Council upholds Historic Preservation Commission denial of rear-door alteration at 418 W. Seventh

Davenport City Council on April 9 upheld the Historic Preservation Commission’s denial of a certificate of appropriateness for an alley‑facing door at 418 West Seventh Street, rejecting an appeal by the homeowners and leaving the HPC decision in place.

Corporate counsel told council negotiators had discussed a possible settlement in which the homeowners would pay a fine and submit a structural engineering report for city review, but no binding agreement was reached before council considered the appeal. Council considered postponing the appeal to allow settlement discussions to continue, but a motion to postpone failed. The final roll call on the appeal resulted in nine no votes and one abstention; the motion to overturn the HPC decision therefore failed and the HPC denial stands.

Why it matters: The case raises questions about the process for the Historic Preservation Commission and the city’s enforcement options when work is completed before a certificate of appropriateness is granted. Council members and participants debated whether the commission’s decision was based on the merits or on process and emotion.

Homeowner Christine Dennis told council the HPC decision was "overly emotional" and asked that the council overturn the denial. "We ask you to vote on our appeal this evening," Dennis said, noting she submitted building permits and a cover-up inspection that she said show the work was permitted and inspected.

Corporate counsel reported the homeowners offered a $750 fine plus submission of a structural engineering report; counsel said the city’s prior position was a $1,000 fine and that settlement would require council approval. "As of right now, we do not have a resolution," corporate counsel said. He added that if a settlement were reached it would include withdrawing the appeal and cessation of further enforcement.

Council heard testimony from neighbors and two people who said they worked with the homeowners and supported their restoration efforts. Council members asked procedural and code questions, including whether permits covered the exterior door; staff answered that the building permit record did not list an exterior door and that the deck permit specifically stated it did not include the exterior door.

Council considered but rejected a motion to postpone the appeal to allow settlement negotiations to continue. The postpone motion failed on a roll call that produced six no votes, three yes votes and one abstention. The final roll-call vote on the appeal to overturn the HPC denial was nine no votes and one abstention, so the appeal failed and the HPC denial remains.

Ending: With the appeal defeated, the HPC decision is upheld; corporate counsel indicated the city would proceed with enforcement options consistent with the code if no settlement is reached. Staff and counsel said any settlement would need council approval.