HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - December 14, 2021, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE, SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD, AND
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
DECEMBER 14, 2021
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public
during discussion. If you wish to speak, please see the instructions listed above. The normal process
on any particular agenda item is that the motion is placed on the floor, input is received from the
audience, the Council is given an opportunity to comment on the issue or respond to the audience
concerns, and the vote is taken. On ordinances, there is time provided for public input at the time of
the first reading.
AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
1. Hearing regarding amendment to the FFY 2022-2025 Transportation Improvement Program:
a. Motion approving amendment to TIP
POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
AMES CONFERENCE BOARD MEETING*
*The Special Meeting of the Ames Conference Board will immediately follow the Ames Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Policy Committee Meeting.
1. Motion approving Minutes of Conference Board Meetings held February 23, March 23, May
11, May 13, July 27, 2021, and October 14, 2021
2. Motion authorizing Human Resources Department to post the City Assessor job vacancy to
close on January 28, 2022
3. Motion appointing a subcommittee for City Assessor interview process
CONFERENCE BOARD COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING**
**The Regular City Council Meeting will immediately follow the Special Meeting of the Ames
Conference Board.
PRESENTATION:
1. Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards for FY
2020/21 and FY 2021/22
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the
Council members vote on the motion.
2. Motion approving payment of claims
3.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period November 16 - 30, 2021
4. Motion approving Minutes of Special City Council Meetings held October 28, 2021, November
16, 2021, and December 2, 2021, and Regular City Council Meeting held November 23, 2021
5. Motion setting the following Special City Council meeting dates:
a. January 18, 2021, at 5:15 PM for CIP Work Session
b. January 28, 2021, at 2:00 PM for Budget Overview
c. February 1, 2, 3, and 8, 2021, at 5:15 PM for Budget Hearings and Wrap-Up
6. Motion setting January 25 and February 22, 2022, as Conference Board meeting dates
7. Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor Licenses:
a. Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - 1 Night Stand, 124 Welch
b. Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Cyclone Liquors, 626 Lincoln Way
c. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Mickey’s Irish Pub, 109
Welch Avenue, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
d. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Café Beau, 2504 Lincoln
Way
e. Class B Beer with Outdoor Service and Sunday sales - Torrent Brewing Co., LLC, 504
Burnett Avenue
f. Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Time Out, 120 Kellogg Avenue
8. Motion accepting bi-annual Sustainability Coordinator Report regarding FY 2021-22 Activities
9. Resolution approving appointment of Michael Zenor to the Zoning Board of Adjustment
10. Resolution approving appointment of Kyle Hauswirth to the Public Art Commission
11. Resolution setting January 11, 2022, as date of public hearing for approval of a lease for the
property at 205 S. Walnut Avenue to Heartland Senior Services
12. Resolution approving Commission on The Arts (COTA) Spring 2022 Special Project Grant
contracts
13. Ladder Truck 3 Refurbishment:
a. Resolution waiving Purchasing Policies and approving a sole source contract to Reliant Fire
Apparatus, Inc. (Pierce), of Slinger, Wisconsin
b. Resolution awarding contract to Reliant Fire Apparatus, Inc. (Pierce), of Slinger, Wisconsin,
for Ladder Truck Refurbishment in the amount of $113,686
14. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22 Pavement Restoration
Program (Slurry Seal); setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January 25, 2022, as date
of public hearing
15. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22 Asphalt Pavement
Improvements - Opal Drive (Jewel Dr to Crystal St), Opal Circle, Harcourt Drive (Garnet Drive
to Jewel Drive), Turquoise Cir, and Top-O-Hollow Rd (Bloomington Road to Dawes Drive);
2
setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January 25, 2022, as date of public hearing
16. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22 Seal Coat Pavement
Improvements & 2021/22 Water System Improvements - Stafford Avenue ( E 13th Street to
South End); setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January 25, 2022, as date of public
hearing
17. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2020/21 City Hall Parking Lot
Expansion; setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January 25, 2022, as date of public
hearing
18. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22 Traffic Signal Program
(University Blvd & South Fourth Street); setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January
25, 2022, as date of public hearing
19. 2020/21 South Dayton Improvements:
a. Resolution approving Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) Funding Agreement for
$400,000 in U-STEP Grant funds
b. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications; setting January 19, 2022, as bid
due date and January 25, 2022, as date of public hearing
20. Resource Recovery Primary Rotor Replacement:
a. Resolution waiving Purchasing Policies and approving a sole source contract to Hennen
Equipment, Inc. (Komptech USA), of Shakopee, Minnesota
b. Resolution awarding contract to Hennen Equipment Inc. (Komptech USA), of Shakopee,
Minnesota, in the amount of $59,795.35
21. Resolution awarding contract to Electric Pump of Des Moines, Iowa, for Water Distribution
System Monitoring Network in the amount of $232,375
22. Resolution awarding contract to Safety Vision of Houston, Texas, for CyRide Bus Camera
System for an initial purchase price of $52,381.80, with the option to purchase additional
equipment during the contract period with relevant approvals
23. Resolution awading contract to MHC Kenworth of Des Moines, Iowa, for purchase of four
reconditioned engines for CyRide buses in the amount of $129,343.68
24. Resolution approving reduction in retainage for 2018/19 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation (Siphon)
25. Resolution approving reimbursement of $64,006.10 to IDOT for US Highway 69 Improvements
- Lincoln Way (Duff Avenue to Gilchrist Street)
26. Resolution accepting completion of 2020/21 Pavement Restoration Program (Slurry Seal)
27. Resolution accepting completion of 2020/21 Seal Coat Street Improvements (Franklin Avenue)
28. Resolution accepting completion of 2020/21 Power Plant Maintenance Services
29. Resolution accepting partial completion of public improvements and reducing security for
Scenic Valley, 6th Addition
PUBLIC FORUM: This is a time set aside for comments from the public on topics of City business
other than those listed on this agenda. Please understand that the Council will not take any action on
your comments at this meeting due to requirements of the Open Meetings Law, but may do so at a
future meeting. The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public; however, at no
time is it appropriate to use profane, obscene, or slanderous language. The Mayor may limit each
speaker to three minutes.
3
HEARINGS:
30. Hearing regarding adoption of a new Long-Range Comprehensive Plan for the City of Ames
(known as Ames Plan 2040):
a. Resolution adopting Ames Plan 2040 and recognizing that the Ames Urban Fringe Plan shall
remain in effect for administration of two-mile fringe until August 1, 2022, except that the
City will consider annexation requests consistent with the Future Land Use Map of Ames
Plan 2040 for the south and west expansion of the City without requiring amendments to the
Fringe Plan
31. Hearing on proposed Zoning Text Amendment to the standards for detached garages and
accessory buildings and nonconforming structures:
a. First passage of ordinance
ADMINISTRATION:
32. Future Status of the School Resource Officer Program in the Ames Community School District
33. XENIA Water Service Territory:
a. Resolution approving revised version of Agreement for Water Service Operations and
Territory Transfer with Xenia Rural Water District
b. Resolution approving Form RD-400-4 USDA Assurance Agreement
34. Motion directing City Attorney to prepare Draft Ordinance on establishing the map of new
wards and precincts
35. Resolution approving City of Ames participation in the National Opioid Settlement, and
approving the National Opioid Settlement Agreements, and the Agreement among the state of
Iowa and local government entities
PLANNING & HOUSING:
36. Resolution approving Restrictive Covenants and Regulations for Single-Family Homes in Baker
Subdivision (321 State)
37. Initiation of Voluntary Annexation for 2105 and 2421 Dayton Avenue:
a. Motion directing staff to initiate the process of annexation
FINANCE:
38. Budget Issues/Guidelines
ORDINANCES:
39. First passage of ordinance changing the name of Squaw Creek Drive to Stonehaven Drive
40. First passage of ordinance amending the parking regulations to incorporate the renaming of
Squaw Creek Drive to Stonehaven Drive
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
CLOSED SESSION:
41. Motion to hold Closed Session as provided by Section 21.5(1)c, Code of Iowa, to discuss matters
4
presently in or threatened to be in litigation
ADJOURNMENT:
Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as
provided by Section 21.4(2), Code of Iowa.
5
1
ITEM#: AAMPO #1
DATE: 12-14-21
AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: FFY 2022 - 2025 TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENT
BACKGROUND:
To receive Federal funds for transportation improvement projects, it is necessary for the
projects to be included in the approved Iowa Department of Transportation Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). The initial step in this process is for the Ames
Area MPO to develop a regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Ames Area MPO’s current TIP programs projects for federal fiscal years 2022 through 2025 and
was approved on July 13, 2021.
The TIP may be amended in accordance with prescribed amendment and public
participation procedures. The City of Ames has requested that the Ames Area MPO make modifications to the project limits of two projects listed in the FFY 2022-25 TIP (see attached requests). The amendment to the FFY 2022-2025 TIP would change the limits of the two projects as follows:
• North Dakota Ave Paving Project (ID:35616, FFY22)
o Current Project Limits: On North Dakota Ave, from Ontario St North 0.17 miles to Union Pacific Railroad tracks. o New Project Limits: On North Dakota Ave, from South of Ontario St North 0.20 miles to North of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
• Stange Rd & 24th St Paving Project (ID:38303, FFY22)
o Current Project Limits: On Stange Rd and 24th St, from Blankenburg Dr North 0.4 miles to 24th St and East 0.8 Miles to RR. o New Project Limits: On Stange Rd, from Blankenburg Dr North 0.4 miles to 24th St and on 24th St from Pinehurst Rd, East 0.7 Miles to Hayes Ave. The Transportation Policy Committee reviewed and unanimously approved the draft amendment on November 20, 2021 and set the date of public hearing. The public input period was available from November 24, 2021, to December 9, 2021; no public comments were received by staff.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the amendment to the FFY 2022-2025 Transportation Improvement
Program.
2. Approve the amendment to the FFY 2022-2025 Transportation Improvement
Program with Transportation Policy Committee modifications.
ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION:
The Ames Area MPO Transportation Technical Committee and Transportation Policy
Committee have reviewed the proposed amendment to the FFY 2022-2025 TIP and
unanimously recommended approval. Additionally, no public comments were received.
This amendment will allow the City of Ames to proceed with their projects, with desired
project limits, and receive federal funding.
Therefore, it is recommended by the Administrator that the Transportation Policy
Committee adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
Smart Choice
main
fax
Oct 29th, 2021
2021/22 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements (North Dakota, Ontario)
STBG-SWAP-0155(707) --SG-85
Ames Area MPO,
I would like to request a modification to the project limits of the 2021/22 Arterial Street
Pavement Improvements (North Dakota Ave and Ontario St), project number STBG-SWAP-
0155(707) --SG-85. The current limits of the project are stated as, In the city of Ames, On North
Dakota Avenue, from Ontario Street North 0.17 miles to Union Pacific Railroad Tracks Paving.
The new project limits would be, In the city of Ames, on North Dakota Avenue, from South of
Ontario Street 0.20 miles to North of Union Pacific Railroad Tracks Paving. This modification to
the project limits would allow us to replace pavement on both sides of the railroad tracks and
to extend the limit south of the intersection of North Dakota Ave and Ontario St. This
modification will not change the agreement amount of $900,000 from the STBG Federal-aid
Swap funds.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Hafiz Ibrahim
Civil Engineer I
City of Ames
ONTARIO ST
TORONTO ST
RELIABLE ST
DELAWARE AVE
ARIZONA AVE
HUTCHISON ST
WOODSTOCK AVE
TORONTO ST
2021/22 Arterial StreetPavement Improvements
¯North Dakota Avenue - Ontario Street to Railroad Track
1 in ch = 187 feet
Original Agreement
Amendment
Smart Choice
main
fax
Dean.sayre@cityofames.org
Oct 29th, 2021
2021/22 Concrete Street Pavement Improvement Program:
Stange Road and 24th Street STBG-SWAP-0155(706)--SG-85
Ames Area MPO,
I would like to request a modification to the project limits of the 2021/22 Concrete Street
Pavement Improvements (Stange Rd and 24th St), project number STBG-SWAP-0155(706)—SG-
85. The current limits of the project are stated as, In the city of Ames, On Stange Rd and 24TH
ST, from Blankenburg Dr North .4 Miles to 24th ST and East .8 Miles to RR. The new project
limits would be, In the city of Ames, on Stange Rd from Blankenburg Dr, North .4 Miles to 24th
St and on 24th St from Pinehurst RD, East .7 miles to Hayes Ave. This modification to the project
limits would allow us to replace pavement on both sides of the railroad tracks with this project
and to better tie into the existing pavements at the edge of the project limits.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Dean Sayre, PE.
Civil Engineer II
City of Ames
2021/22 ConcretePavement Improvements
STOTTS RDVEENKER DR
HAMPTON ST
PRAIRIE VIEW EAST
CAMDEN DR
LONG RD BLANKENBURG DR
GREENSBORO DR
STANGE RD
HAYES AVE
TORREY PINES RD
NORTHCREST CIR
20TH ST
TORREY PINES RD
STANGE RD CAMDEN DR
20TH ST
Stange Road ( Blankenburg Dr to 24th St)
¯¯
¯24th Street (Pinehurst Rd to Hayes Ave)
Original Agreement
Amendment
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 23, 2021
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
Mayor Haila announced that it was impractical to hold an in-person Council meeting due to the
Governor of Iowa declaring a public health emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therefore, limits have been placed on public gatherings, and this meeting was being held as an
electronic meeting as allowed by Section 21.8 of the Iowa Code. The Mayor then provided how the
public could participate in the meeting via internet or by phone.
The Regular Meeting of the Ames Conference Board was called to order by Chairman John Haila
at 6:00 p.m. on February 23, 2021. Present from the Ames City Council were Bronwyn
Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and David Martin. Linda
Murken, Lisa Heddens, and Latifah Faisal represented the Story County Board of Supervisors. Other
members in attendance were as follows: Joe Anderson, Nevada School Board of Directors; Sabrina
Shields-Cook, Ames Community School Board of Directors, and Jennifer Britt, United Community
School Board of Directors. Gilbert School Board of Directors was not represented.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2021: Moved by Heddens, seconded by Betcher, to approve the
Minutes of the January 26, 2021, meeting of the Ames Conference Board.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2021/22 BUDGET FOR CITY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
Interim City Assessor Brenda Swaim mentioned that she hoped that the rest of the Board received
the corrected pages (3 and 4) of the Report.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and it was closed when no one came forward.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Murken, to adopt the proposed 2021/22 budget for the City
Assessor’s Office.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CONFERENCE BOARD COMMENTS: Council Member Martin mentioned that at the last
Conference Board meeting he made a motion to put the topics of the mini board structure and a
process for evaluating the permanent Assessor’s performance on the Agenda for tonight’s meeting.
He commented that the background material that was needed in order to move forward was not ready
yet. The information will still come back to the Board when it is ready. The Mayor mentioned that
since there will probably be some Special Meetings scheduled in the future to consider appointing
a City Assessor, hopefully they will have the materials ready for one of those meetings.
Story County Board of Supervisor Lisa Heddens thanked the City for considering taking over the
payroll for the City Assessor's Office as of January 2022.
Council Member Corrieri gave an update on the search for a City Assessor. The goal is to come back
to the Board with a recommendation in April 2021.
Mayor Haila mentioned that he appreciated the Board’s help in getting recommendations for the
Board of Review. He noted that he is still working on getting one more person to fill a spot on the
Board, but should have a full Board by the end of the month.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Heddens to adjourn the Ames Conference Board meeting at 6:08
p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
MARCH 23, 2021
Chairperson John Haila announced that it was impractical to hold an in-person meeting because
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Special Meeting of the Ames Conference Board was
being held electronically.
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. Representing the Ames City Council were
Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Rachel Junck, and David Martin.
Representing the Story Council Board of Supervisors were Lisa Heddens, Linda Murken, and
Latifah Faisal. The School Districts were represented by Leanne Harter, Nevada Community
School Board, and Sabrina Shields-Cook, Ames Community School District.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF REVIEW: Moved by Martin, seconded by Harter, to
adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-125 appointing Park R. Woodle, Gina McAndrews, and Angie
Schrek to the Board of Review.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Chairperson, and
hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
CONFERENCE BOARD COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Heddens to adjourn the meeting at 2:08 p.m.
__________________________________ ________________________________
John A. Haila, Chairperson Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
__________________________________
Brenda Swaim, Deputy and Acting City Assessor
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
AMES, IOWA MAY 11, 2021
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
The Special Meeting of the Ames Conference Board was called to order by Chairman John Haila at
5:31 p.m. on May 11, 2021. Present from the Ames City Council were Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen,
Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and David Martin. Linda Murken, Lisa
Heddens, and Latifah Faisal represented the Story County Board of Supervisors. Representing the
Ames Community School Board, Sabrina Shields-Cook. Nevada School Board of Directors, United
Community School Board and Gilbert School Board Community were not represented.
Mayor Haila stated that it was impractical to hold an in-person Council meeting due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this meeting was being held as an electronic meeting as allowed
by Section 21.8 of the Iowa Code. The Mayor then provided how the public could participate in the
meeting via internet or by phone.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN CITY OF AMES AND
S T O R Y C O U N T Y R E G A R D I N G A M E S C I T Y A S S E S S O R B E N E F I T S
ADMINISTRATION: Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips explained that the Agreement is
between the City and Story County to deal with how the benefits and payroll administration work.
Since that is more a function of the Conference Board, this item is being presented to the Board for
approval.
Story County Supervisor Lisa Heddens asked to clarify that the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) was regarding the pay structure that had previously been discussed. Mr. Phillips confirmed
that was correct. The MOU also provides some clarification about the facilities that are made
available to the City Assessor’s Office, and the use of the City’s Human Resources staff, training
resources, etc. He pointed out that there is a provision in the MOU regarding the City Assessor
joining the Executive Leadership Team (ELT). Mr. Phillips noted that the previous City Assessor
had already been involved in ELT as the items discussed during ELT relate to everyone in City Hall
and other City facilities.
Council Member Martin mentioned he was unaware that the participation of the City Assessor in
ELT had already been happening. He was concerned that it could give rise to the perception of some
sort of improper collaboration between the City’s internal budget development process and the
Assessor’s independent assessment of property values. Mr. Martin wanted to know if there was any
need to add language to the MOU that those need to remain separate or if that has already been
established through existing practice. Mr. Phillips explained that during the ELT meetings, the
Department Heads are not going into any indepth conversations regarding the budget. Staff
highlights what is going on in the City (eg. initiatives, organizational values).
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Murken, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-238 assenting to the
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Ames and Story County regarding the Ames
City Assessor benefits administration.
Ames Community School Board Representative, Sabrina Shields-Cook entered the online meeting
at 5:38 p.m.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Chairman, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes
CLOSED SESSION: Council Member Gartin asked City Attorney Mark Lambert if there was a
legal reason to go into Closed Session. Mr. Lambert replied in the affirmative, citing Sections
21.5(l)(i) and 21.9, Code of Iowa, to discuss candidates for the position of City Assessor.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Heddens, to hold a Closed Session, as provided by Sections 21.5(l)(i)
and 21.9, Code of Iowa, to discuss candidates for the position of City Assessor.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved into Closed Session at 5:41 p.m. and reconvened in Regular Session at 6:50 p.m.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Heddens, to initiate negotiations with the selected candidate under
the conditions that were discussed.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CONFERENCE BOARD COMMENTS: Council Member Betcher commented that she realized
there were eight women elected officials during this meeting, and she thought that was something
that Story County and the City of Ames should be proud of.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Heddens to adjourn the Ames Conference Board meeting at 6:54
p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
AMES, IOWA MAY 13, 2021
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
The Special Meeting of the Ames Conference Board was called to order by Chairman John Haila at
5:00 p.m. on May 13, 2021. Present from the Ames City Council were Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen,
Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and David Martin. Linda Murken, Lisa
Heddens, and Latifah Faisal represented the Story County Board of Supervisors. Other members in
attendance were: Leanne Harter, Nevada Community School Board of Directors. Ames School
Board, Gilbert School Board, and United Community School Board were not represented.
Mayor Haila stated that it was impractical to hold an in-person Council meeting due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this meeting was being held as an electronic meeting as allowed
by Section 21.8 of the Iowa Code. The Mayor then provided how the public could participate in the
meeting via internet or by phone.
CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Haila asked City Attorney Mark Lambert if there was a legal reason
to go into Closed Session. Mr. Lambert replied in the affirmative, citing Sections 21.5(l)(i) and 21.9,
Code of Iowa, to discuss candidates for the position of City Assessor.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Murken, to hold a Closed Session, as provided by Sections 21.5(l)(i)
and 21.9, Code of Iowa, to discuss candidates for the position of City Assessor.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved into Closed Session at 5:04 p.m. and reconvened in Regular Session at 5:25 p.m.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Murken, to appoint Brenda Nelson to the position of City Assessor
with an annual salary of $130,000 and contingent upon confirmation of the Iowa Department of
Revenue acceptance and satisfactory background and reference checks.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Murken to adjourn the Ames Conference Board meeting at 5:27 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
AMES CONFERENCE BOARD AND
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA JULY 27, 2021
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
The Special Meeting of the Ames Conference Board was called to order by Chairman John Haila at
6:00 p.m. on July 27, 2021. Present from the Ames City Council were Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri,
Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and David Martin. Linda Murken, Lisa Heddens, and Latifah Faisal
represented the Story County Board of Supervisors. Council Member Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen was
absent. Ames Community School Board, Nevada School Board, United Community School Board,
and Gilbert School Board Community were not represented.
Mayor Haila announced that the City is working from an Amended Agenda and part of the Amended
Agenda included a Special Meeting of the Ames Conference Board.
DISCUSSION OF NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS TO HIRE A NEW AMES CITY
ASSESSOR: Mayor Haila stated that the Conference Board had received a letter of resignation from
Brenda Nelson, City Assessor. He wanted to review the process that the Conference Board will need
to go through to appoint a new City Assessor. It was mentioned that the City Assessor is tasked with
appointing a Deputy Assessor and that had not happened before the resignation of Ms. Nelson. Per
Iowa Code, the City Clerk automatically becomes the Acting City Assessor. In discussions with City
Administration, Diane Voss, City Clerk, has the authority to appoint/ask someone to assist her. Staff
is going through the process of asking Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth to provide some
administrative oversight. The work will continue in the City Assessor’s office, as it was previously,
and no work will be done by Ms. Schildroth other than being a point of contact for minor
administrative duties.
