Planning staff propose targeted code cleanups to trash-enclosure setbacks, administrative relief and site-plan triggers

Planning staff on Oct. 2 presented three focused amendments to Chapter 135 of the Des Moines Municipal Code intended as clarifications and technical fixes: (1) replace vague setback language for trash enclosures with specific dimensional language; (2) align a numerical threshold for administrative relief with a prior citywide policy change by increasing an eligible administrative relief threshold from 30% to 50% of numeric standards; and (3) remove a site-plan trigger tied to cumulative building-permit value (sometimes called cumulative permit value) while leaving other triggers—such as change of use, new development, and expansions—intact.

‘‘The first and third changes are really cleanups,’’ a planning staff member said when introducing the item. ‘‘The last item … would eliminate site-plan requirements for the need to do a site plan based off of building permit value. You might recall ... that was something put on the books in 2004 and we want to correct that.’’

Staff explained that the change to the site-plan triggers is intended to reduce an administrative burden that was originally created by a cumulative-permit-value metric and to focus site-plan review on changes that affect a site’s layout or use (for example, a new commercial use, an expansion of building footprint, or changes to parking and landscaping). Planning staff emphasized that routinely permitted building-work that does not change the site layout would continue to be reviewed through the building-permit process; exterior renovations and additions still will be evaluated by planning staff via building permits for impacts such as windows, entrances, and other standards even when a separate site plan is not required.

Commissioners asked technical questions about how the change would affect renovations to existing buildings and how nonconforming conditions would be handled. Staff clarified that smaller interior or exterior renovations generally would continue to be processed through the building-permit review and that site-plan requirements remain for new development, changes of use and expansions; the 50% threshold for administrative relief (versus the prior 30%) also was described as a correction to reflect the city’s earlier policy change expanding administrative relief in other numeric standards.

A commissioner moved to forward the proposed amendments as drafted; the motion passed by voice vote. Staff said they would prepare the ordinance language and proceed with the normal referral and adoption process.

The change is intended as a code cleanup and to align the site-plan rules with the city’s current administrative-relief practice; it does not itself authorize new development or change underlying zoning designations.