Davenport preservation panel refuses approval for after-the-fact sliding door at 418 W. Seventh

The Davenport Historic Preservation Commission on Jan. 14 failed to approve an after-the-fact installation of sliding French doors on the north (alley) elevation of the Paul and Mina Janssen House, a contributing property in the Hamburg local landmark historic district. The motion to approve the door and removal of an older kitchen door and window failed on a 3-2 roll call.

The commission’s consideration focused on work completed after the owner had sought partial approval in December. Staff informed the commission that a notice of violation had been sent because the sliding French doors were installed without an approved certificate of appropriateness and without a separate building permit. Staff recommended against approving the sliding doors on the north elevation but noted the proposed rear alterations otherwise had “minimal impact” on the district.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the case raises questions about precedent and the commission’s process because the owner proceeded with the work before the full application was decided. Some members emphasized preservation standards for size, massing and material compatibility; others balanced those standards against the fact that the change faces an alley rather than a public street.

The house, identified in the meeting as the Paul and Mina Janssen House, dates to 1902 and is described by staff as a Queen Anne–style, contributing structure. At a December meeting the commission had approved demolition of a north exterior staircase, construction of an 8-by-16-foot composite deck and staircase, and re‑opening a First Floor dining room window. The sliding door and removal of a first-floor kitchen door and window were tabled at that time pending alternative designs. The petitioner later submitted mock-ups showing two options: a Marvin Elevate sliding French door (fiberglass exterior, wood interior) sized at about 12 feet by 7 feet, and a more traditional French door design. Staff said the petitioner completed the sliding-door installation after a January 2 special meeting was scheduled and that staff learned the work had already been done.

Commissioners’ discussion split on two main points: compatibility of the door with the Queen Anne house and the procedural issue of work completed before final approval. One commissioner who visited the alley said, “It’s not seen from the street… the size of that patio door is not inappropriate” and favored approval on that basis. Other commissioners said they were troubled by process and the precedent of approving work done without following required reviews. Commissioner Bob (last name not specified) said in a strongly worded remark that proceeding without approval was “shameful,” calling it a violation of the community process. Staff repeatedly told the commission its role was to decide whether the change is appropriate for the house; enforcement and any penalties for work done without permit would be handled by city staff.

Vote and next steps: On a roll call the motion to approve the sliding-door installation failed. The recorded votes on the motion were: Gomez — No; McGovern — Yes; Eaton — Yes; Pastetti — No; Kretz — No (yes: 2; no: 3). Because the commission did not approve the change, the property owner may appeal to the Davenport City Council for consideration, and staff said it will follow up with the property owner about next steps and enforcement.

Details and clarifications: The commission had previously approved the deck and staircase; the contested element was the sliding door itself, described in staff materials as a Marvin Elevate sliding French door (fiberglass exterior, wood interior) approximately 12 feet wide by 7 feet tall. Staff reviewed the project for conformance with the city’s historic preservation ordinance and found the sliding doors did not meet standards requiring compatibility with the property’s size, massing, scale, color and materials.

The commission also noted the distinction between this north/alley-facing elevation and a street-facing façade; several commissioners said the State Historic Preservation Office historically gives more weight to street-facing elevations when evaluating windows and doors. Enforcement (penalties, permit violations) will be handled administratively by city staff, not by the Preservation Commission.