Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. We'll get started momentarily giving staff a little bit of time to finalize some items. Good evening everyone and welcome to the March 26 2026 meeting of the City of Clovis Planning Commission. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in the meeting by attending here in person, submitting written comments at least two hours prior to the meeting, or viewing it online via the webcast on the city's website. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Please join me as Commissioner Bedstead leads us in the flag salute. and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. If you can please call roll call.

Commissioner Bedstead?

Here.

Commissioner Hatcher?

Here.

Commissioner Hebert?

Here.

Commissioner Hinkle?

Here.

Chair Antuna?

Here.

Everyone's present.

I'd like to open a motion to approve minutes for the February 26, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Bedstead and a second from Commissioner Hatcher to approve the February minutes. Commissioner Bedstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Hatcher?

Yes.

Commissioner Heber? Yes. Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Chair Antuna?

Yes.

Minutes were approved 5-0.

Are there any commission secretary comments?

Yes, I have a couple here. So I just wanted to remind you that the April Planning Commission meeting will be canceled. There are no items for that agenda, so we'll meet back up in May. And then just a quick update for the General Plan Advisory Committee. We have our next meeting on April 30th. It's the last of our three discussions on land use. We'll talk about land use policy. And then the upcoming for our May 19th, June 18th, July 30th and September 17th And then the topics of those will be listed on the websites once available So those are just the two items that I just wanted to briefly update on. Thanks.

Thank you Do we have any Commission member comments? I have one. I'd like to express my appreciation to the city and to the planning department for providing me the opportunity to attend the 2026 Planning Commission Academy. The experience was highly educational and informative, particularly regarding the changes related to housing and zoning reform here in California. Okay, this is the time in our meeting where there's an opportunity for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any matter within the Planning Commission jurisdiction that is not listed on the agenda. If you have a comment, go ahead and step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Okay, seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and bring it back and move to our public hearing portion of our meeting. We're gonna start with item two, consider approval, TM645. finding that the project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162 and approving a one-year extension to the approved vesting tentative track map 6482 located at the southwest corner of the North Peach Avenue alignment and West Beheimer Avenue, DeYoung Properties owner and applicant. And Marissa Parker will be presenting.

Thank you chair. Good evening commission. So this track map is located south of Beehimer between the North Peach alignment and North Miniwawa Avenue. It's about 37 acres in size and this aerial probably looks pretty familiar to you because we were just here a little bit over a year ago when you considered the map. So now the project or the area is in the city. and they are moving forward with their map and they are seeking an extension. But before we get into all of that, just a little refresher on tract 6482. It is a total of 266 lots ranging in sizes, but approximately on average 3,500 square feet. It's not gated. There are public streets throughout and sidewalks throughout, and three outlots, two of which are up in yellow at the corners of the map on Beheimer, and these are community corner paseos as prescribed through the Heritage Grove Master Plan. And there is also a large park centrally located in the subdivision that has a lot of open space and play areas and landscaping. But some important dates for you to know regarding this map, like I mentioned, you did consider it back on November 21st, 2024 and recommended approval to the city council, which then about a month later, it went to the city council and they considered it and approved it on December 16th, 2024. With track maps there is a three year expiration date so in this case that is December 16th 2027 so with no extensions the developer would need to complete their final map by that date and. Tonight, they are requesting this one year extension because they are actively coordinating with the different property owners and developers up in the Heritage Grove area. And since that is a new area that we are growing in, there are some challenges, so they are seeking A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO COME BEFORE YOU EARLY, REQUESTING THIS ONE-YEAR EXTENSION, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND THE CLOVIS MUNICIPAL CODE. THEY CAN REQUEST UP TO SIX ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS. SO IF THIS IS APPROVED TONIGHT, THE NEW EXPIRATION DATE TO COMPLETE THE FINAL MAP WOULD BE DECEMBER 16, 2028. AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE THIS ONE-YEAR EXTENSION BECAUSE IT IS compliant with the code and with the subdivision map act and it meets all findings required for the extension. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Does the commission have any clarifying questions for staff? All right seeing none we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing now. Is the applicant present? If you can please step up to the mic and state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, commissioners. Brandon DeYoung here with DeYoung Properties. The key details of our request are in the letter. Hopefully you guys had a chance to review that, but I did want to jump up here and say a quick few thoughts from our team. We are still very excited about this project, which is known as Grand Oak Trails, and we want to bring it to market as soon as possible. We understand the city of Clovis needs housing, like many of the areas in this region, and we want to provide that So by no means does this mean we want to extend. This is really, as pointed out in the letter, as also Steph points out, a reality because of the complexity of this area. There is extensive offsite infrastructure that's required, lots of very expensive infrastructure, and we're dealing, as she pointed out, with many other developers around us. And so trying to fit all those pieces together In addition to exploring unique financing scenarios to help allow that infrastructure to go in as soon as possible, some that we're getting used to, some that the city is still getting used to, it's adding extra time. for us to invest additional time and money and other resources into the project, we try to look ahead and see where could this be a problem. And so as we see time running out, we want to make sure we have that runway that's needed to make sure this actually can work so that we can continue to invest in the project and make sure that it does not get held up mid-process. So that's really the point of it, but happy to answer any questions you guys may have, though. Thank you.

