1 ## Planning Commission ## Regular Meeting Monday, July 27, 2026, 6:30 PM ## 106 Center Street Members of the public may attend the Planning Commission meeting either in person or by joining via Zoom either online or by telephone at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87685282586?pwd=AHYtsL1uaXXBEt4vOElLMouFVbeJtO.1 Meeting chat link https://us02web.zoom.us/launch/jc/87685282586 Meeting ID: 876 8528 2586 Passcode: 227192 --- One tap mobile ## +16469313860,,87685282586#,,,,*227192# US +19292056099,,87685282586#,,,,*227192# US (New York) Some items on this agenda are important enough to City Councilmembers that a quorum of the Council may be present to receive information leading to their future deliberations and eventual decision. ## AGENDA 1. Call to Order ## 2. Roll Call 3. Minutes of the Preceding Meeting(s) ## A. July 8, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ## 4. Discussion Items A. Public Hearing, 88 First Street, Variance application for lot coverage for driveway (PC No. 2026-10) B. Public Hearing, 150 Bell Street, Residential Review Permit application for construction of new garage (PC No. 2026-11) C. Public Hearing, Ordinance No. 698, Amendment to Swimming Pool Standards D. Public Hearing, Ordinance No. 699, Amendment to Porch and Pergola Definitions 5. Communications and Reports ## A. Council Update ## Next City Council meeting: August 3, 2026 ## Next Planning Commission meeting: August 24, 2026 Page 1 of 54 2 ## B. Upcoming items 6. Miscellaneous 7. Adjournment Page 2 of 54 ## City of Excelsior ## Planning Commission Wednesday, July 8, 2026 (Rescheduled from June 22, 2026) ## Meeting Minutes ## 1. CALL TO ORDER ## 2. ROLL CALL ## Present: Commissioners Day, Malsam, Muenzberg, Tyler; Commissioner Johnson attended remotely ## Absent: Commissioner Neale Also in attendance: Jess Long, City Planner; Josh Weir, Acting City Attorney; Julia Mullin, ## Community Development Director Commissioner Johnson will be attending the meeting remotely. ## 3. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING(S) ## (a) July 8, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Day moved to approve the minutes. Malsam seconded. Approved 5-0. ## 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Public Hearing, Ordinance No. 698 Amending City Ordinance, Chapter Section 21-2 (6) Swimming Pool Protection to clarify that fences are required Staff report was provided. Chair Muenzberg opened the public hearing. No members of the public spoke. Planning Commission supported removal of CUP requirement and requested modifications to proposed ordinance amendment. Day moved to continue the item to the July 27 th ## Planning Commission meeting. Tyler seconded. Approved 5-0. (b) Public Hearing, Ordinance No. 699 Amending City Ordinance, Chapters 2 and 42 Clarifying definitions of “porch” and “pergola” Staff report was provided. Chair Muenzberg opened the public hearing. No members of the public spoke. Planning Commission discussed proposed ordinance amendment and requested modifications to ordinance amendment and requested additional information about where else in ordinance “porches” are referenced. Day moved to continue the item to the July 27 th ## Planning Commission meeting. Tyler seconded. Approved 5-0. Page 3 of 54 ## Meeting Minutes ## Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 2025 Page 2 2 (c) Public Hearing, Ordinance No. 697 Amending City Ordinance, Appendix E, Chapter 15, Section 15-4 Nonconforming Structures to clarify definition of “expansion” Staff report was provided. Chair Muenzberg opened the public hearing. No members of the public spoke. Day moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 697. Malsam seconded. Approved 5-0. Malsam moved to add to the recommended ordinance amendment language to correct Section 15- 4(a) Expansion. Day seconded. Approved 5-0. (d) Discussion of Chapter 15, Nonconforming structures – additional discussion about the ordinance and possible recommended amendments The commission held a discussion and no action was taken. ## 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS ## (a) Council Update ## Next City Council meeting: July 20, 2026 ## Next Planning Commission meeting: July 27, 2026 (b) Upcoming items ## 6. MISCELLANEOUS ## 7. ADJOURNMENT Day moved to adjourn the meeting. Malsam seconded. Approved 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, ## Julia Mullin ## Community Development Director Page 4 of 54 ## APPLICANT/ Property Owner: Randy Herman , 312 3 rd ## Street ## LOCATION: 88 First Street ## CASE NO.: PC No. 2026-10 ## 60/120-DAY REVIEW 8/16/2026 10/15/2026 ## DEADLINE: ## BACKGROUND The applicant, Randy Herman, has submitted a Variance application for the expansion of a ribbon driveway to a