Davenport council keeps discussion open on proposed vacation of alley north of East Locust amid safety, ownership concerns

The Davenport City Council heard more than a half dozen residents and property managers oppose a proposal to vacate a portion of an alley right-of-way north of East Locust Street between Bell Avenue and Dougalby Street and voted to keep the item on the discussion agenda for further staff work.

The issue came before the council on second consideration as case ROW 205-1. Alderman Kyle Gripp, who led the community development discussion, said the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the vacate and listed a range of options for council to consider, including doing nothing, vacating with an access easement, vacating with no access easement and conveying the land, or vacating but ensuring safe ingress and egress for neighboring properties.

Neighbors told the council they use the alley for safety when exiting driveways because a retaining wall adjacent to Locust limits sight lines. “I strongly object to the alley vacate,” said Sean Hagen of 828 Waverly Road, who told councillors he had submitted notarized opposition from five longtime residents and a 20-plus signer petition. Kayla Fielder, property manager for 2342 East Locust, said, “This wall hinders this line of sight to see out of this property,” and described backing into the alley to avoid pulling into traffic.

Townsend Engineering principal Chris Townsend, speaking for a property owner, said his survey shows the back of the retaining wall sits about 6 inches south of the property line, within the right-of-way, and said the owner is willing to work with the city on a solution but that removing or regrading the wall would be a city expense. City Engineer Brian Shadd told the council he found no construction permits or easement acquisitions in the 1968–1970 files that would clearly document ownership of the wall.

Council members questioned legal limits and next steps. Alderman Joe Jobin asked City Attorney Huff to clarify the difference between a conveyance and a vacation; Huff explained a vacation lifts the right-of-way designation but leaves the city as owner unless a conveyance petition is filed. Alderman Kelly and others asked staff to provide clearer documentation of who built and owns the retaining wall. City Administrator Maxheimer (City Administrator) said staff intends to contact adjacent property owners before the next cycle.

Alderman Gripp emphasized the city has several potential pathways and warned that the city might not want to initiate a vacation that obligates it to pay to fix the wall. Alderman Newton and others urged staff and legal counsel to try to broker an amicable solution before council acts. Alderman Tim Dunn offered to convene a meeting with the homeowners and staff to pursue a resolution.

The council did not vote to vacate the alley. Instead, Alderman Reinartz moved — and the council approved — a motion to place item number 1 (the alley vacate) and item number 3 (a separate historic-preservation appeal discussed later in the meeting) on the discussion agenda for the next meeting so staff can follow up. The motion passed with the usual voice vote and no roll-call opposition was recorded at the time the motion was approved.

Next steps identified by council and staff include: confirming ownership of the retaining wall through the survey referenced by Townsend, continued searches for historical permits or easement records, staff outreach to the property owners who use the alley, and legal review of whether the city may limit or close the Locust-facing ingress/egress point. The item will return to council discussion with the additional information.