Very good. Are there any questions from the commission for the applicant? Thank you.

You're welcome.

Now we're moved to the portion where we invite anyone from the public who would like to speak in support of this item. If there's anyone in the public, please step up to the podium.

Hi. Is it on? Jeanette Herbold. I live at 440 West Beehimer, which is a corner of Beehimer and soon to be Peach on the west side of Peach, which I just want everyone to know that changing my address after 32 years has made my life hell. So it used to be 3415 East Beehimer, and I don't get any mail, can't get picked up by Uber. It's a nightmare. Anyway, so I would probably need to talk to Brandon about it. I am concerned about the road going through and how much of my personal property it's going to take when that map goes through. So I guess my comment or question would be when would I look forward to knowing what's going to happen to my personal property on Beheimer?

Are you speaking? Jeanette did you want are you speaking in support of the project or I think it's kind of question a clarifying question It's a question.

I think it's gonna come through of course So just wondering when we'll know what how it affects the property that I live on Okay, um as you saw that We have staff here.

So Marissa can probably help you after and maybe provide some clarification to that. Okay over here Yes

We can talk after after the next item. OK. So if you just want to stick around. OK. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak in support of this project. Do we have anyone here that would like to speak in opposition of this project. Seeing none, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back for the commission for discussion and a motion. All right.

I'll make a motion that we approve track map 6482 as a one-year extension.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Bedstead and a second from Commissioner Hebert. Excuse me. Commissioner Bedstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert?

Yes.

Commissioner Hatcher?

Yes.

Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Chair Antuna?

Yes.

The extension for track map 6482 has been approved 5-0.

Very good. Moving on to item 3. Consider items associated associated with 2.45 acres located north of Shaw Avenue between Fowler and Laverne Avenues Little Angels Daycare LLC property owner Hawkins Company LLC applicant and Eric Tang representative. Consider approval GPA 2026-002 a resolution recommending the City Council adopt class 32 categorical exemption from further environmental review under the CEQA guidelines and approve the text amendment to the Shaw Avenue specific plan permitting storage facility use with an approved conditional use permit for Area 6. Item B, consider approval of CUP 2026-001, a resolution approving a conditional use permit to allow a storage facility. Staff, Marissa Parker presenting.