full driveway for a single family home that is under construction at 88 First Street. The parcel is 4,368 sq ft and is zoned R2. The Planning Commission previously approved a RRP application and recommended approval of variance applications for the construction of a two- story single-family home with an attached garage in January 2026. The City Council approved the requested variances. While at the City Council meeting the applicants and Council discussed the proposed ribbon driveway and whether a full driveway and lot coverage variance would be more practical. As the applicant moved forward with construction of the approved home, he submitted the current application to expand the driveway. ## DETAILS/ANALYSIS ## Standard Required – R2 District Existing Proposed Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq ft 4,368 sq ft 4,368 sq ft Minimum Lot Width 60’ 58.34’ 53.34’ ## Front Yard Setback* 20-30 feet Front porch may encroach up to 6’ into front setback ## N/A 20’ ## Maximum Lot ## Coverage 12% +2100= 1,834 sq ft N/A ## With Ribbon Driveway 42% (1,835 sf) ## Full Driveway 46.6% (2,036 sf) ## Date: ## Item 88 First Street – Application for Variance ## Jess Long, Planner and Julia Mullin, Community ## Development Director ## Planning Commission ## MEMORANDUM ## Re: To : July 27, 2026 ## From: Page 5 of 54 ## Public Hearing ## As required by City Ordinance ## Appendix E, Section 6-6 – Procedures Variances, the Planning Commission shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing on the Variance application at their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, July 27, 2026. ## Variance Review Criteria The Excelsior Zoning Code, per MN Statute, requires that a variance request be evaluated according to the following criteria: 1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance? The applicant proposes to use the property to build a full driveway for the new single family home. A driveway for single family home is a reasonable use for this parcel. The criteria is met. 2. Is the plight of the property owner due to circumstances unique to the property that have not been created by the landowner? ## Lot Coverage The current lot is under construction, and when completed the proposed home and paths will create lot coverage of 1,835 sq ft or 42% which is the maximum allowed by city ordinance. If a full driveway is installed the lot coverage will increase to 2,036 sf (46.6% of the parcel). The applicant requires a variance of 201 sq ft. This parcel is very small and the proposed home and other lot coverage additions have been reduced to minimize the impact on the lot. While the lot is unique the need for a variance is caused by the landowner’s request to expand the already approved ribbon driveway. The criteria is not met. 3. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the area? The applicant has designed a home whose features are consistent with the character of the area. A full driveway is consistent with a new single-family home and is similar to other properties in the neighborhood. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the area. The criteria is met. 4. If a variance is granted, will the outcome be (a) in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and (b) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal meets the following Goal of the Comprehensive Plan for Residential Areas. City policy supports the enhancement of housing and residential neighborhoods. ## Goal: Maintain the Community’s image and desirability as a great place to live and raise a family by preserving and Page 6 of 54 enhancing the quality, character, safety and appeal of residential neighborhoods and developments, and providing diversity in its housing stock and unit types. Lot coverage variance: The intent of the lot coverage standard is to ensure adequate open space on a parcel and to reduce impacts among parcels. The size of the home and other hardcover features in relation to the size of the lot requires a variance. The applicant has reduced the size of many of the features to allow for open space. The variance of 201 sq would be consistent with the ordinance. The criteria is met. ## RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing for the Variance application. Staff recommends that the Commission should recommend to the City Council that they deny the variance application. Page 7 of 54 Page 8 of 54 Page 9 of 54 Page 10 of 54 Page 11 of 54 Page 12 of 54 Page 13 of 54 Page 14 of 54 Page 15 of 54 Page 16 of 54 Page 17 of 54 Page 18 of 54 Page 19 of 54 Page 20 of 54 Page 21 of 54 Page 22 of 54 Page 23 of 54 ## APPLICANT: Kris Myer, 823 Courtland Court, Shakopee, MN 55378 PROPERTY OWNER: Jack Bennett, 1 Center St, Excelsior, MN 55331 ## LOCATION: 150 Bell Street ## CASE NO.: PC No. 2026-11 ## 60/120-DAY REVIEW 8/24/2026 10/23/2026 ## DEADLINE: ## BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a Residential Review Permit (RRP) for the demolition of an existing detached single car garage and for the construction of a new two car detached garage at 150 Bell Street. The parcel is 6,767 square feet and located in the R2 zoning district. The Planning Commission recently reviewed and approved a RRP for the addition of a second story on the existing home. The building permit for the home was issued in February and construction has been ongoing. The proposed garage meets zoning standards. The applicant has submitted a survey with the location and proposed driveway sketched in. The City Architect has provided a more accurate site plan with the proposed garage accurately shown. Staff has a concern that the proposed driveway may make entrance to both garage stalls difficult to navigate with a car. The applicant is aware that a survey with exact proposed hardcover measurements will be required prior to building permit issuance. Staff has reviewed the application for building coverage provided in floor plans. ## Date: ## Item 4(b) 150 Bell Street – Application for RRP ## Jess Long, Planner and Julia Mullin, Community ## Development Director ## Planning Commission ## MEMORANDUM ## Re: To : July 27, 2026 ## From: Page 24 of 54 Figure 1 Site Plan with dimensions prepared by City Architect ## 1. RESIDENTIAL REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW ## NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The neighborhood is made up of a mixture of one, one and half, and two story homes. The street also has a mixture of garage types and sizes. The adjacent homes, 140 Bell and 160 Bell Street, have detached single car garages that are similar to the existing garage at 150 Bell. There are also attach single and double car garages on other homes along the street. The proposed two car garage is consistent within the character and style of the existing properties in the neighborhood. ## DETAILS/ANALYSIS Page 25 of 54 (1) Exemptions. Up to 500 square feet of lot coverage is exempt from the lot coverage limits if a garage is detached, set back 60 feet or more from the front property line, and accessed from the front of the property. The exemption applies only to that portion of the driveway that is required between the rear of the primary structure and the detached garage. ## Neighborhood Notification and Opportunity to be Heard As required by Ordinance Section 42-7 (c) Neighbor Notification and Opportunity to be Heard, property owners within 500 feet of the property have been mailed notice of the meeting and the opportunity to provide feedback at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on July 27 , 2026. ## RRP Criteria The City Architect’s review is attached. The following is planning staff’s review. 1. Massing and scale of new structure should be compatible with neighboring structures. Initially the proposed garage was 16’ tall. The applicant reduced the height of the garage so that a variance would not be required. The proposed garage with a height of 14’ 10” is compati ble with the home on the parcel as well as the homes adjacent to 150 Bell Street. The proposed garage will be partially hidden from the street view by the principal structure. ## Standard ## Required – R2 ## District ## Existing Proposed Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sf 6,767 sf 6,767 sf ## Minimum Lot Width 60’ 68.33’ 68.33’ Side yard setback (detached garages) 3’ 8’ 8’ Rear yard setback (detached garages) 3’ 3’ 3’ ## Maximum Building ## Coverage 25% of lot area = (1,691 sf) 1,222 sf (18%) 1,556 sf (22.9%) ## Maximum Lot Coverage (1) 42% of lot area= (2,842 sf) 1,784 sf (26.4%) 2,283 sf (33.7%) ## Maximum Height 16 14’ 10” Page 26 of 54 2. The size and mass of a new structure should be compatible with the size of the property. The detached garage is larger than th e existing single car garage, however the new two garage does not overwhelm the lot. The position of the garage to the rear of the parcel reduces the visual impact fromm the public right of way. 3. A new structure should follow alignments that are predominant on the street and compatible with neighboring properties. The existing detached garage is located at the rear of the parcel. The neighboring properties, 140 Bell and 160 Bell, also have garages located at the rear of the parcel. The proposed garage will maintain the existing alignment with the neighboring properties. 4. A new structure’s design should respect the site’s natural slope and features, minimizing cut, fill and retaining walls. The proposed garage will be near the existing retaining wall. The applicant will need to verify if the retaining wall will be impacted by the project. Changes to the retaining wall will require engineered plans reviewed by the City Engineer. 