Zoning board denies proposed tobacco shop at 1 Cherry Street after neighborhood safety concerns

The Des Moines Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to deny a conditional‑use request for a tobacco shop at 1 Cherry Street after neighbors reported recent late‑night disturbances and the applicant failed to meet procedural requirements. The board cited the applicant’s absence at the hearing and the absence of a required neighborhood‑meeting summary as primary reasons for denial.

Bert Dross, planning staff, told the board the proposal would occupy roughly 826.75 square feet inside an existing one‑story commercial building in the DX2 district and that a tobacco store use there is subject to a 500‑foot separation from schools, daycares, parks, places of worship and other tobacco stores. The applicant proposed operating hours roughly “noon to 2 a.m.” and indicated the retail area would represent more than 40 percent of sales from tobacco products; staff recommended approval subject to conditions (including no alcohol sales and no exterior tobacco advertising) if the board chose to grant the conditional use.

Multiple nearby residents and property managers urged denial. Deb Madison Levi, who said she has lived on 10th and Cherry for 11 years, asked the board to “pause on any action on this appeal until the downtown community has an opportunity to learn more and engage” with the developer. Jennifer Thon, representing Altos (owner of 10th Street Lofts), described a recent uptick in criminal activity she said began after the storefront began operating: “We’ve already had tires slashed, vehicles broken into and things stolen,” she told the board, and she reported late‑night noise and activity that required police calls.

Darren Harkkins, owner of 101 Cherry Street (a 54‑unit building across the street), said tenants’ safety had deteriorated, describing people “walking in behind tenants” and thefts from a basement he said had occurred in the last month. Zoning enforcement staff told the board they had not received records of police reports at the zoning office and that they had checked the property earlier in the year but not during late‑night hours.

During deliberation board members emphasized two points: the applicant carries the burden to demonstrate compliance with the conditional‑use criteria, and the code requires the applicant to conduct and submit a neighborhood‑meeting summary before the hearing. Julian Neely moved to deny the request on the bases that the applicant had not provided the required neighborhood‑meeting documentation and that several conditional‑use criteria (staff highlighted criteria 1, 3 and 7 in the report) were challenged by residents’ statements. The motion passed 7‑0.

The board’s attorney, Gary Guidellock, reminded members that a denial could be replaced by a new application: “If the applicant wants to pursue this later, they must refile with fees and notices,” he said. There was no immediate indication the applicant planned to reapply.

Votes at a glance: motion to deny carried 7‑0. The board’s decision and order will be issued in about a week, after which any appeal would be to the Iowa District Court within 30 days.

Context: Staff emphasized that conditional uses can be reconsidered if a use becomes a nuisance and that, per code, the zoning officer can bring any non‑complying operation back to the board for revocation.