All right, thank you, Chair. So this item is associated with a 2.45 acre site here in the city of Clovis. It is north of Shaw between Fowler and Laverne Avenues. It is zoned to CP, which is our administrative and professional office zone district. And it is also located within area six of the Shaw Avenue specific plan. So this next slide shows an exhibit from the Shaw Avenue specific plan that was adopted back in 1978 and it shows the boundaries of the specific plan which essentially it runs all the way along Shaw between Clovis to Temperance and it is made up of nine different planning areas. Each of them have their own specific land uses and different designations. But today we'll be zooming in on area six, which is about 22 acres in size. It's the boundary shown there in that pinkish purple line. And it is north of Shaw between Fowler and Burrell, but La Verne runs north and south kind of in the middle of it. And the primary use of this area is office. So there are some office buildings to the west and here, and then also the DMV office is over here. There is a secondary use allowed which is up to 25% of the area can be residential. But over the years that hasn't been seen to be very effective because this site, oh not that site, but the site that's up for consideration tonight has been vacant since the adoption of the specific plan. Back in 2018 there was a general plan amendment approved by the council which we designated this corner parcel to commercial which then allowed for the development of a ride and shine car wash which has been quite successful. And so tonight the applicant is recommending a text change to the Shaw Avenue specific plan which would allow storage facilities with an approved conditional use permit. And this is not unusual because storage facilities are allowed with approved CUPs in all of our residential and commercial zone district. So if this were not in the specific plan all they would need is their approved CUP and an SPR to operate. So moving along, oh, there's the site right there, that little corner. So in addition to the GPA, they are also requesting approval of the conditional use permit, which would allow for a 113,576 square foot, two story climate controlled storage facility. which has access from La Verne in two different locations. But you will see over on the west there is going to be access to any future development and then further on the existing development to the west. But they are also proposing two gates that would be controlled by a staff member for loading and unloading throughout the rest of the site so along here this would all be behind the gate The code requirement for storage facilities would require a total of 10 parking spaces. They are providing 11, which is exceeding that requirement. And they are also providing some increased setbacks. So along La Verne, the setback requirement is 10 feet. They are providing 43 feet. and there is no side setback requirement and they are providing 44 feet along there. They will also be conditioned through the CUP to have some additional landscaping and an eight foot CMU wall along that northern property line, which will help soften that transition and provide some more screening between the existing residences and this building. So here is an example of the conceptual elevations that we received with the CUP. Like I said they are just conceptual because the elevations are approved during the site plan review process. But I did want to note that staff and the applicant have been working together on the elevations and Also, the CP Zone District has a height requirement of 40 feet, and the proposed building is only 24 feet. Even though it is two-story, it is well below the threshold of what's allowed in the CP Zone District. Operationally, they plan to be open seven days a week from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. They plan to have a total of four to six employees who will rotate hours of work. So this will differ from some of the other storage facilities that we have in the city where they have on-site managers who live there. And then they are also providing some safety features such as security cameras and like I mentioned a few slides ago, the back loading and unloading will be behind the gates that staff controls. So staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the general or the text amendment to the specific plan and also approve the conditional use permit. Just because this site has shown that the market has not really been conducive to office developments in this location, the site will no longer be vacant after being vacant for a very long time. It is consistent with some of the other uses around it and it is not unusual for storage facilities to be located in commercial and nearby residential areas. So with that, let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Does the commission have any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and move on to opening the public hearing portion. Is the applicant present? If you'd like to step up and to the mic, state your name and address for the record, please.

Hello, my name's Eric Tange with Galloway. Address is 96 East Princeton, Fresno 93704. As you know, public storage is, not public storage, but self-storage is a vital use for the community, both residential and commercial alike. And so I think it'd be a great addition to enhance the use of the site that's been vacant, as Marissa said, for a very long time. I'm here to answer any questions if you have any and as our applicant is here as well.

Very well. Any clarifying questions. Thank you. At this time I'd like to invite anyone who would like to speak in support of this item. Seeing none I'd like to invite anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this project. Very good. Seeing none, we're going to go ahead and close the public portion and bring it up for discussion and a motion. Any discussions? Very good. I think it'll be a good addition.

