Plan & Zone Commission rejects City request to vacate portion of Locust-area alley (ROW25-01)

The Davenport Plan and Zone Commission on Feb. 18 voted 1–8 against recommending that the City of Davenport vacate a portion of unimproved alley right of way north of Locust Street between Bell Avenue and Dougalby Street (case ROW25-01).

City planning staff told the commission the portion proposed for vacation measures about 20 feet wide by about 440 feet long — roughly 8,840 square feet — and was dedicated with the recording of the subdivision plat but never developed by the city. Matt (city planning staff) said the staff recommendation was to forward findings and a condition to the city council that would allow conveyance negotiations to proceed, and he summarized the recommendation by saying “the alley right of way is not needed for a public purpose.”

The commission’s vote ends its consideration of the petition without a recommendation to city council. A roll call produced one vote in favor (Commissioner Maness) and eight votes against (Dunlap, Eichelberry, Johnson, Tallman, Garrington, Schilling, Thomas and Schneider). The motion failed.

Why it mattered: The block contains sewer infrastructure and a substantial topographic grade change. Staff documented a storm pipe that crosses the alley and noted a roughly 15-foot elevation change across the block, one reason the city never constructed the alley. Planning staff also reported the city placed a 24-hour camera to count pedestrians on the north side of Locust Street; that short, wintertime sample recorded a single pedestrian. Traffic counts provided from the Iowa Department of Transportation showed an annual average daily traffic count of about 17,800 vehicles on Locust Street; Bell Avenue had roughly 1,000–1,200 vehicles per day and the smaller local streets about 200.

Discussion highlights: Commissioners raised safety and maintenance questions. Commissioner Tomlin asked whether the finding that a retaining wall adjacent to a driveway “does not meet today’s standards for sight distance” would trigger city-led redesign or reconstruction. Corporate Counsel Hough told the commission, “I do not believe that it would initiate that,” while adding staff would review what could be done because the retaining wall affects land that may be retained by private owners. City engineer Brian Schadt said he reviewed historic plans and easement documents and found no definitive record of original wall plans, noting the structure appears in a 1968 photograph but he found “no definitive information, public or private.”

Staff also described the city’s alley maintenance program, which can be initiated by a petition of adjacent property owners and typically splits construction costs between the city and property owners (staff described typical splits of 75% city / 25% residential or 50%/50% when a commercial entity is involved). Staff said no adjacent owner has requested maintenance for the portion proposed for vacation; that portion remains eligible for the city’s alley program if property owners later petition for it.

Legal/process notes: Staff explained right-of-way vacation is a two-step process: the commission first determines whether the right of way is needed for a public purpose; if it is found not needed, conveyance negotiations with adjacent property owners follow and do not require additional Plan & Zone action. Staff estimated the conveyance process, once negotiated, typically takes on the order of six weeks. Staff also noted existing easements to preserve access to sewer infrastructure would remain in place.

Condition proposed by staff: If vacated, the land was to continue to function in its current state until conveyance was complete; that condition was part of the motion the commission considered.

What the vote means: Because the commission voted against forwarding the recommendation, the commission did not send the vacation recommendation to the city council. The petition for ROW25-01 remains without a commission recommendation.