signs in violation of this Ordinance placed on public property or in the public right-of-way are subject to immediate removal. (c) The owner, lessee, or manager of the property where a sign is located shall remove or correct a sign within thirty (30) days of the receipt of written notice from the Zoning Administrator that the sign is in violation or prohibited by this Appendix E. Sec. 24-14. Variance. The City Council may approve a variance, in conformance with article 6 of this Appendix E. ARTICLE 15. NONCONFORMING, USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS AND SIGNS Section 3. Appendix E, Article 5, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots and Signs, is amended as follows: Sec. 15-6. Nonconforming signs. Any sign that existed lawfully on the effective date of the sign regulations of this Article that remains or becomes nonconforming by reason of adoption of these sign regulations or because of subsequent amendments to these sign regulations are considered nonconforming signs and their continuance is allowed in accordance with the following regulations: (a) Ordinary repairs and maintenance, including the removing and replacing of outer panels is permitted, provided that the panels are replaced with identical panels and then no structural alterations or other work that extends the normal life of the nonconforming sign is permitted. Page 16 of 17 Page 56 of 223July 20, 2026 (b) Single panels on nonconforming multi-panel signs for multi-tenant buildings may be changed to reflect tenant changes. (c) Besides (a) and (b) of this section, nonconforming signs may not be changed unless they are brought into compliance with the sign ordinance. (d) No repair or alteration that increases the size of a nonconforming sign is permitted. (e) No nonconforming sign may be moved in whole or in part to any other location on the same or any other premises unless every portion of such sign is made to conform to all regulations of these sign regulations. (f) If a nonconforming sign is abandoned or the described business discontinued for a continuous period of thirty (30) days or more, it must be discontinued, and any subsequent sign must conform to all of the sign regulations in this article. (g) If a nonconforming sign must be removed temporarily or is misplaced, the responsible party for that sign may receive administrative approval to continue the sign upon written request within the thirty (30) day period of allowance of (f). Section 4. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.06 of the Excelsior City Charter. Adopted by the Council of the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, this ______ day of _________ 2026. Gary Ringate, Mayor ATTEST: Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk Kristi Luger, City Manager First Reading of Ordinance: June 1, 2026 Second Reading and Adoption: July 20, 2026 Publication of Ordinance: July 30, 2026 Effective Date: August 31, 2026 Page 17 of 17 Page 57 of 223 Item: 8.d. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Administration Item Name: Resolution 2026-37 Appointing Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for the 2026 State Primary and General Election Summary: Minnesota State Statute 204B.21, Subdivision 2, states the City Council must appoint the Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board Election Judges for the 2026 State Primary and General Election. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 2026-37 Appointing Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board Election Judges for the 2026 State Primary and General Election. Budget: Attachments: 1. Resolution 2026-37 Page 58 of 223 CITY OF EXCELSIOR CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-37 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AND ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE 2026 STATE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION WHEREAS, the State Primary Election will be held on August 11, 2026 and the General Election on November 3, 2026; and WHEREAS, the city is responsible for hiring and training election judges and absentee ballot board election judges and utilize individuals that participated in the caucus process, those individuals who have previously served as election judges or who are new and city staff; and WHEREAS, per State Statute, 204B.21, Subd. 2, the city may appoint additional election judges and absentee ballot board election judges within 25 days prior to any election if additional election judges will be required; and WHEREAS, attached to this resolution is the list of individuals to be appointed for the 2026 elections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA that the attached list of individuals are appointed to serve as election judges and absentee ballot board election judges for the 2026 elections. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all members appointed to the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board as authorized under State Statute, 203B.121, Subd. 1, under the direction of the Election Manager are also appointed to serve as election judges of Excelsior’s Absentee Ballot Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized to appoint additional election judges and absentee ballot board judges as deemed necessary within 25 days prior to both elections without further action. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, this 20th day of July, 2026. Page 59 of 223 ____________________________________________ Gary Ringate, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk _____________________________________________ Kristi Luger, City Manager Page 60 of 223 Listing of Election Judges for 2026 Primary and General Elections Name Becky Fuxa Ann Nachtigal Mary Jurgens Kari Knapp Jerry Kerber Sharon Freeman Chrystal O’Hanlon Stephanie Lutz Jane Stark Brian Zais John Knox Lillian Hohag Petra Cripe Kristi Luger Hilary Vokovan Cari Lindberg Kristin Gilbertson Page 61 of 223 Item: 8.e. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Kristi Luger, City Manager Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Administration Item Name: 2026 Goal Report - Second Quarter Summary: Included in the packet is the second quarter overview of the City’s 2026 objectives. This format is meant to provide the Council with a quick progress report of their goals. A color code is used to rate the quarterly progress made on each item: • Red – progress on the item is at less than 25% and work has started • Orange – progress on the item is at 25%-49% and work is underway • Yellow – progress on the item is at 50%-75% and work is well underway • Green – progress on the item is at 76%-99% and work is almost complete • Gray – item has been completed Recommended Action: No action required – information only. Budget: Attachments: 1. Q2 Report on 2026 Objectives Page 62 of 223 2026 Progress City of Excelsior 2026 Objectives Color-Coded Rating (R <25%, O 25-49%, Y 50-75%, G 76-99%) Responsible Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Top Priorities Party Mar June Sept Dec Status Staff is finalizing the capital improvement plan (CIP) and utility rate Financial Planning - Formalize long range capital Jenny, Tim, study with Baker Tily. In the fall, Northland will further refine the CIP. improvement plan and capital outlays and consider Morgan, and At a future work session, the Council will discuss whether to create a creating a separate enterprise fund for the Commons Kristi separate enterprise fund for the Commons. Communications - Increase communication efforts Staff is looking into the costs and logistics of a paper newsletter. The Cari, Kristin, (newsletters, open houses, updated website, etc.) new website will launch in July and the Council will review the social Hilary, and Jess and consider a social media strategy media/communications plan at the August 3 meeting. The architects are close to assembling a bid package for the 261 School Avenue - Complete remodeling for city remodeling of city hall based on input from the Council and staff. hall, update tenant leases, and create an enterprise Cari and Kristi Many of the leases are updated, tenants are in the process of building fund out new spaces, and staff is creating a budget. Responsible Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Planning and Heritage Preservation Priorities Party Mar June Sept Dec Status The Council will review a draft of the non-conforming structures Non-Conforming Structures Ordinance Julia and Jess ordinance at the July 20 meeting. The Council will review the final version of the sign ordinance at the Sign Ordinance Julia and Jess July 20 Council meeting. A new planner tech will be hired in August that will also do code Code Enforcement Julia and Jess enforcement. Staff has also started the enforcement process on a dilapidated garage. The work group continues to have productive meetings and are Parking Work Group Julia pushing to have a recommendation in August. The Planning Commission will discuss the topic again at a future RRP Process for Landmark Properties Julia and Jess meeting. Minnetonka Center for the Arts has until November 9 to exercise an 106 Center Street Julia and Kristi option to extend the contingency period for 30 days. Page 63 of 223 Responsible Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Planning and Heritage Preservation Priorities Party Mar June Sept Dec Status The HPC consultant is putting together a cost estimate for completing Reviewing HPC Guidelines Jess updates to the HPC guidelines. Staff is thinking about creating a 'StoryMap' for the historic HPC Public Relations Jess properties, which allows users to click on a property located on a map and learn about the history of it. The Planning Commission will discuss the PUD ordinance at a high PUD Ordinance Update Julia and Jess level at their July meeting. At a future work session, likely third or fourth quarter, the Council will Comprehensive Plan Julia and Jess discuss the Comprehensive Plan process. The Planning Department will work on outdoor lighting standards Outdoor Lighting Standards Julia and Jess during the third quarter of the year. The Planning Department will work on zoning amendments during Good Neighbor Guidelines/ Zoning Amendments Julia and Jess the fourth quarter of the year. Responsible Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Public Works and Parks Priorities Party Mar June Sept Dec Status Commons Use Policy Cari and Tim COMPLETE The Council approved the Commons Use Policy on April 20 The Park and Recreation Commission will discuss whether this park Excelsior-Studer Park Kevin should be programmed. Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Initiatives Tim The I&I ordinance will be reviewed by the city attorney and staff. A pop up event to gather additional feedback is scheduled for July 1 Mini Master Park Plan for the Commons Tim and Kevin at the Rotary concert. SHPO is reviewing the historic nomination form. The management Oak Hill Cemetery Kevin and Julia plan will be put together after the SHPO review. Tim, Kevin, and A draft ordinance is almost ready for the tree ordinance work group Update the Tree Ordinance Jess to review. Morgan, Tim, The consultant is preparing to present a report on the St. Alban's Bay St. Alban's Bay Bridge and Hilary Bridge in September. Page 64 of 223 MEMORANDUM Item 8(f)- May Financials Re: Date: July 20, 2026 From: Jenny Palmer-Finance Director To: City Counci l General Fund Revenues The May target budget is 41.67%. Revenues are under budget but higher than last year at the same time period. The first half tax settlement deposit won’t happen until June 22nd. Revenues over previous years for May are trending better even without the parking meter revenue. May YTD PERCENT GENERAL FUND BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED Taxes and Franchise Fees 2,087,125 11,990 36,863 2,050,262 1.77% Business Licenses 120,925 300 4,775 116,150 3.95% Non-Business Licenses/Permits 271,050 72,313 161,611 109,439 59.62% Intergovernmental Revenue 57,000 - 7,223 49,777 12.67% Charges for Servic es 73,900 5,796 28,405 45,495 38.44% Fines 15,000 4,282 4,282 10,718 28.55% Water Tower and Kayak Rental 46,500 517 49,268 (2,768) 105.95% Park Vendor, Garden and Cemetery Plots 42,000 1,930 9,860 32,140 23.48% Transfers from Other Funds 625,000 625,000 0.00% Other Revenue 144,500 1,778 19,470 125,030 13.47% GENERAL FUND T OT AL 3,483,000 98,906 321,757 3,161,243 9.24% May Annual % of Annual YTD Revenues Revenues Revenues 2024 $ 425,515 $ 3,097,442 13.74% 2025 $ 315,032 $ 3,486,562 9.04% 2026 $ 321,757 $ 3,483,000 9.24% 1 Page 65 of 223 General Fund Expenses General Fund target expenses are 41.67%; currently expenses are 3.71% over target budget. Police and Fire are both at 50% due to half of the expenses paid for the year. Expenses for Streets are higher than the target budget due to equipment repairs for snow removal equipment and Workers Comp for the year is paid in April. City Manager/Clerk is slightly higher due to annual training being paid in January. City Administration expenses are higher due to purchasing planning software in January and paying for the 2026 audit expenses in April. Expenses are still in line with prior years. May YTD PERCENT GENERAL FUND BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED Council 19,469 1 15 4,545 14,924 23.35% City Manager/Clerk 245,652 1 8,612 113,429 132,223 46.17% Elec tions 7,624 - 867 6,757 11.37% Finance 84,549 6 ,997 36,685 47,864 43.39% Planning & Zoning 275,411 1 8,336 115,387 160,024 41.90% City Administration 336,653 1 9,587 150,956 185,697 44.84% Heritage Preservation 25,500 7 27 10,040 15,460 39.37% Polic e 1,064,764 - 533,827 530,937 50.14% Fire 361,208 - 179,604 181,604 49.72% Building Inspec tions 75,000 2 ,190 16,574 58,426 22.10% Engineering 50,000 2 ,190 16,574 33,426 33.15% Streets 308,302 2 1,779 141,006 167,296 45.74% Park Maintenance 528,368 5 5,732 216,555 311,813 40.99% Rec reation Program 500 - 458 42 91.60% Trees and Plantings 100,000 6 ,527 44,103 55,897 44.10% GENERAL FUND T OT AL 3,483,000 152,793 1,580,608 1,902,392 45.38% May Annual % of Annual YTD Expenses Expenses Expenses 2024 $ 1,286,764 $ 3,097,442 41.54% 2025 $ 1,387,389 $ 3,346,062 41.46% 2026 $ 1,580,608 $ 3,483,000 45.38% 2 Page 66 of 223 Enterprise Funds Revenue The Enterprise Fund revenues are slightly under budget by 1.38%. The months included in the revenues for Water and Sewer are October 25-March 26 and are the lower usage months. The months of April-October are the high water usage months so these rates will stabilize over the summer season. Charter boat invoices went out in June so the revenues in the Dock Fund will also increase over the summer months. May YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED Water Fund 1,379,370 1 40,205 491,179 888,191 35.61% Sewer Fund 1,030,096 114,669 387,858 642,238 37.65% Street Lighting Fund 76,000 1 0,263 36,831 39,169 48.46% Docks Fund 537,007 6,991 291,795 245,212 54.34% Surface Water Mgmt Fund 380,400 53,726 163,476 216,924 42.97% ENTERPRISE FUND TOTAL 3,402,873 325,854 1,371,139 2,031,734 40.29% May Annual % of Annual YTD Revenues Revenues Revenues 2024 $ 1,195,460 $ 2,584,550 46.25% 2025 $ 1,447,023 $ 2,836,495 51.01% 2026 $ 1,371,139 $ 3,402,873 40.29% 3 Page 67 of 223 Enterprise Funds Expenditures The Enterprise Fund expenses are 8.28% under the target budget of 41.67% for May. May YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED Water Fund 926,074 3 8,084 350,589 575,485 37.86% Sewer Fund 1,045,025 4 8,022 400,805 644,220 38.35% Street Lighting Fund 91,331 6 ,174 34,323 57,008 37.58% Docks Fund 564,892 1 8,274 100,289 464,603 17.75% Surface Water Mgmt Fund 430,306 1 4,616 135,024 295,282 31.38% ENTERPRISE FUND TOTAL 3,057,628 1 25,170 1,021,030 2,036,598 33.39% May Annual % of Annual YTD Expenses Expenditures Expenditures 2024 $ 796,024 $ 2,657,378 29.96% 2025 $ 908,531 $ 2,449,727 37.09% 2026 $ 1,021,030 $ 3,057,628 33.39% 4 Page 68 of 223 Parking Fund Revenues The parking revenues are now tracked in their own fund. The main revenue generating months for parking are May-August. While parking revenues are under budget, they are in line with prior years. Parking permit revenues are significantly higher than the target budget of 41.67% due to customers renewing their permits in the beginning of the year. Parking Citation revenue is also higher because it includes fine revenue from Hennepin County in addition to citations from Interstate. Revenues May Annual % of Annual YTD Revenues Revenues Revenues 2024 $ 183,051 $ 745,122 24.57% 2025$ 125,263 $ 602,394 20.79% 2026$ 221,052 $ 1,096,400 20.16% May YTD PERCENT PARKING FUND BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED Spec ial Event Parking 62,200 0 2,626 59,574 4.22% Metered Parking 883,000 73,161 148,036 734,964 16.77% Parking Permits 25,000 8,957 28,523 (3,523) 114.09% Parking Citations 50,000 6,327 27,380 22,620 54.76% Parking Impact Fees 0 0 0 - 0.00% Charter Boat Maintenance Fees 30,300 0 0 30,300 0.00% Parking Lot Maintenance Fees 45,900 0 14,487 31,413 31.56% PARKING FUND T OT AL 1,096,400 88,445 221,052 875,348 20.16% 5 Page 69 of 223 Parking Fund Expenses Parking Fund expenses are under budget and less than prior years due to the operator fees being structured to match the months with higher revenues. Also, the budget for Ramp Reserves for Major Repairs has been updated to reflect the budget from Interstate Parking. Ramp Maintenance is over budget due to the Parking Fund’s share of the annual street sweeper lease payment made in February. City Staff is over budget due to worker’s compensation paid in full in April. May YTD PERCENT PARKING FUND BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED Ramp Reserves for Major Repairs 18,945 3,157 6,315 12,630 33.33% Ramp Insuranc e, Utilities, Supplies 10,500 337 4,095 6,405 39.00% Ramp Maintenance 11,000 10,097 903 91.79% City Staff 96,162 9,234 47,692 48,470 49.60% Parking Operator 401,150 50,000 77,200 323,950 19.24% Permitting, Offic e, Bank Fees, Admin Costs 86,305 12,058 36,146 50,159 41.88% Downtown Beautification 35,000 2,977 3,072 31,928 8.78% Transfer to General Fund 350,000 0 350,000 0.00% Transfer to Debt Servic e 204,559 0 204,559 0.00% PARKING FUND T OT AL 1,213,621 77,763 184,617 1,029,004 15.21% May Annual % of Annual YTD Expenses Expenses Revenues 2024 $ 234,478 $ 587,913 39.88% 2025$ 275,966 $ 685,746 40.24% 2026 $ 184,617 $ 1,213,621 15.21% Capital and Special Revenue Funds 6 Page 70 of 223 May PERCENT Revenues BUDGET ACTIVITY Y T D VARIANCE EXPENDED Local Sales Tax - The Commons 802,000 5 4,016 284,762 517,238 35.51% Debt Service Funds 1,423,885 6 75,703 701,013 722,872 49.23% Capital Projec t Funds 1,430,622 115,090 174,693 1,255,929 12.21% Expenditures Local Sales Tax - The Commons 875,000 6 73,000 702,748 172,252 80.31% Debt Service Funds 1,654,270 2 ,700 1,358,560 295,710 82.12% Capital Projec t Funds 619,300 1 74,693 289,632 329,668 46.77% Revenues: • Capital Project fund is under budget due to the anticipated sale of 106 Center Street. Expenditures: • Debt Service Funds are over budget due to principal and interest payments due in January. These funds will stabilize throughout the year. Council Action: Accept report for filing. 7 Page 71 of 223 Item: 8.g. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Jenny Palmer, Finance Director Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Finance Item Name: Second Quarter Gambling Report Summary: Staff has received the following charitable gambling donations during the second quarter of 2026 totaling $8,584.89 These contributions are reflected in the Park Improvement Fund Financial Statement that follows this report. Haskell’s – Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association April $3,970.14 May $2,009.35 June $0.00 Maynards – Rotary Club of Lake Minnetonka-Excelsior April $0.00 May $2,416.02 June $189.38 All Charitable Gambling proceeds are committed to The Commons Master Plan Park Improvements and must be spent on lawful purpose expenditures as defined in MN Statute 349.12, Subdivision 7a. Page 72 of 223 Recommended Action: Acknowledge charitable gambling donations. Budget: Attachments: None Page 73 of 223 Item: 8.h. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Administration Item Name: Fat Oil Grease (FOG) Program Ordinance - Rescheduled Summary: Notice of a Public Hearing for the Fat Oil Grease (FOG) Program Ordinance was given for the July 20, 2026 City Council meeting. Upon further review, the ordinance does not need a public hearing and will be on the August 3, 2026 City Council meeting for Council review. Recommended Action: No action required. Informational only. Budget: Attachments: None Page 74 of 223 Item: 8.i. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Morgan Dawley, City Engineer Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Administration Item Name: Division Street Watermain Lining Project - Approve Pay Voucher No. 1 Summary: All work by the contractor included in Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 has been completed on the Division Street Watermain Lining Project, and the quantities have been reviewed and agreed upon by the contractor. Staff recommends approval of the attached Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 in the amount of $219,734.05. Major items of work completed during this pay period include temporary water installation, pavement and curb removal, utility pit excavation, and lining of the existing watermain. The project funding source is 2026C bond issuance revenue with debt service by watermain utility funds. Recommended Action: Approve Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 for the Division Street Watermain Lining Project and authorize payment in the amount of $219,734.05 to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Budget: Attachments: 1. Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 2. WSB Recommendation Letter Page 75 of 223Page 76 of 223Page 77 of 223Page 78 of 223 July 14, 2026 Ms. Kristi Luger City Manager City of Excelsior PO Box 558 Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 Division Street Watermain Lining City of Excelsior, MN WSB Project No. 031327-000 Dear Ms. Luger: Please find attached Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 in the amount of $219,734.05 for the above-referenced project. The quantities completed to date have been reviewed and agreed upon by the contractor, and we hereby recommend that the City of Excelsior approve Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 in the amount of $219,734.05 for Bituminous Roadways, Inc. WSBENG.COM Once processed, please keep one copy for your records and return two copies to our office, one | for the contractor and one for our files. If you have any questions, please contact me at 608.632.1432. Thank you. Sincerely, 651.286.8450 651.286.8450 | WSB 55101 | Kyle Hoff, PE Project Manager Attachment ST. PAUL, MN ST. PAUL, | cc: Hilary Vokovan, City of Excelsior Tim Amundsen, City of Excelsior Morgan Dawley, WSB SUITE 200 SUITE srb | STREET TH 178 E 9 178 E C:\Users\SBuckley\DC\ACCDocs\WSB\031327-000\Project Files\06_Construction\Contract_Documents\Pay_Vouchers\PV #1\031327-000 CST LTR VO 1 CTY-k luger-071526.docx Page 79 of 223 Item: 8.j. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Morgan Dawley, City Engineer Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Administration Item Name: Third and Center Street SUIP - Approve Pay Voucher No. 1 Summary: All work by the contractor included in Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 has been completed on the Third and Center Street SUIP, and the quantities have been reviewed and agreed upon by the contractor. Staff recommends approval of the attached Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 in the amount of $341,829.50. Major items of work completed during this pay period include street removals and sanitary sewer and watermain replacement in Phase 1 of the project (Third Street between Lake Minnetonka and Smith Street). Recommended Action: Approve Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 for the Third and Center Street SUIP and authorize payment in the amount of $341,829.50 to GMH Asphalt Corporation. Budget: Attachments: 1. Construction Voucher No. 1 2. WSB Recommendation Letter Page 80 of 223Page 81 of 223Page 82 of 223Page 83 of 223Page 84 of 223Page 85 of 223Page 86 of 223 July 15, 2026 Ms. Kristi Luger City Manager City of Excelsior PO Box 558 Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 Third and Center Street SUIP City of Excelsior, MN WSB Project No. 030889-000 Dear Ms. Luger: Please find attached Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 in the amount of $341,829.50 for the above-referenced project. The quantities completed to date have been reviewed and agreed WSBENG.COM WSBENG.COM upon by the contractor, and we hereby recommend that the City of Excelsior approve | Construction Pay Voucher No. 1 in the amount of $341,829.50 for GMH Asphalt Corporation. Once processed, please keep one copy for your records and return two copies to our office, one for the contractor and one for our files. 763.541.4800 763.541.4800 If you have any questions, please contact me at 612.360.1304. Thank you. | Sincerely, 55416 55416 | WSB Shibani Bisson, PE Project Manager MINNEAPOLIS, MN MINNEAPOLIS, Attachment | | cc: Hilary Vokovan, City of Excelsior Tim Amundsen, City of Excelsior SUITE 300 SUITE Morgan Dawley, WSB | | srb 701 XENIA AVENUE S 701 AVENUE XENIA C:\Users\SBuckley\DC\ACCDocs\WSB\030889-000\Project Files\06_Construction\Contract_Documents\Pay_Vouchers\PV #1\030889-000 CST LTR VO 1 CTY-k luger-071526.docx Page 87 of 223 Item: 8.k. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Kevin Quinn, Parks Manager Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Public Works Item Name: Parks and Recreation Bench Donation - John "Punk" Seamans Summary: At the July 14 Parks and Recreation (PNR) Commission meeting, PNR approved a motion (5/0) to install a memorial bench for John “Punk” Seamans on top of the ballfield seating behind home plate with the precise bench location to be determined by PNR. John’s wife, Mary Seamans provided the following details about her late husband: “John Spencer “Punk” Seamans, born April 26, 1942, in Minneapolis, MN, was a Minnetonka High School graduate (class of 1960) and a lifelong sports enthusiast. Before his softball career, he was an all-conference football player and played preseason football with the Houston Oilers Legacy.com. Seamans built a strong reputation as a coach and organizer in the Minnetonka School District, dedicating 25 years to 7th & 8th grade football and several years to baseball. He also ran the South Shore Softball League for over five years, earning the Minnetonka Community Ed Adult Program Volunteer of the Year award in 2008 - 2009 Legacy.com. His contributions to the sport of softball were recognized in 2010 when he was inducted into the Minnesota Softball Hall of Fame Facebook+1. The Minnesota Softball Hall of Fame honors individuals who have made significant contributions to the game in Minnesota, and Seamans’ induction celebrated his decades of coaching, organizing, and community involvement. Seamans retired from sales at Zero-Max Inc. in 2001 and remained active in sports and community life until his passing on January 17, 2025, in Shorewood, MN Legacy.com. He is remembered as a dedicated mentor, a passionate sports fan, and a respected figure in Minnesota’s softball community.” Page 88 of 223 The proposed location is along the top of the ballfield seating. Staff would purchase and install the bench per PNR’s final location determination. Recommended Action: Approve memorial bench donation for John “Punk” Seamans. Budget: Attachments: None Page 89 of 223 Item: 8.l. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Kevin Quinn, Parks Manager Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Public Works Item Name: Parks and Recreation Bench Donation - Michael McNulty Summary: At the July 14 Parks and Recreation (PNR) Commission meeting, PNR approved a motion (5/0) to install a memorial bench in honor of Michael McNulty on the knoll behind the pavilion overlooking The Commons ballfield. Michael’s mother, Nicole McNulty provided the following details about Michael: “We are interested in purchasing a commemorative bench in The Commons in memory of my son, Michael McNulty, who passed away on the lake. Michael spent his childhood and adolescence in Excelsior attending school, playing baseball, boating on the lake, eating lots of Lick’s ice cream, and being with his friends  We saw a possible space we’d love for the bench. Attached is a photo. If this space is available or a similar one, please let us know and we will fill out the application form, send in payment, etc. Thank you for your consideration and for all you do to make Excelsior Commons a great park for our community.” Page 90 of 223 The proposed location is on top of the knoll near right field. Staff would purchase and install the bench. Recommended Action: Approve memorial bench donation for Michael McNulty. Budget: Attachments: None Page 91 of 223 Item: 9.a. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Julia Mullin, Community Development Director Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Community Development Item Name: Appeal of HPC Decision to Deny Site Alteration Permit for Partial Demolition of the Tonka Theater Building, 26 Water Street (7:00 PM) Summary: APPLICATION Before the City Council tonight is a request by the applicant, Matt Mithun, Mithun Companies, owner 26 Water Street, to appeal the decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to deny the Site Alteration Permit application for the partial demolition and proposed rear wall design of the Tonka Theater building at 26 Water Street. The HPC considered the Site Alteration Permit application at their meeting on June 29, 2026, and voted 4-2 to deny it. The record of the HPC meeting can be found at this link: HPC meeting, June 29, 2026 The applicant submitted a notice of appeal which is attached. Also are the materials from the June 29, 2026, HPC meeting including the staff memo and the Site Alteration Permit application. HPC Resolution 2026-07 denying the demolition is attached. Draft resolutions, one to affirm the HPC’s decision and one to reverse the HPC’s decision are attached for Council review and approval. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission made at their meeting on June 29, 2026, which was to deny the Site Alteration Permit for the partial demolition and rear wall design of the Tonka Theater building, and that the Council approve Resolution 2026-39 affirming the HPC decision. Budget: Attachments: 1. Res_2026-39_Affirm_HPC_26_Water_SAP Page 92 of 2232. Res_2026-39_Reverse_HPC_26_Water_SAP 3. Applicant Notice to Appeal HPC Decision_070126 4. HPC Resolution 2026-07_Denying SAP 5. HPC Memo_06_29_26 6. Owner Cover Letter 7. Excelsior Modified SAP Application_MM260526 8. Mithun- Excelsior- SAP Narrative 9. Overall Site Plan 10. 2026 05-26 Dock Cinema - SAP Set_JMRFS 11. Excelsior Theater - Construction Scope Means-Methods 12. MBJ Structural Assessment Report - Dock Cinema - 10-27-2025 13. Excelsior_Demo89_Bar-Restaurant Reuse Tonka Theatre 14. Mithun Enterprises- SAP Denial Objection Letter 4917-4937-9982 v.3 15. Incomplete application letter_SAP_06_11_2026 16. Applicant Response to Incomplete letter 17. Section Divider 18. 2026 06-18 Lake & Water - Architectural Site Plan 19. 2026 06-18 Lake & Water - SAP 6 20. 2026 06-18 Lake & Water - SAP Combined Renderings 21. 2026 06-23 Lake Water - SAP SI1 22. Section Divider 23. Page 18 2025-04-01 10 Water prelim PUD 24. Page14 from 2025 04-01 10 Water St - Preliminary PUD Technical Drawings 25. Page 20_ 2025 04-01 10 Water - Prelim PUD TechDrawings-3 26. Section Divider 27. HPC Resolution 2025-04 28. HPC Resolution 2026-01 Page 93 of 223 CITY OF EXCELSIOR CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-39 A Resolution Affirming the Heritage Preservation Commission’s Decision to Deny a Site Alteration Permit for the Partial Demolition and Rear Wall Design of the Tonka Theater at 26 Water Street WHEREAS, Matt Mithun of Mithun Companies (“Applicant”), as owner of the Tonka Theater at 26 Water Street and the Theater addition at 28 Water Street, Excelsior, MN 55331 applied for a Site Alteration Permit for the partial demolition of the Tonka Theater at 26 Water Street, including the rear 51 feet 6 inches of that structure, and for alterations to the rear elevation and façade of the Tonka Theater on May 26, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of Excelsior (“City”) initially determined Applicant’s application to be incomplete and on June 11, 2026, the City provided notice to Applicant of the need to submit additional, identified materials; and WHEREAS, Applicant submitted such materials and Applicant’s application was determined to be complete on June 18, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission (“HPC”) considered Applicant’s application for a Site Alteration Permit, conducted a public hearing, and considered public testimony and information from Applicant at its meeting on June 29, 2026; and WHEREAS, Section 20-3 of the City Code defines “partial demolition” as “any act which destroys a portion of a building consisting of not more than 30% of the floor area of the building, and where the portion of the building to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the period of significance on any exterior elevation when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a building and/or restoring a building to its historical mass and appearance”; and WHEREAS, the HPC determined that the proposed site work on the Tonka Theater is appropriately classified as a partial demolition under Section 20-3 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the Applicant’s application for a Site Alteration Permit involving partial demolition of a contributing building in a historic district using the criteria established under Section 20-12(j) of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the HPC was also guided by the criteria required by City Code for the review of all Site Alteration Permits established under Section 20-11(h); and WHEREAS, the HPC denied Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit for the partial demolition and rear wall design of the Tonka Theater and approved the façade alterations, with conditions, of the Tonka Theater in its Resolution No. 2026-07 on June 29, 2026; and WHEREAS, Applicant appealed the HPC’s denial of the Site Alteration Permit to the City Council as permitted under Section 20-14 of the City Code; and Page 94 of 223WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing and considered Applicant’s appeal at its regular meeting on July 20, 2026. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of The City of Excelsior affirms the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission of June 29, 2026, to deny Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit. Based on the record and the public testimony before the Council, The Council finds the following: 1. Granting Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit is inappropriate under the criteria established for all Site Alteration Permits in Section 20-11(h)(3); a. the alteration is not compatible with and will not ensure continued significance and integrity of all contributing properties in the historic district based on the period of significance for which the district was designated; and b. granting the site alteration permit will not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City’s Historic Preservation code chapter and will negatively alter the essential character of the historic district. 2. The Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit fails to meet the demolition and relocation criteria for partial demolition as established in Section 20-12(j) of the City Code; a. the Applicant has not demonstrated that the partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the Tonka Theater; and b. the Applicant has not demonstrated that they have mitigated, to the greatest extent possible, impacts on the historic importance of the Tonka Theater; and c. the Applicant has not demonstrated that they have mitigated, to the greatest extent possible, impacts on the architectural integrity of the Tonka Theater. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, on this 20th day of July 2026. Approved ______________________ Gary Ringate, Mayor ______________________ Kristi Luger, City Manager Attest: ______________________ Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk Page 95 of 223 CITY OF EXCELSIOR CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-39 A Resolution Reversing the Heritage Preservation Commission’s Decision to Deny a Site Alteration Permit for the Partial Demolition and Rear Wall Design of the Tonka Theater at 26 Water Street WHEREAS, Matt Mithun of Mithun Companies (“Applicant”), as owner of the Tonka Theater at 26 Water Street and the Theater addition at 28 Water Street, Excelsior, MN 55331 applied for a Site Alteration Permit for the partial demolition of the Tonka Theater at 26 Water Street, including the rear 51 feet 6 inches of that structure, and for alterations to the rear elevation and façade of the Tonka Theater on May 26, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of Excelsior (“City”) initially determined Applicant’s application to be incomplete and on June 11, 2026, the City provided notice to Applicant of the need to submit additional, identified materials; and WHEREAS, Applicant submitted such materials and Applicant’s application was determined to be complete on June 18, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission (“HPC”) considered Applicant’s application for a Site Alteration Permit, conducted a public hearing, and considered public testimony and information from Applicant at its meeting on June 29, 2026; and WHEREAS, Section 20-3 of the City Code defines “partial demolition” as “any act which destroys a portion of a building consisting of not more than 30% of the floor area of the building, and where the portion of the building to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the period of significance on any exterior elevation when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a building and/or restoring a building to its historical mass and appearance”; and WHEREAS, the HPC determined that the proposed site work on the Tonka Theater is appropriately classified as a partial demolition under Section 20-3 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the Applicant’s application for a Site Alteration Permit involving partial demolition of a contributing building in a historic district using the criteria established under Section 20-12(j) of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the HPC was also guided by the criteria required by City Code for the review of all Site Alteration Permits established under Section 20-11(h); and WHEREAS, the HPC denied Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit for the partial demolition and rear wall design of the Tonka Theater and approved the façade alterations, with conditions of the Tonka Theater in its Resolution No. 2026-07 on June 29, 2026; and WHEREAS, Applicant appealed the HPC’s denial of the Site Alteration Permit to the City Council as permitted under Section 20-14 of the City Code; and 1 Page 96 of 223WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing and considered Applicant’s appeal at its regular meeting on July 20, 2026. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of The City of Excelsior reverses the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission of June 29, 2026, to deny Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit. Based on the record and the public testimony before the Council, The Council finds the following: 1. Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit meets the purposes of the City’s Historic Preservation ordinance as it promotes the use of historic buildings for the economic prosperity, education, inspiration and general welfare of the people of the City and the reuse and recycling of existing building stock, protects and enhances the City’s appeal and attraction to residents and visitors, and strengthens the local economy through the protection and promotion of the City’s unique historic character. 2. Granting Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit is appropriate under the criteria established for all Site Alteration Permits in Section 20-11(h)(3); a. the alteration is compatible with and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all contributing properties in the historic district based on the period of significance for which the district was designated as the alteration will remove noncontributing additions to the Tonka Theater, aiding in the restoration of the district’s integrity to its period of significance, and the completed site will draw residents and visitors to the City, thereby positively impacting the significance of the district, neighboring properties, and the City as a whole; and b. granting the site alteration permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City’s Historic Preservation code chapter and will not negatively alter the essential character of the historic district for those reasons established under Section 1 of this Resolution. 3. The Applicant’s Site Alteration Permit meets the demolition and relocation criteria for partial demolition as established in Section 20-12(j) of the City Code; a. the Applicant has demonstrated through submission of a structural engineering report prepared by qualified professionals that the partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the Tonka Theater; and b. the Applicant has demonstrated through proposed renovations to the rear elevation that they have mitigated, to the greatest extent possible, impacts on the historic importance of the Tonka Theater; and c. the Applicant has demonstrated through confinement of the demolition to the rear of the building and proposed renovations to the rear elevation that they have 2 Page 97 of 223 mitigated, to the greatest extent possible, impacts on the architectural integrity of the Tonka Theater. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, on this 20th day of July 2026. Approved ______________________ Gary Ringate, Mayor ______________________ Kristi Luger, City Manager Attest: ______________________ Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk 3 Page 98 of 223 July 1, 2026 City of Excelsior 261 School Ave Excelsior, MN 55331 RE: Notice of Appeal of Heritage Preservation Commission Denial of 26 Water Street Site Alteration Permit Mayor and Members of Council: On behalf of Mithun Companies and the development team please accept this letter as formal Notice of Appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s June 29, 2026, denial of the Site Alteration Permit for the Tonka Theater at 26 Water St. Sincerely, Tim Marco Marco McLane Development, LLC Page 99 of 223Page 100 of 223Page 101 of 223Page 102 of 223Page 103 of 223Page 104 of 223Page 105 of 223Page 106 of 223Page 107 of 223 MEMORANDUM 26 Water Street. – Application for Site Alteration Re: Permit for Partial Demolition of Tonka Theater June 29, 2026 Date: Julia Mullin, Community Development Director, Amy Lucas, Historic Preservation Consultant To: Heritage Preservation Commission From: APPLICANT: Matt Mithun PROPERTY OWNER: Same LOCATION: 26 Water Street CASE NO.: HPC No. 2026-08 60/120-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: August 17, 2026/ October 16, 2026 1. Application The applicant, Matt Mithun, Mithun Companies, has submitted a Site Alteration Permit (SAP) for a partial demolition of the rear 51’ 6” of the Tonka Theater (built in 1945) at 26 Water Street (total length of building is 125’ 7”). The demolition of the theater addition (built in 1989) at 26 Water Street was previously recommended for approval at previous HPC meetings and included in HPC Resolutions 2025-04 and 2026-01 (attached). The SAP also proposes a new rear elevation design and alterations to the theater façade. 2. Summary Of Findings 1. The City of Excelsior designated the local and National Register Excelsior Commercial Historic District to protect historic properties and ensure compatible alterations. A major impetus for designating historic districts has been to protect properties from parking lot development and incompatible new construction. 2. The Tonka Theater is a contributing building in the historic district and the character-defining feature of a movie theater is the auditorium and the resulting overall mass of the structure. The proposed demolition would permanently damage the significance and integrity of the building and the historic district. The two-block historic district is a rare, cohesive group of commercial buildings that tell Excelsior’s development history from 1886-1955. 3. The proposed partial demolition is not consistent with Chapter 20 of the city code of ordinances, the HPC Preservation Design Manual, or the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. 4. Allowing the partial demolition without meeting the prescribed criteria of the city’s code would be precedent- setting for future demolition reviews in the historic district and for Landmark properties in Excelsior. Up to this point, the continuous development pressures of incompatible construction in Excelsior’s historic district have been prevented by consistently following the statutes in the city code. 3. Background and Previous Reviews The applicant purchased the property at 26 Water Street (Tonka Thater) with the attached 28 Water Street (currently Lago Tacos) in 2003 for $1,250,000. The building at 26 Water Street continued to operate as a theater and appears to have closed during 2020 Covid epidemic. The theater briefly opened in 2022, but closed and has not been reopened. On March 20, 2024, the HPC reviewed the sketch plan review/concept review of the proposed development at 10 Water Street. At that time, the development proposed a hotel on the vacant lot at 10 Water Street and envisioned using the Tonka Theater building for uses supportive to the hotel. No demolition was contemplated. (Fig. 1) The city provided feedback that a four-story building was not compatible with the Downtown Historic District. 