PART 1 — Call to Order, Roll Call, Minutes
0:57 GANTZ: Good evening, everyone. I’m Colleen Gantz, vice chair of the Planning Commission. Barton DeLacy, our chair, isn’t able to be here tonight, and I’m calling the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. We have an exciting agenda ahead. Welcome, everyone.
1:16 GANTZ: Our first item of business is roll call. How would you like to proceed?
1:33 SARAH (clerk): Let the record show that all commissioners are present except for Barton and — [unclear] — no, that’s Nicole. No one at the end.
1:48 GANTZ: You’re the empty chair.
GUNKLE: I’m the empty chair. So just Barton tonight is missing.
1:56 GANTZ: Just in case there’s someone here from the public I don’t see, we’ll open it for public comment now. Do we have anyone from the public who’d like to comment?
SARAH: I don’t have anyone signed up.
GANTZ: Thanks, Sarah. We’ll go right to the agenda items. First is approval of the minutes from our last meeting.
2:23 [unclear, likely BUXTON]: I move that we approve the minutes from the June 2nd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.
GANTZ: It’s been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes from the June 2nd meeting. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. All opposed? Passes unanimously.
PART 2 — Public Hearing: Development Agreement Ordinance (26-030), Staff Presentation
2:54 GANTZ: Next on the agenda, we have a public hearing for the development agreement ordinance recommendation, based on the findings and consideration of public input received. This is the public hearing. The purpose of this item is for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the development agreement ordinance. I’ll now open the public hearing. We’ll begin with a staff presentation from Community Development Director Rebecca Deming.
3:52 DEMING: Development agreements are a binding agreement upon all parties and their successors, and they provide assurance to the developer that regulations won’t change during the term of the agreement. The authority to write or approve development agreements is under the RCW, through the Local Project Review Act, along with the WAC. The benefit is it provides flexibility for development standards to achieve a public benefit — it lets us respond to changing community needs or allow modifications that provide a functional equivalent, or adequately achieve a purpose that might not quite meet standard city code.
What we’re proposing is to standardize all development agreements. The RCW and WAC don’t really give requirements — they just give us the authority to write one, and minimal process requirements, like who approves it, but not much else. So this ordinance says every development agreement must specify: project components, permitted uses, densities, building sizes, design standards, parking, affordable housing, parks and open space, fees — and whether they’re paid at time of application — phasing, and a preliminary site plan showing conceptual open space, recreation, parking, landscaping, and building design.
Other proposed provisions include any requested departures from development standards — say, extra height or reduced parking — and what the equal benefit to the city is. That’s up to council’s discretion; sometimes extra height might be traded for affordable housing, since we need those units to meet our Growth Management Act numbers.
We’re proposing a 20-year maximum term for all development agreements — it could be five years, ten years, but 20 is the ceiling. All agreements could allow a minor modification administratively, but a minor modification can’t reduce landscaping or open space, reduce setbacks, increase building height, change ingress/egress, or increase what we’d consider adverse impacts. Anything like that would be a major modification requiring council approval. No development agreement can change a building code, environmental requirement, or surface water requirement — those can’t be amended through a DA.
The review process: public hearing at Planning Commission, approval by City Council, with the standard 300-foot property owner notification. Our recommendation — based on the findings, and since we received no public input — is that Planning Commission recommend approval of draft Ordinance 26-030. Happy to take questions.
8:05 GANTZ: Is there anyone online, Sarah?
SARAH: No comments received.
GANTZ: Commissioners, please ask your questions now.
PART 3 — Commissioner Questions
8:53 BUXTON: On the environmental piece — if you go back a couple slides, one of the things that can’t be changed is environmental requirements. I didn’t see what’s in those chapters. Does the tree ordinance we’re working on fall under environmental considerations?
DEMING: No — the critical-areas tree requirements couldn’t be changed, but the new tree requirements would live in a development agreement, because they’re specific to areas outside critical areas. Technically that’s a zoning requirement we’re creating with the new code, so it could be amended under a DA — you could require additional trees, or allow additional trees to be removed, through a development agreement.
BUXTON: Okay, got it. What’s the significance of the 20 years — is that to cover the city in case a developer doesn’t finish in that time?