The Mayor mentioned that while Ms. Nelson was present she had been looking for ways to continue
to strengthen and make improvements to the Assessor Department. It had become apparent that this
would be a great opportunity for the Conference Board to request an independent entity to come in and
look over the office. He commented that he and Ms. Schildroth contacted the Department of Revenue
and found an individual who has done the type of assessments that the City Assessor needs. Mayor
Haila wanted to be clear that staff does not anticipate or expect to find anything that is untoward, but
will be more of what opportunities there are for improvements. He wanted to bring to the Board’s
attention and ask permission to invite the Department of Revenue to review procedures on site.
Council Member Betcher inquired how long the assessment may take. The Mayor stated that the Iowa
Department of Revenue’s office indicated that the review itself would take a couple of days. He hopes
that the Report from the Department of Revenue could be shared with potential applicants to explain
what the City is expecting.
Story County Supervisor Lisa Heddens asked how long it would be before a representative from the
Department of Revenue could come do its review. It was being anticipated that someone from the
Department of Revenue would be arriving in mid-August, and it is the hope that by the end of August
there would be a Report available to show the Conference Board.
Per Iowa Code there needs to be an Examining Board in place. The Examining Board is made up of
three individuals; one appointed by City Council, one appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and one
appointed by the School Boards. The Examining Board’s duties are to procure a list of eligible
candidates for the Assessor’s position from the Department of Revenue and to handle any employment
issues within the Assessor’s office. The Examining Board will handle procuring resumes, potentially
going through and doing some solicitations, and hearing personnel issues. It was mentioned that it is
preferred that a candidate for the Examining Board have some human relations background. Mayor
Haila notified the Board that any candidate for the Examining Board must live within the Ames City
limits. The Mayor will reach out to the School Boards about appointing someone. There may be a few
special meetings of the Conference Board needed in the near future to approve appointees.
Mayor Haila stated that the Iowa Code states that within seven days of the Assessor resigning, the
Examining Board is to request a list. He had spoken to the Department of Revenue to let them know
that the City of Ames would like to have the review done before starting the process of looking for a
new Assessor and the Department of Revenue understood. The Mayor mentioned that there was no
penalty for not following the seven days; however, he wanted the Conference Board to be aware of
what the Code stated.
Lastly, there is a Mini Board (City Council representative, Board of Supervisor Representative, and
each School Board has a representative for a total of six members), which is a subcommittee of the
Conference Board. The Mayor would like to empower the Mini Board to receive the Report from the
Department of Revenue, discuss the findings, and then report back to the Conference Board.
The Mayor stated the City is going to be aggressive in seeking a City Assessor. He noted that during
the last recruitment there, was a small applicant pool to choose from.
CONFERENCE BOARD COMMENTS: Story County Supervisor Heddens explained that tonight’s
Agenda was combined with the Regular City Council Agenda and to find the Conference Board
Agenda someone would have to do some digging in order to find it as it was not listed anywhere. She
asked to keep those separate to help locate the Agenda easier.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Corrieri to adjourn the Ames Conference Board meeting at 6:14 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
OCTOBER 14, 2021
Conference Board Chairperson John Haila called the Special Meeting of the Ames Conference
Board to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call was taken, which indicated that a quorum of each of the
three voting entities was present. Representing the Ames City Council were Bronwyn Beatty-
Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Rachel Junck, and Tim Gartin. Representing the Story
County Board of Supervisors were Linda Murken and Latifah Faisal. The School Districts were
represented by Joe Anderson of the Nevada Community School District and Jane Acker of the
Ames Community School District.
Mr. Haila announced that the Conference Board would be working off an Amended Agenda.
The additional item was for calling for each of the three voting entities to make a
recommendation for a person to be appointed to the Examining Board.
At the request of Chairperson Haila, Assistant Ames City Manager Deb Schildroth introduced
staff members present from the Ames City Assessor’s Office: Dan Boberg, Appraisal
Technician; Judy Heimerman, Appraisal Technician; and Lisa Henschel, Database Manager.
PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORT FROM THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE REGARDING REVIEW OF THE AMES CITY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
Chairperson Haila recalled that the Conference Board had met in July 2021 after the unexpected
resignation of City Assessor Brenda Nelson, and the Board authorized the Chairperson to send a
letter inviting the Iowa Department of Revenue to perform the following three tasks:
1. Review property records to determine disparate or missing information.
2. Review Vanguard software implementation.
3. Review current staffing levels and overall office structure.
Mr. Haila introduced Julie Roisen, Iowa Department of Revenue Administrator for the Local
Government Services Division. Ms. Roisen was in attendance to present the Report to the
Conference Board that she had prepared addressing the three tasks listed above.
Mr. Haila noted a minor correction to the Report, i.e., the Conference Board did not authorize
the purchase of Vanguard software; the software purchase was made by the then-City Assessor
Brenda Nelson.
Ms. Roisen thanked the Conference Board for its willingness to engage the Department of
Revenue (DOR) in this process. She believed that showed a high level of integrity and openness
on the part of the Board. Ms. Roisen also thanked the staff of the Ames City Assessor’s Office,
whom she said were extremely helpful and cooperative during the process. She noted that it
would not have been possible for her to come to any conclusions without their support and
participation.
According to Ms. Roisen, overall, her findings were that the taxable valuations are well-
supported and very thoughtfully performed as demonstrated by Former City Assessor Greg
Lynch’s work. Even though there are some things that will need to be managed, the valuations
are very well-supported.
A synopsis of current parcel counts was given by Ms. Roisen. She said that there are
approximately 22,000 improved taxable parcels in the assessing jurisdiction. One of the
recommendations that the DOR is making, due to the law change for multi-residential
classification this year, is for the consolidation of the multi-residential properties. By doing so, it
would reduce the parcel count by 7,660 parcels, which would mean a huge gain in efficiency.
That process is now moving forward. According to Ms. Roisen, there are approximately 799
vacant land parcels and between 578 to 711 exempted parcels. With the reduction from the
consolidation of multi-residential properties, there would be 13,636 improved parcels. This
would result in significant administrative efficiency and cost efficiency as well as reduce the
burden on the Assessor’s Office staff.
Ms. Roisen said that currently, there are two separate computer-aided mass appraisal software
applications that are being used in the office: Microsolve and ProVal. In addition, staff is also
utilizing Access databases, Tyler tax software application (housed in Story County), EnerGov,
which is the City’s permitting system; Laserfiche, a mobile data collector, and Excel, which is
used extensively in the Office. In the past, SPSS, which collects statistical data, was also used,
but not presently.
Regarding the transition of data, the DOR is recommending that MicroSolve not be used in the
future and during the transition time between the conversion of the ProVal information into the
new CAMA Vision, which is the CAMA system owned by Vanguard. That recommendation is
being made because MicroSolve does not contain any permitting information, sketches, photos,
and it is creating duplication of work for the staff. ProVal does have permitting information,
sketches, and pictures. It appears that would result in efficiencies being gained and reduce the
burden on staff during the interim period when the ProVal information is converted into the
CAMA Vision system. There might be some slight differences in the data between the two
systems; however, all of the valuations are performed outside of those two systems (all
valuations are being performed in Excel spreadsheets). All commercial properties are being done
in Excel Workbooks. Ms. Roisen advised that Former Assessor Lynch’s work shows the various
approaches to value and his support for those values. The residential values are performed in a
single worksheet that is actually the basis of a regression equation that was developed through
MicroSolve/SPSS, then put into an Excel spreadsheet to allow staff to enter the relevant
information, i.e., square footage, quality, decks, garages, lot size, etc., into the equation, and it
would generate a total value. Ms. Roisen noted that there is excessive dependence on
spreadsheets.
According to Ms. Roisen, the reason Former Assessor Brenda Nelson signed the contract for the
new CAMA system is because by 2022, the Iowa Manual has to be used unless an extension has
been requested. Ms. Roisen stated that the person who converted for ProVal in 2008 into the
Iowa Manual is no longer available; there is no one to convert ProVal into the Iowa Manual,
which makes ProVal obsolete. The Vanguard CAMA Vision system already has the Iowa
Manual in it.
2
Ms. Roisen advised that staff had already asked for an extension to 2024 for the use of the Iowa
Manual. The conversion to the CAMA Vision system seems to be the most cost-effective and
efficient solution to meeting the statutory requirement.
At the request of Chairperson Haila, Ms. Roisen advised that 106 out of 107 assessing
jurisdictions use the Vanguard CAMA Vision system; Ames is the only one that has not
converted to the CAMA system.
Missing or Disparate Data. Staff had provided Ms. Roisen with standard reports out of the
ProVal system for both commercial records and data integrity. The reference to the 682
commercial records that did not have property record cards and the reference to the 848 records
in the data integrity reports are really the same parcels over and over again. The reports were
things such as the lineal feet didn’t match something else. In Ms. Roisen’s opinion, this was not
that significant because none of the valuations were actually being performed in the system.
Staff has gone through those and categorized parcels that are same together as much as possible.
The appearance that there were no property records cards and the appearance that there were
data issues was really a misconception and a misunderstanding of those reports, a lack of
recognition that the valuations were actually being done in Excel Workbooks for the commercial
property and in single-page Excel spreadsheets for residential property. There are over 8,200
condominium and cooperative parcels. Some are in the Microsolve CAMA system, some are in
ProVal, and most are in Excel spreadsheets. The law change, which will result in a reduction of
parcel count, will remove that as an obstacle moving forward.
References were made in the Final Report to the 732 missing sketches. Ms. Roisen advised that
those were almost entirely exempt properties. So, as exempt properties, there is no impact to the
tax base. While Iowa Code requires that there be valuations on exempt property, it doesn’t
impact the tax base or the taxpayers.
The list of 126 parcels with no land value is a variety of items that includes cell towers and
condominium lots where the land and garages were platted separately, but valued with the parcel
containing the improvements. There did not appear to be anything unusual or problematic with
those parcel records.
The reference to building permits not recorded in the CAMA system did not appear to be the
case. Permit information for all parcels is contained in the ProVal system. The permit
information does not show up on the Beacon website because the Microsolve CAMA system is
used to update the Beacon website for residential property, and no permit information is
contained in MicroSolve. Also staff verified that the boxes of approximately 80 plans located in
the Assessor’s Office were either in ProVal and/or contained in the EnerGov system as pdfs.
There were only six parcels where there was no support for the valuation. There was a valuation
on the taxable parcels.
Review of Vanguard Software Implementation. It appears that there were no written conversion
or implementation plans into the Vanguard CAMAVision provided. A contract has been signed,
and there was a meeting with Vanguard staff and Ames City Assessor’s staff. For the
conversion, staff identified approximately 13,500 sketches that would need to be converted.
Assuming the reduction in parcel count resulting from combining the condo parcels and the
3
cooperative parcels, there will be approximately 15,000 total parcels that will need to be
converted.
Review of Current Staffing Levels and Overall Office Structure. To evaluate the staffing levels
and overall office structure, Ms. Roisen said that she had requested detailed data about the work
volume, parcel counts, permits for new construction, Declaration of Value processing,
applications processing, Board of Review petitions, and questions pertaining to software
systems. The current office structure (and staff) is comprised of the following positions:
City Assessor Vacant
Former Deputy Assessor/Now
Operations Manager/Residential
Property Appraiser Supervisor Brenda Swaim
Two Residential Appraisers Chris Bilslend
1 Vacant
Database Manager Lisa Henschel
Two Appraisal Technicians Dan Boberg
Judy Heimerman
Administrative Assistant Vacant
Intern (Assistant Clerk) Teresa Espinosa
According to Ms. Roisen, the current staffing appears to be heavily weighted toward support
staff, rather than appraisal staff. Alleviating the duplicative work being done in two CAMA
systems potentially removes the need to replace the vacant Administrative Assistant position. In
Ms. Roisen’s opinion, two FTEs capable of appraising non-residential properties (Assessor and
Deputy Assessor); two FTEs for residential appraisals, two FTEs as support staff (Appraisal
Technicians), and a Database Manager would be sufficient staffing. A summary of workload by
work type was given by Ms. Roisen.
Conference Board Member Linda Murken asked if the City Assessor’s Office, after the data
conversion is complete, will be using the same software as the County Assessor’s Office. Ms.
Roisen replied that that was correct. Ms. Murken commented that having the City and County on
the same software will be a great step forward. It will reduce the workload on the County
Auditor’s Office as well.
Conference Board Member Gloria Betcher asked to know the current number of FTEs in the
City Assessor’s Office. Assistant City Manager Schildroth replied that there are eight with a
part-time intern. Currently, six of those positions are staffed. Moving forward, it is being
recommended that there be seven FTEs.
4
Board Member Faisal inquired if the recommendation was to not use Microsolve anymore. She
asked if there is anything in Microsolve that is not in ProVal. Ms. Roisen advised that it is her
understanding that the vast majority of the information needed is in ProVal and not in
Microsolve. Ms. Faisal also asked if the Excel spreadsheets would also no longer be used. At the
request of Chairperson Haila, Ms. Roisen indicated that the following software programs would
no longer be used: Microsolve CAMA, ProVal CAMA, Microsoft Access database, mobile data
collector, SPSS statistical package, and Microsoft Excel. The Tyler tax software, EnerGov,
Laserfiche, and Pictometry will continue to be used. Ms. Roisen further explained that there are
no sketches, photographs, or permit information, notes or attachments contained in Microsolve,
so conversion of Microsolve data would not yield any real benefit. The Excel Workbook files
provide support for the valuations; however, they are not convertible in the format that they are
in today.
Referencing the staff’s request for an extension of the requirement to use the Iowa Manual until
2024, Ms. Murken noted that would be three years. She asked if it was anticipated that the
conversion was going to take that long. Ms. Roisen stated it was actually two years: 2022 and
2023. It was also asked by Ms. Murken if the Contract for Services with an appraiser was
temporary. Ms. Schildroth stated that it would be temporary. It is necessary that an Agreement
be entered into with an appraiser to perform non-residential appraisal work due to there not
being anyone on the current staff to do that work. According to Ms. Schildroth, they do have a
person in mind, and it is hoped that the Agreement can be finalized in the near future and the
person would be on board by the end of this month. It is assumed that the new City Assessor
would do that work in the future. While this work is being done, they will be moving forward
with the recruitment for a new City Assessor.
Mayor Haila asked Ms. Roisen to talk about the advantages of hiring Vanguard to do the
conversion. Ms. Roisen said that Vanguard does a lot of contract work all over the state. As
such, they can make many resources and services available, if needed. It was again noted that,
out of 107 jurisdictions in the State of Iowa, 106 use Vanguard software. The advantage of that
would also be that the Ames Office would be on the same system as the entire state.
Regarding resketching, Ms. Faisal asked if it was the recommendation to resketch everything.
Ms. Roisen answered that resketching the parcels allows for linking to the pricing, so.it is being
recommended that all parcels be resketched. When a conversion is done, the information
converts as “a blob.” When they are sketched, any change in the sketch also updates the square
footage and the pricing. This will require a great deal of work; since Vanguard is very efficient
and familiar with resketching, it is being recommended that Vanguard be hired to do that work.
They will also assist with training staff.
Council Member Gartin asked Ms. Roisen if the commercial property valuations were
sufficiently supported by the data. Ms. Roisen replied that the commercial side has extensive
support for the valuations. She noted that Former Assessor Lynch had individual Excel
Workbooks for every commercial property. He had done at least two or three approaches to
value cost to incoming market and he had used both Marshall Valuation Services and the Iowa
Manual. Therefore, Ms. Roisen believes the commercial properties have extensive support for
the valuations. She advised that the residential properties are valued using multiple regression
equation that is in an Excel spreadsheet as well. The multiple regression equation was trended
5
for 2021. The commercial property was trended for 2021 using analysis that was done by former
Assessor Richard Horn.
Board Member Anderson asked if the Iowa Manual was used to currently value any property in
Ames. Ms. Roisen responded that it was; on the commercial records, there was a cost approach
performed using both the Marshall Value and the Iowa Manual on the parcels that she reviewed.
The residential properties have used a regression equation based on sales. Mr. Anderson asked if
it was reasonable to assume that total conversion to the Iowa Manual could cause a significant
change in individual property valuations. Ms. Roisen advised that the CAMA Vision software
uses a market-driven cost approach. The properties are costed and an analysis is done based on
sales that adjusts the value based on sales within the neighborhood or group of comparable
properties. Ms. Roisen further explained the regression approach versus the cost approach. She
added that there will have to be quality control with the major differences being investigated,
and she would envision that staff will be participating in that.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Acker, to accept the Final Report from the Iowa Department of
Revenue dated September 22, 2021, regarding review of the Ames City Assessor’s Office by the
Iowa Department of Revenue.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Presentation of Transition Plan. Ms. Schildroth reviewed the Transition Plan, which was based
on the recommendations in the Iowa Department of Revenue Report. The Transition Plan
identified the task, the lead staff person, the tentative deadline, and the current status.
Chairperson Haila noted that there is a certain cap on the budget. Ms. Schildroth stated that it
was important to understand that the budget for the Transition Plan will still be requisitioned
through the County. The ending fund balance for FY 2021 was $337,000 that will be available
for allocation in 2022. There will be additional payroll savings from the unfilled positions. Mr.
Haila commented that there may be another Conference Board meeting called before the end of
the year to provide a budget update.
According to Ms. Schildroth, software has been purchased, but installation has not yet occurred.
The data will be turned over to Vanguard for conversion. Staff from Vanguard is currently
looking at the data, which is slated to be returned to City Assessor staff for review. After their
review, it goes back to Vanguard to make revisions, and then back to City Assessor staff for final
review. After the third review, it is considered complete. Ms. Roisen added that the City
Assessor will be given some time to run analytics before it is finalized. Staff will receive some
initial training in the next few weeks. One hundred hours (100) of on-site training has been
purchased; more can be purchased, if needed. A User’s Training is scheduled for next week, and
staff from the Ames Assessor’s Office will be attending. A Five-Year Contract has been entered
into. Vanguard estimated the cost low when the Contract with the City was prepared; the final
cost will be approximately $40,000 more.
Additional assistance from Vanguard will be needed to perform the sketching. The total cost was
not immediately available; however, it will be provided to the Conference Board at a later date.
The price ranged from $8.25 - $12.50/parcel.
6
Regarding the non-residential appraisal assistance, GAAP Solutions (Mel Obbink) is the agency
that is being recommended to provide ongoing consultation. It is anticipated that it will take two
to three months to complete the work. GAAP Solutions is charging $110/hour plus ancillary
expenses (travel, lodging). Mr. Obbink will be ready to start by the end of October.
Regarding staffing in the City Assessor’s Office, six of the seven job descriptions have been
created. City of Ames Human Resources Director Bethany Jorgenson has been assisting with
that effort. Recruitments for the City Assessor and Residential Appraiser will be initiated in
December 2021/January 2022.
It was noted that, per the Memorandum of Understanding approved by the Conference Board in
March 2021, transition of payroll from Story County to the City of Ames will occur by January
2022.
Moved by Murken, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve the Transition Plan.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Ongoing Consultation by the Iowa Department of Revenue. Ms. Schildroth brought the Board’s
attention to the information provided as part of the meeting packet entitled, “Additional Action
Steps Supporting the Transition Plan.” One of those steps was for the Conference Board to
consider entering into an informal agreement with the Iowa Department of Revenue for ongoing
consultation on an as-needed basis. She noted that that does not necessarily mean Ms. Roisen
would be present in the Office, but that she would be available to provide guidance, if needed.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve ongoing consultation by the Iowa
Department of Revenue, on an as-needed basis.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Excellence Through People Values. Ms. Schildroth stated that the City of Ames has adopted
ETP values as its organizational culture that all employees, the City Council, and Boards and
Commissions are involved with. It is a set of 14 values that support the two goals that the City
has: (1) Exceptional service at the best price, and (2) An enjoyable and stimulating work
environment from which personal and professional growth can occur. The Conference Board is
being asked to consider adopting the ETP values for the City Assessor’s Office.
Chairperson Haila noted that the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into in March
2021. It states that the City Assessor’s Office will adopt, support, and embody the Excellence
Through People organizational values.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Faisal, to adopt the Excellence Through People values for the
City Assessor’s Office.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Ms. Schildroth stated that the payroll transition from Story County to the City of Ames was part
of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was entered into in March 2021. That MOU
transitions the payroll for the City Assessors’ Office from Story County to the City of Ames.
7
It was stated by Ms. Schildroth that it was important to understand that the budget regarding the
transition will still be requisitioned through the County. The ending fund balance in the City
Assessor’s Office for FY 2021 was $337,000; that will be available for allocation in 2022. She
reiterated that there will also be salary savings from vacancies in the office that can be
considered for use with the conversion.
Appointments to the Examining Board. Chairperson Haila noted that the appointees must be a
resident of the taxing jurisdiction (Ames).
Moved by Haila, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to appoint Dan Oh as the City Council’s
representative on the Examining Board.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Faisal, seconded by Betcher, to appoint Julie Popken as the Story County Board of
Supervisor’s representative on the Examining Board.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Acker, seconded by Junck, to appoint Lucas Deardorff as the School Districts’
representative on the Examining Board.
Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CONFERENCE BOARD COMMENTS:
Chairperson Haila wanted it stated that they never doubted the integrity of the Ames City
Assessor’s Office. He noted that the Report prepared by the DOR basically gave them a clear
bill of health. The DOR was able to identify some efficiencies that will be highly beneficial to
the Assessor’s staff in the future. Also, additional assistance from Mr. Obbink and ongoing
consultation from the DOR will help get the Office caught up and make the transition to the
Vanguard software easier for the staff.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Junck to adjourn the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
___________________________________ ______________________________________
John A. Haila, Chairperson Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
8
Timeline for Ames City Assessor Appointment
Date Task Involved Parties Comments
1/28/22 extended based on number of qualified
subcommittee, Human
12/9/21
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact
Fleet Services City Access Control System 2 $644,276.00 Commonwealth Electric
Co.
Services
Program (Lincoln Way /
Beach Avenue)
Services
Period:
Item No. 3
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
Student Government and Ames City Council Joint Meeting
Wednesday, October 28th, 2021
Campanile Room, Memorial Union, Iowa State University
STUDENT GOVERNMENT ATTENDANCE:
Crabb Eliana UROC P
Rizvic Emily UROC P
Fillipi Victoria UROC P
Weathers Dawson UROC P
Clayburn Kit UROC P
Paulson Sonja UROC P
Hayes Daniel UROC P
Ruehle Max UROC P
Waagmeester Jay UROC P
Staudt Olivia UROC P
Lent Ann CPC P
McCreedy Cody IFC P
Simmons Molly Freddy Court P
Seth Jennifer SUV P
Ahlrichs Jaden IRHA P
Mahoney Eddie IRHA P
Larson Rebecca IRHA P
Patel Khushi IRHA P
Goff Bailey Vet-Med P
Addagarla Sanjana Business P
Blythe Sam Business P
Zuber Joe Engineering P
Cooper Ethan Engineering P
Advait M. Engineering P
DeVore Devin CALS P
Brecht Hope CALS P
Thornton Emi Design P
Rios Martinez Natalia LAS P
Finaldi Alexandra LAS P
Carter John GPSS P
Skaggs Britney GPSS P
Sewe Stacy Human Sciences P
Strickland Ryan Human Sciences P
CITY COUNCIL ATTENDANCE:
Haila John City P
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
Key: P = PresentA = Absent
6:00:02 PM- CALL TO ORDER
6:00:06 PM- HAILA:
6:01:05 PM- DECKER:
6:02:00 PM- ROLL CALL FOR STUDENT GOVERNMENT
6:02:38 PM- ROLL CALL FOR AMES CITY COUNCIL
6:03:11 PM- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:03:41 PM- ADOPTING THE AGENDA
6:03:43 PM- ADVAIT: I move to adopt tonight’s agenda. Seconded. No objection. ADOPTED.
6:04:00 PM- AMES CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
6:04:02 PM- HAILA: We are excited tonight to have the opportunity to do some updates and hear from
you. First, we will be talking about the Ames Climate Action plan. Id like to introduce Deb who, as well as
other City and University Staff, have been working on this. I asked Deb to give a quick update on this.
6:04:55 PM- SCHILINDROTH: We are excited to give you an update on the CAP. This is a goal of the City
Councils, how we are doing that is we are contracting with a consultant, SSG, located in Canada, and
they are working with our city project team, and we have been working in the structure put forth by the
council. This looks like the council as the steering committee as well as a supplemental input committee
that is made up of 27 community members from different parts of Ames and from different
backgrounds. We need to do two things with this plan. The first is to set target emissions reduction. The
second step is the plan itself and action steps. The kicked it off in May with meeting with the project as
well as the first steering committee meeting. Then was the first SI committee meeting in October, as
well as many other community input projects. We have a website that you can go to read about the
activities the city has been involved with in this area as well as a separate website for the Climate Action
Plan. We also have an email, sustainability@cityofames.org, for input. Updates and events will be put on
the website. We had about 38 people come to our first Town Hall on Monday. The consultant gave
updates, talked about the business-as-usual scenario. This shows us what it would look like if we
continued as is. That will be shared at the next community input meeting as well as the next steering
committee. We are excited to be involved and it is important to get your input. We are welcomed to
have you as a partner at the table. I am happy to take any questions or comments.
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
6:09:30 PM- STUDENT GOVERNMENT MEMBER: What is the project timeline look like? What does
outreach for input look like?
6:09:42 PM- SCHILINDROTH: The project itself, started in May and we anticipate it will be adopted in
September of 2022. Like I said earlier, we are starting now with our business-as-usual scenario right
now. The consultant put some modeling together for that. The steering committee will be given a
presentation in November on the four different options and then right before the holidays in December,
they will decide that target. The next steps will be to address the actions steps we need to take. Visit the
website www.cityofames.org/sustainability, where you can reach anyone mentioned. We are also
looking at doing a series of public surveys. Our first one should be coming out in mid to late November.
We hope with the student involvement we will get lots of input and be able to make the decision. It’s a
community plan.
6:12:03 PM- WEATHERS: I want to thank everyone for coming. I was wondering if current efforts will be
included in the CAP?
6:12:46 PM- SCHILINDROTH: Yes, they are all being included and being considered by the consultants.
We also want to see our plans expand to help reduce our carbon footprint and hope more people join
in.
6:13:56 PM- BEATTY-HANSEN: We are also doing a waste to energy audit this year. That will give us
some good guidance on how to make our resource recovery plant more efficient and how to make food
waste and garbage waste being made more efficient. My guess is that we would see more energy being
put towards food waste diversion.
6:14:35 PM- HAYES: I know that there is a lot of food waste that goes into the composting program, but
I know other cities have other options. A big part of making more composting accessible is curbside
composting. Has the city been looking at that?
6:15:18 PM- SCHILINDROTH: Those are the ideas that we need. At this point in time, it’s been
mentioned about a curbside composting program. We want to wrap that into the climate action plan.
Some things that have been out there for a while, we want to see an expansion. How that gets wrapped
in is what we want to work on with the community and consultant.
6:16:00 PM- RIZVIC: I wanted to ask, will there be an equity advisors’ team or another group that will
make sure that problems that vulnerable communities are having won’t be exasperated?
6:16:26 PM- SCHILINDROTH: One of council’s goals was to ensure that we are reaching out to
marginalized communities. Whatever it is we are doing, it will impact everyone. We want to make sure
we have their voices at the table. One way we are doing this is the Community Input Committee. We
have representatives from different groups who can reach out to get that input and get that sense of
perception from those communities. It is very important to get that. We are working ion questions as
well to help guide them in these processes.
6:17:42 PM- CLAYBURN: Where I live, they don’t do a recycling and trash, and another thing I see is that
people leave perfectly fine furniture that is left. Is there anything that the city does or would do to help
with this?
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
6:18:22 PM- SCHILINDROTH: Ames doesn’t haven’t curbside recycling, however, anything in your trash
is recycled and sorted. The recycling happens at our plants. That gets it already to burn. We do have
separate glass recycling. We have big yellow bins located around the community that you can take you
glass to. Those programs are in place, so please use those. The furniture is a unique situation. We do
have Rummage Rampage at the end of August. Our hope is that instead of putting usable furniture on
the curb, it is donated to rummage rampage. There is also a couple of thrift stores that take items as
well. Rummage Rampage is the one event that is partnered between the University and the City to
repurpose all sorts of items that might have been thrown away.
6:20:53 PM- HAILA: We are going to have to move on, so thank you. I also wanted to clarify that
Rummage Rampage is at the end of July, not August. Maybe we could talk about at the end how we can
get the word out. We don’t want sofas and mattresses and dressers. It ends up going to the landfill and
we don’t want that. We can talk about how to get that information to landlords and tenants. Thank you,
Deb.
6:21:40 PM- 801 DAY DISCUSSION
6:21:45 PM- HAILA: I wanted to thank Student Government for having this put on the agenda, as it is
something we are concerned about. I will have our Chief of Police Jeff Huff and the University Chief of
Police Michael Newton. We are going to have them talk about this and then we would love to hear your
ideas. We are getting a growing number of complaints on this topic, and we want to handle it before it
gets out of control. Chief and Chief, take it away.
6:22:28 PM- NEWTON: Hello, I am Michael Newton, and I am Associate VP of PS and C of P. I wanted to
say a few things about 801 day. We started to see in the past couple of years, a lot of out-of-town folks
coming in because they have heard it’s the apart place to come. For the past two years, half of those we
encounter have zero ties with the community. We can’t enforce our way out of this, and we need
together to help solve this issue as a community.
6:23:23 PM- HUFF: Definitely echo that. We were seeing mostly out of town people. IN the past, it has
started to end around 2-3 in the afternoon. This last year it lasted to about 12 at night. One of the
strategies we have talked about is getting more skin in the game with our landlords and see if they can
help in this process to help shutdown or reduce the large parties that were happening. You could see
parties of 400-500 people shutting down blocks, which we don’t tolerate. We can’t shut down roads, but
what can we do to help discourage people from coming to Ames. We really want your ideas on this. I am
interested to hear what you have to say.
6:24:43 PM- CRABB: Thank you for coming. Could we increase fines for this day?
6:25:11 PM- HAILA: You identified one thing Council has authority over. One thing you need to
understand is that we don’t want to penalize anyone moving in that day. Another thing we have talked
about is engaging with the landlords in near campus neighborhoods. We don’t want to have huge
penalties, but we need to send a strong message. We need to work together. We can’t enforce our way
out of it. We want people to know we are serious about this and that its not health.
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
6:26:21 PM- HUFF: We are pretty sure what happened violated leases. We believe that is one thing. We
just need to get them more active in enforcing some of their rules so we can cut down on the large
parties. What makes us both nervous is shutting down large parties because they just keep growing. It’s
a balancing act.
6:27:16 PM- NORTON: Also, one thing we need to educate the students on who are renting properties
in the area, because they are allowing people they don’t know to come to their parties and that’s a
problem.
6:27:34 PM- CRABB: I do want to comment on that. I live on Welch Ave, and last year during COVID,
there were large parties, and I know some of my friends called law enforcement, do you communicate
with the landlords?
6:27:56 PM- HUFF: The short answer is yes. One of our community resource officers sends out calls for
service on a list of property owners to let them know what is happening. They also get a letter. We can
also cite the owner after a couple of events. Normally after the first or second, we get in contact to
avoid that.
6:28:40 PM- CRABB: I think that there is a lot we can do by reaching out to our constituents, getting the
word out that it is unsafe, thank you so much.
6:28:56 PM- LENT: Super quick, I know a lot of us don’t want the last Saturday before school to get out
of hand, but I was wondering how did VIESHA get out of hand, so we don’t follow that same history.
6:29:21 PM- NORTON: That is where we are headed. The large parties we are seeing, the moving from
party to party. When we disrupt a 1000-person party, that’s when riots start. Last year was bad. We
need to have more conversation to make sure it doesn’t escalate. I know a lot of you are on my
committee, so we can invite Chief Huff and talk about this more.
6:30:00 PM- BIKING INFRASTRUCTURE DISCUSSION
6:30:02 PM- HAILA: Just to close the 801 day, I wonder if this would warrant another meeting for more
dialogue. We don’t want property damage or injury to occur. I am going to ask Gartin Beatty-Hansen to
give an update on this.
6:30:39 PM- BEATTY-HANSEN: I can talk fist and then let Tim finish it up. We recently had a biking
infrastructure workshop. From this, we want to work on a bicycling and pedestrian masterplan. We will
work on the bike ped master plan, which will be a good way to help close gaps and increase safety. We
also have our complete streets plan. That comes into effect when we are rebuilding a street to see if we
can improve some of these areas. That is another plan to be aware of. The other piece is our 5-year CIP.
It shows how will spend our money on capital improvements in the next fic years, and we have a lot of
exciting things in that one.
6:32:06 PM- GARTIN: Great foundation. I would only add that we were so excited to see the largest turn
out for public input, so we had a wonderful turnout. When we think about bike trails, we are thinking
about them as a vital part of the community’s transportation system. Some people don’t have cars. We
want to make it easy and safe for those people. We want a comprehensive and protective bike plan. If
this is something you have an interest in, we would love to hear from you, so please reach out to us on
that. Thanks.
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
6:33:31 PM- CARTER: Has there been any discussion between biking infrastructure and climate action
because it seems they could be connected?
6:33:58 PM- BEATTY-HANSEN: It is true. I think that as we make more progress on the CAP, they will be
tied together.
6:34:25 PM- ADVAIT: As an avid biker myself, I was wondering what the philosophy for the streets
program was?
6:34:50 PM- BEATTY-HANSEN: It depends on the street and the complete streets document helps guide
us. There are several different types of roads. When we redid Welch Ave, we used that plan to look at
what type of street it was and to see if we could add any pedestrian/bike infrastructure.
6:35:41 PM- ADVAIT: I have gotten at least two emails about the E-Scooter situation is like?
6:35:55 PM- BEATTY-HANSEN: We looked at the topic and decided not to pursue it. It didn’t pass. Could
be revisited in the future. We do have a study we are working on for all sorts of e-transportation, e-
mobility, to be able to address them on public spaces.
6:36:52 PM- RIZVIC: Has there been any talk of transitioning streets that are used for vehicles to fully
pedestrian streets?
6:37:30 PM- BEATTY-HANSEN: We haven’t considered that much. I think that will be a hard sell for
some parts of the community. Welch Ave was one where that idea has been bounced around but
couldn’t. So no, is the short answer.
6:38:02 PM- MAHONEY: Is there any areas of town that are on the forefront of this plan? I know Duff
Ave is one area that is not very safe for biking at all.
6:38:30 PM- GARTIN: Any other questions? No, okay. If you can figure it out, we have a big reward.
South Duff is not safe. When that was designed, we weren’t thinking about bike safety. This is a good
lesion in planning, there were prior city councils who this wasn’t a priority. Its impossible to add
anythi8ng over there because of how it was design. We would have to use eminent domain to do it.
There are plusses, the South Grand Ave ribbon cutting is on Friday. We are trying to make more north
south travel options. The new bike trail over there is really amazing as well, not that I have been on it.
Sorry about South Duff. Lincoln way is also another pain that we would love to see safer. As we work on
roads, we apply the complete streets program to see what we do to improve them.
6:40:55 PM- MENTAL HEALTH
6:40:57 PM- HAILA: Let’s talk about mental health. This is a personal passion of mine. This has been a
major issue. Its all throughout the community and campus. We have a mental health advocate on staff
who helps deal with mental health issues and situations that arise. Back in April, Chief Huff and her and I
were talking about how the issues in the Fall would rise, and they did. What we did was convene a
mental health forum in May. We want to remove the stigma, so we need to talk about it more and in
open. We had a speaker and had 9 resources come and talk, and we announced at that time that we will
mental health first aide training. The council committed 5000 to the cause. We held one in June, July
and one in August. We had about 30 at the first and second and over 60 to the third one. We have over
120 people who are trained with tools to know if someone is in crisis, questions to ask, how to respond
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
and how to point people to resources. My wife and I attended, and everyone had a story. Then we had
the mental health expo in September, Kevin Hines was a speaker for that. We also had a Mental Health
Open House. We are having people say how are we going to continue this? I think we will see more
mental health training become available. The whole ideas are to remove the stigma, get people equip
and deal with it ahead of the curve. We are not going to let up, but it is alarming. We have all sorts of
people being affected by this and it’s not going away. We need to be aware of people around us. With
that, we want this to be a resident situation. We are not going to let up and we will see more and more
of that. If you have any questions or comments, we are all ears.
6:46:23 PM- CORRIERI: It’s really difficult to talk about this and not talk about workforce. My real job is
in this industry, and we have reached real crises point. We have programs that are closing because there
are not enough staff to work for them and waiting lists that are growing longer. A lot of agencies,
including mine, employ students. We can offer flexible schedules and training. I think that when we talk
about how we are going to address these issues, my plea to students would be that if anyone has a
passion for this, please get involved to help with this problem.
6:48:26 PM- LENT: The discussion around mental health doesn’t always have to be focused on the
breaking point. There is a whole scale of issues, and when we get to that level and aren’t looking for
others, there are problems.
6:49:05 PM- RIOS MARTINEZ: I wanted to bring up a few issues that students have here. One is that
students only have so many appointments they can have with ISU counselors. After that they must be
placed somewhere else. Another issue, students get therapy here, but when they go home, there isn’t a
continuation. One suggestion was licensing providers in Iowa to serve outside of Iowa to continuing that
support.
6:50:11 PM- DECKER: We only have ten minutes remaining, so we are going to combine student
engagement in Ames and open discussion.
6:50:15 PM- STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE AMES COMMUNITY AND OPEN DISCUSSION
6:50:26 PM- HAILA: Councilwomen Betcher and Junk, if you just want to talk about engagement.
6:50:40 PM- BETCHER: The last time we met, I announced the city would be working with City and
Community planning students to work with underrepresented communities to get them more involved.
Over the course of this year, myself and the City Manager have been working with these students and
put on the first Play Ames: Imagine you City fest. We will be getting a report on that on November 9th.
We are looking to find more ways to creatively engage with people to get their ideas. Stay tuned, we are
going to keep working on that.
6:52:04 PM- JUNK: Gloria talked about what we are doing to improve engagement, but after this, I want
to hear how we can do better. I want to talk about some ways information can be found. The city
website is great. If you have a problem, the Ames on the go app is a great way to report those issues.
We also have a multitude of city social medias on all platforms. Iowa State Dailey and Ames Tribune
both breakdown the city council information, some council members send out a newsletter and I
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
personally try and post the most important things that happened at the meeting on my social media. I
would love to hear any ideas on ways we can continue to reach out to students.
6:53:45 PM- WEATHERS: There is a lot of good thoughts. I motion to extend debate by ten minutes.
Seconded. No objection. UC. Seconded. No objection. EXTENDED.
6:54:14 PM- HAYES: Hi. I just recently talked to Trevor about my ideas, but I wanted to bring them up. It
seems the school could provide a subscription on the Ames Tribune to stay involved. I had an idea for a
mentorship program for community members and students that could match students and community
members with similar interest or ideas can meet and have some mentorship. Id like to see that. The last
thing was if the City of Ames puts on events, it would be cool if the city had internship opportunities to
plan those events. That is something students look for a lot. It would be interesting to see. Or even
volunteering. It would help get people connected.
6:56:13 PM- CRABB: Something specific, I used to give tours and we talked to every student coming into
Iowa State. A lot of questions I got were about the City of Ames. I think talking to STARS to talk about
the city and what we have to offer to students so they can pass that information.
6:57:07 PM- HAILA: Several Senators have come and talked to me over the past few years on how we
can get more festivals or other things that can integrate different cultures in the community. Another
thing we talked about was that people don’t know what’s going on in the community. One idea we had
was having CyRide give a tour of Ames as well as sharing information for those who are new to Ames. It
would be a one-day thing. There is so much Ames has to offer. We have 38 parks and all sorts of
resources. We are better when students are apart of our community. I got that on my list. Maybe we
can try to make that work.
6:58:49 PM- CARTER: One of the issues I hear are concerns about the gap between leases that a lot of
student’s experience. What sorts of discussions have been had or what can be done to help mitigate a
lot of the issues with gaps in leases?
6:59:29 PM- HAILA: Well, this is the fourth year in a row this has been brought up. We really can’t get in
there and delegate by ordinance because it is private property and a deal between a landlord and the
leaser. We understand it is an issue. There was a task force that working on this. We are sympathetic to
that, and we get it. We just can’t get into that really. If someone else has an idea, we would love to hear
it. WE get it and it is a challenge.
7:00:54 PM- RIZVIC: Hi, I was one of the volunteers for the Play Ames Festival. I was at the Lockwood
Café. I noticed that a lot of residents in West Ames feel they aren’t apart of the community because
events are so far away. Another suggestion, we have this biking plan going forward, I heard at the Iowa
APA conference, but a city had a thing where you could bike with city officials on the project route, and
they could ask questions. I was wondering if we could do something like that at all.
7:02:11 PM- BETCHER: We do have a Mayor and Councils bike ride every year. But its not project
focused. I like that idea to have the conversation about things to improve while we ride around the city.
It is a good idea for getting out on the spot.
7:03:00 PM- MAHONEY: I know, at least to me, it was a bit of a surprise to hear that most of the issues
were from out-of-town individuals. I don’t think people know about this issue. I go and didn’t know
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
about this. I think maybe raising that point with the community so that people hosting these can be
aware and maybe help the problem.
7:04:10 PM- RIOS MARTINEZ: Two things, with the gap between leases, one thing that is critical, what
are we doing with our stuff? Looking at storage maybe. Another thing, when you get you utilities in
Ames you get brochures and things and all that gets lost when you sign up for the electronic version, so
maybe including that on the electronic version as well.
7:05:05 PM- SKAGGS: Two things, one, I like the ride around Ames idea. When I moved here, I didn’t
know where anything was. Point number two, for the mental health training, is that something that
students could do?
7:05:40 PM- HAILA: Yes.
7:05:50 PM- STRICKLAND: Would you say the issue for 801 day is public image, safety or people coming
to town and getting out of control? Is it an environmental or cultural thing that needs fixed?
7:06:01 PM- HAILA: I think that they all are issues. We don’t want VIESHA to happen again. Its property
damage, destruction of life and parking issues. We don’t want anyone to get hurt. It’s a complex issue
and there are lots of pieces that go into it. We want people to enjoy and celebrate the start of school. Its
getting out of hand, and that’s why we don’t want to go down that path again. I wrote down that we
need to get a task force or something and get students and administration involved to get this nut
cracked before next year.
7:08:06 PM- BETCHER: I wanted to follow up on a couple of points. The Ames Convention and Visitors
Bureau is working on an App that can work with the apps you are using now, MyState. This is
contributing to the amount of information that is available to new students. I am hoping that will be
done soon. When we speak about student engagement, 801 day is one of those days students needs to
be fully engaged. It’s a quality-of-life issues. I would love to see Iowa State students take the lead on this
issue. We have seen this done at other schools in the past. I would love to see more done to do that and
engage more students.
7:10:01 PM- DECKER: We will need to extend debate if we want to keep discussing.
7:10:04 PM- ZASTROW: I do not believe we have time. We have a group here for public input and other
groups here for funding bills tonight. I respectfully ask we do not extend debate further.
7:10:18 PM- WEATHERS: I going to motion to extend debate by five more minutes. Seconded. No
objection. UC. Seconded. No objection. EXTENDED.
7:10:58 PM- GARTIN: I just wanted to take a second here and thank you for all these ideas. We talk
about student engagement; one ways students are making a difference is by volunteering. Iowa State
students make up most of these programs. I wanted to thank you and you all are doing tremendous
work in the community.
City of Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government Joint Meeting Minutes
October 28th, 2021
Taken by Trevor Poundstone
7:11:45 PM- CLOSING COMMENTS
7:11:47 PM- CAMPBELL: Good evening, everyone. I wanted to say thank you for coming tonight and
participating and we appreciate your time and energy. With for those who aren’t typically here, thank
you for allowing us to learn from you. We appreciate the conversation. I think we have lots of tangible
ideas to move forward with. We look forward to continuing to have a collaborative relationship with the
city and participating in each other’s events.
7:12:38 PM- POUNDSTONE: I just wanted to say a few quick things. Thank you everyone for coming. It
was very productive. I will send out information about the meeting after. Thanks everyone.
7:12:55 PM- HAILA: I want to echo what Councilmen Gartin said. We thank you for choosing Iowa State.
Thank you for being a part of the community and all you do. As you are aware, there is 31,000 of you
and about 37,000 others. You are about half of our community, and I want you to be engaged. I am a
proud Iowa State grad, and I am very happy to be here. We are here to listen and serve like you. We
want to hear from you. Trevor is doing a great job, sometimes I wish he would talk more, but I get him
to talk, right? But he is a great conduit and pipeline. Our emails are very easy to access as well. Thank
you for your time and the leadership for inviting us. We really value this time. Maybe we can meet more
going forward. I think we can make Ames better together. So, thank you very much. I will take a motion
for the city council to adjourn.
7:14:45 PM- JUNK: I move that we adjourn. Seconded. ADJOURNED.
7:14:47 PM- DECKER: Is there a motion for Student Government to adjourn?