I apologize to the commission. I just have one kind of note. So when you consider this item, what you're being faced with is a general plan amendment, which isn't really a general plan amendment. It's an amendment to the specific plan to allow a storage facility with a conditional use permit. And then it's also, so you're recommending, you would be approving a resolution recommending the city council approve the GPA, which would allow, upon that approval, a CUP to be approved. So then the second part, the CUP itself and the approval, there's a resolution approving the conditional use permit. I would just, I think it's the practice of the city, but just because I'm a stickler on the record, I would recommend that if the commission was going to approve the CUP tonight, it'd be conditioned upon the approval of the GPA by the city council.

Which we do have that as a condition.

Got it.

For the CUP.

Okay.

And just for clarification, the amendment, the general plan amendment is specific just to this area six, correct?

Yes, it is just specific to area six of the specific plan.

Thank you. Would you like us to make a motion independently, CUP first, and then the general plan amendment, or can we go ahead and make a motion for both?

You can make a motion for both.

Very good. Okay, I think we're ready for a motion.

All right, I will, excuse me, I will motion that we approve both items 3A and 3B.

I'll second.

Do we need to read them in for the record?

No, you're good. Okay. The agenda is pretty clear on the numbering and what items you were referring to. That's probably the cleanest way to address both of them at the same time.

Sounds great. Thank you very much.

So I have a motion from Commissioner Bedstead and a second from Commissioner Hatcher to approve both items. Commissioner Bedstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Hatcher?

Yes.

Commissioner Heber? Yes. Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna?

Yes.

Both items approved 5-0.

Moving on to item number four, CUP 2025-009, adopting a class 32 categorical exemption from further environmental review under the CEQA guidelines and approving a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 910 square foot coffee restaurant with a dual drive-through including outdoor seating for the proposed seven brewing coffee located at the southwest corner of Shaw and Clovis Avenue. Heinz Investment LP owner, Seven Brew Coffee applicant, and Vang Inc. consulting engineering representative, Tiffany Williams, will be presenting on behalf of the staff.

Good evening, Chair Antuna and commissioners. Before I begin, I do want to inform the commission that there was an incorrect staff report posted on the city's webpage. So we have provided tonight the correct version. It's been placed on the dais with additional copies for the public. The edits are minor and do not affect the recommendation. Track changes have been left on the document in order to, so that you can easily see the revisions that were made. Okay, at this time I'll go ahead and present. Tonight I will be presenting item number four on the agenda for conditional use permit 2025-009. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Shaw and Clovis Avenues between the McDonald's and the El Pollo Loco for reference. The subject parcel is 2.77 acres in size. The project area is about 1.78 acres of that parcel. The project area is currently a paved parking lot within a fully developed commercial center, making this an infill development. The surrounding uses are commercial. This site is zoned C2 for community commercial and general commercial is the general plan land use designation. Both the zone and the land use designation allow for drive-through uses with an approved conditional use permit. So this project consists of a compact, approximately 910 square feet, seven brew coffee shop that will only serve beverages. There will be no indoor seating. In the staff report, we did mention that there would be limited outdoor seating for up to four patrons. However, the applicant is no longer proposing that with this project. This project will feature a dual drive-thru configuration with a queuing capacity up to 13 vehicles. Upon entering the drive-thru, customers will be greeted by staff that will take their orders at their vehicle. As they continue through to the pickup location, there will be additional staff there that will bring those beverages out to their vehicle. This will help ensure that there is continuous movement through both lanes. The business is proposing to operate seven days per week between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. They do anticipate about 500 customers per day with expected five service deliveries per week. So here we have the proposed site plan for the project. The Seven Brew Building is highlighted in red there in the northeast corner of the parcel or the site plan. There is the vehicle circulation that wraps around that Seven Brew building with access points through the existing shopping center entrances. There are four entrances or four vehicle access points off of Shaw Avenue, two additional entrances off of Clovis Avenue, and then there are two vehicle access points off of DeWitt Avenue. The project will also have security features such as lighting and video surveillance. In addition to that, they are providing four parking stalls right in front of the Seven Brew building. As well, they'll be providing a number of stalls throughout the center. They will be restriping and modifying stalls in order to improve parking efficiency through the center. The parking is calculated on a 4.7 per 1,000 square feet ratio. requiring 678 stalls for the center. The current existing stall count is at 654 parking stalls. With this proposed project, they plan to bring in additional stalls while also removing stalls. The total count for the stalls with this project will be 660 stalls. let's go back one, 660 stalls, which actually will exceed the existing parking count for the center. So notices were sent to neighboring properties. In addition, it was published in the Business Journal. To date, we have received no comments in support of or in opposition to the project. The city has determined that this project is exempt under class 32 categorical exemption. And based on the findings in the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve both the categorical exemption and the conditional use permit. That concludes this presentation. Staff is available for questions.

