Plan & Zoning advances two‑story Riverview parking garage at 200 East Court Avenue

The City of Des Moines Plan and Zoning Commission on May 15 voted to move staff’s recommendation to approve a public‑hearing site plan and four Type 2 design alternatives for the proposed Riverview Public Garage at 200 East Court Avenue, a two‑story parking structure with about 335 spaces.

The commission’s action forwards the project and the requested departures from downtown storefront standards — including a waiver of required occupied frontage along the primary street, reduced glazing/transparency and a proposed two‑story height where code generally requires three — to the city council, which makes final land‑use decisions.

Planning staff presented the site plan and design review package and recommended approval subject to standard administrative comments and “provision of public parking to the satisfaction of the planning and urban design administrator,” noting the structure largely meets parking‑structure standards while differing from the downtown storefront building type required on mapped primary streets in the DX2 district. Staff outlined the specific code relief requested: a reduction of the minimum 30‑foot occupied space requirement on primary frontages, and lower transparency than the code’s glass‑based definition (staff said the project has openings but not the glass glazing counted as transparency under code).

Applicant Douglas Wells, the project architect, told the commission the structure is intended to serve both daytime tenants of the adjacent office building and the public in the evening. “The garage parks, in our planning, approximately 335 cars. That parking is used from 8 to 5 for the tenants in the building that we own to the east,” Wells said. “At 05:00, the arms go up and then it’s public parking in the evening.” He said the project relied on a TIF financing package to be economically viable and that adding a third story now would make the project financially unsustainable: he estimated land at about $3,000,000, construction roughly $10,000,000 and building renovation $15,000,000–$18,000,000, and described the combined transaction as “right at breakeven with the TIF financing.”

Wells also described design decisions intended to make the Court Avenue facade convertible to future retail: floor plates along Court Avenue are level with 9‑foot entry heights, brick and cornice detailing, ornamented railings and planters in openings intended to screen headlights. He said the garage structure was designed to allow adding stories later and that evening operations would be automated with paid access and corporate parking passes similar to other downtown systems.

A downtown resident, Carol Maher, urged the commission to require that public‑parking infrastructure be installed up front (gates, revenue collection) rather than retrofitted later, and questioned the need for a new garage so close to an existing nearby municipal garage. “If you’re gonna build a parking garage that in my opinion is not needed, you shouldn’t tow people from it and you should charge people because free parking isn’t free,” Maher said. She also noted the site plan shows 12 bike racks but the city code requires 14, and asked that the applicant be required to meet the full bike‑parking standard and maintain planting beds.

Commission discussion focused on three themes: whether the site should be required to meet the downtown storefront building standard (in particular the three‑story minimum), the economics cited by the applicant for building only two stories now, and conditions for public‑parking operation. Several commissioners said they would prefer a three‑story structure given public investment via TIF and the nearby courthouse and police building; others supported moving the staff recommendation to allow the building to be constructed and activated sooner, arguing financing and tenant attraction depend on the proposed design.

The commission approved a motion to move staff (advance the staff recommendation). The action is advisory; the city council will review the site plan, the requested design waivers, and any TIF details in its decision process. Staff said it would also be prepared to approve a Type 1 design alternative (the height exception) administratively if the commission’s votes on the Type 2 alternatives permitted that step.

Next steps: the item will proceed to the city council for final action and the applicant and staff will continue to refine site details, including bike‑parking and streetscape elements. The commission’s recommendation and the staff conditions will be part of the record presented to council.