DEMING: Actually it’s more for their benefit. A lot of times you have a phased development — think of something like Wesley, which took ten years. You want to make sure they have enough time through processing, construction, and phasing that the agreement lasts. Sometimes there are off-site improvements that take extra time even after the main project’s done. That’s why we included it.
BUXTON: Do these provisions change what we’re already doing, or are we just formalizing current practice?
DEMING: It won’t change much — it standardizes it. The last development agreement I did was 25 years. This makes it easier for us to negotiate, because when legal reviews a DA, we can point to the code and say “you need to include this” instead of it being arbitrary — if you don’t have a site plan, we can’t recommend it. Right now that feels arbitrary; once it’s in code, it’s just: here’s what council wants to see in every development agreement.
BUXTON: Another question — under Findings, it says the Planning Commission considered the amendments as part of the process. Do the amendments reflect a change from existing procedure, or — actually, I think you just answered that. This is an amendment to the zoning code, really a new chapter?
DEMING: Correct — there wasn’t anything like it before.
BUXTON: Thank you, that’s all I had.
12:25 [unclear, likely CURRY]: Clarifying question — a development agreement is something we enter into with a developer, setting parameters up front so they don’t have to abide by individual codes already in city code. This overrides —
DEMING: Right. Example: the last one we did, for the Madera project — their site had a consolidated process. Instead of design review going administratively and the PUD going to council separately, both went to the hearing examiner instead, so it was a single consolidated appeal period. Council approved changing that process for their project. Along with that, they got a reduced first-floor commercial requirement, because the lot was long and narrow — no one’s going to shop at the back of that site. Council approved reducing what code required for that specific site.
That’s what a DA does — it says this site is different, it can’t meet code as written, so we review it site-specifically: what benefit do we get? This site’s been vacant, we get housing, we get actual commercial use — decisions made site by site.
[unclear speaker]: That makes sense. Follow-up: Section 6 says there has to be equal or greater public benefit to the city. Is that city manager’s discretion, council’s, or are there going to be standards set? It seems vague.
DEMING: It is. It’s arbitrary — it’ll be your recommendation and council’s final decision, project by project.
[unclear speaker]: And every development agreement has to include a public benefit?
DEMING: Yes, it’s a requirement of a development agreement.
[unclear speaker]: My worry is that leaving public benefit to discretion, with no defined standard, cuts against transparency — we’re trying to move away from backdoor dealing. Is there a way to ensure similar projects are treated similarly? Some kind of tracking or evaluation?
DEMING: The law just requires a public benefit — there’s no requirement that it be “equal,” we just added that as our own evaluation standard. It’s not a legal requirement.
16:20 COLEMAN: This is my world — I dealt with this for 50 years. I’ve got about twelve comments here.
GANTZ: This is still questions — we’ll get to comments.
COLEMAN: Questions, then. I didn’t see anywhere that the DA should be revocable for defined default clauses, with reasonable rights to cure that should also be defined. There’s nowhere in here that the city can pull the cord if the developer doesn’t perform. I’d like to see that. Also, the development agreement should be non-transferable.
GANTZ: Is there a question there?
COLEMAN: I’d like to have that in there. Is there a problem with putting that in?
DEMING: That’s usually written into the specific development agreement, based on its details. We talked to legal — we weren’t aware of language that could apply generically, since a DA could be about process, fees, or height alone, and it’s hard to draft a remediation clause that fits every case. Each individual DA does have outs and termination clauses, but we couldn’t find language that made sense to put into a blanket ordinance.
COLEMAN: I’ll be glad to help draft some. Second question: shouldn’t this be non-transferable without specific approval from Planning Commission and council?
DEMING: That wasn’t recommended by legal — there’s a risk of a lawsuit over arbitrary denial.
COLEMAN: I disagree. Section 6.3(b).
GANTZ: Let’s hold that for the discussion period rather than questions.
COLEMAN: Fine, I’ll wait.
19:24 BUXTON: Do I understand correctly that all development agreements come to both Planning Commission and council under this ordinance?
DEMING: Correct — public hearing at Planning Commission, then council for approval.
BUXTON: So it’ll go through this body of seven and then that body.