Do we have any clarifying questions? So, Tiffany, for the parking, are they restriping the entire lot or just those sections that you noted?

Just those sections that I noted.

Okay. Yeah, because that's a very busy parking lot, so.

It is.

Thank you.

I did read in the report that you that we were we conducted a study to I think it was on a Friday and a Saturday as far as to see how this would impact the remain the remaining businesses and I don't know what time did we conduct that do you know what the time of the day was because I don't know if that was included in the report and if it was I'm sorry I didn't note it.

It's okay. There is a parking demand analysis that was produced by campaign and they were out and I believe it was December and they did do, um, a, their study was done throughout the day. So peak hours were around, uh, the middle of the day, but their, their study was done from morning to evening.

Very good, thank you. And no concerns? That parking lot is very, very busy.

The parking demand analysis showed that the count was at 653 parking stalls were used during that time. So it's actually less than the existing stall count that is there and less than what is being proposed.

Proposed, very good, thank you.

You're welcome.

Do we have any other questions? Very good. OK. At this time, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant present? Step up to the mic and state your name and address for the record. Oh, if we can turn on that mic. Thank you.

Canvang bank consulting engineers address is 40 10 North Chestnut suite 101 Fresno, California Good evening commission members We did go through this project and I want to thank the staff for helping us get get us where we're at We are we will be restriping the Existing shopping center. We did see some opportunities for efficiencies to gain more stalls But overall, since post-COVID and even prior to COVID, just the shopping trends of the consumers has changed quite dramatically, which is talked about in the report. And so we feel that with additional re-striping that we can accommodate the necessary parking requirements. Looking for your support. I'm available for any questions.

Do we have any questions for the applicant from commission? Thank you.

Thank you.

This time I'd like to ask if there's anyone in the audience who would like to come and speak in support of this item. Seeing none is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this item. Seeing none we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion and a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve CUP 2025-009.

I'll second.

Just one second. Can you add to the motion with the revisions that were provided at the dais today, please? Okay. Thank you.

So I'll make a motion to approve CUP 2025-009 with the revisions noted in the updated staff report.

And I'll second again. I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Hebert. Commissioner Hatcher? Yes. Commissioner Hebert?

Yes.

Commissioner Bedstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Chair Antuna?

Yes.

It is approved 5-0.

Moving on to item number five, consider items associated with approximately 17.41 acres of land located at the northeast corner of North Barron and Perron Avenues. Francis Ricutti and Patrick Ricutti, owners, the NAR Homes applicant, Yamam and Horn Engineering representatives. Item one, consider approval, a resolution recommending that the City Council approve and addendum to the previously adopted environmental findings of a mitigated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for vesting tentative track map 6543 and a planning development permit 2025-001. Item two, consider, TM 6543, a resolution recommending that the city council approve the vesting tentative track map for a 136 lot single family planned residential development and approximately 17.41 acres of land. Consider approval PDP 2025-001, a resolution recommending that the city council approve a planned development permit for a 136 lot single family planned residential development. I have one question before we start. Should that have been numbered? Should that be number three on the agenda? This item? It's it's item five, but it's one two and then it was it didn't have a numeric next to it So I'm just wondering if it should have had a numeric It probably probably should have just our new system civic plus.

Okay, just modified it Okay, it's probably the new system through our civic plus very good So should I references a B and C on our on this a printed agenda?