7:14:50 PM- WEATHERS: I motion we adjourn. Seconded. No objection. ADJOURNED.
7:14:52 PM- ADJOURNMENT
__________________________________________ _________________________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor Trevor Poundstone, Student Government, Scribe
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 16, 2021
The Special Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:00 p.m.
on the 16th day of November, 2021, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue.
Council Members Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel
Junck, David Martin and ex officio Member Trevor Poundstone were present.
WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: Mayor Haila introduced Assistant City Manager
Deb Schildroth, who introduced the Project Team. Representatives of Sustainability Solutions Group
(SSG) joined the meeting electronically. Ms. Schildroth told Council the evening would consist of
informing the Steering Committee members about the Business as Usual scenario, engagement outputs
to date, and target options. Questions and comments from the Steering Committee would also be
addressed by SSG.
SSG Senior Consultant and Lead Analyst Brittany MacLean said the City of Ames hired SSG to help
develop a Climate Action Plan (CAP). She introduced Lead Modeler Eric Frenette and Principal Yuill
Herbert. Ms. MacLean said setting a target is not an objective of this meeting. She said
low carbon actions plus target setting will be the third stage of the process, but that this meeting begins
the decision-making stages. She said the CAP website has been launched, opportunities were presented
for the community to participate in visioning exercises, the Supplemental Input Committee also did
the visioning exercise, and the first town hall meeting was held. Ms. MacLean told Council from the
feedback received the best things in Ames included a sense of community, parks and nature, services,
safety, and ISU/ education. She said feedback received on successful environmental initiatives
included renewables, transit, parks, trees, nature, and waste diversion. When asking for feedback about
opportunities to transition to a low carbon future, advantages of Ames included expertise and
education, community involvement, students and young people, availability of clean energy, and Iowa
State University (ISU). She said upcoming engagement opportunities will soon be available and will
include a community survey, outreach, a second Supplemental Input Committee meeting, and ongoing
website updates.
Council Member Betcher asked when the Supplemental Input Committee will share the information
they have received. Ms. MacLean said they will meet on December 1. Ms. Betcher asked about ISU
students being on Thanksgiving break. Ms. MacLean said the meeting was planned around the break,
and the survey will remain open until they return. Council Member Gartin asked about the input in
terms of representation of the community. Ms. MacLean said the visioning exercise is kick-off in nature
and isn’t statistically significant public engagement. She said about 150 people have submitted
feedback. She said demographic information was not collected but will be in the community survey.
She said the distribution techniques are very important, and they will be checking demographics to be
sure they are receiving a broad representation. Mr. Gartin said results are from those that showed
initiative to come to the meeting, so he’s not sure how much weight to place on the results of the
engagement without considering the degree to which it represents the community. Ms. MacLean
concurred, and said those participants are individuals that are most interested.
Mayor Haila asked how they will know if duplicate responses are received. She said with the
technology they use they can limit each device to one response. Ms. Betcher asked if demographic
information will show if underrepresented groups are captured. Ms. MacLean said distribution
strategies are analyzed along the way to better provide opportunities.
Council Member Martin said it’s clear that reaching more people over time is important. He asked
about continuity of people who have already participated since different information will be asked
along the way. Ms. MacLean said people can subscribe to updates, but they don’t have control over
members of the public re-engaging.
Mr. Frenette said a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario looks at information from 2018-2058. He said
this scenario shows the most likely outcome for Ames if no serious climate action endeavors take place.
He said emissions baseline is used to contrast with low carbon results which will be shared at the next
meeting. He said the biggest change is the ISU plan to replace its coal boilers in 2024. The
transportation change shows 50% of cars sold will be electric by 2030. Mr. Frenette said this scenario
is not a forecast, but one possible future outcome if no serious changes are made.
Member Gartin asked about the BAU term. He said he doesn’t think that term adequately reflects the
many things that have been done for climate in the last eight years. He said the City has been working
hard to understand best practices, and a lot of effort has already been made. He said if it’s being
assumed by anyone that the City of Ames has been or is apathetic to these matters that would be
incorrect since much attention has been given to this already, and many changes have been made.
Member Beatty-Hansen said even though much has been done, more needs to be done, so she is not
offended by the term BAU. Mr. Gartin said that term doesn’t accurately include the attention by
Council and staff made in the last years. He said he’s very proud of the work done so far. Ms. MacLean
said BAU isn’t meant to have a negative connotation, rather be a starting point that includes what is
being done now. Mr. Frenette continued by saying that a decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
by sector is followed by a slight increase which is due to population increase. It was noted a large drop
in 2024 reflects coal boilers being changed to natural gas boilers. Between 2018 and 2019 sources used
to create electricity dropped because of wind energy. Total energy use by sector was discussed.
Council Member David Martin asked about renewable energy credits. Electric Services Director
Donald Kom said when wind energy started, some customers were purchasing green energy. Beyond
that, he said it was not a direct need so they sold it to others and used that money for energy cost
adjustment. He said it made sense for the City to keep the wind energy. It was noted that started in
2019.
Mr. Gartin asked Merry Rankin if she agrees with the assessment BAU "baseline" energy use by sector.
She said with the information known right now it could be accurate because it’s unknown what
technologies will be available in the future. Member Betcher asked about the electricity supply for
2018, which was produced mostly by coal. Energy Services Coordinator Kayley Barrios Lain said the
emissions factor, which is the best single metric, has been decreasing. Mayor Haila asked about the
2018 emissions factors for energy suppliers. Mr. Frenette said Ames Electric Utility shows as the
highest. It was noted that in the end of the technical report it shows Ames as the lowest. Mayor Haila
said this needs to be accurate and appears contradictory. Ms. Barrios Lain said she will look into this
to see for sure, but she believed the data to be correct and the comment on page 23 of the technical
report to be incorrect.
Ms. MacLean reviewed the target setting process:
• Present the four options to the City Steering Committee
• Present the four options to the Supplemental Input Committee
• Present the four options to the public
• City Steering Committee sets the target
She said a CAP that goes through 2050 is being considered, and said there are many Net Zero 2050
commitments around the world. She said the past few years have focused on the interim target or
process. She said not all targets are created equal, and this process will help Ames find the right one.
Science-based Target (general):
• 45% reduction in greenhouse emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero emissions by
2050
• Aligns with the Paris Agreement and the 2018 recommendation from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
• Based on staying below 2 degrees Celsius
Ms. MacLean said this target was the gold standard at one time but it’s possible this will be updated.
Aligned with Federal Target:
• 50-52% reduction in greenhouse emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero emissions
by 2050
• In line with the federal emissions reduction target announced in April 2021
• Based on the United States’ Nationally Determined Contribution in line with Article 4 of the
Paris Agreement
Ms. MacLean said nationally determined contributions are non-binding, self-imposed, climate
neutrality by 2050, minimum 2 degrees Celsius aligned, based on a baseline figure, adaptation
considerations, and adjusting financial flows to align with reducing GHG emissions.
Mayor Haila asked about the Net US Greenhouse Gas Reductions by Policy graph. Ms. MacClean said
options to address the BAU Report are listed. Mr. Frenette said the top line of the graph is BAU.
Science-based Target (Carbon Budget + Equity) or Fair-share Approach:
• 83% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2030, and net-zero emissions by 2050
• In line with the Science-based Targets Network and C40 Climate Leadership
recommendations
• Based on staying within 1.5 degrees Celsius in warming while considering equity
Ms. MacLean said the carbon budget means the maximum amount of greenhouse gases that can be
emitted world-wide without increasing the global average temperature more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Ms. MacLean said population projections are taken into account, and science-based targets can be a
range. Mr. Yuill said it’s important to understand the focus is emissions reductions, not energy
reductions. He said energy consumption may increase as emissions decrease. Member Gartin said it’s
being presumed there is a constant supply of renewable electricity. Mr. Yuill said there will need to be
more renewables and storage.
Member Betcher asked if BAU and business as planned mean the same thing. She said business as
planned is a better name since what is planned has been considered. Mayor Haila asked about listed
challenges to the Evidence-based Target. Mr. Herbert said with a scenario by 2040, the City would
need to turn over the entire vehicle fleet. He discussed retrofits to home would be needed and options
to accomplish this. Mr. Herbert said they have been working on a plan for the City of Toronto, which
has a population of 2.8 million. He said their two options are Net Zero by 2040 and Net Zero by 2050,
but both had the same net zero present value. Mayor Haila asked what extensive behavior changes
would be needed. Ms. MacLean said changing lifestyles, education, and accepting change are
examples.
Mr. Gartin said he believes these are tremendous costs. He asked how to think about enforcement. Ms.
MacLean said there isn’t control over everything that happens in the community, and businesses will
be at the forefront of the change so the City will need to find the right mixture of intervening and not
intervening. She said in Canada they have a property assessed clean energy program where residents
receive a discount on energy for making improvements and that money can be paid back over time
with low interest.
Member Gartin said the cost-benefit is a challenge to think about. He said benefits have been presented,
but there is little information to help understand the cost. He asked if any modeling work has been
done to determine what a city of this size would see for cost for a level of carbon reductions. Mr.
Herbert said there’s no clear pattern. Capital costs can be consistent, but there are different patterns of
housing stock and vehicle usage. Mr. Gartin asked if the City would increase taxes to pay for some of
this or if residents would be required to bring properties up to a certain standard. He said the cost of
living in Ames will change either way. Mr. Herbert said the fourth option (Evidence-based Target)
would build all of this up as you go to then set the target. He said some communities know their target
and start there, but others want to understand all implications first. Mr. Gartin hopes Council will not
adopt something that is political without first understanding the implications. He said he would like
Electric Services Director Don Kom to participate in conversations. He said it seems difficult to
understand how this will be done without nuclear energy.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen said there’s a cost to inactivity. She said it will cost no matter what,
so those costs also need to be measured.
Evidence-based Target
• 45% reduction in greenhouse emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero
emissions by 2050
• Aligns with the Paris Agreement and 2018 pathway identified by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
• Based on staying below 2 degrees Celsius and ideally 1.5 degrees Celsius in warming
above pre-industrial level
Ms. MacLean said this option is built from the bottom up to include local constraints. She said this
allows cities to focus on areas that cities believe are important. She said this works well for cities that
are very ambitious but also have other entities involved. She said it could be looked at as a long-term
plan that can be built in a way that focuses on what can be done.
Mayor Haila asked what "infrastructure lock-in" means. Ms. MacLean said using bare minimum code
requirements to build a long-lasting asset is an example of infrastructure being “locked in.” She said
higher initial costs to build better and save ongoing operational costs is a better alternative.
Mayor Haila asked about the total GHG Emissions by Sector, and asked if a huge decrease in energy
use is needed. Ms. MacLean said not necessarily, but with changes made the energy will be cleaner.
Mayor Haila asked about everything needing to be moved toward electric and wondered about the
magnitude of the Power Plant needed. Ms. MacLean said if efficiency actions are being taken at the
same time, the increased need will not increase as substantially as assumed. Mr. Gartin said if natural
gas is turned off, there just isn’t enough clean energy and storage available. Mr. Frenette said Ames
having control over its own electric utility is a big opportunity and will play a significant role. Ms.
MacLean said electricity as 100% doesn’t work for every community so other options will be
considered.
Council Member Betcher asked when cities use an evidence-based target to what extent they are
prioritizing global equity over local equity. She said cities have a responsibility to residents as well as
the global community. Mr. Herbert said there is a good financial case for most interventions that
decarbonize communities, but being able to raise money to make it happen in a way that is equitable
is a real challenge.
Mayor Haila asked if cost was discussed as the team met with community members. Ms. MacLean
said the cost is not discussed, rather feedback on the challenges to reduce the carbon footprint is the
focus. Mayor Haila said if the price was added to the conversation the feedback received could change.
Member Martin asked if there are going to be any cost discussions at this point. Ms. MacLean said not
at this stage, and that generating specific costs for Ames goes outside the scope of what they are doing,
as they would need to know all the actions going into the CAP to determine the costs.
Mayor Haila said he doesn’t want Council to pick a target and then find out the cost is so high the
community won’t support it. He said during the first Steering Committee meeting when cost was
brought up it was discussed that it could cost $50,000 to retrofit a single family home. He said Council
needs to know what kind of decisions need to be made so Council can be realistic to ensure the CAP
can be created with confidence and that it can be accomplished.
Mr. Herbert said calculation gives a sense of the magnitude of capital that can be required. He said the
evidence-based target can start with ambitious goals spread out over years and adjusted based on
results. He said using that approach allows exploration of the future without spending any money when
looking at scenarios. He said it’s good that the practical concerns are being voiced.
Ms. MacLean shared communities that have committed to Net-Zero by 2050. Mayor Haila asked what
role MidAmerican Energy plays in Des Moines’ and Iowa City’s goals since it uses wind energy. Ms.
MacLean said she was unsure. She said Ames is in a unique position because of its own utility, and
that she hopes there are funding opportunities that would offset some upfront capital costs.
DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Moved by Betcher, seconded by
Corrieri, to request a memo from staff regarding the email from Cameron Gray regarding community
libraries in city parks.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to ask Ames Main Street to present at the November 23, 2021
City Council meeting. Member Martin said he doesn’t want to open it up for budget conversation.
Member Betcher said an update would be appreciated without a budget conversation. Mayor Haila said
he recently challenged the Board about the vision for Downtown.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Ex Officio member Poundstone said Student Government joint meetings will start soon and he will
share updated information with Council.
Member Gartin thanked the team that has been working on the CAP. He said he’s very proud of the
Council's past voting toward climate change. He said he knows there will be benefits from this process.
Member Betcher said she will attend the National League of Cities Conference is this week.
Mayor Haila said he appreciates the partnership with ISU and the work of ex officio member
Poundstone.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
_____________________________________
Erin Thompson, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 2, 2021
The Special Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 3:00 p.m.
on the 2nd day of December, 2021. As it was impractical for the Mayor and Council Members to
participate in person, Mayor Haila and Council Members Gloria Betcher, Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen,
Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and David Martin were brought in via Zoom. Ex officio
Member Trevor Poundstone was absent.
HEARING ON REZONING OF 3709, 3803, 3807, 3811, 3815, 3819, 3905, 3911, AND 3917
TRIPP STREET FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-DENSITY (FS-RM) TO
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-DENSITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FS-
RM PUD): [CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 23, 2021] - The public hearing was re-opened by
Mayor Haila. No one came forward to speak on this topic, and the hearing was closed.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-597 approving the
Contract Rezoning Agreement.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to pass on first reading an ordinance rezoning 3709, 3803,
3807, 3811, 3815, 3819, 3905, 3911, and 3917 Tripp Street from Suburban Residential Medium-
Density (FS-RM) to Suburban Residential Medium-Density Planned Unit Development (FS-RM
PUD).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to suspend the rules necessary for the adoption of
an ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, pass on second reading an ordinance rezoning 3709,
3803, 3807, 3811, 3815, 3819, 3905, 3911, and 3917 Tripp Street from Suburban Residential
Medium-Density (FS-RM) to Suburban Residential Medium-Density Planned Unit Development
(FS-RM PUD).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE
NO. 4451 rezoning 3709, 3803, 3807, 3811, 3815, 3819, 3905, 3911, and 3917 Tripp Street from
Suburban Residential Medium-Density (FS-RM) to Suburban Residential Medium-Density Planned
Unit Development (FS-RM PUD).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: None.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Beatty-Hansen to adjourn the meeting at 3:04 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE AMES AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE AND
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 23, 2021
AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: The Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO)
Transportation Policy Committee meeting was called to order by Ames Mayor and voting member
John Haila at 6:01 p.m. on the 23rd day of November, 2021. Other voting members present were:
Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, City of Ames; Gloria Betcher, City of Ames; Amber Corrieri, City of
Ames; Tim Gartin, City of Ames; David Martin, City of Ames; Linda Murken, Story County
Supervisor; Jacob Ludwig, Transit Board. City of Ames; Rachel Junck was brought into the meeting
electronically. Bill Zinnel, Boone County Supervisor, and Jon Popp, Mayor of Gilbert, were absent.
SETTING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 14, 2021, REGARDING
AMENDMENT TO THE FFY 2022-2025 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM: Public Works Director John Joiner stated that the City of Ames had requested that the
Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO) make modifications to the project limits
of two projects listed in the FFY 2022-25 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The proposed
Amendment would change the limits of two projects as follows:
1. North Dakota Avenue Paving Project - new limits would be on North Dakota Avenue from south
of Ontario Street north 0.20 miles to north of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
2. Stange Road and 24th Street Paving Project - new limits would be on Stange Road from
Blankenburg Drive north 0.4 miles to 24th Street and on 24th Street from Pinehurst Road east 0.7
miles to Hayes Avenue.
The requirements to process an Amendment to the TIP include an opportunity for public review and
comment as well as approval by both the Transportation Technical and Policy Committees of the
Ames Area MPO. The AAMPO Technical Committee reviewed the proposed Amendment and
unanimously recommended approval.
Council Member Gartin commented that the railroad crossing at 24th Street near Hayes Avenue has
been a problem for the City for a long time, and he is excited to finally see the area being fixed.
Moved by Ludwig, seconded by Murken, to set the date of public hearing for December 14, 2021,
regarding the Amendment to the FFY 2022-2025 Transportation Improvement Plan.
Vote on Motion: 9-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS: No comments were made.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Murken to adjourn the Ames Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization Transportation Policy Committee meeting at 6:03 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:04 p.m.
on November 23, 2021, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to
law. Present were Council Members Gloria Betcher, Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Amber Corrieri, Tim
Gartin, Rachel Junck, and David Martin. Council Member Rachel Junck was brought into the
meeting electronically. Ex officio Member Trevor Poundstone was absent.
The Mayor stated that the Council was working off an Amended Agenda. Under the Consent
Agenda, a Motion had been added to approve the canceling of the Regular City Council Meeting on
December 28, 2021, and Item No. 17 was corrected to say Change Order No. 2 and the amount of
$320,000 should also say “exclusive of sales tax.”
PROCLAMATION FOR “SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY,” NOVEMBER 27, 2021: The
Mayor declared November 27, 2021, as “Small Business Saturday.” He encouraged the residents of
the community to support local small businesses and merchants on November 27, 2021, and
throughout the year with their patronage.
Accepting the Proclamation was Sarah Dvorsky, Ames Main Street Executive Director. Ms. Dvorsky
mentioned that she was excited to have the support of the City Council and the community.
Downtown Ames is home to several businesses, whether it is retail, restaurant, or service. By
supporting a small business in Downtown Ames between $.52 to $.70 of every dollar goes back to
the local economy. She noted that while “Small Business Saturday” is only one day a year, everyone
was encouraged to shop small, shop local, and support the Ames community year-round. To learn
more about the businesses that are in Downtown Ames, Ms. Dvorsky recommended everyone to
check out amesdowntown.org.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Haila requested to pull, for further discussion, Item No. 13:
Resolution awarding contract to Siemens Industry Inc., of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, for purchase of
CyRide Battery Electric Bus Charging Equipment in the amount of $96,000.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to approve the following items on the Consent
Agenda.
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion canceling Regular City Council Meeting of December 28, 2021
3.Motion approving Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting held November 9, 2021
4.Motion certifying Civil Service candidates
5.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period November 1 - 15, 2021
2
6.Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor
Licenses:
a.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service, Sunday Sales and Catering Privilege -
The Café, L.C., 2616 Northridge Parkway
b.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Aunt Maude’s,
543-547 Main Street
c.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Thumbs Bar, 2816
West Street
d.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Tip Top Lounge,
201 E Lincoln Way Pending Dram Shop Insurance
7.RESOLUTION NO. 21-573 accepting Abstract of Votes for November 2, 2021, Regular City
Election
8.RESOLUTION NO. 21-574 approving FY 2020/21 Annual Street Financial Report
9.Main Street Iowa Program:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 21-575 of support for Ames Main Street
b.RESOLUTION NO. 21-576 approving Main Street Iowa Program Continuation
Agreement with Iowa Economic Development Authority and Ames Chamber of
Commerce (d/b/a Ames Main Street)
10.RESOLUTION NO. 21-596 approving the 2021 Urban Renewal Report:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 21-577 approving certification of TIF Debt for Campustown and
annual appropriation of Kingland TIF Rebate
b.RESOLUTION NO. 21-578 approving certification of TIF Debt and appropriating
payment of a rebate of incremental taxes for the Barilla TIF District
11.RESOLUTION NO. 21-579 approving amendment to Purchasing Policies & Procedures to
include an “Unallowable Purchases Classification for Fleet Vehicles and Equipment”
12.RESOLUTION NO. 21-580 awarding contract to NOVA Bus of Plattsburg, New York, for
purchase of one 60-foot CyRide Articulated Bus in an amount not to exceed $850,000
13.RESOLUTION NO. 21-582 awarding contract to JTH Lighting Alliance of Apple Valley,
Minnesota, for Traffic Signal Poles for the 2021/22 Traffic Signal Program (University Blvd.
& S. 4th Street) in the amount of $58,359
14.RESOLUTION NO. 21-583 approving Change Order No. 1 to General Electric Steam
Services, Inc., of Midlothian, Virginia, for additional Technical Field Advisor Services for
Unit 8 Overhaul in an amount not to exceed $91,000
15.RESOLUTION NO. 21-584 approving Change Order No. 4 to Blade Runner
Turbomachinery Services, LLC, of Navasota, Texas, for Unit 8 Turbine Generator Overhaul
Project in the amount of $123,843.27
16.RESOLUTION NO. 21-585 approving Change Order No. 2 to Plibrico Company LLC, of
Omaha, Nebraska, for Power Plant Boiler Maintenance Services Contract in an amount not
to exceed $320,000 (exclusive of sales tax)
17.Ada Hayden Heritage Park Fishing Pier Renovation Project:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 21-586 approving Change Orders 1, 2, and 3 in the amount of
$9,091 to Woodruff Construction, Inc., of Ames, Iowa
b.RESOLUTION NO. 21-587 accepting completion
3
18.RESOLUTION NO. 21-588 accepting completion of 2019/20 Clear Water Diversion
19.RESOLUTION NO. 21-589 accepting completion of 2020/21 Seal Coat Street Pavement
Improvements (East 8th Street)
20.RESOLUTION NO. 21-590 accepting completion of 2020/21 Traffic Signal Program (S.
