Good evening. I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting for Thursday, February 19th, 2026. If you'd all please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, Mr. Behinger, can we do the roll call, please? >> Yes. Commissioner Nblock, >> I here. >> Commissioner No, >> here. >> Commissioner Tremble,
>> here. >> Commissioner, >> here. >> Commissioner Casey, >> here. Commissioner Rak here. >> Okay. So, our first um item or order of business is to adopt tonight's agenda. >> Madam Chair,
>> Commissioner No. >> I'd move to adopt the agenda. >> I'll second it. >> We have a first by Commissioner No and a second by uh Commissioner Knoblock. >> Do I have um all those in favor? I
>> I all those not in favor the tonight's adopted agenda uh passes. The second item um is the approval of the January 15th minutes. >> U ma'am Madame Chairman I would approve
the minutes of January 15th. >> We have a first from Commissioner Casey >> second >> and a second from Commissioner Treml. All those in favor >> I I >> All those not in favor and it passes the approval of the
January 15th minutes. Casey trouble. Okay. So the first item uh on tonight's agenda um under the public hearing is planning case 26-2 Crescent Ponds PUD amendment the Fountains Homeowners Association.
>> Mr. Behringer. Madam Chair, members of the commission, I have before you tonight uh planning case 260002, which is a requested amendment to the Crescent Ponds PUD. So, quick history here on the PUD. Um we
are located at Main Street and University. This was originally approved back in 2008 as a um 81 single family lot development. Um there's a an image on the right of the original site plan
and then an image taken um today from um some homes that are in the area. So back in the fall of 2025, last fall, um a building permit was denied for a new covered porch at one of the
properties within the PUDA in question. Um this was due to setback and lot coverage requirements not being met. The applicant um requested a variance at first but um staff determined that
variances do not apply to PUDS um only to code that is written within the zoning code. So we had to go with the PUD amendment route. Um so with that the the HOA is requesting the following two amendments to the PUD. Number one,
increase the lot coverage maximum from 40% to 50%. And number two, reduce the covered porch rear setback from 35 ft to 20 ft. So our staff analysis here, um, as you can see in your packets, all the the PUD
amendment criteria are met, but I think the, um, kind of the the meat of the discussion here is the the two specific regulations that are being asked to to amend. Um so the first one lot coverage from 40% to 50%. Um many of these
properties within this PUB are either approaching or at that 40% already. So they are are currently limited on on what they can do on their properties. So this would allow those those property owners to make some improvements and and um increase their values.
50% lot coverage um is now allowed in the recently created LDR3 um single family zoning district that allows for um tighter development of of single family homes. So had this had been developed under those standards,
the LDR3 standards, we would have already been at 50% and um this whole case would be moot. Um secondly, the the rear setback going from 35 ft to 20 feet. So, this would align the covered porch setback with that of the deck
setback, which is is 20 feet. Um, with the substandard um lot depth, um, many of these homes within the PUB have pretty short lots. Um, it makes it very limiting to what you can do in your in
your backyard on these properties. Um, allowing this would would really have minimum impacts to surrounding properties. Um, all of those properties that that are that smaller depth have either a pond or an outlot behind them so that they don't abut with a with a
neighboring property. Um, kind of the main idea of of having rear setbacks is so you don't have that kind of visual clutter in your backyard. Um, and that just wouldn't be the case here because they would be getting closer to either a pond or an
outlot that doesn't have any um homes on it. So with that, our our staff recommendation is that the planning commission recommends approval to the council um for this amendment to the existing PUD changing the regulations
from um number one increasing the lot coverage from 40% to 50% and two reducing the covered porch rear setback from 35 ft to 20 feet and all other um PUDS all other PD regulations within the PD would still apply.