It said one two Should I reference it as A, B, and C for clarification since that's what's on?

You can reference it as A, B, and C. We'll just note that A is for the environmental, B is for the track map, and that C is for the PDP. Very good. Thank you.

Okay. Tiffany, you can go ahead and start presenting.

Thank you, Chair. Again, before I proceed with the presentation, I do want to... informed the commission that an incorrect version of the staff report, attachment one, two, and three were posted on the city's webpage. So tonight we have provided a correct version of those documents and placed them on the dais along with additional copies for the public. The edits are again minor. They do not change the recommendation and track changes have been left on the document so you can easily see the revisions that were made. At this time I'll begin the presentation. I will be presenting tonight item number five on the agenda for vesting tentative track map 6543 and plan development permit 2025-001. The project site is located on the northeast corner of North Barron and Perron Avenues. The project consists of approximately 17.41 acres of land. It is surrounded by a Fresno flood control basin to the north, vacant land and rural residential to the east, single family residential and a PG&E substation to the south, and single family residential to the west. So map 6543 is proposing 136 single family lots. I do want to make mention at this time that this site was previously approved under map 6452 and at that time they proposed 153 lots. The applicant is now proposing a new map under 6543, which will replace the previously approved map with revisions to the layout, a reduction in the lot count, and a different housing product. So Map 6543 does propose a non-gated single-family subdivision. It will include public streets, sidewalks, landscape areas, and an interior park, which is highlighted there in green. IN ADDITION TO THAT, CONSISTENT WITH THE HERITAGE GROVE DESIGN GUIDELINES, THIS PROJECT WILL BE PROVIDING A COMMUNITY CORNER PASSEO ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH BARON AND PARIN AVENUES. AND OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE PROPOSED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY AND MAINTAINED BY AN HOA. So this particular site is a split land use including both very low and medium density residential designations. The applicant is proposing a blended density approach with the track map 6200 which is shown there on the screen. That map is under the same ownership and so with this they are trying to utilize the unused density from That map 6200 this allows flexibility and subdivision design while still maintaining a consistency with the general plan and providing a mix of housing types This approach again was previously approved by City Council actually at a higher lot count of 153 units With this proposed project that's coming through today, the lot count is reduced to 136 units and still remains consistent with the general plan and the policies. So this site is zoned R1PRD, which allows flexibility with development standards for small lot single family developments. So with this proposed project, they are requesting deviations, including a reduction in the lot size, to 2,800 square feet minimum. In addition to modified setbacks, they are also requesting an increase in lot coverage up to 60%. With these deviations, they are still less than what was previously approved. And that is shown there on the screen under the column titled prior. T 64 52 you'll see the what was previously approved and then where it says new 65 43 you'll see what is now proposed and you'll see the reduction is or the difference between the two of the difference between the two. This is a much better product. So as part of the PDP, the applicant is required to provide amenities for will to offset the deviations that they've requested. So the applicant is proposing with this project amenities, including a approximately 16,000 square foot park. which will have a barbecue station, picnic tables, shaded child's structure. And in addition to that park, they will also be providing an approximately 7,000 square feet paseo that will connect the subdivision to the existing trail. So public notice was sent to neighboring properties. In addition, it was published in the Business Journal. To date, staff have not received any comments in support of or in opposition to the project. Staff did prepare an addendum to the previously approved ISMND, confirming that there were no new or increased impacts to the project. Therefore, no additional environmental document is required. So based on the findings in the staff report, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the resolutions, recommending that City Council approve, recommending that City Council then approve the ISMND addendum, the map, and the PDP. That concludes this presentation. I am available for questions.

Does the Commission have questions for staff? I have a couple of questions to start. One is when you state that and I read the report that they will be dedicating the park to the city and the it would be maintained by an HOA. Can you clarify what that means? Does that mean that the city is going to manage the care of this park or this and with HOA funds?

I believe that it means that it will be owned by the city, but the HOA will be the one maintaining it. But for further clarification, I will defer to engineering to answer that question.

Very good. So the HOA would be maintaining these park areas, and they would receive LMD funds in proportion to the LMD-related areas. Everything else would need to be funded through the HOA.

So does that mean that the city would fund a portion of this?

The city would only fund the LMD-related areas. That would be along street frontages like Barron and Perrin. The interior would be funded through the HOA.

Okay. Thank you for that. I might wait on this question. Okay. Thank you. Um, at this time, we're going to go ahead and open, uh, the public hearing and invite the applicant to speak. If you could step up to the podium, state your name and address for the record. If you turn on your mic.

How about now?

Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Now I can step back a little bit. Sorry about that. My name is Walter diamond. I live in Fresno, California. I'm the Director of Entitlements for Lennar Homes. And here I wanted to give a little bit of backstory on this project as I was involved in the original approved tentative map with a little bit different of a planning commission at the time. But I thought maybe I could add some of those things and fill in some of the gaps and answer any questions you might have. And so as Tiffany stated originally approved it was smaller lots 2000 square foot. So these are almost a thousand square foot more on average. And those were alley loaded products. And so we've gone to standard single family and the product is they're all two stories. They're probably I would say entry level or move up depending on where you're coming from and who you are. And we felt better about this project. From a year ago, we hit that sluggish portion in the first quarter of 2025 for the economy, and we took a hard look at this project and thought, how can we improve it? And so this is what we came up with with the city staffs help and they were helped tremendously less Lots 16 actually 17 home sites less bigger Lots and What we feel is a better product and a standard single-family home rather than an alley loaded in that instance as it was previously and Probably in this instance then less homeowner association due fees for the homeowners on a fiscal basis and And this is all set up just as it was in Heritage Grove. We built all 586 home sites there, five different track maps. It was all the same setup with the LMMDs taking the funds that are taxed to the homeowners and then giving that to the HOA and the HOA maintain everything out there. And so they get the quality that they want on the maintenance and the city doesn't have to bear the brunt of the maintenance or the risk of it. It's just, the same setup as we had in heritage growth for this one because it's an extension of it right across the street to the east of this project is the uh... clovis city water storage tank site and then up above as tiffany said on the north side is uh... the basin and then tucked in in the other corner on the west is wilson's projects so wilson and lennar have been building in this corridor for about Oh gosh, the better part of 10 years. And so this one is the next one in line. We do have some of the similar products that we were going to build on this project right around the corner off of Minnewawa coming later on. And so I just wanted to kind of give you that backstory and how we got to where we are. We just took a hard look at it and thought this probably will be a better project. And that's what we believe it is. And I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

Does the commission have any questions for the applicant?

Can I ask why you're not marketing to the senior population?

You know, Lennar does, just not yet in this area. We haven't found a place or an area where it would seem feasible to do that at this point because of the demand in just the regular sector has been meeting that but i mean we're looking at opportunities all the time

you could sprinkle them through a development. They don't have to be 40 units together. You could take and mix them through a development and it would make a nice place for seniors to live amongst other people. So I'd like to see you guys do something for the senior generation, which is growing. very, very rapidly. And in my business, I'm seeing I'm getting more inquiries by seniors moving to the Clovis area. So I'd like to see you guys do something for the seniors.

You know, I appreciate the comments and I appreciate the recommendations. I'm a senior myself, so I'll take it into consideration. We'll talk about these in our entitlement meetings and You know, hopefully at some point in time a project will come up that will work for it. Absolutely. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Any other questions? I have a question. Can you speak on the thought process for utilizing the driveways as the guest parking? Or did I read that incorrectly in the report? No, that is correct. Okay.

yeah can you speak on that because I don't think I don't think the original project had this correct and maybe I can address that it's a city policy on projects that have PDPs that the driveways are allowed for that guest parking So it is city policy that that's what we do when we have PDP projects. A lot of them don't have the driveway because most of the time they're shortened up. But when they do, they're allowed to use the driveway as guest parking. Allowed to use but not required to use. I just want to clarify. Correct, yeah. They can have a separate off-site guest parking as well, but that driveway parking is permitted. I see.