Duff & S. 5th Street)
21.RESOLUTION NO. 21-591 accepting completion of 2020/21 US Highway 69 Improvements
(South Duff Avenue and US Highway 30 Eastbound Off-Ramp)
22.RESOLUTION NO. 21-592 accepting completion of 2019/20 Traffic Signal Program
(Lincoln Way & Beach Avenue)
23.ISU Research Park IV project:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 21-593 approving Change Order No. 4 in the amount of
($123,778.99)
b.RESOLUTION NO. 21-594 accepting completion
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
AWARDING CONTRACT TO SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC., OF BUFFALO GROVE,
ILLINOIS, FOR PURCHASE OF CYRIDE BATTERY ELECTRIC BUS CHARGING
EQUIPMENT: Mayor Haila explained that he had pulled this item because he had a question about
the criteria list in the Staff Report. He noted that in the criteria for serviceability, maintenance, and
maintainability, Siemens Industry Inc., had a lower rating than the other two companies that was
submitted a proposal for the purchase of CyRide battery electric bus charging equipment. The Mayor
wanted to know if staff had any concern about the lower rating and buses potentially being out of
commission.
CyRide Director Barbara Neal stated Siemens was scored lower in that criteria because the other two
companies that bid were modular units where Siemens didn’t have that feature. She explained that
the reason Siemens was chosen was because they have a proven track record with NOVA buses. The
main difference would be if there were any issues, Siemens would have to come onsite to fix the
issue. The other company that bid, ChargePoint, had come in under bid, but had not previously
worked with NOVA buses, and staff was unsure of the reliability. The mechanics at CyRide are
looking into getting a charging unit; this way they could charge a bus at CyRide if for any reason a
charging station went down, and Siemens had to come out and fix one.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-581 awarding a
Contract to Siemens Industry Inc., of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, for the purchase of CyRide Battery
Electric Bus Charging Equipment in the amount of $96,000.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened Public Forum.
4
Richard Deyoe, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, stated that when he received the notice that he couldn’t
be at City Hall for a year, it reminded him of a poem that he had written when he first moved to
Ames. Mr. Deyoe read the first couple of lines of the poem that he had given each Council Member.
Mayor Haila closed Public Forum when no one else came forward to speak.
PRESENTATION BY AMES MAIN STREET REGARDING ITS VISION FOR THE
FUTURE: Steve Goodhue, Ames Main Street Program Chair and Sam Stagg, Ames Main Street
(AMS) Vice-Chair were present for the presentation. Mr. Goodhue commented that Ames Main
Street was established in 2009 and is one of 54 Main Street communities in Iowa. They operate on
four principles: organization, promotion, design, and economic vitality. The City of Ames supports
the efforts of Ames Main Street financially, but AMS are largely dependent upon investor revenue
and investor contributions. Mr. Goodhue pointed out that they had increased investor contributions
to the Program by over 50%. He mentioned that Ames Main Street is working through a long-term
financial plan and remarketing of Main Street along with expanding its promotional calendar with
new promotions designed to bring people Downtown. Ames Main Street had also hosted focus
groups with Downtown stakeholders to discuss future needs for Downtown. Another few
accomplishments that Ames Main Street had completed were facilitating a $75,000 Main Street Iowa
Challenge Grant to assist the Nelson family with rehabilitating the building at 5th Street and Burnett,
secured a Grant through Story County for new directional signage and furniture in the District, and
supported the Lincoln Way revitalization and redevelopment. The next step for Ames Main Street
contained two elements: 1) to look at future initiatives and strategic visioning; and 2) streetscape
improvements.
Mr. Stagg noted that Ames Main Street was excited to fund/support an existing project, initiative,
or institution (Reinvestment District, Downtown Plaza, Octagon, Ames History Museum, Facade
Grants, Lincoln Way Development), and to fund/support a new project or initiative (public art
installation, new signage/gateway, parking garage, retractable bollards, extension/improvement of
Tom Evans Plan). The next steps for Ames Main Street would be to: 1) start with the big picture
regarding the Mission and Vision; 2) determine Strategic Goals to accomplish the Mission and
Vision; 3) brainstorm projects and initiatives with stakeholders and investors, 4) narrow those
projects into a few viable options; and, 5) create an Action Plan with a timetable to accomplish
projects. A few examples were shown of what streetscape items needed to be fixed or replaced. Mr.
Stagg noted that Ames Main Street would be coming before the Council during budget time to ask
for financial assistance.
Council Member Gartin noted that he had the idea of re-imaging Ames Main Street to facilitate
parking on one side of the street and allow the sidewalks to be built-out to create a bigger space for
restaurants and other public usage. Another idea he had was the way that the Downtown of Coralville
had created a way for entrepreneurs. The City of Coralville had partnered with the developer to give
opportunities to entrepreneurs that would never have been able to afford the space. Mr. Gartin
mentioned that space has been lost in Campustown and the Downtown area would be a good place
to offer a feature for entrepreneurs.
5
Council Member Betcher asked what the timeline was for the next steps that were presented. Mr.
Stagg stated that over the next couple of months, the Ames Main Street Board will work on the
Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goals, and in January 2022, they would start with inviting additional
stakeholders and investors to meetings to begin the brainstorming process. Mr. Stagg was hopeful
that everything could be wrapped up by June 2022. Ms. Betcher mentioned that the City Council had
received some requests from residents for more tables in Downtown.
Mr. Goodhue thanked the Council for its ongoing event and financial support, Main Street Iowa
reaccreditation, continued investment into the District (Downtown pavers and Downtown Plaza),
future streetscape improvements, and continued partnership.
Mayor Haila wanted to know if Ames Main Street was going to develop the Strategic Goals. Mr.
Stagg stated that they already have a few ideas and are going to refine the Goals. The Mayor inquired
if Ames Main Street’s stakeholders included shoppers and people who use the space. Mr. Stagg
mentioned that on a broad level the goal is to bring more people Downtown and those people are
consumers, families, kids, parents, students, etc., and they would canvas each of those demographics
to bring them into the meeting. Mayor Haila asked about the possibility of a Self-Supported
Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) in Downtown. Mr. Goodhue explained that was discussed
at their Board meeting, but did not have any other information they could provide at this time.
PRESENTATION OF UPDATE REGARDING THE LINCOLN WAY MIXED-USE
PROJECT FOR THE DOWNTOWN REINVESTMENT DISTRICT: City Manager Steve
Schainker reminded the Council that the Lincoln Way Project is between Clark and Kellogg Avenue
and is a priority area for redevelopment as part of the Downtown Gateway Focus Area within the
Lincoln Way Corridor Plan. Mr. Schainker stated the presentation is information that is intended to
be an update from the development team on its intended plans for the site and it is not a formal
proposal for approval of the project. Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann explained that
the location is critical to the City. Staff has been working on this site and project for the past three
years. When looking through the Corridor Plan it highlights how the City wants to amplify
Downtown and have a synergy with how things are done on the south side of the tracks that will
bring energy to the north side of the tracks as well. There will be a lot more details that will come
later, but staff needs to know if the project is on target to move forward.
Chuck Winkleblack,105 S. 16th Street, Ames, stated this project has been a long time coming.
Hunziker Company started about three years ago by obtaining property in the area, and unfortunately,
the pandemic got in the way and slowed a few things down. Early on, Hunziker knew this was a
project that is beyond the scope of anything that they have done before. Mr. Winkleblack said that
representatives from ISG Inc., and Christensen Development were in attendance to help with the
presentation.
ISG Executive President Derek Johnson mentioned that Architect Cody Vanasse and Project
Manager Art Baumgartner were also present to help answer questions. Mr. Johnson briefly explained
6
to the Council what ISG does and the types of projects they have done. He noted that ISG is currently
working on a project in Sioux Falls similar to what the City is planning.
Christensen Development President Jake Christensen explained that the majority of their work is in
Des Moines, but they have also worked in Grinnell, Newton, and Omaha, Nebraska. Christensen
Development is currently working with ISG on other projects. He noted that the Zombie Burger
building was one of their projects. The company has worked with municipalities and parking for a
long time.
Mr. Vanasse explained that the site is a great location, right along the Lincoln Way Corridor, and
part of the intercontinental highway system. The conceptual design plans showed redevelopment of
the site along Lincoln Way with a northerly extension of a pedestrian bridge from the site over the
Union Pacific Railroad to a new public parking garage within the CBD Parking lot. The site consists
of all the property between Gilchrist and Lincoln Way from Clark to Kellogg, with the exception of
the corner properties along Gilchrist and Kellogg. The public parking garage would be on City
property, but the pedestrian bridge would require additional acquisition of easement rights or
property for its construction north of Gilchrist. The plan showed a ten-story hotel with a top-floor
restaurant, an eight-story office building with ground-floor commercial, and mixed-use residential
buildings that are four to six stories. The layout included some on-site parking to meet the needs of
residential, office, and hotel-users with a goal of meeting additional office parking needs with
parking in the public parking garage north of the tracks. Primary access to the site will be from
Gilchrist with a hotel drop-off area accessed from Lincoln Way. The Plan included a ground-level
open space and amenity space for use by commercial customers, residents, and office users. Several
renderings were shown from different views of the site. Mr. Vanasse noted that the proposed layout
would have 33,200 square feet in retail space and 27,400 square feet for restaraunt. He noted that
the design is proposed and is flexible with changing the square footage if needed.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked for more information about the 34,500 square feet of amenity
space. Mr. Vanasse stated that could be used for amenity space for the residential property or
commercial property.
Council Member Martin inquired about access to the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Vanasse noted they
want the pedestrian walkway to be as accessible as possible and there are several connection points
on the south side of the site; however, on the north side, there is just a single stair tower. Mr. Martin
noted that he liked the way it is set up so people don’t have to go through a commercial space in
order to get to the walkway.
Council Member Betcher stated there was a little bit of confusion between the Staff Report and the
rendering shown. The Staff Report mentioned that the office building was eight stories, but on the
renderings, it was labeled as six stories and wanted to know how tall the building would be. Mr.
Vanasse clarified that there are six levels of proposed commercial office space plus street level retail,
plus top-level condo for a total of eight stories. Ms. Betcher explained that she had heard that the
City of Des Moines had agreed that they would not build any new parking ramps unless they were
7
able to be retrofitted as apartments. She wanted to know if the parking ramp for the City of Ames
is going to be at an angle or flat. Ms. Betcher would like to see the City of Ames parking ramp be
retrofitted if possible. Mr. Christensen stated that parking ramps, no matter how they are designed,
are exceptionally difficult to retrofit. The ceiling height for a parking structure is different from what
is expected for a commercial or residential dwelling. In an effort to keep parking ramps as efficient
and cost-effective as possible the building will be different. The usual life of a parking ramp is 50-60
years, and it is difficult to know what the future is for cars. Mr. Christensen explained that there are
portions that could be retrofitted, but there would be a litany of challenges. Ms. Betcher also wanted
to know what materials would be used for the pedestrian bridge. Mr. Vanasse stated that they are not
at that level yet to determine what is going to be used, but understands there are some power lines
above the tracks that will need to go above the walkway, which will require some kind of barrier
above the pedestrian bridge for protection. Ms. Betcher commented that she had heard of concrete
bridges that are over railways that have to keep getting repaired due to the vibrations from the trains.
Council Member Gartin noted that this is an amazing project and he hopes the citizens are happy
with the renderings shown. He explained that the City is also in the process of working on its
Climate Action Plan, and he wanted to know if there would be opportunities to think about this
project in terms of sustainability goals; an example was given of solar panels on rooftops. Mr.
Christensen gave an example of the City Hall parking structure that is directly east of Des Moines
City Hall as it is a Net-Zero parking structure, which has LED lighting with a solar array on the top
of the structure. Mr. Christensen stated that parking structures are great locations for solar arrays.
Mr. Vanasse commented that they are going vertical with all the buildings and this will give clear
access to sunlight on all the rooftops. Mr. Gartin explained that they would want multiple ways to
access the amenities. He noted that Lincoln Way is a poor transit area for bicyclists and asked for
more information regarding access for multi-modal transportation. Mr. Vanasse explained that at this
stage, there are still a lot of design elements to be done; however, an additional parking lane may be
beneficial or a wider easement for pedestrian traffic may also be helpful. The main improvement is
to connect north to south and the site will start considering traffic for pedestrians from Lincoln Way
to Duff Avenue. Mr. Gartin stated that everyone is fascinated by the pedestrian bridge, and he
wanted to know if the bridge would be open or closed. Mr. Schainker asked if the pedestrian bridge
would be climatized. Mr. Vanasse stated that would probably not be done; however, there may be
some protective elements that could be used for the space.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen pointed out that the Downtown Gateway Zone is one of the few
areas in Ames that does have a minimum bicycle standard. She asked where the bicycle racks would
be located. Mr. Vanasse indicated there is a lot of green space on the site, and he doesn’t see any
issues with having several bicycle racks throughout the area.
Council Member Betcher asked if anything was going to be done on Gilchrist. Mr. Vanasse stated
that the pedestrian bridge landing is fronting Gilchrist, the residential building is fronting Gilchrist,
and towards Gilchrist will be the back of the parking garage, which will have some greenery. Mr.
Christiansen pointed out that there is a significant portion of Gilchrist that is outside of the
developer’s control, but there is four-sided architecture on all the structures that will set the tone for
8
what else should happen adjacent to the site. Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann
indicated that Gilchrist is a public street, but it is not a right-of-way that is normal for a street. This
is a detail that will need to be worked through for setbacks for a sidewalk, but it will not be a
traditional street.
Council Member Gartin asked if the buildings would be condos or rentals. It was noted that there
are some condos being proposed, but the majority will be rentals.
Mayor Haila wanted to know if the area is going to be built all at once or in phases. Mr. Vanasse
stated that he believed it would be a phased approach. Mayor Haila wanted to know if one building
would be built and then five years later the next one or would it be one right after the other. Mr.
Christensen noted that he would love to say it would be 100% pre-leased and built all at one-time,
but there will be phases with milestones that need to be met. Mr. Christensen explained that working
from one side of the site and working across will be a lot easier sequence from a constructability
standpoint, but they will gauge the market to see where more interest lies with either the commercial
or hotel component. The Mayor stated that the Staff Report mentioned that the City would own the
north parking ramp and the pedestrian bridge. He wanted to know if that was correct. Mr.
Winkleblack stated that those details have not been worked out yet, and he didn’t want to speculate
on that, but the intent is for the City to be heavily involved in the parking. Mayor Haila inquired what
kind of renters the developer would be targeting as there were very few three-bedroom apartments.
Mr. Christensen mentioned there would be studios, one-to two-bedroom units, and a few three-
bedroom units. The apartments being proposed are market-rate, workforce-type housing; and would
be very different than a student housing development.
The Mayor opened public comment.
Ryan Davis, 4201 Crestmoor Avenue, Ames, advised that he owns two of three lots north of
Gilchrist. Mr. Davis wanted to know what would happen if the project failed either before, during,
or after construction. He noted that Fort Dodge is a good example as there are many multi-story
buildings in Downtown Fort Dodge and a lot of them are sitting vacant, abandoned, or run-down.
Mr. Davis explained that developers have been brought in with tax breaks to revitalize the buildings,
but the developers took the money and left without doing anything. He asked what the failure plan
was specifically would the City give tax dollars to build it, tax dollars to refurbish, or tax dollars to
do both. Mr. Davis stated when looking at Sheets 5 and 6 of the proposal, it showed loss of sunlight
during the winter months. On the north side of Gilchrist, they use normal ice melt and solar heating,
and with the proposed building, it now gives shade over the tracks; this will require more chemicals
to be placed on the roads. The major sticking point for him was the pedestrian bridge. He commented
that he will not allow any easements over his property. Mr. Davis said on September 28, 2017, Mr.
Winkleblack came to his office and made a lower-than-market value offer for his property and he
turned it down. In the Winter of 2020, his lawyer had reached out to Mr. Winkleblack to see if
another offer could be put on the table and was told by the lawyer that Hunziker Development did
not need his property for the project, and if they did, it would be lower than the original offer. He
pointed out that when his property was rezoned in 2017, the City made it illegal, according to City
9
Code, to sell one of his properties without selling the other one. The only solution Mr. Davis could
come up with to make all parties happy would be to relocate his businesses and properties.
The Mayor closed public comment when no one else came forward.
City Manager Steve Schainker stated that now that the Council Members have seen the basic
concept, the Council would need to let staff know to proceed with a Developer Agreement and a
Major Site Plan, if so a motion would need to be made. Mr. Schainker explained that there is not a
lot of time as staff would like to have that done by the end of February when the City has to submit
the Reinvestment Plan.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to proceed with negotiations for the Lincoln Way
Mixed-Use Project for the Downtown Reinvestment District.
Council Member Betcher stated that when this property was first rezoned, she had voted against it
as she was not in favor of the scale of the buildings that would be allowed in the area. She will be
voting for the motion and hopes the project does succeed, but knows there will be some challenges.
Council Member Martin commented that when thinking back to the Lincoln Way Corridor Plan and
what is being seen now along with the effort it took to create the Downtown Gateway Zone, he felt
that is what all the work was for and this project has the potential to bring the density to Downtown.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen noted that this project met a lot of the Council’s Goals. Increasing
density in the Core is important for a greener City and has more of an abundance for housing options.
She liked the increase in the residential units and the density is exciting.
Council Member Gartin mentioned that another aspect that he thought of is how this project provides
connectivity to the community. He can see people from all over the community spending time in this
area and connecting. Mr. Gartin felt this is going to be a great project for the community.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON REZONING OF 3709, 3803, 3807, 3811, 3815, 3819, 3905, 3911, AND 3917
TRIPP STREET FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-DENSITY (FS-RM) TO
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-DENSITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FS-
RM PUD): Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann pointed out that staff had placed around
the dais an updated Contract Rezoning Agreement for the Council to review.
City Planner Ray Anderson stated that the proposed Rezoning included two platted lots: Lots 1 and
2 of the South Fork Subdivision. Lot 1 (3709 Tripp Street) included a three-story 61-unit structure,
which was approved as an Independent Senior Living Facility, known as Brighton Park, through the
granting of a Special Use Permit by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) on March 6, 2002. Lot
2 (3803, 3807, 3811, 3815, 3819, 3905, 3911, and 3917 Tripp Street) included seven separate three-
10
story 12-unit apartment buildings and a community building, known as Windsor Pointe. A Major
Site Development Plan was approved by the City Council for this development on April 23, 2002.
There are a total of 145 units between the two sites. The applicant is proposing the rezoning to add
a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Zone to the existing zoning, which is Suburban
Residential Medium-Density (FS-RM). The PUD would allow the use of the entire site as household
living with apartment dwellings and no requirements for independent senior living due to the
applicant’s proposal to reserve all 145 apartments for a period of 30 years for individuals whose
income is 60% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). The definitions and requirements for
eligibility will be in compliance with the Internal Revenue’s Code, Section 42 (LIHTC) Program
requirements. The PUD would also allow a reduction in the minimum required parking spaces by
a total of 36 spaces. Staff’s recommendation was to approve on first reading the request for rezoning
with a Shared Parking Agreement and Contract Rezoning Agreement with the following provisions
for the PUD: 1) 145 units of housing affordable to households making 60% of AMI or less for a
minimum of 30-years; 2) reduction of required parking by 36 spaces; and 3) no requirement for
senior living within the 61-unit residential building.
Director Diekmann pointed out that the Agreement, that was included in the Council Packet, was
a draft. He stated that staff looked at this Agreement as a 30-year affordability period and is a great
benchmark regarding a commitment to affordable housing for the City, which is the main reason for
the PUD overlay. If the request did not include the 30-year Agreement, staff would not be supportive
of the PUD rezoning. The way the programming is set up is for the applicant to take advantage of
the LIHTC regulations that go into the programming. Although there is a 30-year combined
requirement it is viewed as two separate 15-year periods that fit into the Section 42 requirement.
Director Diekmann commented that at the end of the day the expectation is the same. If the project
does not operate in a manner consistent with those terms, they would be in violation of the Contract
Rezoning Agreement. The Agreement specifies that an annual report must be submitted to the City
to show how the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) requirements are being met. Mr. Diekmann explained
that the Contract was not signed due to the late hour; therefore, staff recommended that the public
hearing be opened, take any comments, and have a discussion, but to not close the public hearing.
The applicant had asked staff if a Special City Council meeting could be held before December 14,
2021, to help facilitate the applicant’s application that still needs to be submitted to the State before
the end of the year.
Council Member Betcher stated this is a great opportunity and asked if the 30-year Agreement
applied to the property regardless of who owns it. Director Diekmann commented that the way the
City Attorney drafted the Agreement, it would apply to any successors of the property.
Ryan Keller, TWG Development, stated that what Mr. Diekmann stated was correct and there will
be three governing documents that will be attached to the Deed. There is an existing Land-Use
Restriction Agreement, the City’s Agreement from tonight, and upon rehab, there will be another
Land-Use Restriction Agreement. All the Agreements will be attached to the property and not the
developer.
11
Council Member Martin wanted to know if the Council approved the Rezoning, and on April 1,
2022, there were additional requirements for AMI, would that change to the AMI cause any leases
to be broken. Mr. Keller stated there would be about ten or fewer people who would need to be
relocated as they would not meet the income requirements. It was pointed out that if the tenants have
a valid lease, the lease cannot be broken, but they will not be able to renew.
The Mayor explained a Special Meeting will need to be set and the applicant has requested to have
the rules suspended for all readings to be read at one meeting, which requires a supermajority of the
Council to be present. He checked with the Council Members to see what date they would be
available for a Special meeting.
Council Member Gartin noted that this neighborhood had been active in the past and wanted to know
if there has been any feedback recently from the neighborhood. Director Diekmann mentioned that
there was one letter that was received from a nearby apartment owner concerned about the rezoning
at the Planning and Zoning Commission level, but it was not anyone from the neighborhood. Mr.
Gartin inquired what happened during the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) meeting. Mr.
Diekmann explained that since TWG bought the property last fall, staff had become aware that the
property was not compliant with the senior living requirement, and Planner Anderson had been in
contact with the TWG to help them bring the property back into compliance. Originally the applicant
had applied for a Use Variance, but that was denied by ZBA, and once that was denied, the owners
decided to pursue the PUD rezoning option to bring the site into compliance and to provide
affordable housing. Council Member Martin noted that he had some communication with the
College Creek/Old Middle School (CCOAMS) representatives. He had reached out to them to let
them know that this PUD rezoning would be before City Council tonight and it was forwarded to
over 100 people, but the notice contained nothing regarding the underlying merits of the request.