DEMING: Correct.
GANTZ: Any final questions? Hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing.
PART 4 — Discussion, Motions, and Amendments on Ordinance 26-030
20:26 GANTZ: Is there a recommendation?
BUXTON: Based on the findings and consideration of public input received for the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommends approval of draft Ordinance 26-030.
GANTZ: It’s been moved and seconded — moved by Commissioner Buxton, seconded by Commissioner Curry. Is there discussion? Commissioner Coleman.
21:15 COLEMAN: Let’s start from the beginning. I really think there should be a revocable clause giving the city the right to terminate the agreement. This is a legal contract, and in my opinion, any open-ended contract isn’t good for the city. Also, it should be non-transferable without specific approval from Planning Commission and council. If a developer wants to fight it, let them — but at least put it in there. Section 6 —
DEMING: If it’s in the code, it’s not fightable — it becomes part of our municipal code, so there’s no appeal. The DA would just need to meet the code’s requirements, or the code would need to change in the future.
COLEMAN: Okay, so there’s no fighting it — I want to make that clear, and I think it should be in there.
GANTZ: Question for the presenter — would it be all right if we took each recommendation one at a time, so the commission can reach consensus item by item? I’m taking notes but I don’t know how you’d want to organize this.
DEMING: Absolutely, as long as I can explain my reasoning on each.
GANTZ: Okay — first item, the revocable clause. Commissioner Coleman, did you have recommended language?
COLEMAN: No.
GANTZ: So this would mean every DA includes revocable language —
COLEMAN: Correct. Separate from the termination discussion — this is about how you write up a DA in the first place, and each one would carry language pertinent to it.
DEMING: Let me explain: when a developer looks at doing a project in a city, they review agreements that are publicly available. If there’s no language addressing revocability, it’s left to interpretation. Putting it in removes that ambiguity — like a home mortgage: the lender can call the loan if you default, because the language says so.
24:20 [unclear, likely ANDERSON]: Clarifying question for Commissioner Coleman — do developers look at the ordinance itself, or at past development agreements, or both?
DEMING: Both — they look at everything they can get their hands on to gauge how difficult a project will be.
[unclear speaker]: I wonder if it needs to be in the ordinance itself if it’s already standard in all our individual agreements.
DEMING: I’d put it in, personally, but let me check what’s in our last agreement.
GANTZ: Procedural question — if a commissioner wants something added during this presentation, should it go through a formal motion and second, or can we work by general consensus first?
DEMING: A motion and second would be preferred.
GANTZ: Understood.
BUXTON: Can I ask — is anyone from legal here to answer questions on this?
DEMING: No one from legal today.
[unclear speaker]: Do we know why this was left out — is a termination clause standard in other cities’ ordinances?
DEMING: This ordinance was drafted from a combination of what other cities have, reviewed by our legal department.
COLEMAN: I don’t know where we land on this, but it’s my opinion it should be in there. I’ll make a motion that legal look at adding revocable language to the ordinance, so it’s clear the agreement is revocable by the city upon default.
GANTZ: We have a second?
[unclear, seconding]: I’ll second it for discussion.
GANTZ: It’s been moved and seconded that Commissioner Coleman’s motion — adding revocable language, in consultation with legal — be added to the recommendation. Discussion? Commissioner Buxton.
28:11 BUXTON: Do we have any sense of the extra work or time this would add? Does it open us up to liability, to a lawsuit?
DEMING: It would just mean either the commission recommends specific language in the item report, or legal adds standard language and notes it was added by recommendation. It wouldn’t add much time to draft. In practice, though — I’m not sure a termination clause changes much, since these are already legally binding agreements. If a developer doesn’t follow the terms, the city pursues remedies through the agreement’s existing dispute resolution process regardless of whether a separate termination clause exists.
BUXTON: So either way, we’re not clearly seeing the benefit.
DEMING: Right — that’s why we didn’t propose standalone language. Most DAs already have a dispute-resolution section. For example, one reads: “Parties intend to work cooperatively and resolve disputes efficiently and cost-effectively. Party shall resolve all disputes arising out of or relating to this agreement as follows” — first a settlement meeting, then mediation, and if that fails, judicial action is permitted. That’s the standard path.
COLEMAN: I’ve seen cases where development partners go bankrupt, or a family member dies, and you end up with a splintered group that can’t make decisions. This puts developers on notice: if they can’t get their act together and complete the project, the city can pull the agreement.
DEMING: We do put in individual termination terms depending on the DA — for instance, if an application isn’t completed within a set time, or a comment period lapses without response, the application expires, and the DA terminates with it. Those get written into each agreement.
COLEMAN: So why isn’t that just in the ordinance itself?
DEMING: Because it depends on the type of agreement. If it’s not tied to an application or a fee — if it’s just about phasing — that language might not apply. We do lock in this kind of term when fees are involved, because we don’t want someone applying 20 years later at an outdated rate. With Madera, for example, they proposed paying $80,000 for a consolidated application — I agreed, but required them to apply within one year, since that $80,000 fee wouldn’t hold at year 20; it might need to be $150,000 by then. Every termination term is based on the specifics of that agreement.
COLEMAN: So the ordinance is meant to be broad general guidelines, not specific terms.
DEMING: Correct. Each DA still comes to you individually, so if you don’t like the termination terms on a future agreement, you can recommend changes to council at that hearing — this is code for the category, not a substitute for reviewing each one.
[unclear speaker]: Will we see the DA before the developer does?
DEMING: No — the developer proposes it, staff negotiates it, and then it comes to you as a public hearing recommendation to council.
[unclear speaker]: So the developer would be sitting in the room while we argue over this. Seems like there’s a better way to handle that.
35:04 GANTZ: I hear what you’re saying, but the flip side is: if we load too many requirements into the ordinance, we hamstring the city’s ability to negotiate. If some requirements don’t apply to a given deal, it creates an unwieldy process. Keeping it broad, with review by two separate bodies, is itself the oversight mechanism. That said, negotiating in front of the developer is admittedly a little messy.
[unclear speaker]: On page 3 of 9 — it lists parking, affordable housing, parks, and common open space as required specifications. So by the time Planning Commission sees the DA, all of that’s already been negotiated with the developer?
DEMING: Correct.
[unclear speaker]: So if we think parking is inadequate and will spill into neighborhood streets, we can’t fix that up front — only recommend against approval or push for changed terms after the fact.
DEMING: That’s correct.
[unclear speaker]: Seems backwards.
36:41 [unclear, likely COLEMAN or BUXTON]: I do want to encourage you, though — this is part of the job. I remember a project years back where staff had helped fully design an apartment complex, the room filled with residents, council was ready to approve it, then the meeting got extended, everyone came back, and council reversed course. Uncomfortable, but that’s the nature of working in government versus private business. I think that’s a really good transparency point, and I know you hear it a lot.
DEMING: Right — and that’s also why fees aren’t specified in the ordinance itself: we don’t always know what fees will be negotiated. Sometimes fees are locked in, sometimes they’re due at time of payment. With Madera, some were locked and some weren’t. Generally I avoid locking fees into a DA, since our fee schedule changes annually — I want us paid at the current rate, not a rate fixed years earlier. That’s why fees stay out of the ordinance and get handled case by case, the way I described with the Madera one-year application window.
39:06 [unclear, likely BUXTON]: Going back to the 20-year term — I’ve never seen a development agreement run that long. I think we already took a motion on the termination clause; are we voting only on that right now?
GANTZ: Correct — this vote is only about the default/termination clause.
GANTZ: Any further discussion? Hearing none — all those in favor of adding Commissioner Coleman’s termination clause to the recommendation, please say aye. All opposed? [Passes — vote as recorded; see note below.]
(Note: the recording is ambiguous on whether this specific motion passed or failed — the “opposed” count wasn’t captured clearly. Worth checking the written minutes/roll-call vote record before publishing anything citing this outcome.)
40:06 GANTZ: Do you have another motion?
COLEMAN: Yes. I move that the development agreement term be structured as a maximum of five years from the date of council approval, with extensions approvable by city council.
[unclear, seconding]: I’ll second for discussion.
GANTZ: It’s been moved and seconded — five years maximum, with council-approved extensions. Discussion?
