Council rejects request to vacate Locust Street alley; debate centers on access and gravel

The Davenport City Council voted 9-1 on April 23 to deny an ordinance (case R0W25-01) that would have vacated part of an alley right-of-way north of Locust Street between Bell Avenue and Dougalby Street.

The planning and zoning commission had recommended denial; council members and nearby residents debated whether vacation would eliminate public access, who should pay for paving or repairs, and how gravel placed on city property should be handled.

Two residents who live adjacent to the alley spoke against vacating the right-of-way unless the city and the property owners reached an agreement guaranteeing safe ingress and egress. Sean Agan, Ward 1, said he “strongly oppose[d] the alley vacate unless we can come to agreement on the city's proposal.” Kayla Fielder, property manager at 2342 East Locust, testified that she and the property owner had proposed a plan that she said would meet the city’s requirements but that she had not heard back on whether the city would accept it: “we are still opposing the vacay unless we can come to some kind of agreement for safe egress ingress on that.”

Aldermen split along lines of access and enforcement. Alderman Kelly said she would vote to vacate, arguing that the city had already said it would not maintain the alley and that the question of safety did not justify denying the request: “So I'll be voting yes for the vacay.” Alderman Gripp and others said they preferred to maintain public access or require a formal access easement, noting that vacating the right-of-way would require two willing property owners to create a private easement. Alderman Johnson said the council should require removal of the gravel placed on city-owned property regardless of the council’s decision on vacation.

City staff described the negotiation positions: one owner recently signaled willingness to accept an ingress easement; the other owner wanted the right-of-way vacated. City Engineer Bridal Shadd summarized that the outstanding complication was who would provide paving across parts of the area outside the vacation request.

At roll call the ordinance failed, 9 no to 1 yes. The council returned the matter to its current status as a public right-of-way; staff said enforcement or municipal action could follow to address gravel placed on city property.

The council did not adopt an alternative motion at the meeting; several aldermen asked staff to follow up with options for preserving safe access while addressing the unauthorized gravel and for any next steps needed if property owners reach an agreement.

Votes at the roll call were recorded by name in the meeting transcript; the council clerk announced “So 9 nos and 1 yes” and declared the ordinance failed.

The discussion included repeated references to earlier planning and property history and to differences between keeping a public right-of-way (which can remain unpaved) and creating a private access easement that restricts use to the agreed parties. The council did not vote on an access-easement alternative at the April 23 meeting.