Committee signals general interest in 8‑acre Pacific Highway mixed‑use proposal but flags traffic, tax and land‑use concerns

Des Moines City staff briefed the Economic Development Committee on a developer proposal for an eight‑acre site commonly referred to as the Rosie's Diner tract at 26915 Pacific Highway South and 26852 16th Avenue. Staff described the site as deep and narrow with Pacific Highway frontage and said the proposal has shifted toward primarily residential development with limited commercial space.

Rebecca, a staff member, said the parcel is roughly eight acres and is mapped for mixed use in the city’s land‑use plan. She said the developer originally proposed 1,750 square feet of commercial space and a 12‑year multifamily tax exemption on all residential units. Staff negotiated changes at the project level, she said, and the developer now proposes about 7,500 square feet of commercial space, no multifamily tax exemption and market‑rate, urban‑style apartments accessed internally (not garden‑style units with exterior doors).

Rebecca told the committee she would not characterize the proposal as mixed use given the residential‑heavy composition but noted the Pacific Highway frontage is valuable for commercial activity. She also corrected a developer slide typo: a slide that read “2,990 units” should have read “290 units.” Staff said a project of roughly 290 units would materially advance the city’s 20‑year growth target of about 3,800 units to 2044 by counting toward the pipeline projects that jurisdictions report in five‑year reviews.

Traffic and access were a focal point. Committee member Debbie Demeyer asked whether the two proposed access points—one on Pacific Highway with a right‑turn exit and an entrance on 16th Avenue—would overload 16th Avenue and affect the adjacent elementary school. Rebecca said the project will require a traffic‑impact analysis and that a second exit on 16th Avenue is likely to be required for fire access and operational redundancy; staff also mentioned potential access agreements with neighboring parcels as an option.

Mayor Buxton said she supports further exploration of the proposal. “I am in favor of definitely looking at this,” Buxton said, adding that activating the vacant property could be a positive change for the area and that the proposed market‑rate product appears higher‑end than some past development nearby.

Staff also presented a developer‑provided slide estimating construction sales tax, permit fees and impact‑fee revenue; Rebecca cautioned that the developer’s property‑tax calculation was incorrect and should not be relied on. Committee members reiterated that a fiscal‑impact model—separately discussed earlier in the meeting—would be useful to compare the developer’s revenue estimates with the city’s cost to serve future residents.

The developer is in due diligence and asked whether the committee was generally interested before they incur further costs. The committee offered general, nonbinding support to continue discussions and for staff to proceed toward a development agreement process if the developer elects to move forward; no binding approvals or development agreements were authorized at the meeting.

If the committee or council wishes to proceed, staff said the next steps would include a development‑agreement review, a traffic‑impact analysis, detailed site‑development review and negotiation of any needed access agreements and public‑safety access points.