The Mayor asked the Council if December 2, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. would work for a Special Meeting;
however, Council Member Junck was available at 4:00 p.m.; however, it was decided that 3:00 p.m.
on December 2, 2021, should work.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and closed it when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to continue the hearing for the rezoning of 3709, 3803,
3807, 3811, 3815, 3819, 3905, 3911, and 3917 Tripp Street from Suburban Residential Medium-
Density (FS-RM) to Suburban Residential Medium-Density Planned Unit Development (FS-RM
PUD) until December 2, 2021.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON 2020/21 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION
REPORT (CAPER) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN: Housing
Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer stated that what is before the Council is the required
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) that is required at the end of
every fiscal year. For the 2020-21 Program year, approximately $945,329 of CDBG funds were
12
spent. The majority of those funds were used for the Baker Subdivision along with 2019/20 roll-over
funds. Approximately $42,608 of the total was generated from Program income. The HOME
Program is still in the administrative phase so approximately $22,987 was spent on program
administration. For the CARES (COVID-19) funds, approximately $475,713 was spent, and of that
spent amount $32,789 was for program administration, $396,816 for Rent & Utility Relief, and
$46,408 was spent on Mortgage & Utility Relief. Staff was excited about the impact that the CARES
funds had made to the community. Ms. Baker-Latimer pointed out that the City of Ames was
monitored because it was one of the few entitlements that had spent money from the CARES fund.
She pointed out that the Baker Subdivision is getting close to being completed and that is why all
the CDBG money was rolled over to the Baker Subdivision. Hopefully, now the City will be able
to use its HOME funds to finish the Baker Subdivision with home ownership and house
construction.
Council Member Gartin asked when further development of the Baker Subdivision would be
happening. Ms. Vanessa Baker-Latimer answered that she was hoping for Spring/Summer of 2022,
as she is in the process of contracting with a Homebuyer Counselor. This is a requirement before the
City can help people buy a home. Staff is already accepting applications from potential home buyers.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. It was closed when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-596 approving the 2020/21
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) in accordance with the
Consolidated Plan.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING INDOOR AQUATIC CENTER UPDATES: City Manager
Steve Schainker noted there were six issues that he wanted to review with the Council and three of
them would need direction.
Construction Manager versus General Contractor: This first issue dealt with the delivery of the
Project. Mr. Schainker commented that he would like to put together a team who would help the City
successfully complete the Project. One option would be the traditional method with the use of an
architect and a general contractor. The architect would serve as the owner’s representative on the
project to make sure the contractor is building the project in accordance with the plans and
specifications. This method involves one bid package, and the general contractor holds the contracts
with the subcontractors. Mr. Schainker felt that one of the biggest issues with following the
traditional method is needing staff input, but also contractor expertise to work with the architect to
make sure the project can be built and to come in within budget. The second option would be to hire
an architect and a general contractor with a construction advisor. The construction advisor would
have input during the design process. Specifically, the construction advisor would provide
construction expertise during the design phase reducing the probability of costly change orders and
reduce the amount of City staff time to manage the project since the construction advisor will be on
13
site more frequently. The City did use a construction advisor for the library project. The third option
is for City staff to use an architect and a construction manager. This approach would have the
construction manager act as an extension of the City staff and the general contractor is eliminated.
Because of this approach, some tasks can take place simultaneously, thus shortening the overall
project timeline. The City has not used this option before, and after reviewing all the pros and cons,
staff is recommending using a construction manager for this Project. A Request for Proposals (RFP)
would be sent out to find a construction manager. Mr. Schainker noted that the Council should have
received correspondence from Harold Pike who felt strongly that hiring a construction manager was
not the way to go. He stated that Mr. Pike had mentioned in his email that there were legal issues
with going with a construction manager. City Attorney Mark Lambert noted that Iowa law doesn’t
allow design build as you would have to do the design first and then hire the contractor. Mr. Lambert
explained that when he read through Mr. Pike’s email there was a concern about having a
construction manager and that leading to a design-build. Attorney Lambert commented that having
a construction manager and a design-build are two separate things.
Discussion on awarding contract to RDG for design versus issuing RFP: Mr. Schainker noted that
the next issue would be with the architect themselves. The first option would be to waive the
Purchasing Policy and continue the relationship with RDG Planning and Design. It was pointed out
that RDG Planning and Design has been with the City when the initial indoor aquatic design was
done for the Healthy Life Center and for this Project the same concept is being used. Another option
would be to create a competitive process that would solicit competitive proposals for the design of
the Aquatic Center. A new company would have to be brought up to speed with the concept. Mr.
Schainker noted the City may be able to move forward faster with RDG since they already have
experience.
Council Member Gartin asked for clarification on the timing. He felt that the City’s normal posture
should be to always go to a bidding process if possible, but understands that timing is a factor. Mr.
Gartin thought an architecture firm could pick-up and continue the work as he is not concerned about
the technical aspects, but sensitive to if the bidding process would create a delay. Mr. Schainker
stated there would be some delay, but not sure how much. The Mayor noted that when the RFP went
out before for the Aquatic Center it did state that the City did reserve the right to continue working
with the same firm if they were performing satisfactorily and could agree upon a mutually equitable
fee agreement, and the decision is up to the Council. Staff recommended staying with RDG Planning
and Design.
Cost savings of a one-level building versus a two-level building: This issue was whether to design
the Aquatic Center with two floors or only one floor. In August 2021, the City hired Stecker
Harmsen to provide an updated cost estimate in 2023 dollars for the one-level and two-level options.
An additional option was added to obtain a cost estimate for a one-level building which included the
aquatic components, as well as 9,000 square feet of multipurpose space. Stecker Harmsen had
indicated that by moving the walking track and multipurpose space to the first level, the estimated
cost savings would be $796,898 versus the two-level option. Mr. Schainker stated that the estimate
for the land from the Department of Transportation (DOT) is going to cost $2.9 million, which will
14
make the City short funds of about $900,000 short. He noted that if the Council wanted to expand
to the east the City would need to acquire more land. In the future, the City will need more
gymnasium and recreation space. Staff recommended removing the second floor and putting
everything onto the first level. Mr. Schainker stated at this point he didn’t want to ask the architect
to design two buildings.
Council Member Martin stated when he imagined building the walking track in a separate building
with the multipurpose rooms, he could see that building being repurposed in the future. Mr.
Schainker commented that it is not necessarily going to be a second building as the buildings will
be connected somehow.
The Mayor opened public input for the three topics discussed.
Mike Espeset, representing Story Construction, 2810 Wakefield Circle, Ames, said that Story
Construction acts as a general contractor and a construction manager for projects throughout the
state. They work with a lot of public entities that utilize a construction manager for projects. He
concurred with Mr. Schainker’s comments regarding the Indoor Aquatic Center. Mr. Espeset stated
that he supported staff’s recommendation as it makes a lot of sense for this project at this time in
Ames.
Council Member Gartin explained that he had some time to talk with Mr. Espeset at the high school
and asked if Mr. Espeset could explain the benefits of what a construction manager would bring
regarding the efficiency of construction. Mr. Espeset mentioned that Ames High School is a good
example, but any project can be. Architects design what the ultimate outcome is and don’t have the
benefit of thinking of how a team can put the project together efficiently and attractively in the
marketplace. A construction manager comes along with the owner and the design team to think
through how everything will go together. That way when bids are taken to the marketplace the
marketplace can provide pricing and competitive bids for the game plan and the outcome, not just
the outcome.
Mayor Haila stated that right now price-wise, it is very volatile, and he asked Mr. Espeset to describe
the pricing difference. Mr. Espeset explained that as a general contractor has finite resources, and
for a project like the Indoor Aquatic Center, you want the right amount of resources at the right time
when it comes to market, but it is a game of timing. With a construction manager, you pick a team
leader and advocate. A contractor works for themselves where construction managers work for you.
When no one else came forward, the Mayor closed public input.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Martin, to follow staff recommendation to go with the
construction manager model.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
15
Council Member Gartin commented that by moving forward with the construction manager model
it doesn’t mean they devalue a contractor’s contributions. Referencing an email sent to the Council
by Harold Pike Construction Mr. Gartin said that Harold Pike has built a lot of buildings in Ames
and he appreciates Mr. Pike’s input, but felt that going with the construction manager model is a
good fit for this project.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Martin, to move ahead with hiring RDG Planning & Design to
design the Indoor Aquatic Center.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to build one level with the walking track and multipurpose
space.
Council Member Martin noted this one was harder for him than the others. He wished the Council
didn’t have to make this decision and could have stayed with the two-level building, but when
looking at the Council Goals, it was to build an Indoor Aquatic Center and that is what they are
doing. He felt this was a reasonable compromise.
Council Member Gartin stated his frustration was that it felt like the City was being put in a corner
because the Department of Transportation’s appraisal is so high. He noted that the Council has to
make a major decision on behalf of the community based upon a high land price. Mr. Gartin
explained he is wanting to pay a fair price for the land, but felt the $2.9 million was too high.
Council Member Betcher mentioned that she appreciated the fact that the City may be able to reduce
some operating costs by switching to a single-level model.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Iowa Department of Transportation Land Update: Mr. Schainker stated that he had already
mentioned that the appraisal for the land came in at $2.9 million. Staff had met with the IDOT a few
months ago and as previously mentioned, the IDOT is planning on moving all its employees to its
main office, but that wouldn’t happen for a couple of years. He mentioned that staff had told the
IDOT that they were unable to wait two years to be able to start building the Indoor Aquatic Center.
The IDOT had said they would work on trying to find some short-term relocation possibilities for
its employees. To date, City staff has not received a final decision from the IDOT as to when the City
could take possession of the site. Mr. Schainker commented that he is optimistic that the IDOT will
help to move its employees elsewhere, but he will keep the Council updated.
Private Fundraising Update: Mr. Schainker noted that Dan Culhane, President and CEO of the Ames
Chamber of Commerce, has helped raise over $8 million in donations and/or pledges. Mr. Culhane
mentioned that they have sent out a few more invoices over the past couple of weeks and have
received a few more thousand dollars. Currently, with the $2 million of City funding from the Geitel
Winakor estate that would be the total raised to $10 million. Mr. Schainker emphasized that the total
16
project cost was around $31 million, and this does not account for any of the reinvestment funds. If
the City does not get any reinvestment funding, the project will still proceed; however, if the funds
are received, the funds will help reduce the debt service. One issue that has arisen is that most of the
individuals making the pledges would prefer to donate the money to the Ames Foundation, which
would collect the donations and then transfer the funds to the City, rather than donating the funds
directly to the City. In addition, there is nothing yet in writing to verify these pledges. Therefore, City
staff is exploring the creation of a pledge document that will allow donations to be directed to the
Ames Foundation and also bind individuals who are making the pledges, and/or their estates, to
honor these pledges to the City. Mr. Culhane noted that a few people have pledged amounts, but will
not pay until the project has been approved.
Updated Project Cost Estimate: City Manager Schainker noted that he had outlined the budget in the
Staff Report as to where the City is currently. He noted that he is going to look at finding more
money for the budget as the current estimate didn’t include heat pumps or solar heating. A further
breakdown will be presented on December 14 that will break down his recommendation on how the
City should spend the $14 million received from the Rescue Act. It was mentioned that besides
helping the environment, there should be some operations savings as well.
Council Member Martin asked about the possibility of geothermal for this project. Mr. Schainker
stated that is something he needed to look into.
ORDINANCES: None.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: None.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Gartin noted that he had spent the weekend in
Mississippi and the disparity between neighborhoods in terms of the quality of streets was stunning.
There were neighborhoods that had nice houses had cobblestone streets and ornate lighting fixtures
while a few blocks over, in the “poor” part of town, the streets were in terrible shape and there were
no lights. Mr. Gartin stated that in the City of Ames decisions are based on the condition of the
streets and not where you live, and he was grateful to live in a community that creates parity in terms
of infrastructure. He also commented that he was thankful for the City of Ames staff.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Corrieri to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
17
Smart Choice
515.239.5133 non-emergency
Administration
fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O.
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department
Date: December 2, 2021
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for December 14th, 2021, includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•Cyclone Liquors (676 Lincoln Way) - Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales
•Café Beau (2504 Lincoln Way) - Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales & Outdoor
Service
•Torrent Brewing Company (504 Burnett Ave) - Class B Beer with Sunday Sales &
Outdoor Service
•Time Out – Ames (120 Kellogg Ave) - Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales
A review of police records for the past 12 months found no liquor law violations for the
above locations. The Ames Police Department recommends the license renewal for the
above businesses.
Item No. 7
Smart Choice
515.239.5133 non-emergency
Administration
fax
515 Clark Ave.
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department
Date: December 2, 2021
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for December 14th, 2021 includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•1 Night Stand (124 Welch) - Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales
A review of police records for the past 12 months found 6 liquor law violations. 5
individuals were cited for being underage on premise. 2 of those individuals were in
possession of a fake ID. During a compliance check on March 25th, 2021, an employee
sold alcohol to a minor and was cited accordingly. A follow-up compliance check was
completed, and no violations were recorded.
So far, the Police Department has made recommendations to improve their performance
such as providing additional staffing and utilizing the Iowa ABD Age to Purchase mobile
application to scan identifications to ensure validity. Management acknowledged these
recommendations and will put these additional measures in place.
The Police Department would recommend renewal of the 12-month license.
During this 12-month period, The Police Department will continue to monitor the above
location by conducting regular foot patrols, bar checks and by educating the bar staff
through trainings and quarterly meetings.
Item No. 7a
Smart Choice
515.239.5133 non-emergency
Administration
fax
515 Clark Ave.
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department
Date: December 2, 2021
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for December 14th, 2021 includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•Mickey’s Irish Pub (109 Welch Ave) - Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales &
Outdoor Service
A review of police records for the past 12 months found 20 liquor law violations. 20
individuals were cited for being underage on premise. 7 of those individuals were in
possession of a fake ID.
So far, the Police Department has made recommendations to improve their performance
such as providing additional staffing and utilizing the Iowa ABD Age to Purchase mobile
application to scan identifications to ensure validity. Management acknowledged these
recommendations and will put these additional measures in place.
The Police Department would recommend renewal of the 12-month license.
During this 12-month period, The Police Department will continue to monitor the above
location by conducting regular foot patrols, bar checks and by educating the bar staff
through trainings and quarterly meetings.
Item No. 7b
1
ITEM # ___8 __
Staff Report
FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Sustainability Report
December 14, 2021
This report provides a mid-year update of the FY2021-22 activities and accomplishments
related to the Sustainability Advisory Services contract between the City of Ames and
Iowa State University.
BACKGROUND:
On July 1, 2010, the City entered into a contract with Iowa State University to utilize the
services of its full-time Director of Sustainability. The contract covers a maximum of 480
hours annually (or no more than 25 percent of the Director of Sustainability’s time). The
Initial Scope of Services focused on the reduction of electric consumption. As additional
opportunities and needs have been identified related to sustainability, the Scope of
Services has expanded and diversified. During FY 2021-22, in keeping with the Council’s
direction, the Scope of Services targets the following priority areas related to energy
consumption reduction, as well as adding waste reduction and diversion:
1) Continue to work with Public Works Department and Water and Pollution Control
Department on reuse and diversion programs related to the waste stream, including –
but not limited to – the exploration of a composting and food waste program.
2) Continue to support and strengthen the Smart Business Challenge through outreach
and recruitment of participants, oversight of Challenge interns, and marketing of
outcomes and accomplishments of Challenge participants.
3) Continue to represent the City at events that educate residents about ongoing City
sustainability efforts, rebates, and waste opportunities.
4) Coordinate the new Rummage RAMPage at the Ames Intermodal Facility in
partnership with the Resource Recovery Plant, Public Relations, CyRide, and Iowa
State University, to address concerns that usable housewares and furniture are being
needlessly discarded and hard-to-process materials are being sent to the Resource
Recovery Plant.
2
5) Serve as a City contact with consultants to complete a Climate Action Plan. Help
lead the committee of City employees in collaboration with the selected consultant to
complete and present the Climate Action Plan to Council.
PROGRESS ON SCOPE OF SERVICES:
1. Continue to work with Public Works Department and Water and Pollution
Control Department on reuse and diversion programs related to the waste
stream, including – but not limited to – the exploration of a composting and
food waste program.
Mid-Year FY2021-22 accomplishments include the following for Priority Area #1:
• Promote and increase awareness and education related to the City of Ames
FWD (Food Waste Diversion) program. More than 41 tons of food waste have
been collected since the program’s beginning – with over half (26 tons) collected
in 2021.
• In complement to the FWD program, the City continues to offer the Great
Pumpkin Drop-off program, offering an option for fall produce (pumpkins,
gourds, squash, etc.). During fall 2021, an additional 6.36 tons were
collected.
Collaboration partners: Public Works – Bill Schmitt, Mark Peebler and Lorrie
Hanson and Public Relations Officer – Susan Gwiasda; Parks & Recreation also
offers assistance through selling kits at the Community Center Gym.
2. Continue to support and strengthen the Smart Business Challenge through
outreach and recruitment of participants, oversight of Challenge interns, and
marketing of outcomes and accomplishments of Challenge participants.
Mid-year FY2021-22 accomplishments include the following for Priority Area #2:
• Recruitment and hiring of two new Smart Business Challenge Interns for 2020-
2021, Lydia Youngquist and Lucia Rizzo.
• Continue recruitment of additional businesses to the Smart Business Challenge
and three-year recertification of current certified business members. Thirty-seven
businesses are currently participating in the Challenge. Current certifications in
the Challenge include three bronze, nine silver, five gold and 11 platinum.
• Annual Smart Business Challenge Recognition Event is scheduled for Thursday,
January 20, from 11:30am-1:15pm. We will reconvene in person for this year’s
3
event at Reiman Gardens, offering virtual participation option as well. Mr. Yuill
Herbert, with the Sustainable Solutions Group – consultant for the City Climate
Action Plan, will be this year’s keynote speaker, speaking on “Envisioning the
Role of Businesses in Ames’ Low Carbon Future”.
Collaboration partners: Electric Services – Don Kom and Kayley Lain; Public
Works – Bill Schmitt, Mark Peebler and Lorrie Hanson; Water & Pollution Control –
John Dunn; The Energy Group; The Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ Iowa
Waste Exchange Program; and Public Relations Officer – Susan Gwiasda
3. Continue to represent the City at events that educate residents about ongoing
City sustainability efforts, rebates, and waste reduction opportunities.
Mid-year FY2021-22 accomplishments include the following for Priority Area #3:
• Participate in the Iowa State University WelcomeFest.
• Participate in an Ames Public Library Zero Waste Panel Discussion.
• Continue a monthly radio program on KHOI focused on community sustainability
accomplishments, initiatives, and opportunities.
• Continue to represent the City in sustainability update segments on KASI.
• Continue sharing of City of Ames sustainability efforts as part of speaking
engagements.
• Continue sharing of City of Ames and Ames community volunteer opportunities
and sustainability events via Live Green! Monthly newsletter, Live Green! social
media platforms and targeted emails.
• Engage City of Ames department participation in Iowa State University
environmental events. Public Works (Storm Water and Resource Recovery), City
Manager’s Office and Electric Services tabled at the annual Campus
Sustainability Month Celebration.
4. Coordinate the new Rummage RAMPage at the Ames Intermodal Facility in
partnership with the Resource Recovery Plant, Public Relations, CyRide,
and Iowa State University, to address concerns that usable housewares
and furniture are being needlessly discarded and hard-to-process
materials are being sent to the Resource Recovery Plant.
Mid-year FY2021-22 accomplishments include the following for Priority Area #4:
• The fifth annual Rummage RAMPage was held July 30 to Aug 7, 2021. The
event diverted over 45 tons of furniture and housewares from being landfilled and
raised more than $40,000 for local non-profit organizations – an increase of
4
nearly $7,000 from the fourth annual event, held in 2019. As with the 2019 event,
tremendous support was received from ISU Parking, several City departments,
the Volunteer Center of Story County, and more than 1,500 hours provided by
volunteers representing 28 community non-profit organizations.
• In addition to collecting items to sell, clothing, shoes, linens, books, DVDs, CDs,
school supplies, cleaning supplies and non-perishable, unexpired food were once
again collected and donated to community non-profit organizations for beneficial
and value-added distribution.
• The ROAR (Rehoming Our Animals/Aquariums Responsibly) initiative, ensuring
an opportunity for drop-off of pets that are not able to be moved with residents or
residents are no longer able to care for – rather than releasing them – once again
partnered with the event.
• Planning will kick-off in January for the 2022 Rummage RAMPage event
scheduled for July 29 – August 6.
Collaboration partners: Iowa State University Parking Services, Volunteer Center
of Story County, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Story County
Conservation, Iowa Wildlife Center, Resource Recovery Plant, Ames Police,
Ames Electric Services, Ames Animal Shelter, Ames Parks & Recreation, Ames
Water & Pollution Control, Ames Public Works, Public Relations Office, and
community non-profit organizations and volunteers
5. Serve as a City contact with consultants to complete a Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Inventory and assist in the completion and presentation of the GHG
Inventory to the City Council. Plan a key role in selecting consultants for a
Climate Action Plan. Help lead the committee of City employees in
collaboration with the selected consultant to complete and present the
Climate Action Plan to the City Council.
Mid-year FY2021-22 accomplishments include the following for Priority Area #5:
• Collaborate with City staff and consultant SSG to support milestone components of
the Climate Action Plan process including:
o Completion of Plan process components of data collection and business as
usual energy and emissions modeling.
o Completion of two Steering Committee workshops, two Supplemental Input
Committee workshops and one Town Hall meeting.
o Completion of weekly consultant planning and engagement meetings.
o Development of education and engagement materials including a project
5
website, online survey, and various marketing materials.
o Collaboration with and assistance to community engagement, outreach and
awareness building opportunities including Ames Climate Theatre Action,
Care of Creation Ecumenical Prayer Service and Ames Public Library
Tabling.
Collaboration partners: Electric Services – Kayley Lain; City Manager’s Office –
Deb Schildroth and Susan Gwiasda
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5105 main
5142 fax
Ave.
MEMO
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: John A. Haila, Mayor
DATE: December 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Zoning Board of Adjustment
Ronald Schappaugh, member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment has submitted
his resignation from the board. Since Ron’s term of office does not expire until
April 1, 2024, an appointment needs to be made to fill this vacancy.
Therefore, I request that the City Council approve the appointment of Michael
Zenor to fill an unexpired term of office on the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
JAH/alc
Item No. 9
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5105 main
5142 fax
Ave.
MEMO
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: John A. Haila, Mayor
DATE: December 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Public Art Commission
Amanda Gigler, member of the Public Art Commission has submitted her
resignation from the commission. Since Amanda’s term of office does not expire
until April 1, 2023, an appointment needs to be made to fill this vacancy.
Therefore, I request that the City Council approve the appointment of Kyle
Hauswirth to fill an unexpired term of office on the Public Art Commission.