1 Page 108 of 223 Fig. 1. March 2024 site plan reviewed by HPC In 2025, the project scope changed. The applicant could have returned to the HPC with a concept plan including the proposed demolitions for the purpose of obtaining the Commission’s comments and recommendations as stated in Sec. 10- 12 (b)(1) but did not. Instead, the applicant applied for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to build an apartment building and demolish the rear (full auditorium) of the historic theater at 26 Water Street. (Figs. 2 and 3) At their meetings of April 29, May 27, and June 17, 2025, the HPC commented on the Preliminary PUD application and approved HPC Resolution 2025-04 (attached) providing findings of fact on conformity with approved design standards and guidelines and recommendations. The recommendations for the design of the new building were forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council as required by Ordinance, Sec. 20-11. The HPC stated in HPC Resolution 2025-04 that the non- contributing 1989 theater addition, which was built outside the period of significance for the historic district and is non- contributing to the historic district, is acceptable for demolition. The HPC did not recommend approval of the demolition or partial demolition of the historic Tonka Theater. The HPC resolution documented that a Site Alteration Permit for the proposed demolition is required for HPC review per city code. Fig. 2. April 2025 site plan reviewed by HPC 2 Page 109 of 223 Fig. 3. April 2025 site plan reviewed by HPC On February 24, 2026, the applicant returned to the HPC for a SAP application to demolish the rear 55 feet of the Tonka Theater. The City of Excelsior determined that the proposal razed more than 30 percent of the building and considered the application for a “demolition” of a historic building. At the meeting, the HPC denied the demolition of the rear 55 feet and the construction of a new rear wall, and approved the façade alterations, with conditions, and the demolition of the 1989 theater addition (HPC Resolution 2026-01 is attached. 4. Landmark History The two-story, Streamline Moderne Tonka theater at 26 Water Street was built in 1945. The building is a contributing building in the local Excelsior Commercial Historic District (listed 1998) and the National Register of Historic Places Excelsior Commercial Historic District (listed 2021). The period of significance for the district is 1886-1955. The theater is an important reminder of Excelsior’s entertainment history and has been a community entertainment and gathering space for over 70 years. The theater building is a physical example of the building’s past and is designated as a historical and architectural reminder of its past history, but the “use” is not designated. 3 Page 110 of 223 Fig. 4. Tonka Theater, façade. The Tonka Theater was designed by Minnesota architects, Liebenberg and Kaplan. The previous theater (1940) burned in January 1945 and the new theater was poured-concrete fireproof construction with a stucco exterior. The Streamline Moderne style emerged during the 1930s-1940s and the minimal design was in response to the economic restraint necessary called for during the Great Depression. The horizontal buildings favored white exteriors with flat roofs and integrated the design elements within the simple form. The Tonka Theater features a smooth, white stucco façade and fluted grooves into the curved wall at the upper floors and its scale is distinctive in the Downtown District. The theater was built with an auditorium for approximately 500 (original seats have been replaced) and a balcony. Two restrooms were in the lobby. In ca. 1972, the balcony was enclosed to create a smaller theater at the second floor above the lobby. In 1989, a second theater was built on the parcel at 28 Water Street behind the one-story Hennessy Building (1955, contributing) (present-day Lagos Tacos). At an unknown date, a corridor was built into the side of the Hennessy Building to access the 1989 theater. The 1970s wood siding at the façade continues over this corridor addition. The original plans for the Tonka Theater are located in the Northwest Architectural Archives at the U of M. The architects, Liebenberg and Kaplan, are responsible for a number of Minnesota movie theaters. Jacob “Jack” Liebenberg (1893-1985) and Seeman Kaplan (1895-1963), graduates of the University of Minnesota architecture school, formed a partnership in 1923 and became one of the most successful architecture firms in Minnesota. The firm specialized in “prestigious homes, Jewish temples, and movie theaters.” (Lathrop, Minnesota Architects) The firm is responsible for the state’s first theater built for sound pictures in 1928 (Granada a.k.a. Suburban World in Minneapolis) and embraced the Art Deco and Moderne styles to welcome the modern age of motion pictures. A survey of the firms’ surviving theaters has not been completed, but many of their theater designs in Minneapolis have been lost; including the Strand (1933, razed 1975), the Faust (1934, razed 1989), the Campus/Oak Street Cinema (1935, razed 2011), the Gopher (1938, razed 1980) and the Rialto (1937, razed 1980). A few of the firm’s theaters have been individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places; they include the Hennepin/Orpheum Theatre, Hollywood Theater and the Ely State Theater. 4 Page 111 of 223 The two-block Excelsior Commercial Historic District has 32 contributing buildings and 4 noncontributing buildings. The cohesive district is unique because it features multiple commercial building types and a range of architectural styles from 1886 until 1955. The buildings are linked historically and architecturally and tell the story of Excelsior’s commercial history; they feature examples of a pharmacy, grocery, two fraternal organization buildings, an auto repair building, an auto dealership, multiple commercial buildings and one movie theater. The size and scale of each of these buildings reflects their historic use and the concentration of so many intact historical examples is exceptional. The continuous economic stability of the district is partially due to the high integrity and cohesiveness of the historic buildings. Fig. 5. Water Street in 1949 5 Page 112 of 223 Fig. 6. Water Street in 1950 Fig. 7. Water Street in ca. 1950 6 Page 113 of 223 Fig. 8. Water Street in 1959 Fig. 9. Excelsior Commercial Historic District in 1955 7 Page 114 of 223 Fig. 10. Excelsior Commercial Historic District in 1962 5. SAP Application Proposal for Partial Demolition and Renovation of Building The applicant has provided a new SAP application. The applicant is proposing to remove the rear 51’ 6” (linear feet) of the building. This is 29.9% of the building and falls under the review for partial demolition. The remaining 74’1” (linear feet) of the theater will be renovated. They propose to shore up the remaining three exterior walls of the building while the roof and interior are removed, and then rebuild. A new wall design is proposed for the rear elevation and the façade will have new entrances and a marquee with signage. At the façade, the wood siding and the marquee will be removed (Figs. 11-13). At this time, it is unknown what historic fabric remains under the wood siding. A new marquee and new entrance system are proposed. The proposed marquee and façade renovation do not follow the original design as depicted in photographs. The “TONKA” signage is proposed for the top of the canopy but was originally attached to the sign band of the canopy. The “TONKA” letters will be illuminated. Lights are proposed for under the marquee canopy. Lit letters and lighting under the canopy were not historically present. Façade materials are listed as “accent materials” and specifications for the doors were not provided. The new rear elevation is proposed as stucco with three, fixed windows and an offset door system. Materials are described as “accent materials” and specifications for the windows and doors were not included, providing added difficulty to evaluating the application as Excelsior City 8 Page 115 of 223Code 20-11(h) requires the HPC be guided by 1) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation; and (2) the design guidelines and standards listed in the Preservation Design Manual. The “architectural site plan” (Figure 14) is inaccurate and proposes a different rear wall alignment with a notch removed from the wall (different from Figures 12 and 15). This needs clarification. Additionally, the adjacent Hennessy building, 28 Water Street, is incorrectly illustrated. A design for the interior was not provided. Tenants and uses for the buildings have not been proposed. Fig. 11 Current facade 9 Page 116 of 223 Fig. 12. Proposed elevations 10 Page 117 of 223 Figure 13. Proposed signage 11 Page 118 of 223 Figure 14. Proposed site plan with inaccurate building dimensions. Fig. 15. Hennepin County Property aerial map of Tonka Theater in blue outline. 6. Criteria for Review 12 Page 119 of 223 Chapter 20 of Excelsior City Code for Demolition authorizes the review and states: Sec. 20-3. Definitions Demolition. Any act that destroys or removes more than 30 percent of the building or other structure. Demolition, partial. Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a building consisting of not more than 30% of the floor area of the building, and where the portion of the building to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the period of significance on any exterior elevation when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a building and/or restoring a building to its historical mass and appearance. Sec. 20-11(h). Site alteration permit criteria In making a determination whether to approve or deny an application for a site alteration permit, the commission shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. 2) Preservation Design Manual. The design guidelines and standards listed in the Preservation Design Manual. 3) Additional criteria for proposed alterations within designated historic districts. Before approving a site alteration permit that involves alterations to a property within an historic district, the commission (or city council on appeal) shall make the following findings: a. The alteration is compatible with and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all contributing properties in the historic district based on the period of significance for which the district was designated. b. Granting the site alteration permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and will not negatively alter the essential character of the historic district. 4) Criteria for moving and demolition is located in section 20-12 of this chapter. Sec. 20-12. Demolition and relocation (j) Review criteria for partial demolition. In reviewing an application requesting a site alteration permit for partial demolition, the Commission shall apply the following criteria: 1) The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2) The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the property; and b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the property. 7. The HPC Shall Make the Following Findings for the Site Alteration Permit Application Sec. 20-11(h)(3) Additional criteria for proposed alterations within designated historic districts. Before approving a site alteration permit that involves alterations to a property within an historic district, the commission (or city council on appeal) shall make the following findings: 13 Page 120 of 223 a. The alteration is compatible with and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all contributing properties in the historic district based on the period of significance for which the district was designated. The Tonka Theater is a contributing building to the historic district. The entire theater was built during the period of significance. The proposed partial demolition of the Tonka Theater alters the auditorium and scale of the building. The District contains 32 contributing structures and only 4 noncontributing. Partial demolition will remove the contributing status of the Tonka theater building and harms the concentration of historic buildings of varying scale and architectural style which is the essence of the downtown historic district in Excelsior. Approving the partial demolition of the building does not maintain the significance or integrity of the building or the historic district. b. Granting the site alteration permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and will not negatively alter the essential character of the historic district. The partial demolition of the Tonka Theater is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the preservation chapter of the city code. The City of Excelsior designated the historic district locally and nationally because it is an area of downtown whose buildings are linked historically and architecturally and as a whole tell the story of Excelsior’s commercial history. The district is remarkably intact. The size and scale of these buildings contribute to their importance, both as individual structures and as a district as a whole. To remove part of the Tonka Theater building whose character-defining element is the auditorium and its scale, will negatively alter the essential character of the district. Furthermore, it is important to understand the precedence of the proposed demolition. Allowing the demolition would not only alter the significance of the Tonka Theater and the historic district, it is also setting a precedent. Allowing the partial demolition without any evidence of structural failure, cost analysis for rehabilitation, market and reuse studies, will set a precedent for future demolition reviews in the historic district and for landmarks in Excelsior. Sec. 20-12 Demolition and Relocation 1) The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; The applicant has not provided evidence that the partial demolition is required for renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the theater. In fact, the partial demolition makes renovation, restoration and rehabilitation of the landmark impossible. The structural and environmental reports do not support partial demolition or provide a cost analysis for repairs. The demolition is proposed to accommodate surface parking and extension of the new construction on the neighboring parcel. The owner has not provided economic evidence to support the impracticality of rehabilitation, nor has the owner provided costs for restoration or rehabilitation. Excelsior has provided multiple examples of rehabilitation and receiving high economic returns on the investment. It has not been proven that rehabilitation will reduce the property values, and, in Excelsior, historic buildings usually sell for higher values. Chapter 20 allows the HPC to request a re-use study. It was requested and the owner declined to submit. (See applicant email, attached). A reuse study is relevant and helpful because it evaluates possible re-use options for the building, based on the building’s attributes, and evaluates costs of those options compared with cost of demolition and new construction. The owner has provided some costs for a restaurant in the theater. Movie theaters are one of the most reused and adapted buildings across the country. They are centrally located, well-situated on Main streets across the United States and have large volumes with clear, open spans and in many cases, they have fireproof construction. They have been successfully renovated, often using historic rehabilitation tax credits, into art 14 Page 121 of 223 centers, community centers, music venues, wedding venues, lecture halls, co-working spaces, restaurants/bars/liquor stores, libraries, sports arenas/gyms/climbing, recording studios and even apartments. The theater space could support the proposed new neighboring residential construction with amenity spaces like workout rooms, and party rooms. Because this building is a contributing building in a National Register Historic District, it is eligible for historic rehabilitation tax credits. The state and federal credit allows for a 40% credit off the cost of the rehabilitation. The applicant has not provided evidence of investigating historic tax credits. The building will be ineligible for future tax credit applications if the character-defining features of its building type are removed. The auditorium space is THE character-defining feature of a theater. Costs to rehabilitate the historic building into a new use are covered; these include new code compliant stairs, elevator, restrooms, HVAC, and even leveling sloped floors. The owner has not provided costs for rehabilitation nor compared the costs of demolition and reconstruction vs. rehabilitation. 2) The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the property; The Tonka Theater is a significant landmark in the history of Excelsior and provided entertainment and enrichment experiences for over 70 years. The theater auditorium was a purpose-built civic space designed for the shared experience and the building is intact today. The demolition of 51’ 6” of the building cause the Tonka theater building to lose its contributing status in Excelsior’s Downtown Historic District. The owner has not attempted to mitigate this impact to the building or the district. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the property. The Tonka Theater is a contributing structure to the local and National Register Historic District. The two-story Streamline Moderne theater was designed by renowned architects, Liebenberg and Kaplan. The building retains the significant character-defining features of a theater including the prominent façade and the theater auditorium space. The auditorium has integrity and continues as a unique architectural landmark in Excelsior. It is an extant reminder of the size, scale, massing of the construction period and the mass behind the façade continues to tell the story of how the building operated. The mass behind the facade is visible today from Water Street and Lake Street and will be visible from Water Street and the entrance to the proposed rear-facing retail and multifamily building. The view of the Tonka Theater building from Water Street will change significantly if it is shortened by 51’ 6” through partial demolition and replaced with the proposed 3 story multifamily building. The three-story massing of the proposed multifamily building will rise above the shortened theater, diminishing its profile as seen from Water Street. The applicant has not provided evidence of any attempts to mitigate the loss of the landmark space nor has the applicant provided costs for reuse or rehabilitation. Furthermore, allowing the partial demolition has the potential to alter the historic district with future demolition reviews. 8. The HPC shall be guided by the following criteria: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation state: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 15 Page 122 of 223 The HPC does not govern or review ‘use.’ The HPC reviews alterations proposed for historic properties and guides the alterations towards minimal damage to the defining characteristics of the historic resources. A character- defining feature is what a building type is most associated with, and examples include a steeple for a church, grain elevator for a mill, canopy for a gas station. The character-defining feature of the Tonka Theater is the auditorium, and the applicant is proposing to remove the more than half the auditorium space and create a theater in the balcony space. The balcony theater is not a replacement of the use and the HPC does not review or require historic uses to remain in place. This SAP proposal removes the character-defining feature of the open auditorium space and scale of the building and permanently alters the building, site and environment. The partial demolition is not “minimal change”, and the proposal does not follow the guideline. The City cannot guarantee or require a theater use. There is nothing to preclude the owner from changing the proposed use of the balcony theater after the SAP applications are approved. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The Tonka Theater is a contributing structure to the local and National Register Historic District. The two-story Streamline Moderne theater was designed by renowned architects, Liebenberg and Kaplan. The character- defining feature of a theater is the historic auditorium space and the resulting scale of the building. A movie theater building type is recognized by its auditorium space. The removal and alteration of this historic space does not meet the guideline. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. At this time, the proposed façade design is conjectural and lacks specific detail. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. The exterior alterations of the 1989 theater addition, corridor addition into the neighboring building and facade siding have not acquired significance and retention is not recommended. The current marquee was also installed after the district’s period of significance and may be replaced. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. The most “distinctive feature” of a movie theater is the auditorium space and removal of 51.5 linear feet of a total 125.5 linear feet of the Tonka Theater building does not preserve this feature. The applicant proposes to retain the stucco Streamline Moderne façade, which is an important design finish and preservation is recommended. The applicant proposes to replace the non-historic marquee, which does not characterize the historic property during the period of significance and is not an example of historic finish or craftsmanship. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. The applicant has not provided evidence that the theater auditorium is deteriorated and requires partial demolition. The applicant provided a report from Meyer Borgman Johnson (MBJ), structural engineers, dated 16 Page 123 of 223 October 27, 2025. The report found the concrete building to have “acceptable structural performance.” The applicant provided a report from The Javelin Group, environmental consultant, dated October 23, 2025. These reports do not recommend demolition or replacement of a historic resource. The partial demolition proposes removal and replacement with surface parking and a new structure. The applicant proposes to replace the non-original marquee; the replacement must match evidence from photographs of original. façade conditions under the wood siding should be evaluated and repaired rather than replaced, if extant. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials that characterize the property. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. The applicant notes that surface cleaning will be undertaken in a gentle method and follow preservation standards. Staff recommends that the HPC include as a condition of any approval that the applicant submit samples of exterior repair for review. 8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. The property does not have archaeological significance. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The applicant is proposing partial demolition of the theater auditorium for the new construction of a surface parking lot and construction of a neighboring residential building. This proposal destroys the historic materials and integrity that characterize the Tonka Theater. The neighboring new construction proposal does not protect the history integrity of the property or the historic district. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. This guideline explains that alterations and new additions shall be reversible and non-permanent. The partial demolition of the theater is not reversible. The Preservation Design Manual guidelines: General Storefront Guidelines: GS.3 If replacement is necessary, new elements should duplicate the original element closely in form, proportions, and profile. The original theater store front is covered with wood siding. The siding should be removed and façade evaluated before design proposal. The new design should be guided by extant building fabric and historic images. Door Guidelines: D.5 The installation of new doors should closely resemble the design and proportions of the original door. Wood is preferred material, but steel or aluminum with baked enamel finish may also be used. Metal frame doors may be more appropriate than wood frame doors on later architectural style such as Art Deco façades. 17 Page 124 of 223 The original doors have been replaced with aluminum system. The new system may be aluminum and should reflect the original door style based on pictorial evidence. Specifications, measurements and material details have not been provided by the Applicant at this time. D.9 When replacing a door, use a design that results in an appearance similar to the original. Where the original design is unknown, use a door design associated with the building style or type. The original doors have been removed. The proposed new entrance system should be based on historic images. Specifications and details and materials of proposed doors have not been provided at this time. Window Guidelines: W.4 Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on secondary and rear walls. If new windows are to be installed into original window openings, the new windows should match the existing windows in the building in shape, size, design, material, and spacing between windows. New openings shall be of the same size and heights as other window openings. Windows are proposed at the new rear wall. Openings at the current rear wall or the proposed new rear wall are acceptable. The proposed window and door design at rear lacks detail of design, materials, color, scale, and measurements. Architectural Detailing Guidelines AD.2 When restoring or working on a historic building, property owners are encouraged to restore any ornamentation that may have been removed previously. The SAP proposes to replace the non-historic marquee with a marquee that is similar to original design in historic images. The design of the marquee appears to meet the guidelines, but signage should be attached to the sign band to adhere to pictorial evidence. After the non-historic wood siding is removed, the remaining design and materials should be evaluated. The design may change following the removal of the siding. Historic images indicate that decorative metal bands were located above the entrances. Back Entries and Additions Guidelines: BEA.8 Rear entrances on existing buildings shall clearly be secondary entrances and avoid the appearance of a primary façade. The proposed rear entrance design avoids the appearance of a primary façade. Details of the doors and windows are unclear. Specifications, colors, measurements and material samples have not been provided at this time. Signage and Lighting Guidelines: CS.3 Signage should be placed at traditional sign locations. CS.8 Signs should not conceal any architectural features. CS.10 Sign attachment parts should be reused in their original location to protect the original building materials. CS.26 Internally-lit or flashing signs are not allowed in the historic commercial district. The SAP proposes internally lit letters on the marquee sign which does not meet the guidelines. Historic images indicate the letters were originally attached to the face of the marquee and not on the roof of the marquee. Historic images indicate the letters were not lit. RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION Adopt HPC Resolution 2026-07 to deny the partial demolition of the Tonka Theater at 26 Water Street. Approve the SAP alterations proposed for the façade of 26 Water Street with conditions for further details. 18 Page 125 of 223 ATTACHMENTS 1) HPC Resolution 2026-07 2) SAP Application 3) HPC Resolution 2025-04 4) HPC Resolution 2026-01 19 Page 126 of 223City of Excelsior Julia Mullin, Community Development Director 37 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Site Alteration Permit for Tonka Theater History and Period of Significance The Tonka Theater was constructed in 1940 by the Streater Lumber Company of Spring Park, MN at a cost of $30,000. The 500-seat theater opened on April 26, 1940, operated by Lyle Carisch and Raymond Lee of the Wayzata Theater Company. The east portion of the building facing Water Street was a two-story mass with a semi-circular canopy with a marquee. The façade above the canopy had a gentle recessed curve that was fluted. Behind (to the west) of the two-story mass, there was one story mass with a barrel vault roof which contained the theater. In January of 1945 the theater suffered a severe fire. Despite material rationing due to World War II, the War Production Board granted the project clearances to rebuild. The reconstruction was designed by Liebenberg & Kaplan Architects and Engineers. According to the Excelsior-Lake Minnetonka Historical Society, “the reconstruction salvaged much of the original building, but the new building was described in the local paper as "strictly modern and fireproof. Nautical murals of steamboats and docks were added to the auditorium as well.”” The name of the theater was changed to the Excelsior Theater in the 1960s, and there were some renovations during this time, but the full extent of those renovations are unknown. In the years between 1972 and 1974, many modifications were made to the historic theater, most of which are still currently in place. The curved canopy was removed and replaced with the flat band marquee that exists today. The rough-hewn wood siding that exists today was also added at this time. The upper level balcony was extended and enclosed to create the second theater space. The name was changed again, this time to Dock Cinema. In 1989 an addition was added along the south side of the building, which accommodates a theater that seats approximately 225. The “Period of Significance” for the Excelsior Commercial Historic District is 1886-1955. Features, materials, and spaces built outside of the period of significance are non-historic. For the Tonka Theater these include: • 1989 Addition • Storefronts and doors • Flat Band Marquee • Rough wood facing exterior Page 127 of 223 • Rough wood trim and wall facing in interior • Upper level modified, extended, and enclosed balcony • Acoustic materials and fabrics on walls in original theater and balcony • Audience seats in original theater and upper balcony • Restrooms • Acoustic tile ceiling in lobby Our rehabilitation of the Tonka Theater would restore elements from the period of significance and create a more authentically contributing building to the Excelsior Commercial Historic District. Reasonable Economic Use of the Property The Dock Cinema operated successfully through the 2000’s and began to face financial challenges the following decade as the industry shifted to bigger multiplexes with 10+ auditoriums. The advent of in-home streaming services posed another challenge for the industry, followed by COVID-19, which was the death knell for many exhibitors. The Dock attempted to open its doors after the pandemic, but the financial hurdle was insurmountable. When the cinema was occupiable it could not cover its own operating costs on an annual basis. It was losing money when accounting for rent, property taxes and CAM (common area maintenance). Rehabilitation of the building for that primary use does not create reasonable economic use of the property, is impractical, and nonviable. Adaptive reuse of a functionally obsolescent, purpose-built building comes with substantial costs and does not create reasonable value for those costs. Over the last six years as the doors were temporarily and then permanently closed, we have been working through concepts to remodel and reopen the space. After a few iterations, one concept that was deeply explored was to continue showing movies in the 1989 theater while using historic tax credits to restore the original auditorium as a restaurant and event space. Ultimately, the design constraints of historic tax credits for adaptive reuse of this purpose built structure became prohibitive, rendering the building a poor candidate. When we purchased the 10 Water St. land next door, the plan was refined giving us the best chance for restoration and reuse becoming part of an overall project. We were told the hotel concept that we presented to the City would not be approved as a 4-story project, which was necessary for financing and economic viability. All of the concepts up until that point kept the original building intact, but without the hotel, no longer could the full event space be supported. This has led us to where we are today, one final attempt to keep a meaningful portion of the building, restoring the historic front façade, marquee, lobby and revitalizing the historic use. Please find attached the most recent total project cost budget and financial model for a simple bar/restaurant/retail concept adaptive reuse. This contemplated demolition of the unadaptable Page 128 of 223 1989 addition, retention of the main auditorium shell, complete interior demolition, code required work, and the bare minimum scope for viable bar/restaurant/retail space. Only minimum necessary improvements would be made to the rear alley portion of the building with only minor repairs on the retaining wall and nothing allocated for stormwater improvements. This project was not viable even with only the bare-minimum scope and without making long- term improvements. The project would have cost $4.5 million more than the building would have been economically worth when completed, was unfinanceable, and had almost no cash flow. Thank you for your consideration. Page 129 of 223 City of Excelsior Julia Mullin, Community Development Director 350 Highway 7 Suite 230 Excelsior, MN Re: Approval of Site Alteration Permit for the Tonka Theater Ms. Mullin: On behalf of Mithun Enterprises, please find attached an application for a Site Alteration Permit (SAP) under Chapter 20 of the Excelsior City Code to authorize partial demolition and rehabilitation of the Tonka Theater structure located at 26 Water Street (the “Theater”). This proposal forms a key component of the broader redevelopment of 10 Water Street, introducing multifamily housing, retail, and restaurant uses on the adjacent parcel while preserving and reinvesting in the historic theater building itself. Taking into account the feedback received from the Heritage Preservation Commission (“HPC”) and in preliminary development plan review before the City Council and Planning Commission, the development team has refined its preliminary proposal to reduce demolition to only 30 percent of the original structure, retaining 70 percent for stabilization and reuse. The revised plan represents the least-intrusive, preservation-compliant path toward a commercially viable reuse of the Theater while maintaining its historic character. The portion proposed for removal is confined to the rear third of the building, which is structurally compromised and lacks character- defining features. By limiting demolition to these noncontributing, unsafe elements, the plan allows the remainder of the structure including its significant historic materials, spatial relationships, and architectural features to be retained and preserved. Retaining that compromised section is neither safe nor financially defensible. This plan is the fullest extent of rehabilitation that remains structurally and economically achievable. I. History of the Tonka Theater The Tonka Theater's history began in 1940 as a single-screen movie house. After being destroyed by fire in 1945, it was rebuilt with special approval due to wartime material restrictions, reopening with an art-deco façade. The original "barrel" design with arched ceilings was replaced by the current simpler concrete design. In the 1970s, a second theater was added, followed by a third in 1989. The proposed demolition will remove the 1989 addition, which is not part of the historic designation, along with a limited portion of the original building. Within the City’s submission for preservation, it described the Tonka Theater as a “two story concrete movie theater with a flat roof” with “additions not visible from Water Street.” The report Page 137 of 223 City of Excelsior Page 2 remarks that the “building’s only ornamentation is a curved, fluted panel on the second floor.” These descriptive features will be retained by the plans. I. Scope and Purpose of Work Selective demolition will target areas affected by foundation settlement, roof deterioration, and grade differential, as documented in the Structural Condition Assessment (AET, Oct 27, 2025). The primary façade, marquee, and two-story theater volume will be retained, stabilized, and rehabilitated. Interior work will restore the historic theater's use, preserving its civic function. The adjacent parcel will be developed for multifamily, retail, and restaurant spaces designed to complement, not mimic, the historic form. This Project complies with the City Code, including reference to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the Preservation Design Manual, and all findings required for alterations within the Historic District. II. The revised Site Alteration Plans (SAP) meet the definition of a “Partial Demolition” under Section 20-12 of the City Code. Under the Excelsior City Code “Partial Demolition means: any act which destroys a portion of a building consisting of not more than 30 percent of the floor area of the building, and where the portion of the building to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the period of significance … as part of restoring original historic elements of a building and/or restoring a building to its historical mass and appearance. This proposal fits this definition: it involves demolishing structurally compromised portions of the Theater and removing the 1989 addition, which is outside the period of significance. The demolition will not be visible from Water Street and will maintain the Theater’s historic massing. Accordingly, the partial demolition standards outlined in 20-12 J apply. III. Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The proposed rehabilitation of the Theater is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the “Standards”), ensuring that the property’s historic purpose, character, and integrity are retained and preserved while accommodating contemporary needs. This approach prioritizes the continuum of importance advanced by the Standards- not all features are equal and the SAP protects and repairs significant historic features and materials. The proposed plans limit alternation while integrating life-safety, accessibility, and systems upgrades in a manner that does not diminish the Theater’s defining qualities. The following discussion explains how the scope, methods, and materials proposed meet these Standards by balancing the Theater’s continued viability and public safety with the preservation of its authentic historic fabric and setting. 1. Use for Historic Purpose: A historic property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The Theater will continue to be used for its historic purpose as a community gathering place. 2. Retention of Historic Character: The alteration proposed is compatible with and ensures continued significance and integrity of the Theater. Granting the SAP preserves the Page 138 of 223 City of Excelsior Page 3 essential character of the property by retaining the theater’s historic scale, massing, and civic function while addressing structural failures that threaten the building’s long-term viability. While this plan proposes alteration, it is necessary to preserve the theater use and create a functional, safe, ADA-compliant space for ongoing attendance. This restores the vibrancy of the site 3. Authentic Record of Time and Place: Each historic property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Demolition should preserve to the extent possible, in this case 70% of the original structure, original materials as a primary document of the history of the building, reflecting the technology, craftsmanship, and cultural values of the time the Theater constructed (technically, rebuilt after the initial fire at the property after initial construction). After further study, it is possible to only demolish 30 percent of the original structure and still correct the structural issues described within the engineer’s report. All replacement materials will be consistent with existing materials to the extent possible, as demonstrated on the attached plan set. 4. Recognition of Significant Changes: Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. As described during concept plan review, the portion of the building that is not original and constructed outside of the period of significance will be fully removed. There is no evidence to show that the additions 1980’s are significant. The wood paneling along the current façade shall be removed and the Theater restored to the original stucco material as shown in the attached plan set. The former Pizza Hut building that was previously demolished was attached to the Theater. The original Theater exterior was damaged by this adjacent structure, leaving a clear demarcation on the northeast side of the building where the former restaurant stood. To the extent appropriate and possible, the Theater exterior will be refined to mirror the original stucco of the 1940’s theater. 5. Preservation of Distinctive Features: Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques shall be preserved. As previously described, the reconstructed 1945 Theater was crafted as a wartime- concrete block facility. The curved ceiling of the 1940 structure was not rebuilt. The original art deco fluting on the Water Street façade will be retained and preserved. 6. Repair Rather Than Replacement: Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced where possible however it is important to note that there has been broad and extensive change to this building over time. Where necessary, new features will match the old in design, color, texture, and material. The original Cinema marquee was removed upon expansion of the Theater in the 1970’s. However, the fluted grooves above the original and current sign have remained and will be restored and are consistent with the period’s Page 139 of 223 City of Excelsior Page 4 use of bold geometric shapes. Because the original marquee was destroyed, the historic marquee will be rebuilt and installed as a replica of the original design. 7. Gentle Treatment Methods: The surface cleaning of the exterior structure will be undertaken using the “gentlest means possible” as described within the Standards in order to ensure the building is maintained during construction. Rehabilitation will incorporate compatible paint coating systems following proper surface preparation and the building will be repainted with colors that are historically appropriate to the building. 8. Protection of Archeological Resources: The Standards require preservation of significant archeological resources. Based upon consultant review, no such items have been found on site. During the construction process protective measures will be undertaken to preserve any such resources. IV. The proposed alteration is consistent with the findings required by the City Code. 1. The proposed alteration is compatible with, and will maintain the significance and integrity of contributing properties in the District based on its designated period of significance. Between 1981 and 1982, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) designated thirty historic sites, which were subsequently approved by the City Council. The Theater was not among those sites originally designated. It was not until the completion of a further designation study in August 2002, that the Theater was identified as a contributing structure within an expanded historic district. The revised district boundaries reflect Excelsior’s changing commercial development patterns from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, centering on Water Street and extending east along Second and Third Streets. The district captures the city’s transformation from a lakeside tourist destination to a suburban service center, with a period of significance spanning from the 1870s through approximately 1955. By preserving over 70 percent of the structure, retaining the height of the Theater, and being intentional about restoration to the original marquee, the rehabilitation maintains the characteristics that defined the Property during its period of significance. The rear volume of the Theater, which is not visible from Water Street, plays no role in defining visual rhythm or pedestrian experience of the district. By addressing structural issues and removing non- contributing additions, the project maintains the integrity and significance of the Property within the district. 2. Revisions to the Theater are consistent with the spirit and intent of the preservation ordinance and will not negatively impact the essential character of the historic district. Granting the site alteration permit aligns with the intent of Chapter 20 by preserving the essential character of the historic district. The project focuses on restoring the Theater's historic use and appearance while ensuring safety and accessibility. The proposed changes are designed to enhance the district's vibrancy without negatively impacting its historic essence, ensuring that the district's character is respected and preserved. Page 140 of 223 City of Excelsior Page 5 At the prior HPC meeting, concerns were raised that approving the removal of a significant portion of the structure could establish a precedent for “facadectomies” thereby negatively impacting the essential character of the district. However, this proposal is fundamentally different and is not a “facadectomy.” The removal in question involves 1) non-contributing additions and 2) a limited portion of a deteriorated component of the original building as referenced within the attached structural engineering report. A true “facadectomy” contemplates retaining only the principal face of the building while constructing a completely new internal structure including changes in height, additional floors, and use. The proposed removal neither diminishes the essential character of the Theater nor compromises its presence within the historic district. The proposed demolition does not remove distinctive materials, features, finishes, or construction techniques relevant to the integrity of the Theater. Instead, it reflects a reasoned, preservation-oriented response that maintains the entire visible massing, street-facing façade, and the historically significant portions of the building, only removing the structurally compromised elements in order to allow constructive reuse. 3. Proposed changes to the Theater do not threaten its role as a contributing structure. A contributing classification means that a property adds to the historic association and/or architectural importance for which the district is significant. It must have been present during the district’s historic period of significance and must physically retain a majority of the architectural characteristics representing that era. In this case, in addition to the proposed SAP retaining the significant contributing features (like the art deco façade) it notably retains historic integrity. There is no proposal to move the structure, eliminate the physical characteristics that are reflective of the period of significance, and the Mithun team has worked diligently to ensure that the restored site will evoke the sense of time and place of its historic period. Perhaps most importantly the retention of the historic use of the Property as a theater continues to convey its importance as a community gathering place. 4. Proposed changes to the Theater do not threaten the scope of the District. It is also important to note that the partial demolition of a contributing structure located at the “edge” of a historic district does not compromise the integrity of or protections of the District as a whole. The proposed changes to the Theater and construction of the Project will not alter the boundaries of the District. While the former Pizza Hut building was not a historic structure, the land it occupied remains within the designated District. 