Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Zoning board approves Ingersoll vape shop with hours limit after neighborhood objections

October 23, 2025 | Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Zoning board approves Ingersoll vape shop with hours limit after neighborhood objections
The Des Moines Zoning Board of Adjustment on Thursday approved a conditional-use request to open a tobacco and vapor retail store at 2903 Ingersoll Avenue, voting 5–2 to adopt staff recommendations and add a condition limiting hours of operation to no earlier than 9 a.m. and no later than 11 p.m.

Frank Dunn, senior city planner, told the board the applicant proposes to occupy a roughly 2,600-square-foot tenant bay within a 4,400-square-foot retail building at the northwest corner of Ingersoll and 20th Street. Staff said the site has approximately 19 parking stalls in a rear lot plus about 7–8 on-street stalls, which staff calculated meets the ordinance parking minimums for the combined uses on the property. "Staff is supporting the applicant's request for tobacco store use," Dunn said during the presentation.

The applicant, which Dunn identified as Puff Cloud Smoke Shop (operator named in the staff report as Zahidullah Salazar Salarzi and property owner listed as Inglewood Property LLC), was represented at the hearing by a landlord agent, Matt Connolly of NAI Iowa Realty, and by representatives Elias Manga and others. Manga said the group would invest in the site and described plans for ID checks and training: "Since we are investing over $250,000 in here, and then we don't wanna put our business at risk," he said, adding employees would check identification for age-restricted purchases.

Neighborhood speakers and written comments submitted before the hearing raised concerns about youth exposure, storefront lighting and the use's compatibility with nearby businesses. Carol Maher, a downtown resident who testified in opposition, said she could not "in my mind's eye picture a storefront of a vape store that doesn't have rope lighting" and questioned why soda and non-age-restricted items would be sold alongside tobacco products.

Board members discussed the narrow legal standard for conditional uses and the limits on the board's authority to decide public-health questions. City attorney Gary (last name not stated on the record) and staff pointed the board to the zoning standards, which focus on location and operation and whether the use "safeguards the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in adjoining or surrounding property." Members noted the board may not base a decision solely on broader public-health or moral objections if the ordinance criteria are otherwise met.

During deliberations the board added the hours restriction discussed at the hearing and retained the other conditions proposed by staff, including compliance with sign, parking and nuisance provisions and the requirement that staff may return the conditional use to the board for reconsideration if the enforcement officer documents a pattern of violations. The motion to approve the conditional use was seconded and carried 5–2.

The board chair told the applicants that, as with other conditional uses, violations of the permit conditions could lead to administrative review and revocation of the permit. The board's decision will be reduced to a written decision and order; staff said a copy would be available to the applicants in about a week and that the applicants will need to obtain any building or sign permits through the city's Permit and Development Center.

The board record shows the applicant held a neighborhood meeting and provided materials; some neighborhood groups asked for additional time to meet after receipt of notice. The newly adopted city ordinance changing tobacco and vapor definitions and adding a 500-foot separation for future applications was discussed at the hearing; staff told the board that because this application was filed before council adoption, the new separate-distance rules do not apply to this application.

No appeal or rehearing was announced at the meeting. The board advised that city decisions may be appealed to the Iowa District Court within the statutory period for judicial review.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Iowa articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI