The Waterloo City Council was expected to vote on special use permit requests by the owners of the former Ahne’s Bakery property at 201 W. Mill Street during its meeting on Monday night.

Following some interesting twists and turns on this night, the matter was eventually tabled and will go before the council again in two weeks.

Per an ordinance amendment approved in 2021 when a women’s recovery residence was proposed at the former Rosedale House on Mueller Lane, the Waterloo City Council can either affirm or reverse a zoning board decision based upon the record of that meeting. 

The Ahne’s Bakery property has sat vacant since a September 2022 fire closed the local treasure for good. 

This property was recently purchased by local residents George Obernagel and JP Fitzgibbons, who have proposed to demolish the burned-out bakery and develop a combined multi-level business/apartment complex on this site. 

The two-phase project would include a business office and one non-street-facing apartment unit on the ground level, with up to five more apartment units on the second floor.

Obernagel and Fitzgibbons recently developed the two-level Adorable Beast business/apartment structure next door at 203 W. Mill Street, which has two second floor apartment units.

On Feb. 19, The Waterloo Zoning Board of Appeals, with one of its seven members not present, voted 3-3 against recommending approval for special use permits being issued for this project, however. 

This split vote by the zoning board was mainly due to parking concerns raised by small business owners on West Mill Street. 

Perhaps confusing to at least some of the zoning board members was the inclusion of city parking regulations in information presented at the Feb. 19 meeting – even though those don’t apply to this development since it is located within Waterloo’s Central Overlay District. A zoning board member not in attendance at Monday’s council meeting clarified to the paper that he wasn’t confused about the parking regulations in this type of district (“It’s first come, first serve”), but did feel there are too many components to this development to warrant a “yes” vote from him.

This zoning board member also believes the issue of parking is “the city’s issue” to fix.

The zoning board’s vote came after the seven-member Waterloo Planning Commission granted unanimous recommendation to the special use permit requests for the former Ahne’s property on Jan. 12. 

Planning commission chairman Nathan Rau was on hand Monday night to explain to aldermen how his board viewed this proposed development. 

“We feel like other businesses like a restaurant could go there and be a much bigger parking burden than this type of a development,” Rau said. “And that never even would’ve come to planning. You could put that there as a permitted use and nothing anybody could do about it.”

Rau added that he feels like “a vibrant downtown is always going to have parking challenges.”

Expounding further on the issue of parking – which Rau said was a topic of discussion for the planning commission as part of its unanimous favorable vote – he said the commission felt like “we’ve gladly  added residences above several of our downtown businesses over the years with no parking requirements, no concern to businesses right below them. Given lack of any evidence that five more apartments to us seem problematic, it seemed like a good use to us.”

Rau’s comments came during discussion after a motion to approve the first special use permit was made by Alderman Tina Charron with Alderman Kyle Buettner seconding that motion.

New zoning board member Scott Davis was in attendance Monday night and was asked to explain his “no” vote as part of that 3-3 tie.

“Parking was an issue,” Davis said, but he mostly took issue with the five proposed apartments on the second floor. He said lowering that to three or two units would be a nice compromise.

“I think it’s a great idea,” Davis said. “That building needs to go.”

Also during this discussion, Brian Hart spoke against the development as owner of Mill Street Treasures at 125 W. Mill Street. Hart also spoke at the zoning board meeting about his concern regarding possible parking issues should this get approved.

“The street is crowded all the time,” Hart said, estimating there would be 10-15 added vehicles or more parked in that vicinity every day.

Another person speaking against the multi-use project was Scot Reime, speaking on behalf of his son who owns the home behind the former Ahne’s property on Church Street. Reime said his son is concerned about what this development would do to the value of his property due to perceived lack of parking.

Another concern raised Monday night was the amount of trash bins added to the area, which Obernagel and Fitzgibbons said would be alleviated by this development using a dumpster behind the property.

Obernagel also spoke, mentioning he owns multiple businesses near this proposed development and his ventures would be impacted just like the others when it comes to parking.

“Some people may have to walk a half a block,” Obernagel said. “We’re trying to make the community better. The building’s gonna look nice.”

Obernagel added this project will cost about $1 million once completed, and he already has a tenant for the business space.

“I hope we don’t lose a tenant for extending this,” he cautioned.

Alderman Jim Hopkins said he was unable to make a clear decision on this matter because he received reports from these meetings too late and the quality of zoning board copies in his packet were hard to read.

“We’re trying to make a million dollar decision on some very little information,” Hopkins said. 

Kyle Buettner clarified to Hopkins that the incomplete information was on the city’s end.

“It wasn’t on planning and it wasn’t on the developers,” he said. “The information that was incomplete was in our packet. It wasn’t any of their faults. It was us.”

Rau said he submitted a report from the planning commission meeting to the city back in January, but added the zoning board did not have this report in its packet prior to that meeting for whatever reason.

Amidst this confusion, Alderman Joel Vogt – who said he was leaning toward approving these special use permit requests – proposed the council table this vote until the March 16 meeting to allow for all council members to have time to read all necessary reports on this issue.

At this time, Charron and Kyle Buettner rescinded their motions for approval, and the motion to table the matter was made.

Further discussion ensued, with Alderman Matt Buettner expressing concern that a further delay may hamper the development.

“I don’t like that we’re sort of running business owners through additional bureaucracy,” Matt Buettner said.

Fitzgibbons said he and Obernagel have been dealing with this development since October and have been met with delays on the city’s end in getting the issue brought to planning and zoning. 

“It’s already been a lengthy process and someone’s waiting,” Fitzgibbons said.

Alderman Jordon Riley chimed in at this point, saying that he couldn’t vote in favor of something for which he has incomplete information, adding that if he had to vote Monday night, it would be a “no.”

“And I feel we all need to be very conscious of who we are representing here,” Riley said. “I’ve heard we’ve gotten a lot of calls from businesses and residences that do not want this around there.”

Matt Buettner commented further, saying this building is blighted, “and now we have an opportunity to improve it, and here we are.”

Alderman Gary Most said “it’s been two and a half years” waiting on that site to be re-developed. “The way I look at it as another week.”

“I don’t think that’s the way the developers look at it, though,” Mayor Stan Darter countered.

Most also praised previous Obernagel-Fitzgibbons properties in downtown Waterloo for the quality of work.

“It’s second to none,” Hopkins agreed.

Hopkins then said he has received eight texts and three emails from residents in his ward on the issue, so he needs more information to do his due diligence before making a final decision.

Finally, it came down to the vote on tabling the matter to the March 16 meeting as currently applied for, with both Buettners and Charron voting against. 

By a 5-3 vote, the matter was officially tabled.

If the final vote on this measure ends in a 4-4 tie of council members on March 16, the mayor would be forced to cast a tie-breaking vote.