5. Partial demolition is required for the rehabilitation of the structure. The Structural Condition Assessment (SCA) confirms that the broader building meets structural performance thresholds for safety and access, but acknowledges areas of significant structural deterioration. In particular 1) existing soil conditions allow for structural movement which is evident in exterior and interior cracking of the walks and foundation and 2) long term water intrusion creates risk of deterioration within the structural steel decking of the roof. As described within NPS Preservation Brief 15: Preservation of Historic Concrete, the building displays characteristic signs of failure in concrete include cracking and staining. Cracking occurs in most concrete but will vary in depth, width, direction, pattern, and location, and can be either active or dormant. Active cracks as referenced in the SCA can widen, deepen, or migrate Page 141 of 223 City of Excelsior Page 6 through the concrete, while dormant cracks remain relatively unchanged in size. Some dormant cracks, such as those caused by early age shrinkage of the concrete during curing, are not a structural concern but when left unrepaired- in this case for over 70 years, can provide convenient channels for moisture penetration and subsequent damage. Structural cracks can be caused by temporary or continued overloads, uneven foundation settling, seismic forces, or original design inadequacies. The SCA shows that structural cracks in this case are likely related to uneven foundation settling and original design constraints. Structural cracks are active if excessive loads are applied to a structure or if settlement is ongoing- and here settlement is ongoing. The removal of non-historic concrete blocks from a historic structure are permissible under the Standards where the portion removed is determined to be outside the period of significance of the property, lack historic or architectural significance, or are so deteriorated that their integrity cannot be restored. Here not only does the portion of the building in question lack historic and architectural significance, but it is also deteriorated to the extent that its integrity cannot be restored. Removal is consistent with the overall historic character of the structure and the district. By removing a portion of the rear section of the building, both the foundation work can be completed while also bringing the property into ADA compliance. Water intrusion and foundation settlement can be fully repaired through the SAP proposed here and without destruction of the historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the Theater. The proposed SAP is essential for rehabilitation of the structure and mitigates to the greatest extent possible, impacts on its historic importance. V. Inordinate Hardship This application advances a viable rehabilitation plan for the Theater. One that preserves its defining historic signature elements, returns the building to productive use, and meets the Standards when evaluated in totality. The limited removal of deteriorated, non-character- defining materials is essential to returning the building to a state of utility and ensuring long-term preservation of the portions and features that do convey its historic significance. As detailed in the application, the cumulative effect of the proposed work is consistent with the Property’s historic character and achieves the central purpose of the rehabilitation standards: facilitating continued use of a historic resource while retaining the qualities that make it eligible. However, if partial demolition is not permitted especially where the record establishes it is both necessary and appropriate, the only remaining regulatory path for ownership is total demolition under the code’s inordinate-hardship provision. That language requires the City to consider whether denial of a SAP effectively deprives the owner of reasonable economic use of the property. The structure as it stands today has no reasonable future. This is not pure conjecture or even a unique experience for this property. Under the code, inordinate hardship focuses on the relationship between (1) the cost of repairing the structure in its current deteriorated condition and (2) its reasonable value after repair. Ownership has pursued multiple avenues for constructive reuse of the Theater, both as a theater or as a component of a larger project. One path- an associated entertainment venue with a hotel was rejected by policymakers. Hypothetical statements such as “turn it into a brewery” or “it can be fully converted into a restaurant and office space” ignore the structural realities of the building and the market context. Another path often cited is to simply reopen the Page 142 of 223 City of Excelsior Page 7 theater, while ignoring the needs of the property- like ADA compliance and mold remediation and the economic realities of the underlying business. For decades, as the industry shifted to bigger multiplexes with dozens of screens and intensive effects driven screening experiences independent exhibitors began collapsing. The collapse accelerated with the rise of in-home streaming services, followed by Covid-19. To the point that few independent exhibitors and theaters remain today. Places like the Tonka Theater are not economically viable. Studies show a structural shift in consumer behavior: a 2020 Statista consumer survey confirmed widespread preference for at- home streaming over in-theater attendance, while the New York Times reported that nearly half of pre-pandemic moviegoers were no longer purchasing tickets at all. The casual moviegoing segment, once essential to the economic sustainability of small theaters, has eroded. Meanwhile, the cost of attendance has increased, concessions prices have become a barrier for families, and outdated facilities have further diminished the perceived value of the theater experience. These consumer shifts intersect with broader industry disruptions. Labor-related production delays and strikes have tightened release schedules, reducing the number of films available to independent theaters. The dominance of effects-heavy blockbusters has left many patrons seeking alternatives that smaller theaters cannot reliably provide. This combination of decreased demand, fewer available titles, and elevated operating costs has created significant challenges for small, historic theaters nationwide. This is well documented and not unique to this Property. Against that backdrop, the City’s inordinate hardship provision supplies the necessary legal framework should partial demolition be denied. Under the ordinance, the inquiry centers on whether the preservation mandate would deprive the owner of reasonable economic use of the property. The analysis turns on the relationship between the cost of repairing severely deteriorated components and the property’s reasonable post-repair value. This local standard aligns with broader preservation jurisprudence. Courts addressing hardship in historic-preservation contexts distinguish between legitimate standards such as “substantial financial hardship” and the constitutionally impermissible requirement that an owner prove a complete denial of all reasonable use. The question is whether preservation restrictions impose undue financial burdens or render viable economic use unachievable. Judicial decisions evaluate factors including the feasibility of alternative uses, the compatibility of proposed alterations with the landmark’s character, and whether the reviewing body rigorously investigated alternatives that would minimize harm. Historic-preservation zoning operates as an overlay on traditional zoning authority, typically constrained by enabling statutes, and must balance owners’ rights with the governmental interest in preserving historic resources. This framework demands careful attention to economic impacts and the availability of adaptive reuse options while avoiding unnecessary harm to a historic property. In this case, insisting on retention of deteriorated, non-character-defining components that cannot be feasibly rehabilitated would make it impossible to return the theater to safe, functional, code-compliant use. Under such circumstances, the ordinance contemplates evidence demonstrating that rehabilitation is impractical and that reasonable economic use cannot be achieved, including feasibility analyses, cost/value comparisons, adaptive-reuse scenarios, and attempts to sell, rent, or lease the property. As previously presented to staff, advisory boards and the City Council- all of these factors exist and are well documented. Page 143 of 223 City of Excelsior Page 8 The ownership group is expressly seeking to avoid total demolition of the structure. By proposing a narrow, preservation-consistent partial demolition as part of an overall rehabilitation that satisfies the Standards, the SAP preserves the building’s historic character, returns it to productive use, and avoids the need to invoke the hardship framework that could otherwise trigger consideration of full demolition under the City’s own code. VI. Conclusion Under federal regulations, "rehabilitation" refers to returning a building to a state of utility through repair or alteration, enabling efficient use while preserving significant historic, architectural, and cultural features. 36 C.F.R. § 67.2(b). The proposed work aligns with this definition, involving alterations only as needed to ensure the building is safe, usable, and code-compliant, maintaining its historic role as a community gathering place. Alterations are limited to non-character-defining, structurally compromised, or heavily modified areas lacking integrity. These changes address structural deterioration, foundation settlement, roof failures, and non-compliant egress conditions documented in the SCA. We respectfully request approval of the Site Alteration Permit for the partial demolition and rehabilitation of the Tonka Theater. The proposal preserves over 70% of the structure, ensuring the theater’s historic materials, features, and character are retained and sensitively treated. The project complies with the Excelsior City Code, integrating compliance measures into its scope, sequencing, and construction methodologies. It balances preservation with revitalization, maintaining the theater’s historic character while introducing new uses on the adjacent parcel for long-term viability. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to collaborating with the City to finalize any necessary conditions for this historically respectful and code-compliant rehabilitation. 4931-4152-2551, v. 3 Page 144 of 223 TMA Tushie Montgomery Architects 7645 Lyndale Ave S Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55423 Prepared For Wood fence Boulder Retaining Wall Property Line New Recon Retaining Wall 12'- 0" 1 Alley Rear Yard Setback 2 ' 1st Floor: Walk up units, Typ. - 0 " 03 20'- 0" 2nd - 3rd Floor: Balconies, Typ. Temp. Parking Garage Entry 10'X25' Loading Zone Project Stair Entry Temporary Parking Stair Shaft & Access Balcony Balcony Balcony Balcony Property Line P r 2nd - 3rd Floor: Balconies, Typ. o Transformer p 04 e r t y L i n e 3-Story Mixed Use N e w Amenity Deck Level 1: Common, Units & Retail R e Levels 2-3: Units @ Rooftop c o n R e 20' - 0" 24' - 0" 20' - 0" t a in in g W 10 WaterSt.Excelsior,10 MN 55331 a Apartment Entry ll Lake& Water 04 Walkway to Amenity Deck Surface Parking 24 Spaces B ik 06 Balcony e R Elevator Shaft & Access a c k s Existing Alley 07 Balcony Balcony Apartment Entry Phase Preliminary PUD Fire Pit Public Seating Balcony " - 0 24' Public Porch N B a R lc SWCP o O IO n y Sidewalk Sloped Lake Lake Street B a Amenity Deck w/ fire pit area and grill station l c NOT F o Up n mp STRUCT y Ra Plaza & Plaza Steps N Balcony @ 2nd Floor Apartment Entry CO ny Balco Issuance Public Seating Preliminary PUD 04.01.2025 Dining Patio 347 2nd St. ... ... C a Retail / Business n ... ... o p y ADA Ramp ... ... Dock Rock Curb Stops Cinema ny @ Balco oor 3rd Fl Retail Corridor Entry Revisions Level 1: Commercial Line perty ny @ Pro Levels 2: Theater Room Balco Floor 28 Water St. 3rd Colored Concrete Lago Taco's py Cano Retail Entry Existing Tree 34 Water St. Retail Pedestrian Connection/ Alley New Tree t r Stree Wate Dock Cinema Renovation - Facade Restoration -1st Floor Commercial Space 224158A -2nd Floor Theater Room Architectural Site Plan Architectural Site Plan 1 SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" A02 © 2023 Tushie Montgomery & Associates, P.C. Page 145 of 223 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT of the Dock Cinema Excelsior, Minnesota October 27, 2025 26 Water Street Project Address: Excelsior, MN Date: October 27, 2025 To: Tim Marco, Mark McLane Marco McLane Prepared By: Matt Thomas, PE Meyer Borgman Johnson 801 Nicollet Mall, Suite W2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 MBJ Comm. No: M25.357.0 Please contact Matt Thomas, PE at 612-338-0713 or mthomas@mbjeng.com if you have questions regarding this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A walk-through assessment was conducted on September 29, 2025 to review the overall condition of the downtown Excelsior Dock Cinema facility. The facility is comprised of an original 1940s-era theater building and an adjacent theater addition that was added in 1989. This report summarizes our findings with respect to the condition and the necessary structural repairs, strengthening, or replacement that we find would be necessary to re-establish the facility as an occupiable and functional building use. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Structural Condition Assessment is to investigate the existing facility located at 26 Water Street in Excelsior to evaluate the conditions of the structural elements and systems. An evaluation of the 1989 theater addition is not included in this report. The scope of investigation included Page 162 of 223 the visible areas of the basement mechanical area, the main floor and 2nd floor balcony areas, the exterior masonry walls, and interior structural framing were visible or exposed via selective demolition efforts. Findings were limited to areas where structural elements were exposed for observation. Methods of investigation included a review of past documentation, including previous building fit plans and a historic review report by New History dated February 7, 2022. Visual observations of the exposed structural conditions and limited measurements were taken as needed to develop a basic level of understanding of the condition of the existing structural elements. This report will provide a summary of our assessment study findings which will include recommendations to retrofit or strengthen, if necessary, damaged or deficient structural elements, photos of these structural elements that can inform the cost determination to be prepared by a general contractor, and recommendations for further testing or investigative work that may be needed based on the observed conditions. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE The primary theater and associated entry lobby is generally fully covered by finish materials allowing for limited observations of the structural configurations or condition. Areas of limited selective demolition were made to allow for observation of key structural configurations or interfaces. The primary structural system for the building consists of a steel joist and steel beam roof system supporting a steel metal deck at the two-story high theater volume. A cast-in-place concrete structure (slabs, beams, walls) is used for the two-level lobby and 2nd floor balcony/theater space. When the 2nd floor balcony was converted to an upper level theater, dimensional lumber wood framing and concrete masonry was used for new wall and floor framing. Wood framed overframing appears to have been used above the original concrete balcony framing. A majority of the building’s exterior walls are masonry and brick construction with a cementitious/stucco coating. OBSERVATIONS Main floor Observations at the main floor (theater and lobby) include: 1. Water intrusion was noted at a portion of the lobby area at about the midlength of the building. Deteriorated ceiling tiles and extensive wetness and molding conditions were noted on the fixed seats and carpet at extensive areas. a. Recommendation: Repair compromised roof area. Refer to recommendations by others for mitigation of moisture-impacted finishes. 2. The slab-on-grade slopes down to the main theater screen/stage area. The egress access at the alley end of the building appears to be quite steep and not compliant with ADA requirements STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT October 27, 2025 Page 2 M25.357.0 Page 163 of 223 for slope and width. Although not a structural performance issue, extensive modification to the structural framing would be required to mitigate this condition. a. Recommendation: Amend both egress ways by demolishing and reconstructing the structural concrete framing over the mechanical basement area at the ‘north’ end of the building. Some reconfiguration of the basement mechanical may be necessary to allow for this reconstruction and for clearance for proper egress. See Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: Narrow and steep concrete slab at egress STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT October 27, 2025 Page 3 M25.357.0 Page 164 of 223 Figure 2: Concrete construction at steep egress ramp 2nd Floor Observations at the 2nd floor balcony and projection room include: 1. The concrete construction of the 2nd floor and the roof slab over the 2nd floor appeared to be in good condition. No structural issues were identified in the limited observations of the exposed structure. It was noted that the roof slab opening for access to the roof hatch is not compliant with several requirements related to safe worker access. a. Recommendation: If renovations proceed for the building, we recommend that modifications to the existing roof hatch location or protective equipment for fall prevention and protection be considered. Roof Observations of the roof structure include: 1. As noted previously, it was observed that there is an active roof leak that is allowing moisture to enter the main theater space. Where we were able to observe the roof structure through openings made in the ceiling finishes, the steel roof joists bottom chord rods (deformed ‘rebar’ rods) have very minimal protective coating and have areas of surface corrosion. The steel roof deck also has spotty evidence of corrosion. The steel beams appear to have a more intact primer or coating protection. Exposure to moisture accelerates existing or previous corrosion effects. STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT October 27, 2025 Page 4 M25.357.0 Page 165 of 223 a. Recommendation: Where the roof is experiencing water intrusion, we recommend a plan to address corrosion and deterioration at the adjacent structural steel deck and steel joists. We recommend that an inspection be made of the whole roof area to investigate the extent of structural deterioration that will require structural work. See Figure 3. Figure 3: Steel roof framing (not at roof leak area) 2. The roof framing appeared to be quite flat with minimal slope. One roof drain on the main roof was noted. Areas of ballast were not well distributed and the membrane may be compromised due to age and lack of ballast coverage. Roof elevations and degree of slope were not measured. a. Recommendation: Further analysis of the roof structure, slope, and drainage is required. We recommend a budget for new roofing, additional drains, and/or tapered insulation (which may affect the parapet condition) be considered. Exterior walls Observations of the exterior and basement walls include: 1. A significant vertical crack was noted at the back wall of the main theater building wall in the stucco exterior. It is expected that the crack extends through the wall and is not just a shrinkage crack in the stucco material. This crack may be related to other cracked conditions at the STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT October 27, 2025 Page 5 M25.357.0 Page 166 of 223 northeast portion of the building. See below of overall recommendations related to foundation conditions and the exterior wall. Figure 4: Vertical crack at back wall of building 2. There is a small partial basement level housing mechanical equipment at the north end of the building. The access to this level is limited to one narrow door and stairway. The basement is constructed with both cast-in-place concrete and concrete masonry walls. At the east end of the south wall of this basement area, stairstep cracking was noted in the masonry wall indicating settlement of the foundations and east wall of the building has occurred. See Figure 5. Refer also to recommendations below of comments regarding foundation conditions at the east wall. STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT October 27, 2025 Page 6 M25.357.0 Page 167 of 223 Figure 5: Basement wall cracking adjacent to east wall (looking south) 3. At the ‘east’ (lake side) exterior wall facing the empty lot additional stair step cracking was noted at about the 1/3 point location (from the back wall). The cracking projected through the exterior stucco finish and appeared to correspond to a concrete block module (8-in high and wide step increments). See Figure 6. Figure 6: Cracking at east (lakeside) wall STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT October 27, 2025 Page 7 M25.357.0 Page 168 of 223 4. The three incidents of wall cracking at the back wall, basement CMU, and exterior east wall indicate that there has been some settlement of the foundation condition at the ‘northeast’ portion of the building. Although significant structural distress has not yet been noted, there is potential for additional differential structural movement. Additionally, a review of the soil borings acquired in 2005 by Bruan Intertec and reproduced in AET’s geotechnical report dated August 11, 2023 shows that there is a layer of organic clay material immediately adjacent to the Dock Cinema building east wall. This location of this weaker soil layer coincides with the stair step cracking in the east wall and may indicate a generally softer soil condition at this northeast area of the building. a. Recommendations: i. Further investigation of the soil conditions at the northeast portion of the building is warranted to understand the performance expectations of the building for long- term behavior as well as the risks associated of maintaining the integrity of the Dock Cinema building when adjacent construction would occur. ii. To prevent further movement of the building foundations and to preclude settlement movement during adjacent construction several foundation stabilization techniques exist, including: traditional underpinning, micropile or helical pier foundations, or jet-grouting. Based on the clayey material conditions, soil stabilization methods such as permeation grouting would not be successful. iii. With its relatively rigid exterior wall materials (CMU, brick, and stucco) we recommend that precautions be taken during any adjacent construction to control vibrations through selective methods to minimize the potential for further settlement related cracking. The back portion of the building appears to be most sensitive to this potential settlement risk. CONCLUSIONS In general, the original building structure has shown acceptable structural performance, but areas of potential structural deterioration and observed structural settlement have been noted. Accessibility and mold/fungal issues have also been identified and should be remedied in accordance with recommendations by others. Structural work advised includes investigation and mitigation, as needed, of roof sloping and drainage issues, and settlement risk related to foundation strengthening and support. A key area that will require structural investigation and likely retrofit work is the roof structure deterioration due to the failed roofing condition. Additionally, settlements where cracking of the CMU walls was noted in the back portion of the building, where ongoing and progressive settlements are possible due to clayey soils, should be investigated and mitigated to prevent further damage. STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT October 27, 2025 Page 8 M25.357.0 Page 169 of 223 LIMITATIONS The professional engineering opinions and recommendations contained in this report exclusively concern structural elements, based on visual observation of accessible areas as defined by the limits of the scope of investigation and documents available to us at the time of this report. This assessment does not constitute a warranty or guarantee of performance, including future or latent conditions of the structure, nor does it provide verification of original structural design capacity, occupancy loading requirements or other code compliance, or compliance with existing documents, except where explicitly noted. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this report for your use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, MEYER BORGMAN JOHNSON Matt Thomas, PE STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT October 27, 2025 Page 9 M25.357.0 Page 170 of 223 PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Bar-Restaurant Reuse Tonka Theatre - 1989 Cinema Demo Date: SITE ACQUISITION COSTS: Site Area: 0.60 acres 26,136 sf Site Cost : $1,500,000 $57.39/sf Total Site Cost: $1,500,000 Gross-Up Total Gross & Net DESCRIPTION OF SPACE TO BE DEVELOPED: Net Usable Area Gross-Up Area Percentage Rentable Area First Floor 5,066 sf 00 sf 0.00% 5,066 sf Mezzanine 1,868 sf 00 sf 0.00% 1,868 sf TOTAL AREAS: 6,934 sf 00 sf 0.00% avg 6,934 sf Ratio-Net Usable Building Area To Land Area = 26.53% Ratio-Gross Building Area To Land Area = 26.53% Ratio-Net Rentable Building Area To Gross Building Area = 100.00% SF Per Space (Net Circulation Space Per Total Parking SF (Gross Parking Summary: # of Spaces Parking SF) Parking Space Parking SF) Structured Parking-Under Ground 0 00 sf 00 sf 00 sf Structured Parking-Above Ground 0 00 sf 00 sf 00 sf Surface Parking 24 00 sf 00 sf 00 sf Total Parking 24 0sf.- avg 0sf.- avg 00 sf 00 sf 00 sf Parking Spaces Per 1,000sf of NRA = 3.46 6,934 sf Page 171 of 223 PROJECT COST STATEMENT Project: Bar-Restaurant Reuse Tonka Theatre - 1989 Cinema Demo Date: Cost/SF Based Costs/SF Based on Usable Area on GBA & NRA Project Costs Site ACQUISITION COSTS: Site Purchase Price $216.33/sf $216.33/sf $1,500,000 CONSTRUCTION (Hard) COSTS: SITEWORK COSTS: Site work - Soil Corrections - Shoring - Foundation Repairs - Parking $104.56/sf $104.56/sf $725,000 89 Cinema Demolition $37.50/sf $37.50/sf $260,000 HazMat Abatement $15.86/sf $15.86/sf $110,000 Storm Water $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Onsite Improvements (Landscaping) $3.61/sf $3.61/sf $25,000 Engineered Rataining Wall design, demolition, and replacement $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 TOTAL SITEWORK COSTS: $161.52/sf $161.52/sf $1,120,000 BUILDING SHELL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: First Floor $345.31/sf $345.31/sf $1,749,340 Mezzanine $345.31/sf $345.31/sf $645,039 TOTAL BUILDING SHELL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $345.31/sf $345.31/sf $2,394,380 * The cost per square foot for these spaces are based only on each specific space and not on the total Cost Per Parking PARKING COSTS: # of Spaces Space Structured Parking-Under Ground 0 $ - #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 Structured Parking-Above Ground 0 $ - #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 Surface Parking 24 $ - #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 Total Parking Cost 24 $0 $0 * The cost per square foot for these spaces are based only on each specific space and not on the total TENANT IMPROVEMENT COSTS: First Floor $75.00/sf $75.00/sf $379,950 Mezzanine $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 TOTAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT COSTS: $54.80/sf $54.80/sf $379,950 * The cost per square foot for these spaces are based only on each specific space and not on the total Owner Hard Cost Contingency Reserve: 15.00% $60.02/sf $60.02/sf $416,149 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION (Hard) COSTS: $621.64/sf $621.64/sf $4,310,479 Page 172 of 223 DEVELOPMENT & SOFT COST : Soft Costs Incurred in Connection with Site Acquisition: Closing Costs $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Appraisal Fee $1.23/sf $1.23/sf $8,500 Real Estate Taxes $4.23/sf $4.23/sf $29,343 Mortgage Registration Tax 0.24% Of Mortgage Amount $0.60/sf $0.60/sf $4,176 Title/Recording $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Title Transfer Tax $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Title Insurance Premium $1.04/sf $1.04/sf $7,200 Architechural & Engineering: Civil Engineering 0.00% $6.49/sf $6.49/sf $45,000 Architecture/Interior/Specialty Theatre Design Consultants 0.00% $15.14/sf $15.14/sf $105,000 Structural Engineer 0.00% $9.37/sf $9.37/sf $65,000 MEP $6.49/sf $6.49/sf $45,000 Cinema Equipment $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Landscape $0.00/sf $0.00/sf Legal Fees: Legal - Entitlements $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Legal - Documentation $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Legal - Lender $3.61/sf $3.61/sf $25,000 Other Soft Costs: Survey $0.44/sf $0.44/sf $3,023 Geotechnical Consultant $1.37/sf $1.37/sf $9,500 Environmental Consultants $2.24/sf $2.24/sf $15,500 Commercial Leasing Commissions $9.93/sf $9.93/sf $68,884 Permit Fees - Building $4.66/sf $4.66/sf $32,329 Offsite Parking During Construction $1.44/sf $1.44/sf $10,000 Market Studies $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Planning/Zoning Fees $1.08/sf $1.08/sf $7,500 Park Dedication/Impact Fees $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 SAC/WAC Fees $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Lender Architect/Engineering Inspections $1.59/sf $1.59/sf $11,000 Insurance - Owner Liability $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Insurance - Builders Risk $3.12/sf $3.12/sf $21,657 Testing & Inspections $5.77/sf $5.77/sf $40,000 MEP Commissioning $3.61/sf $3.61/sf $25,000 $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Operations Start-Up Costs $6.49/sf $6.49/sf $45,000 Operations Deficit $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 FFE $10.82/sf $10.82/sf $75,000 Development Consulting $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Soft Cost Contingency 5.00% $5.04/sf $5.04/sf $34,931 DEVELOPMENT FEE 3.50% $34.04/sf $34.04/sf $236,000 SUBTOTAL DEVELOPMENT & SOFT COSTS : $139.82/sf $139.82/sf $969,542 Subtotal-Project Costs Before Financing Costs $977.79/sf $977.79/sf $6,780,021 FINANCING COSTS: Lender Required Contingency 0.00% $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Construction Loan Brokerage/Origination Fees 0.50% $1.15/sf $1.15/sf $7,957 Loan Broker Placement Fee 0.00% $0.00/sf $0.00/sf $0 Construction Loan Interest Reserve $3.48/sf $3.48/sf $24,136 TOTAL FINANCING COSTS: $4.63/sf $4.63/sf $32,093 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS: $982.42/sf $982.42/sf $6,812,114 Page 173 of 223 RENT AND EXPENSES Project: Bar-Restaurant Reuse Tonka Theatre - 1989 Cinema Demo Date: First Year Annual Base Years In Lease I. Base Rental Income: Rentable Area First Year Base Rental Income/SF Rent Term Stabilized Vacancy % Stabilized Vacant SF 1 First Floor 5,066 sf $ 25.00 $ 126,650 10.00 5.00% 253 SF 3 Mezzanine 1,868 sf $ 20.00 $ 37,360 10.00 5.00% 93 SF 2 SubTotal /Average 6,934 sf $23.65 weighted Avg. $ 164,010 6.67 avg. 5.00% avg 347 SF II. Base Rent Escalations: Input In One Of The Following Shaded Cells Only: Base Rent To Increase Annually By $ - Per SF FALSE Base Rent To Increase Annually By 3.00% TRUE Base Rent To Increase Annually By $ - Dollars FALSE Base Rent To Increase In Year 6 By 0.00% FALSE Additionally, Input Year 11 Base Rent Increase Percentage Below: Base Rent To Increase In Year 11 By 3.00% TRUE III. Other Income: Total Potential Monthly Total Potential Annual Annual Parking Parking Vacancy Parking- # of Stalls Available Monthly Rent/Stall Parking Rent Parking Rent Inflation Rate Factor Structured Parking-Under Ground 0 $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 0.00% Structured Parking-Above Ground 0 $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 0.00% Surface Parking 24 $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 0.00% Total Stalls 24 $0.00/stall avg. $ - $ - 0.00% 0.00% IV. First Stabilized Year Operating Expenses Operating Expense Expense Categories Enter Expense Per SF Annual Operating Expenses Annual Inflation Rate Real Estate Taxes $6.51/sf $ 45,140 3.00% Liability Insurance $0.50/sf $ 3,467 3.00% Utilities $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% CAM $6.00/sf $ 41,604 3.00% Security $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% Janitorial $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% Landscaping $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% Snow Removal $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% Administrative $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% Miscellaneous $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% Landlord Expenses $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% Ground Lease Payments $0.00/sf $ - 3.00% Structural Reserve $0.10/sf $ 693 3.00% Re-Tenanting Reserve $0.10/sf $ 693 3.00% Management Fee 5.00% $0.01/sf $ 12,076 Totals $14.95/sf $ 103,674 Page 174 of 223 PROFORMA STATEMENT Project: Bar-Restaurant Reuse Tonka Theatre - 1989 Cinema Demo Date: Potential Base Rental 5/1/2026 Months to Project Stabilization= 8 Income: Operating Year→ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 First Floor 5,066 SF $ 126,650 $ 130,450 $ 134,363 $ 138,394 $ 142,546 $ 146,822 $ 151,227 $ 155,764 $ 160,436 $ 165,250 Mezzanine 1,868 SF $ 37,360 $ 38,481 $ 39,635 $ 40,824 $ 42,049 $ 43,310 $ 44,610 $ 45,948 $ 47,327 $ 48,746 0 0 SF $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Base Rent 6,934 SF $ 164,010 $ 168,930 $ 173,998 $ 179,218 $ 184,595 $ 190,133 $ 195,837 $ 201,712 $ 207,763 $ 213,996 Parking Income: $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Operating Expense Reimbursement: $ 90,211 $ 92,918 $ 95,705 $ 98,576 $ 101,534 $ 104,580 $ 107,717 $ 110,949 $ 114,277 $ 117,705 Management Fee Reimbursement: $ 12,711 $ 13,092 $ 13,485 $ 13,890 $ 14,306 $ 14,736 $ 15,178 $ 15,633 $ 16,102 $ 16,585 Potential Gross Income: $ 266,932 $ 274,940 $ 283,189 $ 291,684 $ 300,435 $ 309,448 $ 318,731 $ 328,293 $ 338,142 $ 348,286 Vacancy: 5.00% $ (13,347) $ (13,747) $ (14,159) $ (14,584) $ (15,022) $ (15,472) $ (15,937) $ (16,415) $ (16,907) $ (17,414) Effective Gross Income: $ 253,586 $ 261,193 $ 269,029 $ 277,100 $ 285,413 $ 293,975 $ 302,795 $ 311,879 $ 321,235 $ 330,872 Operating Expenses: Real Estate Taxes $ (45,140) $ (46,495) $ (47,889) $ (49,326) $ (50,806) $ (52,330) $ (53,900) $ (55,517) $ (57,182) $ (58,898) Liability Insurance $ (3,467) $ (3,571) $ (3,678) $ (3,788) $ (3,902) $ (4,019) $ (4,140) $ (4,264) $ (4,392) $ (4,524) Utilities $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CAM $ (41,604) $ (42,852) $ (44,138) $ (45,462) $ (46,826) $ (48,230) $ (49,677) $ (51,168) $ (52,703) $ (54,284) Security $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Janitorial $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Landscaping $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Snow Removal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Management Fee 5.00% $ (12,076) $ (12,438) $ (12,811) $ (13,195) $ (13,591) $ (13,999) $ (14,419) $ (14,851) $ (15,297) $ (15,756) Landlord Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Ground Lease Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Structural Reserve $ (693) $ (714) $ (736) $ (758) $ (780) $ (804) $ (828) $ (853) $ (878) $ (905) Re-Tenanting Reserve $ (693) $ (714) $ (736) $ (758) $ (780) $ (804) $ (828) $ (853) $ (878) $ (905) $ (103,674) $ (106,784) $ (109,987) $ (113,287) $ (116,686) $ (120,186) $ (123,792) $ (127,506) $ (131,331) $ (135,271) NOI $ 149,912 $ 154,409 $ 159,042 $ 163,813 $ 168,727 $ 173,789 $ 179,003 $ 184,373 $ 189,904 $ 195,601 ROI (Return On Cost) 2.20% 2.27% 2.33% 2.40% 2.48% 2.55% 2.63% 2.71% 2.79% 2.87% Market Cap Rate 6.50% Estimated Initial Stabilized Value $ 2,306,341 5 year average 2.34% Estimated Current Market Cap Rate 6.50% Estimated Initial Stabilized Value $ 2,306,341 Assumes Sale at Completion: Project Cost $ 6,812,114 Costs Of Sale 3.00% $ 69,190 Value $ (4,574,964) Return On Cost If Sold -67.16% Page 175 of 223Annual Equity Return Assuming Build & Hold: Permanent LTV Percentage 69.00% (Based on Stabilized Value) Permanent Debt Amount $ 1,591,375 $1,561,975 $1,530,839 $1,497,865 $1,462,944 $1,425,962 $1,386,796 $1,345,317 $1,301,390 $1,254,869 $1,205,602 Annual Interest Rate 5.75% Construction Loan Amount $ 1,591,375 Annual Debt Constant 7.55% Permanent Debt Amount $ 1,591,375 Loan Amortization Period (Years) 25.00 Equity Investment During Construction $ 5,220,739 =76.64% Of Project Cost Land Value Recovery of Equity From Refinance Proceeds $ - Equity Investment After Refinancing $ 5,220,739 =76.64% Of Project Cost Land Value Annual Debt Service $ 120,137 $ 120,137 $ 120,137 $ 120,137 $ 120,137 $ 120,137 $ 120,137 $ 120,137 $ 120,137 $ 120,137 Cash Flow After Debt Service $ 29,775 $ 34,272 $ 38,904 $ 43,676 $ 48,590 $ 53,652 $ 58,866 $ 64,236 $ 69,767 $ 75,464 Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.25x 1.29x 1.32x 1.36x 1.40x 1.45x 1.49x 1.53x 1.58x 1.63x Cash On Cash Return Equity (ROE) 0.57% 0.66% 0.75% 0.84% 0.93% 1.03% 1.13% 1.23% 1.34% 1.45% Page 176 of 223 February 12, 2025 Heritage Preservation Commission Bruce Anderson- bdahsa7@msn.com City of Excelsior Tim Caron - tgcaron@sprintmail.com 37 Water Street Anne Mark - anne.wagner.mark@gmail.com Excelsior, MN Tim Gephart - timgep23@gmail.com Rick Dahlstrom - lonepineframing@msn.com Mark Macpherson - mactowne@aol.com Dear Mr. Chair and Members: We represent Mithun Enterprises and its development team. Please accept this consolidated response for the administrative record regarding the Site Alteration Permit (“SAP”) and related demolition request for the Tonka Theater. As a threshold matter, the Applicant expressly reserves all rights with respect to the Commission’s failure to act within the mandatory timeframes set forth in its ordinance.1 The ordinance requires the Commission to approve or deny the application within sixty (60) days and permits an extension only upon a formal finding of probable cause to reuse the historic resource.2 No such finding was made. When a city deviates from its own ordinance, without explanation, Minnesota courts have found such failure to be arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the Applicant’s position is that this application has been approved by operation of law, and nothing in this submission should be construed as a waiver of that position. This letter is intended to (i) clarify the record, (ii) correct material misstatements and overreach in the City’s historic preservation consultant memorandum dated January 27, 2026 (the “Consultant Memorandum”), and (iii) explain why the proposed changes to the Tonka Theater (the “Project”) comply with the Excelsior City Code. The development team fully acknowledges the Tonka Theater’s historic significance as a contributing structure within the Excelsior Commercial Historic District. The site alteration permit proposal is preservation-oriented: it retains the entire street-facing façade; restores historically appropriate exterior materials; reconstructs the marquee; and returns the building to productive civic use. The narrow dispute is not whether the Theater is historic, but whether the City may deny a partial demolition by applying standards that are not found in (and exceed) the adopted ordinance criteria. 1 Section 20-12 (e) Action by commission. Upon receiving an application requesting the demolition or relocation of a landmark or a contributing site located in an historic district, the commission within 60 days after receipt of the application shall either approve or deny such application. If the commission finds that probable cause exists to reuse the historic resource, the commission may extend the review time to 90 days from the receipt of the application, and notify the applicant of such postponement. Staff was reminded by the Applicant that a public hearing was required for the SAP. Staff could have complied with the 60-day time period, but failed to notice a public hearing. 2 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287, 292 (Minn. 2013). Heritage preservations proceedings are akin to hearings on a conditional use permit directed at a specific property and related to specific property rights. HPC applications are a written request relating to zoning under Minn. Stat. 15.99. Page 177 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 2 I. The City’s Historic Preservation Authority Is Limited to Those Powers Expressly Delegated to it Under Minnesota Law Historic preservation authority in Minnesota operates through a multi-tiered statutory framework allocating responsibility among federal, state, and local actors. While municipalities play a critical regulatory role, that role is limited to powers delegated to the City by state statute and implemented through local ordinance. Local commissions therefore exercise regulatory authority, not free-floating discretion, and may not expand requirements beyond what the ordinance and adopted standards provide. Accordingly, the Commission’s review of this SAP must be tethered to (a) the standards expressly adopted in Chapter 20 of the City Code, and (b) the specific findings required by that ordinance. Preservation policy preferences, even sincerely held, cannot substitute for ordinance criteria. II. The City Code Contemplates Demolition and Does Not Authorize Categorical Prohibition The plain language of the Excelsior City Code does not prohibit partial or full demolition of contributing structures. Section 20-12 expressly contemplates demolition (including full demolition) where the applicable findings are met. The ordinance establishes a criteria-based, discretionary review, not a categorical ban. City ordinances are strictly construed against the City, in favor of the property owner. Minnesota courts give weight to the interpretation that, while still within the confines of the language of the ordinance, is “least restrictive upon the rights of the property owner to use his land as he wishes.”3 Against this backdrop, repeated assertions in the Consultant Memorandum that the historic district was “not designated to allow demolitions,” or that approval would be improper because it would “set a precedent,” are policy arguments unrelated to the plain language of the ordinance. Treating demolition as presumptively forbidden improperly converts a discretionary standard into compete ban. Permanently denying an owner beneficial use of historic property or requiring substantial investment in repairs over the owner's objection constitutes a compensable taking under Minnesota law.4 We must note that in the hours of public hearings held on this Project, staff report after staff report notes the proposed demolition as “partial demolition” subject to the partial demolition standards of the City Code.5 Not until 3 days before the proposed hearing before the HPC, did staff and the City Consultant provide notice to the development team that this Project would not be reviewed under the partial demolition standards but the demolition standards in section 20- 3 Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1980). 4 To permanently deny an owner the beneficial use of his property except by requiring him to make a substantial investment in repairs and renovation, over his objection, would constitute a “taking” for which the owner has a right to compensation. State by Powderly v. Erickson, 301 N.W.2d 324, 326 (Minn. 1981). 