That's all I have for you. Any questions right off the bat, >> commission? >> I have some questions. >> Questions? >> Yes. >> Yes, question. >> Some points of clarification. First of all, >> the initial information I received it was proposed by an individual and now
what I'm seeing is HOA is now proposing the change. >> So, in >> is that correct? >> Um, Mr. Mr. Commissioner, in the original application, they listed the the the property as the individual property owner that had the the permit
denied, but the actual application section of the um the applicant section of the application is the HOA. So, the HOA is the applicant here because this change would apply to the entirety of the the PUB. So the what you listed here
as in follow 25 is the same unit is what you you're referring to me the effication indicated a personal's name here uh if I remember here and here the
information you sent to us it was in the name of a person of that home. The reference you did to 2025 was on a problem they had with the uh they
started building for the approval and then it was recommended that the uh HOA submit the PUD amendment. >> That is correct. Yeah. >> Now we're talking two different buildings, right? >> No. Okay. So the one that was rejected
because of construction early without permit is the same one we're talking about now. >> That is correct. Yes. So that covered porch that that they did start on construction on it before permits. Um that that was kind of the
initial precipice of this entire case. Um, but now if we would allow for these regulations to change, any property on there could do >> what that HOA, the one now petitioning for the change. >> Correct. Yes.
>> So, if this change is approved, this would cover all the units in there with that. Correct. >> The next question I have is >> the deck that's there now, is it going to be the covered ports going to be larger than the deck that's there?
I assume there's a deck now because they want to cover it. >> There is a partial I guess part of the deck is covered, part of it's uncovered. So we would consider the part that's covered a covered porch and the part that isn't as a deck. So the deck portion of that
structure in the back meets the setback, but as soon as you put a roof over it, that setback increases to 35. >> So there's already a deck there that's not covered. >> Correct. So, we're just basically going out to the edge of that deck and covering it. >> There is currently a roof on the portion
of it that they would like, >> right? But I'm talking about the patch that it we're working on here. We have a a deck. It's set out there and we're going to cover that deck. It's not being increased in size. >> No, it is not being increased in size.
The the roof is already over the portion that's going to be covered though. It's >> so that the original deck was approved during construction. >> No. No. Um >> I mean there wasn't a deck when this h when the people bought the house. >> There was not. No. Many of these homes
don't have either a deck or a porch on the back. >> So the entire deck was being added to it. >> Correct. Yep. >> Sorry about that. Yep. Sorry for the confusion. >> Okay. So I understand. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Chair,
>> Commissioner Nlock. I have a question for planner Behringer. Um, it mentions that 11 properties currently would be impacted or not impacted benefited from the increase from their current 40 or
43% to 50% setback. Um, how many homes are again uh uh impact are in the development of this area? Commissioner, we have we have 81 homes within the development.
>> Well, if this is approved, the entire HOA will be affected by it. >> But it seems like what I'm inferring to is that there's 11 properties. If this motion goes forward and is approved as
suggested, then 11 properties will have the benefit out of the 80 plus to have a further the benefit of going from 40 43 to a 50 foot setback.