5. Consider front porch element in design of new structures. Not applicable to th is proposal. 6. A new structure should be detailed as four-sided architecture. The proposed garage has a simple design that is consistent with the existing garage and the neighboring garage. The simple design will not overwhelm the design of the new second story addition to the principal structure. 7. Consider neighbor views, privacy and sunlight in placement and size of a new structure’s elements. The expanded garage will have minor impact on the views privacy and sunlight of neighboring properties. Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends the following conditions with approval of this Residential Review Permit application: 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary City, watershed district, and other government entity Page 27 of 54 permits and approvals including but not limited to building permits, grading, and erosion control plans, etc. 2. The applicant shall submit survey with proposed lot coverage and building coverage calculations prior to issuance of building permit and staff will verify that they conform with zoning standards. 3. The RRP shall expire one year from the date of adoption of the resolution if not acted upon. 4. The applicant shall submit any grading or retaining wall designs to the City Engineer for review. ## RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing for the Residential Review Permit application. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Residential Review Permit application with the proposed conditions. Page 28 of 54 1 ## Excelsior Good Neighbor Guidelines PLAN Review ## 150 BELL STREET 01/21/2026 ## Guidelines (7) Review Criteria 1. Massing and scale of a new structure should be compatible with neighboring structures  Ensure that the massing and scale of a new structure is visually compatible with neighboring structures, with special attention to design of upper levels and roofs.  Consider incorporating the following mass mitigation techniques to align with neighborhood patterns:  Street facing gable  One story open front porch  Step-downs  Upper level components that are 1/2 story rather than full story  Roof planes that are broken up (no large unarticulated planes)  Offset structure components to break up bulk and large flat planes (gable and wing)  Separate components by breezeway or one story element  Garage located 60' back from front street  Highly creative design that reduces the perception of bulk  A “tunnel effect,” which results from tall walls placed close together, should be avoided through one-story additions or step-backs  Maintain consistency with the street wall on all sides (including corner lots) and design façade width to reflect the established range of neighboring structure widths.  Ensure that the height of a new structure is within the height range of neighboring structures and floor-to- floor heights are compatible with those of neighboring structures.  Position taller portions of a structure away from neighboring structures of lower scale to minimize looming effects and shading of neighboring structures, or step down the structure toward lower-scaled neighboring structures. The project proposes demolishing an existing rear-yard single stall garage (plan dimensions about 12-0 x 20-0) and replacing it with a new two-stall garage (plan dimensions about 24-0 x 24-0, with a 14-10 high gabled roof). The existing driveway will continue to be used to access the garage. The extent of proposed new driveway paving connecting to the garage is unclear from the application materials. It appears the location and size of the proposed garage results in only about 13-4 from garage door to existing house’s rear porch, possibly limiting vehicular access to the full width of the garage. Applicant should clarify and provide an accurate site drawing indicating proposed paving and coverages. The proposed garage is in the southwest corner of the site (as the existing garage was), with a proposed 3-0 setback at side and rear yards. The property immediately adjacent to the garage sideyard (140 Bell) has an existing 1-stall garage, set back a similar sideyard distance. Generally, the height, massing and scale of the proposed garage seem compatible with neighborhood structures and context. 2. The size and mass of a new structure should be compatible with the size of the property  Ensure that the structure’s visible building envelope (bulk) is compatible with the property size and with neighboring structures.  