5 In its final memo to the City Council, published in advance of the July 21, 2025 Council consideration of the preliminary PUD, staff writes: Staff recommends that as the HPC considers the proposed partial demolition of the Tonka Theatre building the analysis should consider the impact of a partial demolition of a Contributing structure on the Downtown Historic District as a whole (emphasis added). Page 178 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 3 12. Section V demonstrates why the plans comply with the standards for 20-12, but as a threshold matter, we object to the characterization of this Project as a full demolition. The proposed work meets the City Code definition of “partial demolition.” Removal is limited to (i) structurally compromised portions of the building and (ii) the non-contributing additions. All Water Street massing, height, and façade elements are retained. The portion proposed for removal is not readily visible from Water Street. The disagreement over percentage calculations reflects a broader concern regarding the purpose and analytical foundation of the Consultant Memorandum. In an apparent effort to characterize the application as triggering the full demolition standard, the memorandum introduces revised building square footage figures that are not supported by any engineering or architectural documentation. The Consultant Memorandum adds the unused and unoccupiable basement square footage to push the building into the full demolition category, while essentially ignoring the work done by the development team and its professional engineers to save a significant portion of the original theater. To be clear, the basement square footage can be retained, and if it is retained, the building would by the consultant’s new calculations fall within the 30-percent threshold for partial demolition. This is the type of issue appropriately raised with an applicant during the course of a nearly 70-day review process, not introduced for the first time three days before a hearing on the application. Instead, the consultant revised material calculations without addressing the Applicant’s updated analysis or providing a meaningful opportunity for response. III. Historic Designation Record Does Not Support the Consultant’s Reframed Areas of Significance The Consultant Memorandum repeatedly asserts that the building’s volume and rear mass are “character-defining features” whose loss would permanently damage integrity. That assertion is not supported by the historic designation record. The designation narratives emphasize the Theater’s east façade, marquee, Art Moderne detailing, and Water Street presence not rear massing, lake-facing visibility, or interior auditorium volume as independent sources of significance. The designation study providing for the designation of the district is attached as Exhibit A. The façade ornamentation is mentioned, Water Street massing is mentioned, but no other physical components are described. These features are maintained under the proposed SAP. Moreover, and for decades, the rear mass elevated by the Consultant Memorandum was obscured by non-contributing structures, including the former Pizza Hut building. Preservation analysis must be anchored in what is actually designated, not what is later asserted as significant without documentary support. The Consultant Memorandum further asserts that the internal volume of the theater must be preserved in its entirety. Neither the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards nor the City Code imposes a categorical prohibition on partial alteration of a single interior space. To the contrary, adaptive reuse of National Register listed theaters routinely involves subdivision, reconfiguration, or selective modification of interior volume while maintaining historic designation. The building’s interior configuration is not identified as a defining element of its designation as a contributing structure. This further highlights internal inconsistency within the memorandum. It acknowledges that the HPC does not regulate use and that interior spaces commonly evolve over time, yet it effectively treats the auditorium’s interior volume as though it were entitled to the same level of protection as the Water Street façade or the building’s overall height and massing. Page 179 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 4 IV. The Consultant Memorandum Ignores the Procedural and Practical Record Established by the Development Team Over the Last Three Years. The Consultant Memorandum misstates and omits key procedural context. The Project has been subject to multiple concept plans and extensive public process over several years, and revised concepts reflecting partial demolition were presented in public meetings involving the Planning Commission, HPC, and City Council. The memorandum ignores that an adaptive reuse model intended to retain 100% of the theater space was rejected by the City Council due to adjacent building height and parking concerns. Similarly, the memorandum ignores that there has been extensive discussion of the underlying retention of the theater use. The consultant writes: The owner has not provided tenant names or tenant signage to the building and the City cannot require the building remain a theater. While many Excelsior residents have a shared historic bond for continuing the theater use as a community space, the HPC’s design review is not based on use and the HPC cannot require a theater use. Furthermore, there is nothing to hold the owner to the proposed second-story theater and interior plans could change in the future without HPC review. The owner has already claimed that theaters are obsolete, so the inclusion of a theater is confusing in the application. This characterization is incorrect. The City is requiring the building to remain a theater and multipurpose community space. The resolution approving the Preliminary Planned Unit Development expressly conditions approval on continued theater and community use. Moreover, the HPC’s review cannot proceed in isolation, as if the Project has not already undergone extensive review and analysis through the City’s broader land use process. The proposed non-profit theater use has been consistently and repeatedly presented, analyzed, and affirmed as a foundational element of the Project. Members of the Mithun design team and FilmNorth have testified on multiple occasions regarding the intended long-term theater and community programming use of the building. The continued operation of the theater is not an incidental or “confusing feature” of the application; it is a central public-benefit component of the Project and should be evaluated accordingly. V. Approval of the submitted SAP is Required Under the Ordinance The purpose of the HPC is to preserve, protect, perpetuate, and enhance structures within the historic district that possess special historic, community, or aesthetic value. The Commission is charged with stewardship of the City’s heritage. But this purpose language is not limited to preservation and protection alone. It expressly includes perpetuation and enhancement. This Project is consistent with all four of those objectives Nevertheless, the City and its consultant refuse to acknowledge that alignment, instead elevating the apparent policy preferences of a small subset of individuals over the demonstrated commitment of the broader community and the extensive, community-engaged design process this Project has undertaken over the past three years. There is zero emphasis in the Consultant Memorandum on perpetuation and enhancement, two areas in which this Project excels. Page 180 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 5 Rather than grounding its analysis in the practical realities established through expert testimony submitted by the Applicant and multiple rounds of public review, the Consultant Memorandum speculates and overstates alleged compliance deficiencies while disregarding the HPC’s affirmative duties under the ordinance, including its obligation to: 1. Strengthen the local economy; 2. Promote the use of buildings and structures for economic prosperity, education, inspiration, and the general welfare of people of the City; and 3. Assist, encourage, and provide incentives to owners for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and productive use of historic buildings, structures, objects, and sites. In reviewing the SAP, the Consultant Memorandum disregards the extensive presentations, design work, and technical analysis prepared in connection with this Project. It ignores multiple concept plan reviews conducted for this site and instead approaches the application with a predetermined objective of identifying a basis for denial. As previously noted, the analysis reflects a selective and inconsistent application of the ordinance, recasting the Applicant’s partial demolition request as a full demolition. The City accepted the SAP as a complete partial demolition application and never rejected it as incomplete. Nevertheless, the consultant seeks to extract the Project from the plain language definition of partial demolition, and instead attempts to recharacterize it as a full demolition by shifting analytical assumptions mid-process. Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural and analytical deficiencies, the Project independently satisfies the findings and approval criteria applicable to full demolition, as demonstrated below. Requirement Consultant Determination Applicant Response Concept review / Concept review was not The Project has undergone multiple concept process history properly submitted. plan reviews for both the Theater and the adjacent mixed-use component. Plans were revised in response to HPC comments (including height/design details along Water Street). Concept Review Concept review failed to A full-retention concept was presented. City account for retaining Council rejected the proposal. entirety of the Theater Non-contributing Additions outside the period Prior City materials and staff reports have structures of significance are non- treated later additions (including the 1989 contributing; consultant addition) as non-contributing and not visible suggests applicant from Water Street. The proposal removes assumptions about non-contributing components while additions are incorrect preserving contributing, Water Street-facing features. Public Hearing Public hearing scheduled Despite completeness determination in for February 24. November, notice and hearing scheduling were delayed for months. Page 181 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 6 Requirement Consultant Determination Applicant Response Decision timeline HPC has 120 days to The ordinance language is more restrictive: approve or deny under it provides a 60-day decision period with Minn. Stat. § 15.99.6 limited extension tied to probable cause regarding reuse. Owner preserves this procedural issue for the record. Engineering / The Engineering study is The qualified engineer’s report documents structural insufficient to support partial structural deterioration and supports the documentation demolition; consultant proposed scope. The City has not offered a questions structural contrary engineering opinion; consultant unsoundness. interpretation is not a substitute for professional engineering evidence.7 Total demolition Full retention could be Full retention was explored in prior concepts; criterion: Alternative supported through tax feasibility is constrained by physical undertakings and credits or alternative uses; limitations and lack of on-site parking. reuse assertions Applicant failed to explore Suggested uses (e.g., internal amenity these mechanisms. concepts) do not demonstrate reasonable economic use. While Consultant lists “alternatives” the ordinance imposes a proactive duty on the part of City staff, HPC and its consultant to facilitate alternative funding mechanisms for retention. The design team has been engaged in this process for over three years. Total demolition Façade is valuable, but rear Designation materials emphasize Water criterion: massing and lake visibility Street façade, marquee, and Art Moderne Architectural are determinative. detailing; they do not identify rear massing significance or lake-facing visibility as determinative. Historically the rear was obscured by non- contributing structures. Total demolition Interior auditorium volume The designation narrative does not elevate criterion: Historical is of particular significance; the auditorium volume as an independent significance / interior loss undermines integrity. source of integrity. This is a new auditorium interpretation made by the consultant for the first time in this report. The proposal retains 6 In Moreno v. City of Minneapolis, the court addressed whether an appeal to a city council triggers a new 60-day deadline under Section 15.99 or must be decided within the original 60-to-120-day period. The court held that under Minneapolis's appeals process which mirrors the City’s HPC appeal process, a zoning application is not approved or denied for purposes of Section 15.99 until the city council—not the planning commission—has resolved all appeals challenging the application. This means the appeal is part of the original request timeline, not a separate process with its own deadline. Moreno v. City of Minneapolis, 676 N.W.2d 1 (2004). 7 “In making its decision, a municipality may not ‘reject expert testimony without adequate supporting reasons.’” BECA of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas ex rel. Bd. of Com’rs, 607 N.W.2d 459, 463 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting SuperAmerica Grp., Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264, 267 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)). “Non- experts can supply adequate reasons to counter or reject expert opinions, but those reasons must be concrete and based on observations, not merely on fears or speculation.” Id. (citations omitted). In BECA of Alexandria, the court held arbitrary and capricious a condition the county placed on a CUP prohibiting docks, rafts, buoys, and mooring stations after finding the condition was “based solely on unscientific concerns rather than factual data[.]” Id. Page 182 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 7 Requirement Consultant Determination Applicant Response defining historic exterior features and enables continued civic use. Total demolition Owner’s roof repairs Maintenance efforts do not negate criterion: Attempt to indicate the structure is documented deterioration and safety/code maintain the sound. constraints. The Consultant’s report structure acknowledges there is no evidence of owner neglect. Total demolition Owner could sell the The hotel-theater concept plan review criterion: Retention property to someone for a process documented a $6 million dollar cost of the resource price equivalent to the to retain the whole of the theater. The 26 constitutes a hazard assessed value. Water Street property is currently assessed to public safety that at $573,000. Minnesota courts have long cannot be recognized that permanently denying an eliminated by owner beneficial use of historic property or economic means requiring substantial investment in repairs available to the over the owner's objection would constitute a owner compensable taking.8 Total demolition Continuity of District Interpreting continuity to prohibit any criterion: District requires that the theater meaningful alteration would function as a de continuity remain. facto ban inconsistent with the ordinance, which expressly contemplates demolition where findings are met. Under this interpretation no property within the District could be partially or fully demolished because of its alleged significance to the broader district. Total demolition Not addressed. As reflected in concept review and criterion: Comp plan preliminary PUD approvals, the Project alignment advances Comprehensive Plan goals for downtown reinvestment, pedestrian orientation, and a diverse mix of uses including entertainment.9 Total demolition Consultant disputes the A qualified structural engineering report criterion: Structural engineer’s conclusions documents deterioration and supports the integrity based on a site visit proposed scope; consultant opinion is not a facilitated by the Applicant. substitute for professional engineering analysis.10 Total demolition Not addressed. Partial demolition facilitates constructive criterion: effects on reuse of the theater and enables the surrounding adjacent residential project, supporting properties downtown vitality and minimizing blight risk. Relocation feasibility Narrative does not address The preservation intent is to retain and whether the structure can restore the Water Street façade and be moved. maintain the Theater’s presence in place as an integral downtown feature. Consultant 8 Supra, Footnote 4 9 2040 Comprehensive Plan- City of Excelsior, Chapter 3: Land Use (2019) available at: https://www.ci.excelsior.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/1459/Comp-Plan-v19-final-with-East-Side-Plan 10 Supra, Footnote 7 Page 183 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 8 Requirement Consultant Determination Applicant Response suggestion that relocation should be or failed to be studied, ignores the investment the broader Project is attempting to make in meeting community desire for retention of the majority of the building. VI. The Project Satisfies the Ordinance’s Inordinate Hardship Standard The ordinance’s inordinate hardship inquiry focuses on the relationship between (a) the cost of repair/rehabilitation and (b) the reasonable value and economic use of the property after repair, and (c) whether rehabilitation is impractical, not merely undesirable. The record provided by the Applicant demonstrates that this standard is met. A. Extraordinary rehabilitation cost relative to value and use Credible cost estimates previously provided to the City reflect that full retention and rehabilitation (including the auditorium volume) would require approximately $6 million in investment, grossly disproportionate to the reasonable economic value and income-producing potential of the building in a full-preservation configuration. B. Longstanding, repeated efforts to reuse and redevelop the property Redevelopment has been attempted since at least 2021. This development team pursued multiple concept plans over an extended period; only the current proposal has successfully navigated the City’s planned unit development process. This reflects sustained good-faith reinvestment efforts. C. Lack of reasonable economic use under full-preservation scenarios The ordinance requires reasonable economic use, not hypothetical occupancy. Here, the Project’s zoning and lack of on-site parking materially constrains the assembly and institutional uses proposed by the consultant. A 6,300-square-foot church sanctuary (the size of the original auditorium) typically accommodates between approximately 430 and 900 persons, depending on seating configuration. Even at the lowest end of that range, a 430-person assembly-use would require a minimum of 108 parking stalls. By contrast, a comparably sized modern theater with approximately 250 reclining seats requires only 25 parking stalls under the City’s ordinance. The consultant’s suggestion that the building could be preserved in full and repurposed for assembly or institutional use, like a church, fails to address with the practical realities of the structure itself. The building consists of a deep, windowless floor plate designed for a single-purpose auditorium use. Absent substantial alteration, that space is not readily adaptable to viable office, retail, or community uses. And if subdivided or reconfigured to create leasable areas, the result would be a series of small, interior, light-deficient rooms. This outcome would both undermine marketability and, ironically, alter the very interior volume the Consultant Memorandum highlights. Speculation that some unidentified user might occupy the building under a full preservation scenario does not constitute evidence of reasonable economic use and a basis for denial. The ordinance requires more than hypothetical possibilities; it requires a demonstrated ability for the property to function feasibly within real market conditions and applicable code constraints. The project development team has repeatedly testified in multiple public sessions regarding its good- faith efforts to evaluate and pursue constructive adaptive reuse options, including outreach, Page 184 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 9 financial analysis, and alternative programming concepts. Those efforts have not produced a viable path forward under a full-preservation scenario. Simply advancing theoretical alternatives, without evidentiary or financial support, does not satisfy the ordinance’s findings requirement and does not provide a defensible basis for denial. D. Hardship is not self-created The Theater remained in active use until 202. Current conditions reflect functional obsolescence and documented deterioration, not intentional disinvestment. The ownership group has maintained the theater since its closure, but as demonstrated in the submitted engineering reports, structural issues will continue to contribute to deteriorating condition. E. Total rehabilitation is impractical under the ordinance standard Taken together, the extraordinary investment required for full retention, the extended record of attempted adaptive reuse, and the absence of reasonable economic use under full-preservation scenarios demonstrate inordinate hardship if strict full-retention were required. The proposed demolition is the feasible path that preserves defining features and restores productive use. VII. Constitutional Limits Prohibit Indefinite Preservation Minnesota courts recognize historic preservation regulations as a legitimate exercise of police power, while also emphasizing constitutional limits where regulation permanently denies beneficial use or effectively forces substantial investment in repairs over the owner’s objection. In State by Powderly v. Erickson, the Minnesota Supreme Court drew a critical boundary: permanently denying an owner the beneficial use of historic property except by requiring substantial investment in repairs over the owner’s continued objection constitutes a compensable taking. The Court further held that where neither the owner nor any public body elects, after a reasonable period of time, to preserve a historic structure through acquisition or legislation, the owner retains a constitutional right to demolish the structure or put the property to any other lawful use. Subsequent cases apply the Penn Central framework, focusing on economic impact, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. Importantly, financial feasibility is not evaluated at the time of designation in the abstract, but when an owner seeks approval for a specific alteration. Precisely where we are now. That flexibility is the mechanism that keeps preservation regulation within constitutional bounds. Approval of this SAP preserves defining historic features, retains contributing status, restores productive use, and avoids indefinite restriction without public acquisition, compensation, or viable private reuse. This reinforces why the City should approve this Project in compliance with its ordinance. For the reasons above, the proposed SAP advances the core purpose of Chapter 20 by protecting historic resources through continued, viable use. It retains the Theater’s defining historic exterior features and qualifies as partial demolition under the ordinance. Thinking about this Project as “total demolition” ignores the practical reality that this Project retains a significant component of the theater. The Consultant Memorandum applies new standards, selectively weighs evidence, and introduces hypotheticals that are not tied to market realities. It should not serve as the basis for denial. The Owner respectfully requests approval of the Site Alteration Permit and welcomes continued collaboration on reasonable conditions that ensure the long- term preservation and success of the Tonka Theater. Page 185 of 223Heritage Preservation Commission February 12, 2025 Page 10 Please do not hesitate to reach out to any member of the Mithun team with questions in advance of the February 24, 2026 meeting. Sincerely, Megan C. Rogers, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: (952) 896-3395 Direct Fax: (952) 842-1847 Email: mrogers@larkinhoffman.com cc: Kristi Luger, City Manager (kluger@excelsiormn.org) Julia Mullin, Community Development Director (jmullin@excelsiormn.org) Ronald Batty, City Attorney (rbatty@kennedy-graven.com) Matt Mithun (matt@mithunent.com) Mayor Gary Ringate (gringate@excelsiormn.org) Councilmember Tim Bildsoe (tbildsoe@excelsiormn.org) Councilmember Jennifer Caron (jcaron@excelsiormn.org) Councilmember Chrystal O’Hanlon (cohanlon@excelsiormn.org) Councilmember Anne Vogel (avogel@excelsiormn.org) 4917-4937-9982, v. 3 Page 186 of 223 261 SCHOOL AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 952.474.5233 June 11, 2026 Matt Mithun Mithun Enterprises 950 Wayzata Boulevard E, Suite 104 Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Site Alteration Permit Application for Partial Demolition of Tonka Theater Building Email transmittal: matt@mithunent.com Cc: Kristi Luger, Excelsior City Manager; Ron Batty, Kennedy Graven, Dear Matt, The application for a Site Alteration Permit (SAP) for a partial demolition of the Tonka Theater building at 26 Water Street is incomplete. Please submit the following pursuant to Chapter 20 of the city code of ordinances: 1. A scaled elevation drawing of the proposed exterior (rear and side) of the building, post demolition. Page SAP 6 of the permit set provides renderings of the elevations; however, they are not scaled. 2. Re-use study. You have provided a pro forma for the development of a bar/restaurant in the existing building. This is helpful for the Commission; however, a re-use study is a broader analysis. For example, it identifies whether the building has potential for re-use and what those uses might be; identifies buildingcharacteristics and character- defining features that would guide potential re-use; considers market demand for any proposed re-use. (HPC Resolution 2026-01 also identifies this requirement - attached.) 3. Drawing or photographs showing the property in the context of its surroundings. You provided site line views in the Preliminary PUD application; it must be included here as well, updated to reflect the proposed changes to the Tonka Theater building and showing views from multiple vantage points on Water Street. 