COLEMAN: I understand the phasing concern, believe me. That’s what extensions are for. Things can change drastically in five years just as much as in twenty.
41:41 [unclear, likely GANTZ or BUXTON]: Could we put a cap on the number of extensions? I don’t want indefinite extensions.
COLEMAN: I’m open to adjusting the base term, but I want a defined endpoint — I don’t want someone still working the same project 50 years from now, asking new councils for extensions indefinitely.
[unclear speaker]: What would you recommend as a cap — four or five-year extensions, or three five-year extensions? Getting back to 20 years total, since apparently that’s the number everyone likes.
GANTZ: Rebecca, is that a reasonable modification?
DEMING: I don’t think it’ll be reasonable to developers. In all my time doing this, I haven’t seen a DA as short as five years — maybe five years with an automatic extension. Ten years is more typical on the low end. Five years doesn’t leave much room; often the first year alone is due diligence. But it’s your recommendation to make to council.
43:31 ANDERSON: What are the actual downsides of a five-year provision? What would make a developer walk away from a five-year term listed in the code?
DEMING: They’d worry it might not get renewed if they can’t finish in five years, and that could discourage them from taking on a larger project at all.
ANDERSON: So a five-year DA could be seen as anti-development — discouraging investment in the city?
DEMING: I think only for larger projects — mid-size or smaller projects, or phased ones like Wesley, might not get the investment because developers would be at the mercy of whoever’s on council in five years, with no guarantee of an extension. It’s fully discretionary — there’s no legal finding required to approve or deny a DA.
COLEMAN: I’d be agreeable to ten years.
GANTZ: So the motion is amended to 10 years, with two five-year extensions — a 20-year total ceiling, approvable by council. Second?
[unclear, seconding]: Seconded.
GANTZ: Discussion? Commissioner Buxton.
46:53 BUXTON: I appreciate Commissioner Coleman’s experience — I’m genuinely enjoying these observations. But I’ve seen projects here get finished by the skin of their teeth after eight years, and given our city’s history with that, and because I’m pro-development and want to see major investment here, I wouldn’t want to be responsible for anything that discourages an ambitious project from coming to the table. So I won’t be in favor of a shorter development agreement term.
GANTZ: Thanks for all the education in this discussion. Further discussion? All those in favor of the amended motion — 10 years with two five-year extensions — please say aye. Opposed? Motion fails.
GANTZ: Commissioner Coleman, another motion?
COLEMAN: I’m 0-for-2 here — I’ll retreat.
GANTZ: We’re learning a lot. Commissioner Coleman, I think your suggestion about architectural treatment and character was a good one — want to bring that forward?
49:10 COLEMAN: Section 6.3(b) — I’d suggest adding the word “character” to “architectural treatment.” Reason: character strengthens the accuracy of the project description.
DEMING: Staff agrees, no concerns.
COLEMAN: I’ll make that a motion — add “character” to 6.3(b), which currently reads “design standards such as architectural treatment, maximum height, setbacks, landscaping, drainage and water quality,” etc.
[unclear, seconding]: Second.
GANTZ: Moved and seconded to add “character” to the architectural description. Discussion?
50:29 ANDERSON: I’ll add — for anyone wondering about the distinction, since architects love their vocabulary: “treatment” is surface-level, like adding shutters to a building. “Character” is the overarching design intent, integrated into the whole project. That’s all.
BUXTON: Question for the group — who defines what the “character” is? I feel strongly Des Moines should have a nautical character, but that hasn’t been formally defined anywhere.
DEMING: This just means the development agreement should specify the intended character of the project itself — through pictures, elevations, or description — not that we’re defining the city’s overall character. That broader definition would be a separate municipal code / design-standards conversation.
BUXTON: I’m fully in agreement — love it. Follow-up: will there eventually be formal design standards or zoning overlays specifying character corridor by corridor?
DEMING: That would be a separate discussion.
BUXTON: I’ll leave it there — thank you.
GANTZ: Further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Passes unanimously.
53:19 GANTZ: Any others you’d like to try?
COLEMAN: Property lines and easements, section 6.4(8). Did staff agree with that one?
DEMING: Staff has no concerns with that amendment.