Locate the garage to respect existing neighborhood patterns and minimize the garage’s impact on structure massing and street face. The size of the garage relative to its lot size seems reasonably compatible; detached rear-yard garages are seen in other neighboring properties including a one-stall garage in the adjacent lot at 140 Bell. Page 29 of 54 2 3. A new structure should follow alignments that are predominant on the street and compatible with neighboring properties  Respect the established structure location, alignments and open space patterns between neighboring structures when locating a new structure.  Maintain the traditional rhythm of the street face, the orientation pattern and the proportion of built to open space of structures facing the street, including each side of a corner lot.  Design the site footprint of a structure to be compatible with the existing lot coverage pattern of neighboring structures. The garage is generally located where the existing smaller garage was, adjacent to a neighboring garage, and follows existing neighborhood pattern alignments. 4. A new structure’s design should respect the site’s natural slope and features, minimizing cut, fill and retaining walls  Ensure that grade changes do not change the character of the street face or the relationship of the structure to neighboring structures.  Respect the site’s natural slope and minimize cut, fill and retaining walls.  Use structure stepbacks and stepdowns at the slope to break up massing and continuous walls. The site has a steep grade up in the rear yard with an extensive retaining wall. Drawings do not clearly show how the proposed structure and retaining wall intersect. Applicant should clarify how retaining wall and garage relate to each other, and how grades and drainage are managed around the rear of the garage. 5. Consider front porch element in design of new structures  Use an unenclosed single story front porch to break up a structure’s massing on the street face. Not applicable 6. A new structure should be detailed as four-sided architecture  Use an unenclosed single story front porch to break up a structure’s massing on the street face.  Arrange openings to reflect the traditional alignment of openings in neighboring structures to avoid large, unbalanced wall expanses. The design detailing, new windows and siding materials should be consistent with the house, but only a front and side elevation of the garage are provided. Drawings are unclear as to siding materials and detailing. Garage should have siding types and consistent with main house and window and corner details also consistent. Drawings are unclear about these siding materials and details; applicant should clarify what is intended. No windows are indicated in plan at one side or rear elevations. Typically, four-sided design may indicate windows to be in two or all three of the non- garage door elevations, but considering the location of this garage and the obscured visibility of the side and rear elevations, a single window on the door side elevation may be acceptable. The small horizontal window shown, however, should be larger and more vertically proportioned to be consistent with window proportions of the house. The side elevation indicates a full-height gray area at rear of garage. This should be explained by applicant: is this gray area a proposed material change, or is it related to grade and retaining walls? No rear or opposite side building elevations are provided to indicate what materials and detailing are proposed here. Applicant should clarify. 7. Consider neighbor views, privacy and sunlight in placement and size of a new structure’s elements.  Locate decks, balconies, and pools to consider privacy of neighboring properties.  Due to location on site and size, and rear-yard grading, the garage should have little impact on neighbor views, privacy and sunlight. Minimize interruption of the sunlight, skyplane, and views for neighboring structures. Page 30 of 54 Page 31 of 54 9. How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? (Guideline #7) oLocate structure on lot to minimize impact ## '9,,A djust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact o Other: 10.Will the proposed addition or structure significantly affect your neighbor ' s privacy? (Guideline #7) . , ## I ci House to right : __J}! _ .c-:) =-- -----­ □ House to left: 'J ':; -�-------- □House to rear: 11.How will you mitigate impacts on neighbors' privacy? (Guideline #7) /�ffset/locate windows to reduce impact " u Decks, balconies, and pools, as applicable, positioned away from windows of neighboring properties oUse landscaping elements for screening □Other: ___________ _ 12.How is the structure detailed as four-sided architecture? oSolid to void ratio is related, and there is consistent detailing on all sides to those of neighboring structures. IR_Openings are arranged to reflect traditional alignment of openings in ## Residential Review Permit Application Submittal Requirements neighboring structures to avoid unbalanced solid wall expanses. 