Planning commission recommends Carvana site plan with design fixes and asks firm to consider combining parcels

The Dayton Planning Commission on Jan. 8 voted to recommend the site plan for a Carvana/Adessa reconditioning and inspection building at 18270 Territorial Road to the City Council, while asking the company to refine exterior materials, provide screening along Territorial Road and the rail corridor and to consider consolidating three parcels into a single lot.

Staff told commissioners the site was originally authorized by a 1996 conditional use permit for an auto auction and that the proposed 68,700‑square‑foot building would be used for inspection, reconditioning and minor repairs. Staff said the site is gated and not open to the public, and that a car wash previously planned as a standalone structure was moved inside the new building because of setback limitations.

Hayden, the city planner leading the review, said the operation "runs with the land" under the prior permit and noted that the applicants revised the plans after the agenda was posted to incorporate the car wash inside the building. He told the commission that site setbacks and required landscaping are generally met, but that staff identified some architectural inconsistencies with the city’s I1 industrial design requirements that must be addressed before a building permit is issued.

Alan Ketpool, a project engineer with Kimley‑Horn representing the applicant, confirmed the car‑wash change and said Carvana will work to provide landscaping along the south elevation and meet roof and siding requirements. Jen Ralden, a Carvana representative, told the commission that Carvana acquired Adesa’s U.S. operations and "Carvana is essentially a parent company to Adesa," and that the site ownership is now under the Carvana corporate umbrella.

Commissioners spent much of the discussion on operational details and long‑term property management. They asked staff to confirm the location and permitting pathway for proposed above‑ground fuel storage — which staff said must meet state fire code and building code requirements — and pressed for clarity about whether the project would trigger a formal CUP amendment or could proceed as a site‑plan review because it does not change the underlying use.

Several commissioners said they would like to see the three parcels that make up the operational site combined or otherwise managed to avoid parcel‑by‑parcel redevelopment in the future. One commissioner proposed shifting the building 15 feet to the south to allow a planting buffer adjacent to an easement for a gas line; staff said setback requirements appear to be met but noted utility easements may limit where trees can be planted.

The commission voted to recommend approval of the site plan as presented to council and recorded a 4‑1 recommendation; staff said it will clarify with the city attorney whether a CUP amendment is required before council consideration. The council is scheduled to consider the matter at its Jan. 27 meeting.