COLEMAN: The paragraph on preliminary site plans lists critical areas, buffers, open space, and residential/non-residential density and location — all good, but I’d add “property lines and easements,” so when we review submittals we know developers have confirmed they’re not violating any easements. That information should already be in their title and survey work, so it’s not a surprise to them — it just makes our review more accurate.
DEMING: Staff has no concerns.
GANTZ: Second? Moved and seconded to add “property lines and easements” to 6.4(8). Discussion? Hearing none — all in favor? Opposed? Passes.
55:40 COLEMAN: Next one, 6.5 — it says a development agreement may obligate a party to dedicate land or easements, or fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. My motion is to add “off-site improvements,” so there’s no confusion about where final proceeds could go — like tree-related off-site work.
[unclear, seconding]: Seconded.
GANTZ: Moved and seconded to add “off-site improvements” to 6.5. Discussion? Hearing none — all in favor? Opposed? Passes.
GANTZ: Anything further, Rebecca — or is staff open to other terms?
DEMING: We’re open to other suggestions, but that’s what we and legal landed on in terms of undesirable effects.
COLEMAN: My point was that “undesirable effects” is ambiguous — what’s undesirable to me may not be to someone else. That’s what the mediation process is for if we disagree. I won’t push further on that one.
GANTZ: Anything else in this section, Rebecca? Otherwise we’ll move to New Business.
DEMING: Nothing further.
58:22 GANTZ: [Reminded that the original motion to recommend approval of the ordinance was never actually voted on — only the amendments were.] It’s been moved and seconded that we approve the recommendation: based on the findings above, and in consideration of public input — of which there was none — staff recommends approval of draft Ordinance 26-030, with the recommended amendments. All in favor? Opposed? Passes unanimously.
PART 5 — New Business: Introduction to Zoning and Permitted Uses
58:28 GANTZ: Item one, new business: introduction to zoning and permitted uses.
58:37 TECHICO: Thank you — Laura Techico, planning manager. Over the next few months, staff will walk the Planning Commission through the commercial zoning chapters of the municipal code — purpose, location, current permitted uses, and any recommended changes. Tonight’s an introduction to zoning and permitted uses generally, then we’ll look at how the Des Moines municipal code structures its zoning chapters and permitted-uses tables, building on the short course on local planning held here a few months back.
The constitutionality of local land-use regulation was tested and upheld in the 1926 U.S. Supreme Court case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty — the Court found government has a legitimate interest in regulating where land uses occur, in what form, and under what process; this gave rise to what we now call zoning. At the state level, the Washington constitution recognizes state and local authority to make police, sanitary, and other regulations supporting public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, so long as they don’t conflict with general law. At the local level, Title 18 of the Des Moines municipal code states the zoning code’s purpose is to implement the comprehensive plan, classify uses, and regulate their location so as to group compatible uses together and protect them from incompatible ones. Zoning seeks a balance between landowner rights and the public interest.
The permitted-uses tables live in Chapter 18.52 — one table for residential zones, one for commercial. Rows are use categories; columns are zones. A “P” means permitted by right, needing only standard building and development code compliance. “PL” with a footnote number means permitted with additional listed conditions. A blank cell means not permitted — though we’re open to changing that to an explicit “N” or “X” for clarity, along with any other formatting feedback, since we’re doing a broader overhaul with you. Beyond those, there are conditional uses (“C,” requiring a conditional use permit) and unclassified uses (“U,” requiring an unclassified use permit) — those exist, per code, to ensure the use isn’t unreasonably incompatible with surrounding permitted uses, and to allow project-specific conditions.
The use categories in the left-hand column correspond to two classification systems used by government and statistical agencies, including the Washington Department of Revenue, to classify businesses by primary economic activity. The main one we use is NAICS — the North American Industry Classification System, the modern 1997 six-digit international standard. The downtown commercial zone alone still also uses the older SIC — Standard Industrial Classification — from the 1930s. A 2014 repeal-and-replace of Title 18 was treated as a nonsubstantive housekeeping change at the time; because the two classification systems don’t map cleanly onto each other, fully reconciling them under NAICS would have been a substantive change outside that scope. That’s something we’re open to revisiting now.
