Des Moines Plan and Zoning Commission recommends denial of rezoning for 5702 Grand Avenue after hours of neighborhood testimony

On Dec. 19, 2024, the Des Moines Plan and Zoning Commission recommended denial of a rezoning request for 5702 Grand Avenue, sending a negative recommendation to City Council after extensive public testimony.

Planning staff presented the request from Faithful Moments LLC to amend PlanDSM and rezone the 0.893‑acre parcel from N3C to NX2 to allow redevelopment as multi‑household housing. Staff said the original proposal submitted to the city was 15 row‑home units; after staff review and negotiations the applicant revised the concept to nine dwelling units in two buildings and staff recommended approval with conditions that would, among other requirements, cap household living uses on the site at nine units and require substantial compliance with the submitted development concept, architectural character and buffering. Staff also noted utility constraints (no sanitary sewer directly on Grand Avenue adjacent to the site) and routine permitting requirements including grading permits, an erosion control plan and compliance with the city’s tree removal and mitigation ordinance (Chapter 42).

Developer Adam Sheeran told the commission the project is an infill “missing‑middle” housing type consistent with corridor densification goals in PlanDSM and argued the site is appropriate for additional housing near services and transit. Sheeran said the revised plan preserves about five of 11 mature trees on the parcel, that three of the trees marked for removal show oak wilt per an arborist, and that the reduced density improves the product. He estimated per‑unit prices "north of $500,000" and said the project would tie into storm sewer on Grand Avenue and provide on‑site storm detention.

Dozens of residents testified, largely in opposition. Westwood Neighborhood Association president Steve Camarona said the neighborhood had held multiple meetings and voted unanimously against the rezoning; neighbors submitted an online petition and more than 40 written comments opposing the project. Opponents argued the lot’s steep topography, the loss of mature canopy and wildlife habitat, large retaining walls and fences, increased runoff and soil disturbance, emergency‑vehicle access, trash‑truck turning, additional on‑street parking pressure and child‑pedestrian safety near nearby schools would harm the neighborhood. Multiple speakers called the request “spot zoning” and said PlanDSM and prior neighborhood plans protect the area’s single‑family character.

Supporters, including two neighbors and the developer, said Des Moines needs more housing supply and that the reduced nine‑unit design better fits corridor densification goals and would add to the city’s property tax base over time. The staff report noted 44 written emails were received (two in support and 42 opposed) and that 55.64% of the land area in the notification boundary was in opposition, a percentage that would require a supermajority vote at City Council for approval.

In rebuttal the developer disputed certain technical characterizations raised by neighbors: he said the highest exposed retaining wall would be about seven feet (not 11) and reiterated that the recommended zoning condition would cap units at nine, limiting future increases. Planning staff explained that more detailed site‑plan review, including stormwater and public‑works approvals, would occur only if zoning were granted; the site‑plan and construction permits would be required to meet engineering, parking, tree mitigation and erosion control standards before building could proceed.

Commissioners split during deliberations. Several members said they were sympathetic to PlanDSM goals for densifying corridors but were troubled by the specific site constraints (steep slope, tree canopy and neighborhood impacts) and by the level of community opposition. A motion to forward the staff recommendation (approval with the listed conditions) failed. A subsequent motion to recommend denial of the rezoning passed by voice vote. The transcript records voice votes and raised hands; specific roll‑call tallies were not provided in the meeting record.

With the commission’s negative recommendation, the application will move to the City Council. Staff and commissioners noted the applicant could revise the design and reapply or pursue other options; because a denial came from the commission, the council will consider the request with the commission’s recommendation against approval.

Meeting procedures: the commission began with procedural rules (applicants 10 minutes; public speakers 5 minutes), approved two consent items (a rezoning for 2625 Cottage Grove Avenue and code amendments to Chapters 134 and 135), and adjourned after the vote on Item 3.

What’s next: the rezoning request goes to City Council with a recommendation of denial from the Plan and Zoning Commission; if the applicant wants to pursue the project it may submit revisions and return to the review process. The City Council hearing will require a supermajority for approval given the extent of opposition noted in the notification area.