>> What about the other >> 70 properties? If this has it's an entire HOA, you don't part of the HOA. You got to do whatever we approve the HOA if they need to be >> would be able to build these decks
accordingly because we're doing this as an entirety, not a portion of an HOA. >> That is correct. The understanding is is that the majority of them do not face buttto butt or backtoback that they
have a water like they have that like there's a water feature lagoon in the middle. >> Is that correct? >> Correct. Yes. And those >> Okay. those properties that have either the outlot behind them, um, kind of the north and eastern part of the development, those are all the
properties that have that that small depth, >> okay, >> to their lots. All the properties on the kind of western edge of this actually have pretty pretty um long lots, so they wouldn't come close to their rear setback at all. >> Yeah. So, I really don't have a question. I was I was just trying to
kind of get all the the picture out of the whole situation. And so that there is a potential that there is there's more a benefit for a portion of the people in this in this development rather than
affecting others. So >> correct >> it will be benefit all around for those who could take advantage of it. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's what I was getting at. So no question just kind of clarification. >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Casey. Um so
Mr. Mr. Behringer, just um for perspective, what is the lot coverage maximum on the LDR1 and LDR2? >> Commissioner, that is 30%. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> So, this PUD was originally passed with with a 40% lot coverage. >> Okay. So, that wasn't upping it right away, correct? In the in the agreement. Okay. Y >> just for some perspective. And then the LDR3 now is
>> that we approved at 50%. >> That's at 50%. Yep. So if any further development happens with L within LDR3, they are at 50%. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Behringer. >> Yes. >> So just the one question. So I assume with the HOA that there's regular
meetings and these 11 homes specifically um the owners have been probably contacted and are aware of the changes that are being proposed. Correct. >> The HOA did reach out to all all of its members um on their own. I don't know
that they specifically reached out to these 11. >> Okay. Which would make sense. >> It is it' be my assumption that these 11 don't know that they are at 40%. Um it's kind of a a calculation we have to do in the department based on aerial images and and most people don't
>> realize >> and so we don't know if there was any push back from the community um or anything like that that would weigh in on this at all. So >> we did we did not get any calls >> assuming they're done they've done their due diligence to notify get responses and understand what the what the um
likelihood is of being able to do this. Right. >> Correct. That is our understanding. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Madam Chair, >> Commissioner, >> when HOAs >> One moment Okay, go ahead. Excuse me, >> Mr. Behringer. As you talk about covered porches and those setback requirements.
>> Yes. >> Would that include if they decided to put the foundation out underneath a covered porch almost like an addition where you see an addition and a covered porch on top of it? >> Would they be the same setback requirements >> for the foundation you're talking about? >> Yeah. you know, instead of just having a
porch on peers or something, if they decided to do a foundation underneath it, >> would that still meet what you're proposing here, the 20 foot setback? >> That would that would we wouldn't measure it from the the foundation. We measure it from the structure itself. >> Structure. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Other questions? >> First of all, it' be nice to have a picture of the proposed deck and coverage. In other words, in relationship to the bu building. But going back to the HOA, we're doing a blanket of approval. Even
though the other units don't need a deck or anything, but down the road, if they ever were in a position to be able to do it, this approval for that for this one would give them approval for the entire HOA. >> Correct. >> They don't operate on one unit.
>> Correct. >> And the HOA would be the one requesting this. And they are pretty much like God. they can do pretty much what they want. So any objection by anybody else wouldn't hold as you saw when we had
these roofs a couple months ago where the HOA replace the entire roofs without telling anybody. >> Okay, >> this is basically how they could operate. So in this case, we're giving blanket approval to the HOA
to extend decks if they want and the setback will be reduced accordingly. So, and maybe only 11 will benefit because the other wherever they are, maybe they can't. So, >> thank you.
>> Maybe in Blaine, but not in Good Rapids. >> Madam Chair, >> any other any other questions? Commissioner Tal, >> Mr. Bearing, I have a question about the 11 properties that you found were not in compliance. What then would happen if we do not approve uh this motion?
Commissioner, those those 11 properties would be considered um an existing condition. Um non-conforming properties, there wouldn't be any action taken towards those 11 properties. >> Okay. >> I don't see anything wrong with this. It
just when you work with HOAs, >> Sure. >> It's different. >> Let's let's hold um comments between the commission till the after the public hearing. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions for Mr. Bearinger? All right. Hearing none. Do we have the
petitioners or anything uh they'd like to present or >> Yeah. would you guys like to come up and speak? >> Sure. On. >> Sure. Yep. Okay. >> We do have our petitioners here. >> State your name and address. >> State your name and address for the
record. >> My name is Michael Kerntock. K E R N S T O C K. My address is 235124th Lane Northwest, Rapids, Minnesota 55448. >> Thank you. >> And so I'm here today on behalf of the
Fountains HOA. Um I'm a board member. I'm the secretary. Um I assisted in drafting uh the narrative and the application itself. Um with the help of Mr. Behringer here. Um we communicated
throughout the process and submitted um those documents. Um Mr. Behringer's um description of what we're requesting and reasons for doing so I found were accurate. Um I don't have
I don't have any uh thing to supplement I guess I would say. Um, if there are any questions um, specifically for the board, I'm happy to answer those. >> Okay. Any questions for the petitioners? >> I do. >> Commissioner Ra, >> you had a board meeting and this was
brought up at the board and it's been passed. You have it in your minutes. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. So, at this point, we will go ahead and have a public hearing on the
planning commission case 26-2, Crescent Ponds PUB amendment. Anyone here for the public hearing? Anyone who'd like to speak for the public hearing? >> There's someone underneath that chair back there.
>> Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Okay. And so now we'll limit the comments to the commission. Anyone have any thoughts um they'd like to bring up? >> Questions for the commission? >> Madam Chair,
>> Commissioner Treml, >> just hearing that the 11 properties that are already in non-compliance basically get away with it. Right now, we're looking at uh punishing someone who asked for permission versus asking for forgiveness. And so I don't see a
problem with this one of passing through. >> I concur. Other comments, questions, Commissioner Ronak. >> Yes. Um, in situations like this, this
happens on HOAs and uh, condo associations where uh, they come and they pretty much can do what they want. And this proposal is fine. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Uh, the people that are around there really don't have much to say about this. if
he's on the board, he probably understands that. Uh the thing is that in the past we've been reducing many things like when we did the one over there on uh off of Main Street, the
units were reduced in size. when the we did the uh one of last year when we were doing the uh subdivision over by the fire station, everything again was reduced. Things are just getting what we have for rules.
They seem to be being everything is being condensed here. The lots are becoming smaller. You're more development on this. This is fine. And I don't think there's anything wrong with this uh because it's in the back and it's going to if it wasn't a covered
porch, there could be a porch there anyways. So I I think it's fine and I would motion to approve. >> We have a motion from Commissioner uh Ronak for approval. Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner No. All those
in favor say I. >> I. >> All those not in favor. And the motion passes. So, it's the recommendation of the planning commission um that for approval of the planning commission or excuse me, planning case 26-2, Crescent Ponds PUB
amendment, the Fountains Homeowners Association. Uh there will be a decision by city council on March 3rd of 2026. Good luck. All right. Uh so other new business we have next the consider adoption of the
2026 planning commission policy. Mr. Behringer. >> Yes madam chair. Um so the planning commission policy has has remained unchanged from last year aside from one item. Um the the council would like to
appoint the vice chair. Um previously council would appoint chair and then the commission would appoint the vice chair. So, the council would like now to have the power to appoint vote. >> Sounds good. >> Any questions from the commission?
>> No. >> Any other comments regarding the um the policy planning commission policy? >> Yeah, I think we should have snacks rather in addition to the the g the water we get here. But >> I'll second that.
>> It's documented in the minutes now. >> Yeah. And the pay could be doubled. >> The pay could be >> 120 minutes an hour. >> Do we need a motion? >> Do we need a do we need a public hearing first? I'm assuming not. Obviously,
>> this is not a public hearing. >> Thank you. And then uh let me just open up for comments then across the commission. Anything else? >> Madam Chair, >> commissioner. No, >> I would just recommend that we adopt the 2026 uh policy and rules of order, commission procedures and ethics.
Do we have a second? >> I'll second it. >> All right, we have a motion from Commissioner No and a second from Commissioner Casey. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed.
And that passes. >> All right. So then, uh, that is it for tonight's new business. Uh, is there anything that Mr. Behringer staff would like to bring up for new new business coming up? Mad Commissioner, we didn't have anything else prepared tonight. That was
it. >> Okay. All right. So, do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> I would move to adjourn. >> We have a motion from Commissioner Commissioner Casey and a second by Commissioner Ryak. All those in favor? >> I.
>> All those opposed? Motion passes. And that is the fun.