Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission splits on Hyper Energy Bar drive‑through; motion to approve staff recommendations fails
Summary
The commission debated and ultimately did not approve staff’s recommendation for the Hyper Energy Bar site plan on a constrained city‑owned parcel at 100 Southwest 11th Street. Commissioners were divided over approving a drive‑through, public safety near bike lanes, and site constraints; the motion to adopt staff recommendations failed.
A proposed Hyper Energy Bar drive‑through on a long, irregular city‑owned parcel at 100 Southwest 11th Street divided the Des Moines Planning & Zoning Commission on June 18, and a motion to adopt planning staff’s recommendation failed.
Planning staff presented 10 requested type‑2 design alternatives for the Hyper Energy Bar, including reduced frontages and a drive‑through, and recommended approval subject to administrative comments. Staff explained the parcel is constrained by a large Mid‑American overhead easement, proximity to railroad tracks and unusual geometry that limit conventional downtown development. The applicant’s civil team said the project would extend roughly 1,200 linear feet of 10‑foot bike trail along the parcel’s MLK frontage and maintain existing detention while providing drive‑through stacking and dual service windows to limit queuing onto Southwest 11th Street.
Owner and CEO Chris Whan said Hyper’s business model in commuter and suburban downtown locations depends on drive‑through service and that the dual‑window design is intended to prevent stacking into the street. “This is really the demand that we're getting,” Whan said, describing other Hyper locations that use both walk‑in and drive‑through formats depending on context.
Resident Carol Maher opposed the drive‑through, arguing downtown should remain pedestrian‑oriented and warning that drive‑throughs adjacent to bike lanes create unsafe conflicts. Maher cited local bike‑lane scarcity and said the proposal’s pedestrian crossings and double drive‑throughs create a “disaster waiting to happen,” while also flagging a noncompliant serpentine bike rack in the submitted materials.
Commission discussion split along two lines: commissioners who emphasized activating a difficult, long‑vacant city parcel and the applicant’s concessions (trail construction, patios and patrol of stacking) versus commissioners who emphasized downtown planning principles and bicycle and pedestrian safety and recommended striking drive‑through approval. After debate, a motion to adopt staff recommendations — including drive‑through and other exceptions — failed. Staff noted the relief was not granted and that the decision will not go to council unless the applicant appeals.
The commission’s vote leaves the applicant with the option to revise the proposal and resubmit, or to pursue an appeal consistent with city procedures.
