Commission approves 78‑unit Market District condo with design exceptions; neighbors and at least one commissioner press on surface parking

The Des Moines City Plan and Zoning Commission on April 17 voted to approve multiple expedited type 2 design alternatives for a proposed six‑story, 78‑unit condominium/cooperative in the Market District at the intersection of East Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway and Southeast Fourth Street.

Planning staff told the commission the project would add 78 residential units and one guest suite with enclosed basement parking and street‑facing elements. Jasmine Kamani, planning staff, described the request as a package of exceptions to apply to a large‑scale Market District development plan and enumerated the specific waivers sought: occupied‑space relief along the East MLK frontage, enclosed parking within the principal building where occupied space is normally required, allowances for surface service parking, lowered transparency on primary frontages and relief from the district’s build‑to requirements on two faces of the building.

Tim Ritmont, principal for District Developers LLC, and Ben Leithauser of Lifestyle Communities said the project is a for‑sale cooperative product targeted largely to empty‑nesters and older buyers. Leithauser said the development team typically targets about "1 and a half to 1 parking spaces per unit" in similar urban cooperative projects to accommodate buyers who may have more than one vehicle; he said the team’s current design provides a mix of lower‑level enclosed stalls and at‑grade stalls and that their calculated ratio equates to roughly 1.4 spaces per unit in the submitted scheme.

Opponents at the hearing emphasized the project’s parking and ground‑floor design. Carol Maher, a downtown resident, urged the commission to favor walkable, transit‑oriented development and criticized the surface parking proposed near a new park. Maher told the commission: "We're gonna have 127 parking spots. 127!" She said the scale of parking undercuts the Market District vision of a walkable, bikeable neighborhood and expressed concern that the project’s ground floor and surface lot would present an inactive street edge and create an underpass‑like environment.

Developer representatives and several commissioners responded that the site occupies a peripheral location in the Market District and that the Market District large‑scale plan contemplated some surface parking on peripheral blocks. Tim Ritmont said the building is an owner‑occupied product, not typical rental housing, and that on‑site stalls provide convenience for buyers and their visitors. Ritmont noted proximity to a 9.5‑acre park and said the extra stalls help ensure guests and service providers have access without relying solely on on‑street parking.

Commission debate focused on whether permitting surface parking and other exceptions at this early stage would set a precedent for future Market District applications. One commissioner said the project "sets the trend for future development" and expressed concern about allowing a surface lot where the district generally discourages them. Another commissioner said the building and landscaping were well planned to tuck the surface lot into an interior courtyard.

The commission voted to approve the staff‑recommended exceptions and site plan as presented. A recorded comment during the vote noted one commissioner would vote "no" on waiver C (service/surface parking); another commissioner opposed the motion in whole. The motion carried; an exact roll‑call tally was not specified in the transcript.

Approved waivers and exceptions include relief from occupied‑space requirements and transparency standards along the East MLK frontage, relief for visible‑basement transparency where the ground floor is raised above four feet, permission for limited surface parking in the interior lot area, and relief from the strict 0‑to‑5 foot build‑to zone to allow deeper setbacks on two primary frontages. The applicants and staff said detailed design, final parking counts and future commercial conversions (if any) would be reviewed during building permit and site‑plan review.

The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council where final approvals and any required permits must be obtained prior to construction.