JAH/alc
Item No. 10
1
ITEM # 11
DATE: 12-10-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM HEARTLAND SENIOR SERVICES TO ENTER
INTO LAND LEASE FOR NEW BUILDING AT 205 S. WALNUT
BACKGROUND:
On August 24, 2021, the City Council directed staff to place on a future Council agenda
a letter from Nancy Carroll requesting that the City consider entering into a land lease
with Heartland Senior Services for the property at 205 S. Walnut Avenue. Heartland is
proposing to construct a new facility on that site, which is owned by the City.
The 205 S. Walnut Avenue property was purchased by the City with CDBG funds from
the Ames Community School District to house the senior day-care program administered
by Heartland Senior Services. The City has leased the building and land to Heartland
over many decades for $1.00. The building has exceeded its useful life and, therefore, a
new facility providing Heartland’s much-needed services is warranted.
Previously, Heartland had hoped to meet its facility needs by requesting that the City sell
the property and donate the revenue to Heartland to help pay for the construction cost of
a new building at the Healthy Life Center. With the failure of the bond issue, Heartland
has now redirected its attention to building a state-of-art facility at the current site. The
building features will support those 60 years of age and older in their journey to age well,
by seamlessly providing programs, activities, and services in the areas of physical activity,
social networks, health and nutrition.
In consideration for continuing its senior services, Heartland is requesting that the City:
1) Accept the deeding of a small parcel to the south of the building currently owned
by Heartland adjacent to the City’s property and consolidate the two properties into
a single lot of approximately one acre, and
2) Lease the newly consolidated property to Heartland for 50 years in exchange for
$1, with options to renew.
Under the lease terms, Heartland would own the building and be responsible for the total
cost of its construction as well as for the exterior improvements to the site. In addition,
Heartland would be responsible to maintain the building and site for the duration of the
lease agreement.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to prepare a long-term land lease with Heartland Senior Services as
requested for approximately 1 acre at 205 S. Walnut and setting January 11,
2022 as the date of public hearing for approval of the lease
With the assurance that the land can be used for the site of its new facility,
Heartland can complete its fundraising effort and begin design of the project. Under
this alternative, no rezoning will be necessary, so the property can remain zoned
S-GA. The ongoing ability for Heartland to lease this property will be contingent on
the facility continuing to be used to provide senior service-related activities.
2. Decline Heartland’s request and direct staff to solicit bids for the property at 205
S. Walnut so that the property can be sold at the highest price.
This alternative most likely will result in the need to rezone the property
accommodate a proposed private sector use.
3. Decline Heartland’s request and seek proposals from other non-profit agencies
for a long-term land lease in return for a guarantee of a needed service.
This alternative would allow Heartland to utilize the property for its new building,
but only after competing for the right with other worthy agencies.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
For many years Heartland has provided the community with much-needed daycare and
support services for our senior citizens. The City has supported this operation by providing
Heartland its building and site at a nominal cost. The opportunity now exists to secure a
state-of-art facility that will be able to offer expanded services for our ever- growing elderly
population. There is no request for financial support from the City for the capital expenses.
The City Attorney has advised that state law will not allow the City to give this property to
Heartland at no cost. However, by leasing the land at nominal cost, the City will be able
to provide a significant incentive that assures this important service continues.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1, as described above.
If the City Council desires to proceed with this arrangement, the initial step will be for
Heartland to transfer the adjacent lot to the City at no cost. The City will then accomplish
the necessary work to consolidate the two lots. Finally, the new land lease, if approved
by the City Council, will take effect.
3
Heartland Senior Services
United Way of Story County
Story County Resourcea for Successful Aging
205 S. Walnut Avenue, Ames, IA 50010
(515) 233-2906 (office)
(515) 231-4354 (cell)
ncarroll@hsservicesia.com
August 18, 2021
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Ames
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, IA 50010
Dear Mayor Haila and City Council Members,
The Board of Directors of Heartland Senior Services (HSS) desires to demolish the existing
City owned building that serves as a senior center located at 205 S. Walnut. At our sole
expense, HSS is then prepared to construct and maintain a new facility on this site. This will
be an exciting and celebrated initiative for the seniors we serve.
To move this project forward, land and building ownership are first-step issues that need to be
resolved. Specifically, there are two parcels of land that make up the current site. One is
owned by Heartland (roughly 5% of the site) with the remainder of the parcel being owned by
the City. We anticipate that the two parcels will need to be combined Into one lot to
accommodate proper setbacks, to avoid building over a property line and to allow for future
expansion.
The building is owned by the City and for decades has been leased to HSS for $1.
To address these issues, and in consideration of services rendered the HSS Board of
Directors respectively makes the following proposal for City Council consideration:
• HSS would deed its parcel of land to the City of Ames for $1
• City would then own the approximate one (1) acre site
• City and HSS would enter into a 50-year land lease agreement (with options to renew)
for $1
• HSS would own the building
• HSS would be responsible for the associated costs to construct and maintain the
building/property for the duration of the land lease agreement
Prior to selecting an architect, we would like to resolve the issues identified above. To that end,
the HSS Board of Directors respectively requests that the City Council refer this item to staff so
it can be placed on a future meeting agenda. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Executive Director
HSS Mission: Heartland Senior Services of Story County offers life-enriching
opportunities for older adults and provides support for their families and caregivers.
LIVE UNITED
ITEM # ____12___
DATE 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: SPRING 2022 COMMISSION ON THE
ARTS (COTA) SPECIAL GRANTS
BACKGROUND:
On November 1, the Commission on the Arts (COTA) finalized its recommendations for
the Spring 2022 Special Project Grants. This year, due to a substantial one-time
increase in funding authorized by the City Council for FY 2021/22 in light of the impact
of COVID-19 on arts agencies, COTA increased its maximum special project grant
award from $1,000 to $3,000 per grant. Seven grant requests were received, totaling
$17,040 in requests. COTA has $15,341 in funding available for these grants.
Based on the merits of each application and the criteria established for the special
grants, COTA recommended the allocations indicated below. Contracts were sent to the
awarded organizations for approval and have been returned. The contracts are now
presented for City Council’s approval.
ORGANIZATION REQUEST PROJECT AWARD
Ames Community Arts Council $ 3,000 Business of Art Webinar Series $ 3,000
Des Moines Metro Opera Guild
– Ames Chapter 540 Ames to Des Moines Opera
Shuttle 540
Octagon Center for the Arts 3,000 Art Outreach to YSS and Boys
and Girls Clubs 3,000
Story Theater Company 3,000 Increased Production Costs 2,660
Story Theater Company 3,000 Shrek the Musical Free
Matinee 3,000
ACTORS 3,000
There’s Something Going on at
ACTORS – Music, Improv, etc. 1,641
Ames Town & Gown 1,500 Calmus Vocal Workshop 1,500
Total $ 17,040 $ 15,341
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the COTA special project grant contracts as recommended.
2. Refer the contracts to COTA for further information.
3. Do not approve the contracts.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
These projects help advance participation in and awareness of the arts in the Ames
community, which is a key goal of the Commission on the Arts. COTA has reviewed the
requests and has recommended the approval of the contracts now presented to the City
Council.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # ___13___
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING
LADDER TRUCK 3
BACKGROUND:
Fire apparatus are essential for structural firefighting. With excellent maintenance, front
line fire apparatus are able to ideally be used for a maximum of 15 years. After that time,
the City’s goal is to place the apparatus into a reserve status for an additional 10-15 years.
The City maintains one front line ladder truck, Truck 3, which is nearly 20 years of age.
Ladder Truck 3 is the City’s only aerial firefighting apparatus. In January of 2021, City
Council awarded a contract to Reliant Fire Apparatus, Inc. (Pierce) for the purchase of a
new ladder truck at a cost of $1,152,825.
The new ladder truck is expected sometime in early Spring 2022. Upon placing the new
ladder truck into service, the current Ladder Truck 3, will be refurbished and used
as a reserve unit, as identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). An
amount of $125,000 has been programmed in the CIP for this refurbishment.
Refurbishment work will include pump overhaul, valve and gauge replacement,
suspension replacement, new LED lights, replacement of electrical data cables,
replacement of ladder cables and pulleys, hydraulic cylinder rebuild, and testing and
certification of both the ladder and pump.
Refurbishing the truck and having it as a reserve unit will mitigate the need for assistance
from neighboring communities for unit stand-by when a ladder truck is out of service.
Additionally, it will provide the City with two fully equipped and capable ladder trucks that
can provide elevated rescue and water application.
The current ladder truck was built by and purchased from Pierce Manufacturing. In
investigating refurbishment possibilities, it was noted that some of the
components including the aerial device can only be refurbished by Pierce. Fleet
Services and the Fire Department determined that having one vendor work on the
entire refurbishment would lead to a better value and would make sure that all the
components work without conflict.
The City’s Purchasing Policies calls for formal bids for purchases over $50,000. Since
Pierce is the only vendor that can work on the major aerial device, staff is asking
that this be a sole source contract with Pierce. This process was used for the last
refurbishment on this truck in 2009.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a) Waive City’s formal bidding procedures and authorize a sole source contract
with Reliant Fire Apparatus, INC. (Pierce) for the refurbishment of Ladder Truck
#3.
b) Award the contract to Reliant Fire Apparatus, INC. (Pierce) for the
refurbishment of Ladder Truck #3 at a cost of $113,686.
2. Reject the contract to Reliant Fire Apparatus, INC. (Pierce) for the refurbishment
of Truck #3 and direct staff to renegotiate with the vender.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The refurbishment of Ladder Truck 3 would provide the City with two fully equipped aerial
apparatus capable of rescuing people from buildings three stories or higher, with the
ability to apply water from an elevated platform in any direction. The addition of a second
aerial apparatus in the fleet would mitigate the need for assistance from neighboring
communities for unit stand-by when a ladder truck is out of service.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1 A and B, as described above.
It should be emphasized that additional work might be necessary once
components of the apparatus are disassembled and additional work is identified.
1
ITEM#: 14
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2021/2022 PAVEMENT RESTORATION – SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM
BACKGROUND:
The Slurry Seal Program is an annual program applying a wide variety of preventative
and proactive maintenance techniques to preserve and enhance street pavements. The
techniques in this program are typically more specialized or larger in scope than can be
performed with City maintenance staff. Goals of the Slurry Seal Program are to level
joints and provide a new thin wearing surface for traffic, predominately on residential
streets with the disruption to residents typically no more than one day.
Staff has completed plans and specifications with estimated costs of $2 65,325.
There is $250,000 of Road Use Tax f unding allocated to this program annually in the
Capital Improvement Plan, which along with carryover savings leaves $326,632 in total
funds available for the project. Remaining revenue will be utilized for other pavement
restoration priorities. A list of proposed project locations is attached.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the 2021/2022 Pavement Restoration – Slurry Seal Program by
establishing January 19, 2022, as the date of letting and January 25, 2022, as the
date for the report of bids.
2. Direct staff to make changes to this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project will repair and extend the lifespan of the streets in the program and provided
a better travelling experience for users of the corridors and for those living in the
neighborhoods.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
2
2021/2022 PAVEMENT RESTORATION – SLURRY SEAL PROJECT LOCATIONS
Street Name and Location (Full Width Slurry) Estimated SY Actual SY
Burnett Avenue 16th th
TOTAL 59,275
Street Name and Location (Joint Leveling Slurry) Estimated LF Actual LF
TOTAL 35,000
1
ITEM#: 15
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2021/22 ASPHALT STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS – OPAL DR
(JEWEL DR TO CRYSTAL ST), OPAL CIR, HARCOURT DR (GARNET
DR TO JEWEL DR), TURQUOISE CIR, AND TOP-O-HOLLOW RD
(BLOOMINGTON RD TO DAWES DR)
BACKGROUND:
This is the annual program for reconstruction or rehabilitation of asphalt streets, typically
located with residential neighborhoods. Rehabilitation of existing asphalt streets is
possible where the base asphalt layer is solid, but the surface course has failed. Full-
depth replacement of these streets is necessary in cases of structural pavement failure.
This project is in the areas of Opal Dr, Opal Cir, Harcourt Dr, Turquoise Cir, and
Top-O-Hollow Rd.
During design phase, the plans were prepared following the Complete Street Plan.
When design was completed, the impact of the complete street plan implementation
(infill of sidewalk) was documented. On September 28, 2021, City Council directed
staff to complete the project design with no new sidewalk infill. Even without
sidewalk infill, sidewalk connectivity will still be provided utilizing existing sidewalks.
Staff sent letters to all residents/businesses and met with several property owners to
obtain input regarding staging, construction timing, and special access needs.
Comments were received and incorporated into the project design. Revenues and
expenses for this project are estimated as follows:
Source/Activity Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
TOTAL $ 2,515,000 $2,200,816.30
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the 2021/22 Asphalt Street Pavement
Improvements – (Opal Dr, Opal Cir, Harcourt Dr, Turquoise Cir, and Top-O-
Hollow Rd) Project and establish January 19, 2022, as the date of letting and
January 25, 2022, as the date for report of bids.
2. Direct staff to revise the project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approving these plans and specifications will result in lower street maintenance costs,
improve area drainage, and provide a better neighborhood aesthetic.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
1
ITEM#: 16
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2021/22 SEAL COAT STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS –
(STAFFORD AVE – E 13TH ST TO SOUTH END)
BACKGROUND:
This is the annual program for removal of built-up seal coat from streets with asphalt
surface. This program restores surface texture, corrects structural deficiencies, removes
built-up seal coat, and prevents deterioration of various streets. This resurfacing process
results in better riding surfaces, increased safety with improved surface texture, and
increased life expectancy of streets. This project includes the replacing existing
street pavement with 7” asphalt pavement, upgrading pedestrian facilities to meet
the current federal regulations, repairing storm/sanitary sewers, and replacing the
existing 4” water main with a new 8” water main. All the streets in this project have
existing sidewalk on both side of the street.
Staff sent letters to all residents/businesses and met with several property owners to
obtain input on staging, construction timing, and special access needs. Comments were
received and incorporated into the project design. City staff has completed plans and
specifications for this project. Revenue and expenses associated with this program are
estimated as follows:
Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the 2021/22 Seal Coat Street Pavement
Improvements – (Stafford Ave) Project and establish January 19, 2022, as the
date of letting and January 25, 2022, as the date for report of bids.
2. Direct staff to revise the project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approving these plans and specification will result in lower street maintenance costs,
improve area drainage, and provide a better neighborhood aesthetic.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
1
ITEM # 17
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2020/21 CITY HALL PARKING LOT EXPANSION
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Downtown Plaza project, the existing parking in Municipal Lot N will be
displaced and will need to be replaced elsewhere. Therefore, City Council authorized
funding in the amount of $700,000 to construct a new parking lot along 6th Street north
of City Hall and to add parking spaces in front of City Hall along Clark Avenue.
Bolton & Menk of Ames, Iowa, developed plans and specifications for the construction
of the new parking lot north of City Hall with an estimated budget as shown below:
Revenues Expenses
Total $700,000 Total $ 306,219.90
Savings from this project will be used as part of the Plaza project for the new parking
spaces along the west side of Clark Avenue in front of the City Hall.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the 2020/21 City Hall Parking Lot
Expansion project and establish January 19, 2022, as the date of letting with
January 25, 2022, as the date for report of bids.
2. D o not approve this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By approving these plans and specifications, it will be possible to move forward with the
parking lot expansion. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the
City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # 18
DATE:12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2021/22 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (UNIVERSITY BLVD & SOUTH
FOURTH STREET)
BACKGROUND:
The Traffic Signal Program is the annual program that provides for replacing older
traffic signals and for constructing new traffic signals. This will result in improved
visibility, reliability, and appearance of signals. This program also provides for
maintenance needs as well as traffic signal system upgrades as technology advances.
In recent years, improvements have included using video detection instead of in-
pavement loop detection systems that had previously been used and frequently failed.
Another advantage of the video detection system is that it detects bicycles in addition
to vehicles. This project includes traffic signal and pedestrian ramp replacement
at the intersection of University Boulevard and South Fourth Street.
W HKS of Ames, Iowa, developed plans and specifications with an estimated budget
as shown below:
Revenues Expenses
Total $ 459,000 Total $ 403,657.75
The $59,000 in Road Use Tax savings comes from the 2019/20 Traffic Signal Program
(Lincoln Way & Beach) and the 2020/21 Traffic Signal Program (S. Duff & S. 5th
Street) projects.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the 2021/22 Traffic Signal Program
(University Blvd & South Fourth Street) project and establish January 19,
2022 , as the date of letting with January 25, 2022, as the date for report of bids.
2. D o not approve this project.
2
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By approving these plans and specifications, it will be possible to improve an aging
traffic signal for residents using this intersection.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # 19
DATE:12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2020/21 SOUTH DAYTON IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND:
The South Dayton Gateway area of Ames has seen an increase in congestion over
the last several years. Economic growth in the South Bell Avenue industrial district, as
well as along SE 16th Street, has contributed to this congestion. The completion of the
northbound to westbound fly-over bridge at the Interstate 35/US 30 interchange has
made mitigating the congestion on South Dayton Avenue a priority to avoid impact on
US 30.
To address this congestion, capacity improvements are needed at the SE 16th Street
and South Dayton Avenue intersection as well as signalizing the ramp terminals at the
South Dayton Avenue and US 30 interchange. W HKS of Ames, Iowa, developed plans
and specifications with costs, as shown below:
Revenues Expenses
G.O. Bonds $ 700,000 Administration $ 65,000.00
U-STEP Grant funds 400,000 Design 86,100.00
21/22 Pavement Restoration 25,000 Construction (est) 721,875.21
Gridsmart Detection 62,172.00
Signal Cabinets 80,360.00
Signal Poles 78,348.00
Total $1,125,000 Total $1,093,855.21
The Iowa DOT Funding Agreement for $400,000 in U-STEP Grant funds has been prepared
and is attached.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a) Approve the Iowa DOT Agreement for $400,000 in U-STEP funding for the
2020/21 South Dayton Improvements project.
b) Approve the plans and specifications for the 2020/21 South Dayton
Improvements project and establish January 19, 2022, as the date of
letting with January 25, 2022, as the date for report of bids.
2. Reject the DOT Agreement and do not approve this project.
2
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By approving the DOT Agreement and the plans and specifications, it will be possible
to increase safety and improve operational efficiency of three intersections for
residents.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ITEM#: 20
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: RESOURCE RECOVERY PRIMARY SHREDDER ROTOR
REPLACEMENT
BACKGROUND:
The Resource Recovery Plant uses a Komptech Terminator 6000 SEF shredder to shred
municipal solid waste. Trash is shredded when the hydraulically driven rotor in the
shredder spins against the shredder door, which has offsetting teeth. This shredder is
vital to the operation of the Resource Recovery Plant.
The current shredder was installed in 2013. The original rotor for the Komptech was
replaced in 2017. The current rotor has over 10,000 hours of wear during four years of
operation and must be replaced.
The rotor is provided only by the original equipment manufacturer, Komptech USA, which
is the single source supplier of this item and will provide a replacement-in-kind. Hennen
Equipment, INC. from Shakopee, MN is the factory authorized dealer for Komptech and
will supply the replacement rotor. The cost of the rotor is $57,795.35 with an estimated
shipping cost of $2,000, for a total cost of $59,795,35.
Funding is available in the amount of $60,000 from the FY 2021/22 Resource Recovery
System Improvement Program ($50,000 from the primary mill planetary replacement,
which may be deferred; and $10,000 in available carry-over savings).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. A. Waive the Purchasing requirement for competitive bids, accepting Hennen
Equipment, INC (Komptech USA) as the single source supplier.
B. Award a contract in the amount of $59,795.35 to replace the primary shredder
rotor to Hennen Equipment, INC.
2. Delay repairs to the shredder.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This rotor is an integral part of the primary shredder, which is an essential piece of
equipment in operating the Resource Recovery Plant. The rotor requires routine
replacement, and there is only one supplier that can provide replacement-in-kind.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 A&B.
1
ITEM # ___21__
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MONITORING NETWORK
BACKGROUND:
Management of water pressure in distribution systems is fundamental to providing safe
drinking water. A loss of pressure can potentially allow ground water to contaminate the
system and pressure fluctuations within a distribution system can result in water main
breaks. By installing and monitoring a network of pressure sensors, treatment plant
operators and utility maintenance personnel will be able to detect and locate water main
breaks easier and more quickly, resulting in faster response times to isolate and repair
the break. Access to real-time data will also allow staff to better determine when a boil
water advisory is needed.
Currently, pressure monitoring is performed only at a small number of locations that are
connected to the Water Treatment Plant’s Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition
(SCADA) system. The Distribution System Monitoring Network would increase the
number of monitoring points to approximately two dozen locations. These
locations include pump stations, elevated tanks, critical water crossings, pressure
reducing valves, and the Water Treatment Plant. The Distribution System
Monitoring Network would also work independent of the Water Treatment Plant’s
SCADA system. This would allow Public Works staff access to the data/information
without compromising the security of the SCADA system.
On September 3, 2021, staff issued a Request for Proposals for the purchase of
equipment and necessary technical support for the Distribution System Monitoring
Network. Proposals were received through October 1, 2021. Four proposals were
received and scored by staff from the Water & Pollution Control and Public Works
Departments. Scoring was based on Cost, Understanding of the Project,
Experience/Qualifications, and Fulfillment of Technical Requirements. A summary of the
scoring is included below.
Staff believes that the proposal from Electric Pump as the option that provided the best
overall value to the City. Staff from both the Public Works and Water & Pollution Control
Departments have had positive outcomes working with Electric Pump on past projects
and expect similar results with this project. Negotiations of scope between Electric Pump
2
and the City resulted in the addition of one site to the network, changing six sites from
battery to utility power, and inclusion of six pressure monitors that can be moved
throughout the distribution system. These portable monitors would be used in areas that
have water pressure/quality concerns and areas that have a potential for pressure
concerns (i.e. large construction projects). These changes resulted in a cost increase of
$21,715 bringing the total cost to $232,375.
The FY 2021/22 CIP includes $985,000 for the Distribution System Monitoring Network.
The four proposals received were below the budgeted cost. Staff is anticipating a cost of
less than $100,000 for installation of the Distribution System Monitoring Network
equipment. This will likely be completed by a combination of City staff and contracted
labor.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award a contract for purchase of the Distribution System Monitoring Network
equipment and technical support to Electric Pump of Des Moines, IA. in the amount
of $232,375.
2. Do not award a contract at this time.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The addition of a Distribution System Monitoring Network has been identified in the capital
improvements plan and would provide critical data to the Water & Pollution Control and
Public Works Departments. The small number of sites that currently provide pressure
data limits the ability of staff to detect and locate water main breaks. Increasing the
amount of available data will help protect both water quality and distribution system
infrastructure.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as stated above.