4. A completed SAP application form. Here is the link to the application form: https://www.ci.excelsior.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/2922/2---Modified-SAP-Form In addition, the Commission will want to review the following: • On p. SAP 5 of the permit set, please include the proposed new basement with dimensions. Once you’ve submitted the required items, we will confirm the HPC meeting schedule with you. We want to keep your application moving through the city review process as efficiently as possible and will look at scheduling a Special HPC meeting if that makes the most sense. Sincerely, Julia Mullin Community Development Director Page 187 of 223From: Mark McLane To: Julia Mullin; Matt Mithun; Tim Marco; Rogers, Megan C. Cc: Kristi Luger; Jess Long; Batty, Ronald H.; Furcich, Alexander W.; Tolar, Siobhan L. Subject: RE: 26 Water Street Site Alteration Permit application Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:57:48 AM Attachments: image001.png 3226 Council Meeting Follow Up.msg proposed partial demolition.msg Incomplete application letter_SAP_06_11_2026.docx Julia, We are in receipt of your June 11 email and Incomplete Application Letter regarding our Site Alteration Permit Application for Partial Demolition of Tonka Theater Building submitted May 26, 2026. After our City Council meeting we were encouraged to resubmit a new application to be evaluated under the review criteria of a Partial Demolition application. We were hesitant to do so as staff, the staff’s consultant, and HPC had taken discretion to interpret our initial application as a Total Demolition. We do not have interest in repeating that process. For the avoidance of any doubt, we reached out directly to you, as staff liaison to HPC, to understand clear and definitive submission requirements for a Partial Demolition application to be deemed complete. Your response email from April 2, 2026 attached above. We provided initial and supplemental information required from that communication for a new SAP application. Your Incomplete Application Letter dated June 11, 2026 is not consistent with information required from your email. Had we known a re-use study would be required, we would not have spent additional time and resources on this process. A re-use study is an ambiguous and perfunctory exercise based on assumptions and not grounded in market and economic realities nor specific site and city political constraints. Assumptions that are impossible to substantiate. Conclusions derived from cursory review of elements of seemingly comparable buildings or projects without the writer ever having complete information on the comparable buildings or projects. Authored by consultants that risk nothing in their recommendations and conclusions. We would not spend time and resources on this type of exercise and would never rely on it for decision making. Ownership has shared the economic realities of the years of losses incurred operating the Dock Cinema as a movie theater, have fully vetted multiple redevelopment and reuse projects at substantial cost, have provided the city’s financial advisor with multiple full financial models, and have provided alternative proforma of validated interest for reuse of the Dock Cinema. In direct response to the items on your list, our comments are as follows: 1. We can add dimensions and scale to the elevation pages you requested. They are noted on the building drawings but can be added on the renderings as well. 2. We will not spend time debating the merits of a fictional study. The decision at hand is whether or not there is support for the larger project and adaptive reuse of the 26 Water Page 188 of 223 property. Reference to the previous resolution is irrelevant. That application was denied and is no longer applicable to this application. 3. We are confused by this request. We provided new site line views from Water Street out of our CAD model in the submission. There are no material changes to the site plan. Additional views with the added 3ft will provide no substantial changes to current project materials. Furthermore, this request would be satisfied with the final set of plans. In particular, Section 20 of the City Code requires that any SAP permit be accompanied by the approval of the project requiring the alteration. In this case, the project requiring the alteration is the adjacent 10 Water St building that would completely and fully block any view of the revised 26 Water St building from both Water St and Lake St. 4. As noted in your follow up email, a full application and payment of the application fee was submitted May 26, 2026. We are not understanding the request in the additional bullet point. There will be no new proposed basement. To clearly summarize and communicate our position, we are willing to provide the clarifications as noted in item 1 of the letter and are open to understanding the request for item 3. However, we are not going to move forward with a re-use study. We request that staff deem our application complete and HPC review our application without the requirement of a re-use study. Please confirm if we will be heard at an HPC meeting. If HPC is unwilling to accept our application under the guise of incomplete information, we would rescind our application. The City of Excelsior process to date has been arbitrary and capricious and we are unwilling to further participate. The biggest disappointment in all of this is the disservice to the residents of Excelsior. Please respond ASAP. If we don’t hear back by this Thursday, June 18th, we will begin pursuing other plans. Thank you, Matt, Mark, and Tim MARK MCLANE MOBILE 612.360.3313 MARCO MCLANE DEVELOPMENT From: Julia Mullin <jmullin@excelsiormn.org> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 5:22 PM To: Matt Mithun <matt@mithunent.com>; Mark McLane <Mark@marcomclane.com>; Tim Marco <Tim@marcomclane.com>; Rogers, Megan C. <mrogers@larkinhoffman.com> Cc: Kristi Luger <kluger@excelsiormn.org>; Jess Long <jlong@excelsiormn.org>; Batty, Ronald H. <rbatty@Kennedy-Graven.com>; Furcich, Alexander W. <afurcich@kennedy-graven.com>; Tolar, Siobhan L. <stolar@kennedy-graven.com> Page 189 of 223Subject: 26 Water Street Site Alteration Permit application Hello Matt. I have reviewed the site alteration permit application you submitted for a partial demolition of the Tonka Theater building and have found it to be missing several items. It is incomplete at this time. Please see the attached letter for a description of what is needed. Let me know if you have questions; we can meet in person or have a phone conversation, whichever works best for you. Regards, Julia Julia Mullin – Community Development Director Direct Phone 952.653.3674 | jmullin@excelsiormn.org www.excelsiormn.org Excelsior business hours are 7:30-5:30, Monday through Thursday. Closed Fridays. Page 190 of 223 26 WATER STREET APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INCOMPLETE APPLICATION LETTER 1. Revised Site Plan 2. Scaled rear elevation drawing of proposed Tonka Theater building 3. Street views of proposed Tonka Theater building with proposed mixed-use building at 10 Water Street. Page 191 of 223 1 2 ' - 0 " New Recon Retaining Wall Temp. Parking03 20' - 0" Wood fence P r o p e r Transformer t Boulder Retaining Wall y L Alley i n e N e w R e 04 c o n R e t Property Line a Balcony Balcony Balcony Balcony i n i n 20' 24' - 0" g W a l l 12' - 0" T Garage Entry Rear Yard Setback MA Stair Entry Tushie Montgomery Architects 3-Story Mixed Use 7645 Lyndale Ave S Suite 100 04 Minneapolis, MN 55423 Level 1: Common, Units & Commercial Levels 2-3: Units Prepared For Surface Parking 24 Spaces 1st Floor: Walk up units, Typ. Property Line 2nd - 3rd Floor: Balconies, Typ. Existing Alley 10' - 3 7/8" 06 Amenity Deck B @ Rooftop i 07 k e Stair Shaft & Access R Balcony a c 2nd - 3rd Floor: Balconies, Typ. k s Project 9' - 4 1/2" 24' - 0" Balcony Apartment Entry Balcony B SWCP a l c o Balcony Walkway to Amenity Deck n y 10 Water St 10 Water St. Excelsior, MN 55331 347 2nd St. Retail / Business Elevator Shaft & Access B ADDITIONAL CINEMA AREA a l c RETAINED IN RESUBMITTAL o n y Apartment Entry Ramp Up Fire Pit Sloped Sidewalk Public Seating Phase Balcony Balcony @ Public Porch 2nd Floor SCHEMATIC Lake Street Dock DESIGN Cinema 28 Water St. Level 1: Commercial Amenity Deck w/ fire pit area and grill station 34 Water St. Lago Taco's Levels 2: Theater Room Retail Plaza & Plaza Steps R N O IO C Apartment Entry a n o NOT F p y Public Seating STRUCT alcony @ N Balcony @ B rd Floor 3rd Floor 3 CO Canopy Dining Patio Property Line Issuance ADA Ramp Preliminary PUD Rock Curb Stops ... 04.01.2025 ... Architectural Site Plan Retail Corridor Entry ... 1 ... SC A LE ... 1/16" = 1'-0" Water Street Colored Concrete ... Revisions Page 192 of 223 Retail Entry Existing Tree Pedestrian Connection/ Alley New Tree Dock Cinema Renovation - Facade Restoration -1st Floor Commercial Space -2nd Floor Theater Room 224158A Architectural Site Plan A02 © 2023 Tushie Montgomery & Associates, P.C. PROPOSED NEW TMA Tushie Montgomery Architects 7645 Lyndale Ave S Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55423 Prepared For 9' - 6 1/4" 41' - 2 5/8" 6' - 2 1/2" 40' - 6 1/2" 11 3 7 6 1 8 6 6 6 3 10 10 1 4 5 6 8 7 4 6 11 KEYNOTES Project 1 PAINTED STUCCO 2 PAINTED CMU 1 SAP 5 11' - 43/4" 3 BRICK SILL 4 ACM METAL PANEL 10 Water 10 St 10 Water 10 St 7 Water 10 St SAP 6 5 ACCENT MATERIAL #1 10 Water St.Excelsior,10 MN 55331 10 Water St.Excelsior,10 MN 55331 10 Water St.Excelsior,10 MN 55331 6 SIGNAGE 23' - 61/4" 7 PREFINISHED METAL COPING 4'- 1 1/2" 8 DOOR 5 6 SAP 6 SAP 6 9 WINDOW 10 APARTMENT BUILDING 6' 6' - 0" 11 LAGO TACOS 8 Phase 7' 7' - 0" SAP 6 SCHEMATIC 2' 2' - 0" DESIGN 4' - 3 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 4' - 5 5/8" 3' - 6 3/8" 4' - 5 5/8" 3' - 6 3/8" 3' - 11 1/8" 9' - 2 1/2" 3' - 5" 9' - 0" 14' - 5 7/8" 5' - 4" 1' - 0 1/2" 5' - 4" 14' - 5" N EAST - PROPOSED NEW (SAP) WEST - PROPOSED NEW (SAP) FOR TIO 1 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" T O N STRUC N 3 1 7 CO 74' - 1" 30' - 3 3/4" 16' - 8 1/8" 2' - 2" 17' - 0" 2' - 2" 5' - 9" Issuance Preliminary PUD 04.01.2025 ... ... ... ... 5' - 0" 5' - 0" ... ... Revisions MOVIE POSTER BOX WITH BACKLIGHT MOVIE POSTER BOX HIDDEN FASTENERS WITH BACKLIGHT HIDDEN FASTENERS THIS SIDE OF BUILDING CONCEALED BY NEW MIXED -USE BUILDING 25'- 0" 23' - 61/4" APPROXIMATEHEIGHT APPROXIMATEHEIGHT 6' - 0" 6' - 0" NORTH - PROPOSED NEW (SAP) SIGNAGE - EAST 2 PROPOSED NEW (SAP) SIGNAGE - EAST 3 PROPOSED NEW (SAP)P)P) 2 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0" 6 SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0" 4 7 74' - 1" 2 43' - 9 1/8" 30' - 3 7/8" 2' - 0" 2X2 BACKLIT SIGN WITH 5' - 10" HIDDEN FASTENERS 8" TALL INTERNALLY LIT INDIVIDUALLY MOUNTED LETTERS 2' - 0" 1' - 8" SIGNAGE - WEST 1 PROPOSED NEW (SAP) SIGNAGE - WEST 2 PROPOSED NEW (SAP)P) 7 SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0" 8 SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0" 23' - 61/4" *NEW CINEMA DESIGN IS CONCEPTUAL AT THIS TIME AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE LAGO TACOS ADJACENT THROUGHOUT THE DESIGN PROCESS PRIOR TO A FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL.* 224158A SIGNAGEPROPOSED ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS SOUTH - PROPOSED NEW (SAP) SAPSAP 646 4 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" © 2023 Tushie Montgomery & Associates, P.C. Page 193 of 223RENDERPage 194 of 223 1RENDERPage 195 of 223 2RENDERPage 196 of 223 3RENDERPage 197 of 223 4RENDERPage 198 of 223 5RENDERPage 199 of 223 610 Water St | 06.23.2026 Tonka Theater Supplemental Perspective from Across Water St. | SAP SI1 TM A TUSHIE MONTGOMERY Page 200 of 223 26 WATER STREET APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INCOMPLETE APPLICATION LETTER Additional site line views of Tonka Theater building (from Preliminary PUD application materials, 07/2025). Page 201 of 223 TMA Tushie Montgomery Architects 7645 Lyndale Ave S Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55423 11 3 7 1 6 Prepared For Project 8 6 6 6 2 6 10 Water St.Excelsior,10 MN 55331 LakeWater & Dock Cinema - SE Elevation 1 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 1 7 Phase Preliminary PUD R N O IO NOT F STRUCT N CO Issuance Preliminary PUD 04.01.2025 ... ... Dock Cinema - NE Elevation ... ... 2 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" ... ... 10 1 4 9 5 6 8 7 4 6 11 Revisions KEYNOTES 1 STUCCO 2 STONE 3 VERTICAL WOOD 4 ACCENT MATERIAL #1 5 ACCENT MATERIAL #2 224158A 6 SIGNAGE 7 PREFINISHED METAL COPING 8 DOOR Elevations - Dock 9 WINDOW Cinema Dock Cinema - SW Elevation 10 APARTMENT BUILDING 3 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 11 LAGOS TACOS A09 © 2023 Tushie Montgomery & Associates, P.C. Page 202 of 223 TMA Tushie Montgomery Architects 7645 Lyndale Ave S Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55423 Prepared For 16 1 4 10 8 19 5 Project 10 Water 10 Excelsior,St. MN 55331 Lake& Water Phase Preliminary PUD 6 18 2 22 5 3 16 17 9 SE Elevation (Water St.) 1 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" R N O IO FINISH KEY BRICK MASONRY #1 1 MANUFACTURER: GLEN-GERY OR HEBRON NOT F TYPE: MODULAR, 1/3 RUNNING BOND STRUCT COLOR: SMOKY MT. WILLIAMSBURG, HARBOURTOWN OR CITY LOFT N MORTAR: TBD 8 10 11 12 8 13 CAST STONE #1 CO 2 MANUFACTURER: TBD TYPE: CAST STONE COLOR: TO MATCH BRICK Issuance MORTAR: TBD Preliminary PUD 04.01.2025 CAST STONE #2 3 MANUFACTURER: TBD ... ... TYPE: CAST STONE COLOR: CHARCOAL ... ... MORTAR: TBD ACCENT MATERIAL #1 ... ... 4 MANUFACTURER: ALUCOBOND OR MAC TYPE: ACM OR NORWOOD COLOR: TRICORN BLACK OR BLACK WALNUT Revisions ACCENT MATERIAL #2 5 MANUFACTURER: ALUCOBOND TYPE: ACM COLOR: DARK BRONZE ANNODIZED OR RUSSET MICA ACCENT MATERIAL #3 6 MANUFACTURER: ALUCOBOND OR SIMILAR TYPE: ACM COLOR: AZURE BLUE OR SIMILAR WOOD #1 7 MANUFACTURER: NICHIHA, ARBOR OR MAC TYPE: AWP 1818, VERTICAL IN 5 3/8 WIDTH OR NORWOOD COLOR: VINTAGEWOOD SPRUCE, ASH OR SMOKED BIRCH ADDITIONAL KEYNOTES 8 ALUMINUM + GLASS RAILING SYSTEM 9 ALUMINUM RAILING SYSTEM 10 PATIO DOOR 11 WINDOW 12 ELEVATOR OVERRUN 13 STAIR OVERRUN 224158A 14 STONE BENCH 15 PLANTER 16 SIGNAGE Building Elevations 17 METAL AWNING 18 ALUMINUM CANOPY 1716 17 4 22 9 15 15 5 2 4 19 PREFINISHED METAL COPING 20 WOODEN BENCH NE Elevation (Lake St.) 21 STONE PARKING STOP 2 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 21 STOREFRONT GLAZING A05 © 2023 Tushie Montgomery & Associates, P.C. Page 203 of 223 TMA Tushie Montgomery Architects 7645 Lyndale Ave S Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55423 Prepared For Project 10 Water St.Excelsior,10 MN 55331 LakeWater & Phase Preliminary PUD R N O IO Apartment Entry Looking Down Alley Axon Looking at the Corner of Lake Street and Water Street NOT F STRUCT N CO Issuance Preliminary PUD 04.01.2025 ... ... ... ... ... ... Revisions 224158A Renderings View From Public Porch Looking to Courtyard View From Sidewalk Looking to Public Porch A11 © 2023 Tushie Montgomery & Associates, P.C. Page 204 of 223 26 WATER STREET HPC RESOLUTIONS 1. HPC Resolution 2025-04 2. HPC Resolution 2026-01 Page 205 of 223Page 206 of 223Page 207 of 223Page 208 of 223Page 209 of 223Page 210 of 223Page 211 of 223Page 212 of 223Page 213 of 223Page 214 of 223Page 215 of 223Page 216 of 223Page 217 of 223Page 218 of 223 Item: 9.b. ITEM REPORT To: City Council From: Julia Mullin, Community Development Director, Jess Long, City Planner Meeting Date: July 20, 2026 Department/Office: Community Development Item Name: Ordinance No. 697 Amending City Ordinance, Appendix E, Chapter 15, Section 15-4 Nonconforming Structures to Clarify Definitions of "Expansion" (8:00 PM) Summary: BACKGROUND Across the City of Excelsior there are numerous structures that do not meet current zoning requirements such as minimum setbacks from property lines or lot coverage requirements. This is to be expected as many of Excelsior's older homes were built prior to modern zoning standards, and more modern homes may not meet the current zoning requirements because of recent changes to the zoning code including how height is measured. These properties are considered “nonconforming,” and they are allowed to continue to exist; however, the conformities may not be expanded, unless a variance is granted. Throughout the years, different additions and rebuilds have been brought to the City with proposed expansions to nonconformities. Some owners and developers have questioned if their project is an expansion or simply making use of an existing nonconformity. Staff has explained that while an owner could rebuild a home at the same size with the same size of nonconformity, they do not have the automatic right to expand a nonconformity. The proposed definition of “expansion” provides additional clarity on what expansion is and how increasing dimension, size, area, volume, or height of a structure intensifies/expands the nonconformity. In February 2026, the Planning Commission had a discussion with the City Attorney about nonconforming structures. The Planning Commission then considered this update to the definition of “expansion” at the April 27, 2026, and July 8, 2026, regular Planning Commission meetings. During discussion of the amendment, some commissioners felt that a more substantial revision of Article 15 was needed. Following consultation with the City Attorney, it has been determined that the City’s code is as restrictive as allowed by state statute. However, an update to the definition of “expansion” could provide additional clarity for staff, commissioners, and applicants. Page 219 of 223 Proposed Ordinance Amendment Staff is proposing that we add a definition of “expansion” to our ordinance that makes clear what “expansion” means. The City Attorney recommended a definition from the City of Minnetonka’s ordinance: Expansion - Any increase in dimension, size, area, volume, or height, any increase in the area of use, any placement of a structure or part thereof where none existed before, any addition of a site feature such as a deck, patio, fence, driveway, parking area, or swimming pool, any improvement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed, any move of operation to a new location on the property, or any increase in intensity of use based on a review of the original nature, function or purpose of a non-conforming use, the hours of operation, traffic, parking, noise, exterior storage, signs, exterior lighting, types of operations, types of goods or services offered, odors, area of operation, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant by the city. Expansion is synonymous with "enlargement" and "intensification." In addition to updating the definition of expansion the Planning Commission has recommended that Section 15-4 Nonconforming Structures be updated to reflect and the new definition of expansion. Existing Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Article 15, Sec. 15-4 Nonconforming structures states: a. Expansions. No nonconforming structure may be expanded, enlarged, or extended in a manner that increases an existing nonconformity. Proposed Ordinance a. Expansions. No nonconforming structure may be expanded, enlarged, or extended in a manner that increases an existing nonconformity. Lastly, Staff is including a correction to a typo within Section 15-1 Purpose. The correction will improve clarity of the section and the City’s goal to eliminate nonconforming uses. Page 220 of 223Sec. 15-1. - Purpose. It is the purpose of this article to provide for the regulation of nonconforming uses, structures, lots and signs, and to specify those requirements, circumstances, and conditions under which nonconforming uses, structures, lots and signs will be operated and maintained. This Appendix E establishes separate zoning districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of uses which are permitted in that zoning district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these zoning districts that nonconforming, structures, uses and signs not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this article that all nonconformities nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council waive the First Reading of Ordinance No. 697 and schedule the Second Reading and approval of the ordinance for the August 3, 2026 City Council meeting. Budget: Attachments: 1. ARTICLE_15.___NONCONFORMING__USES__STRUCTURES__LOTS_AND_SIG NS (1) Page 221 of 223 ORDINANCE NO. 697 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX E, ARTICLE 15 NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND SIGNS, SECTION 15-2 GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE EXCELSIOR CITY CODE TO ADD DEFINITION OF “EXPANSION,” SECTION 15-4 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES TO CLARIFY LIMITS TO EXPANSIONS The City Council of the City of Excelsior hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Appendix E, Article 15, Section 15-1 Purpose of the Excelsior City Code is amended as follows: It is the purpose of this article to provide for the regulation of nonconforming uses, structures, lots and signs, and to specify those requirements, circumstances, and conditions under which nonconforming uses, structures, lots and signs will be operated and maintained. This Appendix E establishes separate zoning districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of uses which are permitted in that zoning district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these zoning districts that nonconforming, structures, uses and signs not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this article that all nonconformities nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity. (Ord. No. 554, § 1, 1-17-2017) Section 2. Appendix E, Article 15, Section 15-2 Definition of the Excelsior City Code is amended as follows: (f) Expansion - Any increase in dimension, size, area, volume, or height, any increase in the area of use, any placement of a structure or part thereof where none existed before, any addition of a site feature such as a deck, patio, fence, driveway, parking area, or swimming pool, any improvement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed, any move of operation to a new location on the property, or any increase in intensity of use based on a review of the original nature, function or purpose of a non-conforming use, the hours of operation, traffic, parking, noise, exterior storage, signs, exterior lighting, types of operations, types of goods or services offered, odors, area of operation, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant by the city. Expansion is synonymous with "enlargement" and "intensification." Created: 2026-05-18 09:20:35 [EST] (Supp. No. 26) Page 1 of 2 Page 222 of 223 Section 3. Appendix E, Article 15, Section 15-4 Nonconforming structures of the Excelsior City Code is amended as follows: (a) Expansions. No nonconforming structure may be expanded, enlarged, or extended in a manner that increases an existing nonconformity. Section 4. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.06 of the Excelsior City Charter. Adopted by the Council of the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, this _____ day of _______________ 2026. Gary Ringate, Mayor ATTEST: Hilary Vokovan, City Clerk Kristi Luger, City Manager First Reading of Ordinance: July 20, 2026 Second Reading and Adoption: August 3, 2026 Publication of Ordinance: August 6, 2026 Effective Date: September 6, 2026 Created: 2026-05-18 09:20:35 [EST] (Supp. No. 26) Page 2 of 2 Page 223 of 223