City of Davenport Planning Commission: August 17, 2026

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting, Commission Room (agenda time 6:30 p.m.) Quorum: Yes (5 of 5 members present; "Mayor Fellows-Coffey declared a quorum present") Duration: Approximately 23 minutes (6:37 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.)

The Planning Commission is the five City Commissioners. Actions and votes are from the minutes; the agenda is published at https://www.mydavenport.org/vertical/sites/%7B96FA7459-A704-43EF-A44D-7BFA732F5D2E%7D/uploads/August_17_2026_-_Planning_Commission.pdf and held in the corpus as 2026-08-agenda-PC.md.

Attendance

• Present: Mayor Donna Fellows-Coffey, Vice-Mayor Jeremy Clark, Commissioners Tom Fellows, Linda Robinson, Frank Rivera
• Absent: None recorded
• Staff Present: City Manager Kelly Callihan, City Attorney Elisabeth Crane, City Planner Raymond Perez, Building Official Corey Stripling

Agenda Items

Item 1: Ordinance No. 1456, Land Use Classification for 220 Davenport Boulevard

• Type: Future land use amendment
• Case Number: Ordinance No. 1456
• Location: 220 Davenport Boulevard
• Owner of Record: Enoch Living Trust
• Request: Assign the land use classification "from City Commerce Activity (CAC) to City Manufacturing Warehouse (MW)"
• Acreage: .43 acres (City Planner Raymond Perez)
• Staff Recommendation: Keep the property in the Downtown Business District: "staff recommended maintaining the current zoning classification and not changing the property to Industrial Zoning."
• Action: Recommendation motion failed. The minutes record, under this item: "Motion by Commissioner Fellows and seconded by Vice-Mayor Clark to recommend to the City Commission approval of Ordinance No. 1457. Motion failed." (The motion as recorded names Ordinance No. 1457; it sits under the Ordinance No. 1456 heading, and Item 2 then states "the land use was not approved.")
• Vote: 2-3 roll call (Mayor Fellows-Coffey Aye, Commissioner Fellows Aye; Vice-Mayor Clark Nay, Commissioner Robinson Nay, Commissioner Rivera Nay)
• Notable Discussion: Building Official Corey Stripling explained that the property "is currently being used for warehouse and distribution operations, which are not permitted within the Downtown Business District," and that the Industrial district is the only one allowing that use. Warehouse and distribution uses were permitted there before 2019, but "the building remained vacant for more than two years, causing the property to lose its nonconforming use status." Staff's concern was "the broader zoning change and its potential implications for the Downtown area, rather than the warehouse use itself": rezoning to I-1 would open uses such as "mini-warehouses, vehicle repair, landscaping related operations, recycling, and heavy equipment uses." Commissioner Robinson raised the residential neighborhood behind the property, traffic, and limited parking and loading. Mayor Fellows-Coffey spoke of "protecting the integrity of the Downtown Business District" while being sympathetic to the owner. Vice-Mayor Clark said he would rely on staff's recommendation. Commissioner Fellows said the change "would not create an entirely new use at the site because the warehouse building already existed."

Item 2: Ordinance No. 1457, Zoning Classification for 220 Davenport Boulevard

• Type: Rezoning
• Case Number: Ordinance No. 1457
• Location: 220 Davenport Boulevard
• Owner of Record: Enoch Living Trust
• Request: Assign the zoning classification "from City Downtown Business District (DBD) to City Manufacturing Warehousing (I-1)"
• Current Zoning: City Downtown Business District (DBD)
• Proposed Zoning: City Manufacturing Warehousing (I-1)
• Staff Recommendation: The City Planner explained that "the land use was not approved and the zoning could not be reclassified as Industrial 1 so in this case they would have to vote no because of the fact they had not obtained the land use that was necessary for the zoning."
• Action: "Motion by Commissioner Rivera and second by Vice-Mayor Clark to request recommendation of Ordinance No. 1457 to assign the zoning classification. Motion failed."
• Vote: Failed (no tally recorded)

Public Hearings Summary

• Number of speakers: 2, both at the Item 1 hearing
• General sentiment: Supportive of the change
• Key concerns:
  • A trustee of the Enoch Living Trust said the Trust had tried to sell the property for about two years, that the building was designed as a warehouse with a loading dock for a semi-truck, and that without the change the property "would effectively be unusable for the Trust's purposes."
  • A resident and longtime neighbor, who said she and her sister had owned the property for decades and run it as a working warehouse, supported returning it to warehouse use.

Key Signals

• The motions to recommend moving 220 Davenport Boulevard to industrial failed at the Planning Commission. The recommending motion under the land use item failed 2-3 (as recorded, it names Ordinance No. 1457), and the zoning motion failed after the City Planner explained that "the land use was not approved."
• Staff's concern was the breadth of I-1. The warehouse use lost its nonconforming status after more than two years of vacancy; staff warned that I-1 would admit the full range of industrial uses, and recommended keeping the .43-acre parcel in DBD.
• Nonconforming status turns on a clock. The Building Official stated that under the current LDRs a nonconforming use is lost once it is "vacant or discontinued for the six-month period," and that tying that status to a sale "would be a policy decision for the Commission to consider."

Raw Notes

• Commissioner Robinson asked about the land use classification of the Wells Fargo property and "the property proposed for the batting cages"; the City Planner said both are Commerce Activity Center (CAC) within the Downtown Business District.
• Label drift within the record: the item titles say "City Commerce Activity (CAC)"; the Building Official and City Planner say "Commercial Activity Center (CAC)" and "Commerce Activity Center (CAC)."
• The City Commission, meeting at 7:02 p.m. the same evening, deleted first reading of both ordinances from its order of business (2026-08-meeting-CC.md).