City Council denies special permit request from Shottenkirk; neighbors don’t believe issue is finished but they don’t want to sell home

QUINCY — A special permit request from Shottenkirk Chevrolet, 1537 N. 24th, to increase the number of overhead doors from four to six on Tuesday was denied by the Quincy City Council at its Monday meeting.

The Plan Commission recommended the denial of the permit request last week. 

Aldermen approved in 1993 an ordinance limiting the number of overhead doors at the car dealership to four. The city claimed it made multiple requests to halt construction before a review of the Quincy Plan Commission, yet Shottenkirk continued to install the doors, raising concerns about how the decision to continue construction without the authorization could affect future permit requests.

Five people spoke before aldermen to support the Shottenkirk project, which cost approximately $400,000. Lonnie Schuyler, general manager of Shottenkirk, told aldermen he thought he had “a green light from the city” to add the two additional doors.

Ben Sheedy with Shottenkirk’s corporate office in West Burlington, Iowa, said he learned about the 1993 ordinance at the end of March. He then reached out to Gerald and Kathleen Huner, who live next door at 2300 Locust, but failed to make contact. Instead, he spoke with their daughter.

“We had a conversation for about 15 minutes where I was trying to reason and give them an alternative with a new fence, a new green space,” Sheedy said. “I said we would re-landscape their entire house, just to fit it in, and put in taller trees, a taller fence, whatever we could do. We were definitely trying to be neighborly.”

‘We’ve got to fill them in with something’

Tony Baxter with Baxter Construction in Fort Madison, Iowa, explained why his firm completed work on the two overhead doors after learning about the violation of the city ordinance.

“The holes were open, the frames were in and the doors were being delivered two days. What do we do?” Baxter said. “The suggestion I made was we’ve got to fill them in with something. Might as well fill them in with the doors, because the metal already is thrown away.”

Paul Westerhoff, a partner with Architechnics and the designer of the Shottenkirk project, said he contacted Michael Seaver, director of inspection and enforcement for the city, to ask about the need for a building permit.

“This project involves strictly interior renovations. There were going to be no exterior renovations of any kind,” Westerhoff said. “(Seaver) said at that time, because it was strictly interior work, that no building permit was needed. Neither he nor I at the time knew of the special (ordinance).”

If an arrangement between Shottenkirk and the Huners is reached, Ben Uzelac, D-7, asked if aldermen could reconsider the issue. Corporation counsel Lonnie Dunn originally said it could not, then he was later corrected and told the issue must wait a year.

Greg Fletcher, R-1, asked if Shottenkirk had asked about buying the Huner’s home. 

“That would solve a lot of problems,” he said.

Sheedy said he has had no formal conversation with the Huners about buying the property, “but we would entertain that. … We would we would be agreeable.”

Shottenkirk GM on future plans: ‘I have no idea’

Jack Holzschlag, D-7, asked city planner Chuck Bevelheimer if the doors could stay if Shottenkirk didn’t use them.

“I think you’re cutting a fine line here,” Bevelheimer replied. “Who says that some employee is not going to open up a door sometimes? Then we’ll be back to right where we are right now. The neighbors will come and complain to you that (Shottenkirk is) not following the ordinance.”

Aldermen voted 12-0 to support the Plan Commission’s recommendation of the denial. Dave Bauer, D-2, abstained.

Asked after the vote about his plans, Schuyler said, “I don’t know. I have no idea.”

He thought the entire episode was a misunderstanding.

“It feels that way to me,” he said. “I would never have spent the money. I wasn’t trying to increase the footprint. Instead, I was simply trying to maximize the footprint I already had.”

Schuyler said he would be open to talking to Huners “if they’re open to it, but I don’t know that they are.”

The Huners have lived in their home for 29 years.

“The only offer they have ever made was to put up a fence to replace one that’s not taken care of now,” Gerald Huner said. “The one they have right now is falling down, and they don’t even take care of it. We just don’t trust anything they say. 

“We’ve been more than willing. This is not over. We think they’re going to try something else, but we don’t want to sell. We want to live peacefully. They pull that crap just to make it look like they’re nice people.”

Farha: Responsibility of city to be consistent with rules

Mike Farha, R-4, asked for reasons for aldermen not to concur with the decision of the planning commission.

“There were no reasons,” he said. “It’s not a reason that you didn’t know that you were violating the ordinance. I get it. They feel like they contribute a lot, but the neighbors have a reasonable expectation that we’re going to obey our own laws. It’s the responsibility of the city to be consistent.”

“I don’t think (Shottenkirk) had any malice or ill will initially,” Jeff Bergman, R-2, said. “I think they truly thought they could do it. Shottenkirk was clearly and fully aware that the city wanted them to stop and put it on pause. They had already purchased the doors, they already had done the engineering and they already started the work. In their mind, they’re like, we’re just going to go ahead and do the work. It’s unfortunate, just because of the time and the expense involved.

Bergman thought plausible options going forward could be examined.

“They should probably work with Bevelheimer and the planning department,” he said. “At the end of the day, everybody wants everybody to be happy. We want to have some balance between the neighbors and the business. We don’t want to hurt the business, and we don’t want to impede on the neighbors. There needs to be a happy balance and try to see what the best solution is.”