Typically that happens on projects that are um below city standard streets like the previous project was so we were required to adhere and provide that extra parking this being city maintained city standard size streets it falls back to standard provisions as mckenzie stated thank you for that clarification so can you clarify that these are public streets with street parking and is there sidewalks

Yes, these are public streets with available on street parking and there are sidewalks.

Okay, thank you Thank you. I have no further questions. Okay Thank you Okay at this time I'd like to invite anyone in the public who would like to speak in support of this project I Seeing none, I'd like to invite anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this project. Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing portion and bring it back for the commission to discuss and make a motion.

Just a couple of comments. I'm happy to see larger lots because they're still small. Don't get me wrong. They're still small, but they're larger. I'm not a fan of blended density calculations. I wasn't a fan when they came before. I'm never going to be a fan. I think if you're going to plan and develop something, you need to plan and develop that and not a year or two or three down the road go, oh, hey, I have 14 lots I want to tack it on. I don't think... I just don't think that's right, I don't think it's, I just, I have a problem with that. Other than that, I mean, it looks like a good project, I just, I have an issue with the blended density.

Anything else?

I think similarly, I just want to clarify, Trachmech 6200, it's fully built out, right? Is there any outliers within that still?

No. So it's built out. Yeah.

I think like Commissioner Hatcher it fundamentally Coming back after the fact is not in the spirit of what was presented the first time. I just think on principle alone, I don't like that practice. I think it's a slippery slope. In these cases, they're adjacent properties. They're the same developer. But I feel like we're going to just keep etching away at things like that. We try things to be creative. I don't see any real pressing need that it has to be readjusted here. I think my comments originally on this were I'm very concerned about the build out in Heritage Grove being highly, highly dense. I think we're setting a dangerous precedent already. I realize that some of that can be done by right based on the way it's zoned. But I just I have a bad feeling about how we're starting there. And I hope this is not a trend that continues. Again, I think we need a blend, lots of various densities. But if we're going to continue to try to leverage other properties, you know, Wilson's in the adjacent space now, which I think is kind of seemingly pseudo Heritage Grove. you know are we going to hear more about these type of after kind of after action requests and how does the city defend from that i allowed one and not another well i only allowed one because the property was adjacent but i'm the same developer it's in the same community or master plan again i think we're putting ourselves in a situation where it's going to be hard to say no because of the precedents that are being set. So I'm not necessarily against the project and the build out. I think, I mean, I'm giving you my editorial comments here on kind of how I'd like to see the whole area build out irrespective of what Lennar's doing. But I think the city really needs to reconsider or needs to have a position on this that is not presented to the commission for us to kind of figure out ad hoc each and every time. So maybe that's something in a future council planning commission workshop that we can talk about what we want to do. But those are my comments this evening.

Do we have any other discussion? Are we ready for a motion? Do we have a motion? Do, if there is no, if there is no motion, if we don't have a motion to approve, do we have to, we have to.

You would need to make a motion either to approve or deny staff's recommendation. Okay.

Okay. Do we have anyone who wants to make a motion to approve?

I'd like to make a motion to approve ABNC.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hinkle with a second from Commissioner Hebert to approve items A, B, and C. Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert?

Yes.

Commissioner Bedstead?

No.

Commissioner Hatcher?

No.

Chair Antuna?

No.

The motion fails 3-0.

Okay so now. Motion to deny. Okay.

I'll make a motion to deny items A B and C. Second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher with a second from Commissioner Bedstead. Commissioner Hatcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Bedstead.

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert.

No.

Commissioner Hinkle?

No.

Chair Antuna?

Yes.

So the motion to deny carries 3-0.

Okay. At this time, we're going to go ahead and adjourn our meeting at, I think that's 7. And we'll see everyone here at the next Planning Commission meeting on May 28, 2026. I think we – I –