Zoning board denies variance for Mitchell Family Foods at 3605 Douglas; applicant withdraws conditional‑use request

The Des Moines Zoning Board of Adjustment on a split vote declined to grant a variance that would have allowed Mitchell Family Foods to sell wine and beer at 3605 Douglas Avenue, a tenant bay in a Lower Beaver strip mall. The variance failed after only two board members voted in favor; four affirmative votes were required.

Staff presented the case as a combined conditional‑use and variance request: the applicant seeks a conditional use to permit limited retail sales of wine and beer in an RX‑1 district and a variance to waive the ordinance’s 150‑foot separation requirement from certain sensitive uses. Planner Frank Dunn Young told the board the tenant bay is roughly 60 feet from the property line of a nearby place of worship and that staff therefore recommended denial because the applicant had not established the unnecessary‑hardship standard required for a variance.

Applicant Jared Mitchell, representing Mitchell Family Foods, described his business as a craft beverage and coffee operation that roasts coffee, produces an energy drink and markets a beer label (Fox Head Beer). Mitchell said the proposal was intended to create a daytime destination for Lower Beaver and argued that denial would be economically detrimental to the property owner and to his business. He told the board the proposed hours for packaged alcohol sales were limited and daytime‑focused (around 7 a.m. to roughly 2–3 p.m., operating several days a week), and emphasized “we’re not a liquor store” and “we’re not open late at night.”

Board members pressed on two points: the technical variance test and the policy reason for the 150‑foot separation rule. Legal counsel and the chair explained that the ordinance’s separation distances were adopted by ordinance and that variances are reserved for narrow, defensible hardship cases; several members said they sympathized with the applicant’s business plan but did not see a defensible variance argument in the record.

When a motion by Board member Dave Gare to grant the variance — which would have allowed staff to then consider the conditional use — was called, the motion drew only two affirmative votes and failed. Because the variance was not approved, the conditional‑use request could not proceed at that time. Following legal advisement that a failed conditional‑use decision would bar a reapplication for one year absent an extraordinary change in circumstances, Mitchell chose to withdraw the conditional‑use request rather than seek a contested conditional‑use decision at this meeting.

Next steps: the applicant may return if the ordinance changes or if neighboring land uses materially change (for example, if the place of worship closes), or he may seek other procedural remedies. The board noted that applicants who are denied may also pursue changes to the ordinance through the city council for future consideration.