1:04:56 [unclear, likely BUXTON]: We’d appreciate that.
TECHICO: It bumps the project into a different level of change, but that’s really what this process is for. Before the 2014 overhaul, every permitted use was printed separately inside each individual zoning chapter — they were later consolidated into one table — but because of the two classification systems, some categories look similar across the two codes without being identical.
[unclear speaker]: That would save time when serving the public.
TECHICO: It would clarify things for you especially when trying to figure out which classification a use falls under. I’ve linked a website for both classification systems in the agenda packet — you can drill down through sector titles to more detailed listings, and there’s a keyword search to help identify which sector a given use falls under. NAICS codes start at two digits (in the 50s range for many service categories) and get more specific as you add digits.
Sometimes a NAICS sector is broad enough that we want most, but not all, of it in a zone. Example: the Institutional Campus zone includes Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (Sector 71) as a limited permitted use, with a footnote excluding amusement parks/arcades and gambling — so things like football fields and tennis courts are fine, but those two categories are carved out. That’s one way we can say “yes to most of this sector, except these.” In other cases we’ve pulled a narrower sub-category directly into the table instead of using the whole sector number.
One more thing worth discussing: previously, when these lists lived inside individual chapters, we referenced the NAICS number directly. That’s not currently done — right now you’d have to read the use title and go look up where it falls. Restoring that direct reference might help with clarity, to make sure everyone agrees on exactly what’s being permitted.
Starting in September, staff will bring chapters forward in groups of two or three, since it’s easier to compare uses across multiple zones at once. For the September meeting, please familiarize yourself with the format and classification structure of the commercial permitted-uses table, and read through the Business Park, Business Commercial, and Institutional Campus chapters. Note: Business Commercial currently has no properties in the city carrying that zoning, so you won’t find it represented in the table yet, but there may be areas elsewhere in the city where it would make sense to apply it. After that, the next chapter up is Pacific Ridge, likely for the September/October meeting. There are also a few genuinely antiquated zoning categories still in code that we may just recommend removing outright — that’ll come at the end as a miscellaneous cleanup item.
DEMING: We’ll handle downtown separately, since that’s going through its own process with a consultant and a joint Planning Commission/council review — just want you aware of that.
1:10:21 [unclear, likely BUXTON]: Could you repeat which chapters to review before September?
TECHICO: Business Park, Business Commercial, and Institutional Campus.
[unclear speaker]: Was that on the purpose slide in the packet?
TECHICO: It’s not in the packet itself, but it’ll be included with the meeting minutes follow-up. We’ll also send an email with the specific chapter links.
GANTZ: Thanks, Laura.
PART 6 — Commissioner Reports, Adjournment
1:13:06 GANTZ: Now it’s time for commissioner and director reports, limited to four minutes each. Does anyone have anything to report?
COLEMAN: [Asks Deming for clarification on what qualifies as a report.]
DEMING: Typically it’s training attended, or anything to report back on — for instance, I’d report that we’re prepping the zoning presentation we’ll bring in September. Unless something comes up between now and August, I don’t have an August item, and if nothing arrives, we’ll likely cancel the August Planning Commission meeting — though I won’t cancel it yet, in case something comes in. Wanted to give you that heads-up in advance.
1:14:29 BUXTON: I just want to say I appreciate being at this table for tonight’s discussion. Thank you, Commissioner Coleman, for the homework and the investment — this feels tedious in the moment, but it’s exciting. Five years from now, looking at the transformative changes happening in Des Moines, we’ll be able to point back to this month, September, and October and say, “that building looks good because of the standards set in that development agreement.” I’m grateful to be here, and thank you all for your investment.
GANTZ: Thank you. We’re at the end of our meeting. Our next meeting, unless canceled, is scheduled for August 4th, 2026. Is there a motion to adjourn?
[unclear, motion and second]: Moved and seconded — motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Gunkle.
GANTZ: All in favor, please raise your right hand and say aye. Opposed? Unanimous — motion adjourned.
1This is a machine-generated transcript generated on the fly by Google/Youtube/AI. Accuracy totally not guaranteed. Provided only as a convenience and to help people with disabilities. Caveat lector!