Des Moines staff preview Madera/Woodmont development agreement for 290 market-rate apartments

Des Moines City Council Committee of the Whole members received a briefing June 5 on a proposed development agreement for the former Woodmont Recovery Center site at 26915 Pacific Highway South that would allow a 290-unit market-rate apartment complex and about 7,500 square feet of commercial space.

The development agreement lays out binding obligations for the city and the property owner and would govern dimensional standards, setbacks, parking, common recreation areas and permit review. "A development agreement is a voluntary contract, between a city and a property owner," said Tim George, the city attorney, explaining the legal nature of the document.

Staff-member Rebecca Oh summarized project specifics: "The project site is at 26915 Pacific Cut Pack Highway South. It is a 7.89 acre site, and the proposal includes 290 market rate residential apartments and approximately 7,500 square feet of commercial space." Oh also described dimensional terms in the draft agreement, including a proposed minimum main‑building height of 45 feet, rear and side setbacks with a 10‑foot minimum, and a minimum 30‑foot buffer from the property line in some locations. The proposal lists 63,000 square feet of common recreation space for residents, with at least 4,000 square feet reserved for children's play equipment.

On parking, staff said the agreement currently anticipates between 405 and 510 spaces, with the exact number to be established following a traffic impact analysis. Oh noted future approvals would include a planned-unit-development and design-review process before the hearing examiner. The agreement also includes a nonrefundable fee of $80,000 to cover planned-unit-development, design-review and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review fees. Staff said a public hearing on the development agreement is scheduled for July 12.

Council members asked whether the units would be affordable housing and whether a zoning change would be required. Oh and George answered that the units would be market‑rate — "not tagged as affordable housing" — and that no zoning change is proposed. George clarified the agreement proposes a 45‑foot minimum building height even though the zone’s standard minimums are higher: "So the DA alters it. There is a minute a higher minimum height… they're just saying with these buildings, it'll be a 45 feet minimum height."

Council members also asked about timing for a traffic-impact study and possible variances. Staff said the traffic analysis and other details would be addressed as part of the planned-unit-development review at the public hearing and during the examiner process; staff had not begun full review and could not give a date for completion.

The Committee of the Whole did not vote on the agreement at the briefing; staff said the item is scheduled for a noticed public hearing and formal consideration at the July meeting.

Ending: The Committee will take public testimony and return for formal council consideration at the advertised hearing. Staff expects to forward the planned-unit-development and design-review materials to the hearing examiner as required in the draft agreement.