13.Have you spoken to your neighbors about the proposed addition or structure? ## J;JYes oNo Page 5of7 Page 32 of 54 Page 33 of 54 4'-0 1/16" 16'4' 24'-0 1/16" 2 4 ' - 0 1 / 1 6 " 24' 2 9/16" 24'-2 9/16" 1 0 ' - 1 0 1 5 / 1 6 " 2 ' - 8 " 6 ' - 2 7 / 1 6 " 2 ' - 8 " 1 ' - 6 1 1 / 1 6 " 2 4 ' - 0 1 / 1 6 " ## 576 SQ FT ## LIVING AREA 150 Bell st ## Proposed Garage Page 34 of 54 1 4 ' - 1 0 1 / 1 6 " ## 150 Bell Street front elevation 7/9/2026 1 4 ' - 1 0 1 / 1 6 " Page 35 of 54 1 4 ' - 1 0 1 / 1 6 " ## 150 Bell Streat Left elevation 7/9/2026 1 4 ' - 1 0 1 / 1 6 " Page 36 of 54 Page 37 of 54 Page 38 of 54 Page 39 of 54 Page 40 of 54 Page 41 of 54 Page 42 of 54 Page 43 of 54 Page 44 of 54 1 ## Background The Planning Commission previously reviewed a proposed amendment to Article 21 of the city zoning ordinance at the July 8, 2026 meeting intended to remove the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit and to strengthen the safety requirements for pools by requiring that they be fenced. Current ordinance requires fencing, screening, or other measures. Staff has considered comments from Commissioners and implemented them into the updated proposed amendment. The requirement for a CUP is removed, and by removing proposed language about a building permit requirement (which staff has proposed at your last meeting), it is clear that no pool is excluded from the required building permit process. Additionally, staff reworked the section to enhance readability for applicants. Lastly, staff has not proposed changes to the size of pools at this time; current size is consistent with existing CUP requirements and does not increase or decrease current safety standards. If the Planning Commission is interested in extending existing requirements to a broader group of pools, this discussion could be proposed for a future agenda. ## Proposed Amendment to Existing Ordinance Below is a “clean copy” of the proposed amendments. If amendments are adopted, this is how the ordinance will read. A redlined version of the proposed amendments is attached as Ordinance 698 for your consideration and approval. Appendix E, Article 21, Fences, Section 21-2 (6) Swimming Pool Protection (6) Swimming pool protection. Swimming pools having a depth of 24 inches at any point and a surface area exceeding 150 square feet shall meet the following standards: a. Fencing safeguards shall be installed to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access. Fences shall be installed and inspected and approved by the Building Official prior to filling of the pool. 1. Fences shall be at least four feet in height. 2. The bottoms of the fences shall not be more than four inches from the ground nor shall any open space in the fence be more than four inches. 3. Fences shall be of a noncorrosive material and shall be constructed as to be not easily climbable. 4. All fence openings or points of entry into the pool enclosure shall be equipped with gates or doors. All gates or doors to swimming pools shall be equipped ## Date: ## Item Amendment to Zoning Article 21, CUP requirements for new pools ## Julia Mullin, Community Development Director ## Jess Long, City Planner ## Planning Commission ## MEMORANDUM ## Re: ## To: July 27, 2026] ## From: Page 45 of 54 2 with self-closing and self-latching devices placed at a sufficient height so as to be inaccessible to all small children. 5. The fencing requirements of subsection 21-2(3) need only be provided around the means of access on above ground pools which have four feet high, vertical or outward inclined side walls. b. In all residential districts, swimming pools shall be setback ten feet from all adjoining lots and, except for fences and pump enclosures, shall be located at least ten feet away from any other building or structure on the same lot and shall not be located within a drainage or utility easement. Swimming pools shall not be permitted in a front yard or in the area between the street right-of-way and the minimum required building side yard setback line. c. Requirements contained in subsections 21-2( 6) shall be satisfied by submission and approval of a site plan by the Zoning Administrator. ## RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed ordinance amendments and recommend approval of Ordinance No. 698 to the City Council. ## Attachments ## Ordinance No. 698 Page 46 of 54 ## ORDINANCE NO. 698 ## AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX E, ARTICLE 21, FENCING, SECTION ## 21-2 FENCING AND RETAINING WALLS OF THE EXCELSIOR CITY CODE TO ## REMOVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR SWIMMING ## POOLS AND ADD FENCING REQUIREMENTS FOR SWIMMING POOLS The City Council of the City of Excelsior hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Appendix E, Article 21, Section 21-2 (6) of the Excelsior City Code is amended as follows: (6) Swimming pool protection. a. A conditional use permit, as provided for in article 4 of this Appendix E, shall be required for Swimming pools having a depth of 24 inches at any point and a surface area exceeding 150 square feet shall meet the following standards: require a building permit. Each application for a building permit conditional use permit to construct or erect a swimming pool shall be accompanied by plans of sufficient detail to show: 1. The proposed location of the pool and its relationship to the principal building on the lot. 2. The size of the pool. 3. Fencing and other fixtures existing and proposed on the lot, including utility location and trees. 4. The location, size and types of equipment to be used in connection with the pool, including but not limited to filter unit, pump fencing and the pool itself. 5. That the requirements contained in subsections 21-2(3)b., and c., and d. of this section will be satisfied including submission and approval of a site plan. a. All swimming pools for which a permit is required and granted shall be provided with Fencing safeguards to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access shall be installed and inspected and approved by the Building Official prior to filling of the pool. This can be accomplished with fencing, screening or other enclosure, or any combination thereof, of sufficient density as to be impenetrable. If 1. Fences are employed, they shall be at least four feet (4) in height. 2. The bottoms of the fences shall not be more than four (4) inches from the ground nor shall any open space in the fence be more than four (4) inches. 3. Fences shall be of a noncorrosive material and shall be constructed as to be not easily climbable. 4. All fence openings or points of entry into the pool enclosure shall be equipped with gates or doors. All gates or doors to swimming pools shall be equipped with self-closing and self-latching devices placed at a sufficient height so as to be inaccessible to all small children. 5. The fencing requirements of subsection 21-2(3) need only be provided around the means of access on above ground pools which have four feet high, vertical or outward inclined side walls. Prior to filling the pool, the approved fence and/or screen must be completely in place and inspected and approved by the city building official. Page 47 of 54 b.c. In all residential districts, swimming pools shall be setback ten (10) feet from all adjoining lots and, except for fences and pump enclosures, shall be located at least ten (10) feet away from any other building or structure on the same lot and shall not be located within a drainage or utility easement. Swimming pools shall not be permitted in a front yard or in the area between the street right-of-way and the minimum required building side yard setback line. c. Requirements contained in subsection 21-2(6) shall be satisfied by submission and approval of a site plan by the Zoning Administrator. Section 2. 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: ## Second Reading and Adoption: ## Publication of Ordinance: ## Effective Date: Page 48 of 54 1 ## Background At the July 8, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, Staff brought suggested amendments to definitions of “pergola” and “porch” and a new definition of “enclosed porch”. The goal of clarifying the differences among these structures is to provide clear guidance for applicants and staff for when a Residential Review Permit is required for additions to a parcel and how to apply building coverage and lot coverage standards. These definitions help clarify for staff how to manage new proposed structures that are identified by manufacturers and contractors as pergolas but are considered per our zoning code to be porches. The introduction of the Pivot 6 roof system has added new options to homeowners who want to cover their patios and decks. The Pivot 6 and other similar technologies have roofs that can open and close. When open, the roof slats allow sunlight and rain to pass through, similar to a pergola’s slatted roof. When closed the roof becomes sealed and does not allow light or water to pass through, similar to a porch. Companies selling the technology also allow for retractable screens that can be added to the system, with varying levels of opacity, and create the appearance of a totally enclosed screened porch. Staff recommends that the definition of pergola be updated to clarify that it