Manvel planning commission deadlocks on recommendation for second car dealership

The Planning, Development & Zoning Commission declined to forward a recommendation to City Council on Oct. 15 for a proposed amendment that would allow a second motor-vehicle dealership in the Del Bello/Highway 288 PUD. The motion that included a package of conditions failed on a 5–1 vote.

Applicant representative David Mintsberg told the commission the developer had reconfigured the proposal to limit dealership uses to roughly "16 acres for a single dealership" and had added retail along Del Bello Boulevard and a 25-foot setback to address neighborhood concerns. "We have now reconfigured the site that it's approximately 16 acres for a single dealership," Mintsberg said during a workshop presentation.

City staff recommended against approval of the amendment as submitted, saying the change would increase the share of area devoted to motor-vehicle sales in the PUD and reduce opportunities for other retail and service businesses. "Staff does not recommend approval of the amendment," staff told the commission, and offered a set of conditions the commission could include if it wanted to forward a positive recommendation.

Commissioners debated those conditions at length. The motion on the table would have limited motor-vehicle sales to the 16-acre area shown on the applicant's plan; required a 45-foot landscaped buffer with trees every 20 feet (staff's minimum had been 25 feet); required an engineered 8-foot masonry wall behind the buffer; required outdoor lighting to meet Illuminating Engineering Society full-cutoff criteria (and added a dimmable specification); and required the dealership to accommodate vehicle-transport deliveries on-site so carriers would not use neighborhood streets.

Supporters of stronger buffers and taller walls said the measures were needed to mitigate light, noise and traffic effects on nearby homes. Neighbors asked how the plan would prevent sales staff or carriers from driving through residential streets and pressed for enforceable measures. Staff and the applicant said drainage and conveyance had been planned as part of the larger development and that site-specific drainage plans would be reviewed at the engineering stage.

After a motion and second to forward the request with the stated conditions, the measure failed 5–1. The commission's recommendation to City Council therefore remains unresolved; any future action will occur when the item is considered by the City Council.

The workshop and subsequent debate spanned the applicant presentation, staff's detailed summary of the PUD amendment request and multiple rounds of commissioner questions and resident comments.