Iowa City board upholds denial of permit to remove wall at downtown bar space

The Iowa City Board of Adjustment on June 10 denied an appeal seeking to overturn a building official's April decision to deny a permit to remove an interior wall at 118 South Clinton Street, a downtown property that would combine two tenant spaces into one.

At issue was whether the building official erred by denying permit BLDC260023 on zoning grounds after staff determined the proposed interior alteration would enlarge an existing legal nonconforming drinking establishment, a change the zoning code prohibits. The board rejected the appellant's argument and left the denial in place; the decision can be appealed to a court of record within 30 days after the decision is filed with the city clerk.

Why it matters: The case pits a property owner's effort to remodel and consolidate space against a downtown zoning regime that limits the enlargement of nonconforming late-night drinking establishments. Supporters of the current rule told the board the restriction helps preserve daytime retail and public safety in Iowa City's central business district.

The appellant's counsel, Richard Davidson, told the board the application was a routine building-permit request and argued the building official should not have refused the permit on the basis of anticipated future uses. "This is not a building code appeal," Davidson said, adding that plans submitted to obtain a permit need only show compliance with the uniform building code. He also argued the city's distinction between "eating" and "drinking" establishments effectively attempts to change the hours a class C liquor license holder may operate and raised Iowa Code §123.392 as a possible source of preemption.

Staff rebutted that the April review examined both building- and zoning-code compliance and concluded the proposed removal of the interior wall would increase the floor area occupied by the nonconforming drinking establishment. Danielle Stitzman, development services coordinator and the building official, said staff found the southern tenant (known in the record as Giddy Up) operates between midnight and 2 a.m. and is therefore a legal nonconforming drinking establishment. "Because the zoning code prohibits the enlargement of non-conforming uses, staff concluded that approving the permit would authorize an expansion that is not permitted by the code," Stitzman told the board.

Several downtown business owners and a resident testified in support of staff's interpretation. Jim Montro, who said he has run downtown bars since 1976, told the board the separation and hour limits were adopted to protect daytime retail and public safety. "We don't want any more drinking establishments that stay open till 2:00 in the morning," Montro said. Residents urged consistent enforcement of the ordinance to preserve downtown character.

Board members debated whether the building permit review could properly consider future tenant operations but ultimately expressed agreement with staff that the facts presented in April indicated the permit, as drawn, would enlarge a legal nonconforming use.

A motion to approve the appellant's appeal and overturn the building official's denial failed on a roll-call vote: Swagard, Tolman (Tolman/Tomman spelling appears in the record), Russo and Baker voted no; one member was recorded absent. The board's action leaves the building official's denial in place; Davidson said the appellant may appeal to district court.

The board also approved the May 13, 2026 minutes and adjourned. The appeal record includes references to zoning provisions governing nonconforming uses and to Iowa Code §123.392, which was cited by the appellant during argument.

What's next: Because the board denied the appeal, the applicant may seek judicial review within the statutory filing period.