Neighbors, Planning Commission oppose Davenport alley vacation at East Locust

A public hearing at the Davenport City Council Committee of the Whole on March 19, 2025 drew multiple residents and the Planning and Zoning Commission opposition to the city’s request to vacate a portion of alley right-of-way north of East Locust Street between Bell Avenue and Dogleby Street.

Attorney Michael Malloy, representing property owner Sean Agan, told the council the Planning and Zoning Commission “resoundingly voted no” and recommended the council deny the request. Malloy said the alley serves a public purpose and is used by the adjacent property at 2342 East Locust for safer egress onto Locust Street; he said the commission voted 8–1 to deny an 8,800-square-foot alley vacation and that about 20 neighbors signed a petition opposing the change.

The commission’s recommendation and multiple residents’ testimony centered on vehicle- and pedestrian-safety concerns tied to an existing approximately 5-foot-high cement retaining wall along Locust Street. Corey Volkers of Townsend Engineering, representing the owner of 2342 East Locust, presented a survey and a visibility-triangle drawing based on the city zoning reference (cited by speakers as city code 17.090.030) showing the retaining wall does not meet current visibility standards. Volkers said that, as tested against the code’s sight-triangle criteria, the wall would prevent safe access to Locust.

Several neighbors and people connected to the property said the alley is in active use. Property owner Sean Agan and tenants described daily use of the alley for exiting onto Dougleby/Dogleby and said they had provided a notarized petition opposing vacation. Longtime neighbors said the alley’s gravel surface predated recent ownership and that the alley has been used by both residents and city staff (code enforcement and inspections) over recent years.

Opponents said vacating the alley without correcting the retaining wall and other sightline issues would force vehicles to enter Locust from a driveway with limited visibility, potentially requiring drivers to stop on the sidewalk to look for traffic — a practice speakers said would violate city code (cited during testimony as section 10.6402(o)) and create a hazard near a school on Locust.

City staff answered council questions about why the item returned to the agenda after withdrawal in spring 2023. Laura Berkley of Development and Neighborhood Services said staff withdrew the 2023 request because staff capacity and unanswered questions required further review; staff reintroduced the item this year after additional review. Berkley confirmed the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to deny the vacation (one in favor, eight opposed).

When council members asked about responsibility for the retaining wall, staff said the city engineer had researched records related to the street widening but had not found documentation establishing ownership or temporary construction easements that would explain who built or owns the wall. Berkley said staff did not have a definitive ownership determination at the meeting and that more information would be provided later.

Council action at the end of the community development discussion placed items 1 and 3 on the consent agenda and left item 2 (the alley vacation, ROW25-01) on discussion for a future meeting — meaning the council will consider it separately next week rather than in consent. No final vote on the alley vacation occurred at the Committee of the Whole meeting.

The council was presented with a packet that included the petition and the Planning and Zoning Commission materials. Speakers urged the council to preserve the alley, or, if the city proceeds, to require the alley be brought up to standards and/or the retaining wall addressed to restore required sightlines before any vacation took effect.

The council did not take a final vote on the alley vacation at this meeting; the item remained on discussion for the next council meeting where public comment will be allowed again.