is a freestanding structure and has a roof that is permanently partially open. With this amendment, it is clear that a structure with roof that can be completely closed that is attached to the home or garage and is fully screened is not a pergola and will be included in building coverage calculations because it will add mass to the parcel, impact rain runoff and impact the visual mass of the building it is attached to. Staff is also proposing new definitions for covered porch and enclosed porch. The current porch definition does not include information about roofs and may be confused with decking. Adding “covered” to the definition distinguishes porches from decks. Additionally, the proposed enclosed ## Date: ## Item Amendment to porch and Pergola Definitions ## Julia Mullin, Community Development Director ## Jess Long, City Planner ## Planning Commission ## MEMORANDUM ## Re: ## To: July 27, 2026] ## From: Page 49 of 54 2 porch definition adds additional clarity to applicants looking to add a porch with screens or windows. Along with adding clarity through definitions, staff recommends amending Section 42-6 (b) ## Exemptions ## to Residential Review Permit Requirements. Currently, street-facing, single-story porches that are more than 50 percent open at the perimeter are exempt from RRP review. Staff proposes adding clarifying language that the structure must be permanently at least 50 percent open. If an applicant proposes adding retractable screens to more than 50 percent of the structure, then the Planning Commission must review for massing and scale through a Residential Review Permit application, as the enclosed porch will have an impact on mass and volume when viewed from the street. Figure 1 Example of rear porch with slatted roof and screens Figure 2 Pivot 6 porch system Page 50 of 54 3 Single-story enclosed porches with screens single-story unenclosed porches Adding a definition clarifies that an enclosed porch uses screens or windows to separate the space from the outdoors. Based on comments from commissioners, Staff added “or can be at least 50% enclosed” to the definition to capture porches with removable or retractable screens. 1. Proposed changes to definitions (Appendix E, Article 2, Section 2-2 Definitions): ## Porch ## Existing Definition Porch. An entryway attached to a building and/or projecting from its main mass. ## Proposed Definition Page 51 of 54 4 Porch. A covered entryway attached to a building and/or projecting from its main mass. ## Pergola ## Existing Definition Pergola. An arbor or passageway with a roof or trellis work on which clinging plants are grown. ## Proposed Definition Pergola. A freestanding arbor or passageway with a permanently partially open roof or trellis work on which clinging plants are grown. ## Enclosed Porch ## Proposed Definition Enclosed Porch. A porch with exterior walls that are or can be at least 50% enclosed with screens or windows. 2. Proposed change to exemptions from Residential Review Permit requirement: Currently, Section 42-6 Residential Review permit – When required exempts “Street- facing, single-story porches that are more than 50 percent open at the perimeter.” Staff proposes that this exemption be amended as: “Street-facing, single-story porches. Enclosed porches are not exempt.” ## RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed amendments and recommend approval of Ordinance No. 699 to the City Council. ## Attachments ## Ordinance No. 699 Page 52 of 54 1 ## ORDINANCE NO. 699 An Ordinance to Amend Appendix E, Article 2 Rules and Definitions, Section 2-2 Definitions, and Article 42 Residential Review Process, Section 42-6 Residential Review Permit – When Required of the Excelsior City Code to Add Definition of “Enclosed ## Porch”, “Covered Porch”, Amend Definition of “Pergola” and Clarify Exemptions ## from Residential Review Permit Requirements The City Council of the City of Excelsior hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Appendix E, Article 2, Section 2-2 Definitions is amended as follows: Porch. A covered entryway attached to a building and/or projecting from its main mass. Enclosed Porch. A porch with exterior walls that are at least 50%enclosed with screens or windows. Pergola. A freestanding arbor or passageway with a permanently partially open roof or trellis work on which clinging plants are grown. Section 2. Appendix E, Article 42, Section 42-6 Residential review permit—When required, (b) Exemptions is amended as follows: (4) Street-facing, single-story porches. Enclosed porches are not exempt. Section 3. 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 Page 53 of 54 2 ## First Reading of Ordinance: ## Second Reading and Adoption: ## Publication of Ordinance: ## Effective Date: Page 54 of 54