1
ITEM#: 22
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CYRIDE BUS CAMERA SYSTEM AWARD OF CONTRACT
BACKGROUND:
All CyRide fixed route vehicles are equipped with a camera system that records multiple
areas inside and outside the vehicle. These systems provide safety verification, liability
protection, and help ensure a positive passenger experience while riding the bus.
CyRide last issued a request for proposal (RFP) for bus camera systems in 2016 and the
associated contract has expired. On October 13, 2021, CyRide staff, in coordination with
the Purchasing Department, issued an RFP with an initial response deadline of November
2. After vendor questions were answered, the due date of the RFP was amended to
November 9 to allow time for a thorough response from prospective partners.
Four responses were received and were ranked based on proposal costs, references,
and an overall evaluation of system functionality for CyRide. The results of that evaluation
are shown below.
Category Luminator
Overall System Evaluation 40% 2.81 2.82 3.33 3.61
Total System Cost 30% 3.00 1.08 2.01 2.85
Installation Costs 10% 0.92 0.80 0.94 1.00
References 20% 1.38 1.65 1.85 1.80
To ensure the final product would be a good match, a group of CyRide staff met with the
two highest-scored vendors to clarify details on hardware and software offerings. No
significant concerns were raised by staff about the top-scored proposer, and as a result,
the recommendation is to award the contract to Safety Vision.
The proposal from Safety Vision was determined to have the best overall value for
CyRide, including well-integrated hardware, a demonstrated ability to work with
CyRide’s current intelligent transportation system, and excellent video review
software. The Safety Vision system also has no ongoing licensing costs.
The RFP specified an initial purchase of twelve camera systems and the associated
installation services to equip new buses expected to arrive within the current fiscal year.
Funding for the initial purchase will come from a combination of bus grant utilization and
the $150,000 programmed for bus technology in the FY 2022 Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP). The contract period specified within the RFP is for one year, with the option to
2
renew the contract for up to three additional one-year periods. This was chosen to allow
CyRide to purchase additional bus camera systems as new buses are acquired or existing
equipment fails. Any additional equipment bought under the contract beyond the twelve
camera systems would be in coordination with the Purchasing Department and within CIP
approved amounts.
Award of the contract to Safety Vision was approved by the Transit Board at their
December 8, 2021 meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve award of contract to Safety Vision of Houston, Texas for an initial
purchase of $52,381.80, with the option to purchase additional equipment during
the contract period with relevant approvals. (See Attachment for list of bids)
2. Direct staff to proceed according to City Council priorities.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Award of the contract will allow CyRide to continue equipping vehicles with needed
camera systems at the best possible value for the organization.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1.
Bid Tabulation
Responding Vendor System Cost Installation Cost
Angle Trax $2,582.95 $1,200.00 $83.33 / Vehicle / Year
Luminator $6,104.73 $1,381.00 $2,215.50 / Vehicle One Time
Safe Fleet $4,165.00 $1,177.00 $64.00 / Vehicle / Year
Safety Vision $3,157.65 $1,105.84 $0.00 / Vehicle / Year
ITEM#: 23
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CYRIDE RECONDITIONED REPLACEMENT ENGINE AWARD OF
CONTRACT
BACKGROUND:
CyRide purchased fifteen 40’ heavy-duty buses in 2010 equipped with Cummins ISL
engines. These vehicles are now 11 years old with an average mileage of over 270,000
miles. The engines in buses 419, 420, 421, and 422 are experiencing excessive
crankcase pressure due to cylinder wear and these buses have been removed from
regular daily service. After evaluating repair options maintenance personnel have
determined these engines need to be replaced and that purchasing reconditioned engines
will provide the best value for CyRide. Reconditioned engines are remanufactured by the
original equipment manufacturer and provide a like-new engine with a two-year warranty.
CyRide’s mechanics would provide the labor to install the reconditioned engines.
On November 24, 2021, CyRide staff, in coordination with the Purchasing Department,
issued a request for quotation (RFQ) No. 2022-065. Bids were due on December 3, 2021.
The RFQ required respondents to provide the cost of the base engine, shipping, and “core
costs” that will be returned to CyRide when the used engine is returned to the successful
bidder. CyRide received three bids in response to the RFQ. After evaluating responses,
MHC Kenworth of Des Moines, Iowa was identified as the lowest bidder. The bids
received are summarized in the table below, with a complete bid tabulation attached to
the board packet.
Bidder
Cummins Inc. $ 122,046.04 $ 22,500.00 $ 0.00 $ 144,546.04
MHC Kenworth $ 108,643.64 $ 20,700.04 $ 0.00 $ 129,343.68
O’Halloran International $ 112,256.48 $ 26,910.00 $ 0.00 $ 139,166.48
CyRide currently has budgeted four reconditioned engines within the annual parts budget.
Staff has evaluated the parts budget and determined that the purchase of all four
reconditioned engines will not exceed the budgeted amount.
Award of the contract to MHC Kenworth was approved by the Transit Board at their
December 8, 2021 meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve award of contract for the purchase of four reconditioned engines to
MHC Kenworth of Des Moines, Iowa for a total cost of $129,343.68.
2. Reject all bids and direct staff to proceed according to City Council priorities.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Award of this contract will enable CyRide to make needed repairs to the four buses
mentioned above and return them to regular in-service usage. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1.
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
mike.adair@cityofames.org
RFQ No. 2022-065
BIDDERS
MHC Kenworth - Des Moines $27,160.91 $5,175.01 $129,343.68 10 Days
O'Halloran International, Inc.$28,064.12 $6,727.50 $139,166.48 10 Days
Cummins Inc.$30,511.51 $5,625.00 $144,546.04 7-10 Days
LEAD TIME:
Reconditioned
Engine Cost:
Vehicle 419, 420,
421, 422 TOTAL COST:
Core Cost Per
Engine
ITEM: _ 24 _
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2018/19 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION (SIPHON)
BACKGROUND:
This is the annual program for rehabilitation/reconstruction of deficient sanitary sewers
and deteriorated manholes at various locations throughout the City. The goal of this
program is to identify and remove major sources of inflow/infiltration as a means of
lowering the peak wet weather flow at the treatment plant. On October 8, 2019, City
Council awarded the contract to Synergy Contracting, LLC of Bondurant, Iowa in
the amount of $1,440,778.
Public Works received a request from Synergy Contracting, LLC to reduce the
amount of project retainage, which is currently $70,465.19. The project is
substantially complete, with only minimal remaining work, including installation of
fiberglass grating and miscellaneous work (punch list items) throughout the project.
The remaining work has an estimated value of $14,093.08. There is a requirement
that a minimum of 200% of the value of the work remaining must be withheld as
retainage, which would be $28,186.16. This request meets criteria of Section 26.13 of
the Code of Iowa for substantial completion of the project. All paperwork required per the
Code of Iowa to approve the request has been received by the Public Works Department.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Reduce project retainage for the 2018/19 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation (Siphon)
project to $28,186.16.
2. Maintain project retainage for the 2018/19 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation (Siphon)
project in the amount of $70,465.39.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The value of remaining work on this sanitary sewer rehabilitation project is substantially
less than the original contract, and the Code of Iowa requires the City to reduce the
retainage being withheld under these circumstances to reflect the lower value of the
remaining work.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ITEM#: 25
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: US HIGHWAY 69 IMPROVEMENTS – LINCOLN WAY (DUFF AVENUE
TO GILCHRIST STREET)
BACKGROUND:
The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) designed, bid, and constructed an overlay
of Lincoln Way between Duff Avenue and Gilchrist Street (US 69) in late 2019. City staff
worked with the IDOT to repair curb and gutter and storm sewer intakes along the corridor,
and to upgrade vehicle detection for the signals at Kellogg Avenue/Lincoln Way and Clark
Avenue/Lincoln Way. These portions of infrastructure are the responsibility of the City of
Ames, even though IDOT is responsible for the roadway.
The IDOT has finalized this project and billed the City for its share of the project
costs in the amount of $64,006.10. In accordance with City Purchasing Policies and
Procedures, expenditures over $50,000 must be approved by City Council. Funding for
this work is available in the FY 2019/20 US Highway 69 Improvements CIP program in
the amount of $50,000 to cover the curb and storm sewer repairs. Additional funding in
the amount of $15,000 for the vehicle detection upgrades has been identified in savings
in the Accessibility Enhancement Program, bringing total available funding to $65,000.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the payment of $64,006.10 to the Iowa Department of Transportation for
the City’s share of costs in the US Highway 69 Improvements – Lincoln Way (Duff
Avenue to Gilchrist Street) project.
2. Direct staff to work with the Iowa Department of Transportation to make changes
to this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project is complete, and funding identified to pay for the City’s share of cost for the
reconstruction. This reconstruction project provides a smoother driving surface and
upgraded vehicle detection at intersections for users of this busy corridor.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
1
ITEM#: 26
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2020/2021 PAVEMENT RESTORATION – SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM
BACKGROUND:
The Slurry Seal Program is an annual program applying a wide variety of preventative
and proactive maintenance techniques to preserve and enhance street pavements. The
techniques in this program are typically more specialized or larger in scope than can
be performed with City maintenance staff. The goals of the Slurry Seal Program are to
level joints and provide a new thin wearing surface for traffic, which will extend the
lifespan of these local streets.
On January 12, 2021, City Council awarded this project to Fort Dodge Asphalt Company
of Fort Dodge, Iowa in the amount of $202,885.40. There was one change order
(balancing change order) for the project which was a deduction in the amount of
$4,348.80. Work was completed in the amount of $198,536.60. A list of completed
project locations is attached.
There is $250,000 of Road Use Tax f unding allocated to this program annually in the
Capital Improvement Plan, which along with carryover savings, provided $525,169 in
total funds available for the project. The remaining revenue of $326,632 will be utilized
for the 2021/2022 Pavement Restoration – Slurry Seal Program.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the 2020/21 Pavement Restoration – Slurry Seal Program project as
completed by Fort Dodge Asphalt Company of Fort Dodge, IA in the amount of
$198,536.60.
2. Direct staff to make changes to this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project has been completed on time and withing the approved budget. The repairs
have extended the lifespan of the City streets in the program and provided a better
travelling experience for users of the corridors and those living the in the
neighborhoods.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
2
2020/2021 PAVEMENT RESTORATION – SLURRY SEAL PROJECT LOCATIONS
Street Name and Location (Full Width Slurry) Estimated SY Actual SY
Carroll Avenue E 13th to E 14th St 1,085
Carroll Avenue E 14th to E 16th St 2,540
Carroll Avenue E 16th to Duff Ave 1,845
Paulson Drive E 20th to George Allen Ave 1,540
Paulson Drive George Allen to
1,635
George Allen Avenue Maxwell to E 20th 2,280
Wilson Avenue 16th to 20th 4,120
E 24th Street Duff to Dead End 3,810
Roosevelt Avenue 16th to Narland 2,025
Stanton Avenue Storm to Dead End 710
Gray Avenue Sunset to Greeley St 2,530
Greeley Street Beach to Pearson Ave 3,255
Story Street Colorado to Wilmoth Ave 1,280
Story Street Wilmoth to Howard Ave 2,700
Lynn Avenue Storm to Dead End 710
Pearson Avenue Country Club to Sunset
4,400
Westwood Drive Story to Woodland St 2,365
Hawthorne Avenue Oakland to Woodland St 1,700
Ellis Street Hillcrest to dead end 2,000
Hillcrest Street West to Woodland St 1,110
Edison Street Carnegie to Whitney Ave 2,250
Stafford Avenue E 13th to dead end 2,935
Agg Avenue West Leg 675
Kildee Street Beach to Country Club 2,745
Coolidge Avenue
Bel Aire to 20th 5,260
Mary Circle 755
Briarwood Place 650
Oliver Avenue Woodland to Circle 3,085
TOTAL 59,185
Street Name and Location (Joint Leveling Slurry) Estimated LF Actual LF
Various Locations throughout Ames 15,000
TOTAL 15,000
1
ITEM # 27
DATE 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2020/21 SEAL COAT STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
(FRANKLIN AVE)
BACKGROUND:
The Seal Coat Street Pavement Improvements Program is the annual program for the
removal of deteriorated seal coat pavements and replacement with a new pavement
surface. Built-up seal coat on streets causes excess crown which results in vehicles
dragging at driveway entrances This replacement results in reduced maintenance
costs, increased safety with improved surface texture/ride, and increased pavement life
expectancy. This project included the replacement of the existing street pavement
with seven inches of asphalt pavement, upgraded pedestrian facilities to meet
the current federal regulations, and storm/sanitary sewer spot repair and
replacement.
On August 25, 2020, City Council awarded the project to Manatt’s Inc., of Ames, Iowa,
in the amount of $946,841.53. Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,640 was to
replace a sanitary service line from the main to back of curb that was discovered during
installation of a new manhole. Change Order No. 2 (balancing) was to reflect the actual
measured quantities completed during construction, with a net contract deduction of
($19,990.61) Thus, final construction of the projected was completed in the
amount of $929,490.92
Funding Source
Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
Franklin Ave Construction (Actual) (this contract) $ 929,490.92
th
TOTAL $1,245,000 $1,244,262.97
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the 2020/21 Seal Coat Street Pavement Improvements (Franklin Ave) as
completed by Manatt’s Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $929,490.92
2. Direct staff to pursue modifications to the project.
2
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project was completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
adopt Alternative No. 1.
1
ITEM # ___28__
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: POWER PLANT MAINTENANCE SERVICES - CONTRACT
COMPLETION FOR ANDERSON PROCESS & INSTRUMENTATION
SOLUTIONS, LLC
BACKGROUND
The Electric Utility has two gas-fired, high-pressure steam generation units within the
City’s Power Plant, referred to as Units No. 7 and 8. These units require regular
professional maintenance and repair. This consists of both emergency and planned
repairs and service. Services include a large variety of boiler maintenance and repairs,
structural steel, pump and piping work, and other miscellaneous mechanical Power
Plant work. The repair of the equipment on these generation units requires professional
trade crafts such as laborers, millwrights, and steam/pipe fitters.
On August 18, 2020, City Council awarded a contract for Power Plant Maintenance
Services to Anderson Process & Instrumentation Solutions LLC of Haverhill, Iowa in the
amount of $125,000, plus $8,750 in applicable sales tax. The work under this contract is
now complete and the work is ready to be accepted and the contract closed.
There were two change orders to the Anderson Process & Instrumentation
Solutions LLC contract.
Change Order #1: When it became apparent that a contract would not be awarded under
the separate RDF Bin Capital Improvement Plan project due to excessive construction
costs, staff needed to complete specific repairs to the RDF bin to make it safe and reliable
until the larger RDF bin overhaul project could be reissued. These critical repairs were
assigned to API under this existing contract.
To accomplish the critical work in the RDF bin, Change Order #1 was approved by Council
on December 8, 2020, to increase the purchase order by $443,889.50 (inclusive of Iowa
sales tax) for materials and work needed for the repairs to the RDF bin. The repairs
completed by API will reduce the scope of work that later needs to be completed through
the RDF Bin Repair CIP project.
Change Order #2: On April 23, 2021, a change order was approved to increase the
purchase order by $25,000 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax) for additional work needed for the
repairs to the RDF bin.
All of the requirements of the contract have been met by Anderson Process &
Instrumentation Solutions LLC and the Engineer has provided a certificate of
completion.
2
Final expenditures to Anderson Process & Instrumentation Solutions LLC, Marshalltown,
IA, in the total amount of $602,639.50 (inclusive of sales tax).
The approved FY 2020/21 Power Plant operating budget included $125,000 for this
contract. The remaining funds to cover the Change Orders came from the Power Plant’s
FY 2020/21 RDF Bin Maintenance Account ($300,000), savings from the FY 2020/21
Water Treatment Operations Account ($143,889.50), and from the FY 2021/22 RDF Bin
Maintenance Account ($33,750).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept completion of the contract with Anderson Process & Instrumentation
Solutions LLC of Haverhill, Iowa for the Power Plant Maintenance Services.
2. Delay acceptance of this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The contractor for the Power Plant Maintenance Services has completed the work under
the contract, and the City is obligated to issue formal closure of the contract.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Engineering 515.239.5404 Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010
Phone 515-239-5160 ♦ Fax 515-239-5404
December 9, 2021
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Scenic Valley 6th Addition Financial Security Reduction #1
Letter of Credit on File: $523,253.00
Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify that the following activities required as a condition for approval of the final plat
of Scenic Valley 6th Addition have been completed in an acceptable manner by Ames Trenching
Inc, and Mannatts Inc.
1.Stormwater Sewer System
2.Pavement, Hot Mix Asphalt, Base, 6”
3.Conventional Seeding, Fertilizing and Mulching
4.Stabilized Construction Entrance
The above-mentioned improvements have been inspected by the Engineering Division of the
Public Works Department of the City of Ames, Iowa, and found to meet City specifications and
standards.
As a result of this certification, it is recommended that the financial security for public
improvements on file with the City for this subdivision be reduced to $204,061.00. The
remaining work covered by this financial security includes earthwork, final paving, pedestrian
ramps, sidewalks, COSESCO, streetlights and street trees.
Sincerely,
John C. Joiner, P.E.
Director
JJ/cc
cc: Finance, Planning & Housing, Subdivision file
Item No. 29
Scenic Valley 6th Addition
December 9, 2021
Page 2
Scenic Valley 6th Addition Financial Security Reduction #1
Public improvements inspected and accepted
item STORMWATER Unit Qty
TOTAL PRICES OF WORKS INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED FOR REDUCTION 1: $319,192.00
1
ITEM #: 30
DATE: 12-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN KNOWN AS AMES
PLAN 2040.
BACKGROUND:
Ames Plan 2040 is designed around the City Council’s evaluation of growth scenarios
that addressed housing, commercial, and employment growth related to a population
increase of 15,000 people over the next 20 years. The Plan includes Vision Statements
concerning Growth; Land Use; Environment; Open Space; Transportation;
Neighborhoods, Housing, and Sub Areas; and Community Character to address not only
the planned growth but also continued investment for the existing areas of the City. The
Plan intentionally includes policies that tie land use, transportation, and environmental
issues together to address common interests related to the design of the community and
appropriate uses throughout the community.
While the Plan includes defined growth areas for the expansion of the City, it also includes
a policy framework for infill options and redevelopment areas. Not all the growth will occur
at the periphery of the City; targeted areas will be intensified to provide for additional
housing and economic development options over the life of the Plan. The Plan also
includes basic policy for management of the 2-mile urban fringe area of the City, including
areas designated as Urban Reserve in order to preserve opportunities for future growth
of the City. Overall, the Plan is structured as a values-based plan with policies and
objectives that provide for a great amount of latitude in its implementation, both through
updates to City development standards as well as future land use and zoning changes.
The specific Principles and supporting policies within each Element are designed to guide
future policy decisions for the City, related to planning and zoning issues of the City’s
growth and reinvestment within the existing areas of the City. The Plan is designed to
coordinate issues of land use, transportation, community, character, environment, parks
and trails together to address the City’s overall goals for community investment as well
as its growth and expansion. Plan 2040 is directly connected to the City’s Complete
Streets Policy, Forward 45 Transportation Plan, Parks Master Plan, and other
infrastructure plans. The Plan includes a placeholder to address climate change issues
in more detail as the City’s community-wide Climate Action Plan is developed over the
next 18 months.
The Plan contemplates the addition of 15,000 people to the community in a pattern of
expansion and targeted infill opportunities. The Land Use Map embodies land use
designations that are designed to capture the character of areas as well as development
and land use requirements that are traditionally described for a City. Development and
other activities in the City are required to conform the Land Use Map designations. At this
time, the Plan includes cross-references to existing Zoning Districts as they relate to the
land use designations; however, in many cases the current zoning districts do not reach
the vision of the Plan and will be modified as part of the implementation of the Plan to
more fully realize the vision of the Plan. The land use compatibility discussion of the Land
Use Element was removed from the Chapter and moved to the Implementation Chapter
to note it is advisory guidance on zoning compatibility and development attributes.
On August 24th, City Council directed staff to finalize the public draft of Ames Plan 2040
and seek public feedback during the month of September. The Plan was made available
online at www.cityofames.org/amesplan2040 and promoted through social media
channels, press releases, city newsletter, and email notification to the interested parties
list of approximately 335 emails addresses. Staff held on online overview presentation via
ZOOM and an in person drop-in open house at the Ames Public Library. The Planning
and Zoning Commission held a discussion on September 15th and its comments were
forwarded to the City Council for consideration as well. Approximately 30 individual
correspondences were received during the initial comment period and presented to the
City Council at its October 12, 2021 meeting.
On October 26th, City Council reviewed the feedback and suggested changes. The City
Council report and attachments can be viewed at this link for October 26th. City Council
directed staff to move forward with the Plan with only minor adjustments:
1. Adjustments to mapping of certain designations;
2. Clarifying that the “natural area” designations are informational and not intended
to be site specific delineations; and
3. Preparation of an Implementation Chapter for administration of the Plan with
specific priorities for subsequent actions related to implementation of the Plan.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The proposed Ames Plan 2040 is Attachment A to this report. Attachment B is a Future
Land Use map excerpt from the Plan. Attachment C is four proposed changes to the
Future Land Use map that were not discussed in October that reflect existing conditions.
Note these changes shown in Attachment C are already represented within Attachment
B.
The new content for the final draft of Plan is the Implementation Chapter. The
Implementation Chapter addresses three main points of focus. It identifies three
categories of implementation priorities as was discussed with City Council in October, a
consolidated list of principles, policies, and actions, and the advisory land use
compatibility matrix that was previously part of the Land Use Chapter. The implementation
categories focus on Infrastructure Planning as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP), additional Plans and Sub-area planning, and updates to Zoning and Subdivision
Development standards. Ultimately, City Council will use this chapter and the described
priorities to inform choices on City initiatives, such as the Planning and Housing
Department’s workplan.
Infrastructure planning requires coordination of development improvements and city
infrastructure extensions to serve identified growth areas. The City will use its current 5-
year CIP process and incorporate planning for desired or needed infrastructure. This
process will start with the upcoming FY22-23 budget process.
The Plans and Sub-areas category includes a diverse set of issues related to updating
plans related to the Urban Fringe, Parks Master Plan, Beautification and Gateways, and
Bicycle and Pedestrian improvements. Not all of these plans are part of the work
responsibilities of the Planning and Housing Department, and they will be undertaken by
the respective Departments. Additionally, there will be a need for more precise
neighborhood or district level plans identified as Redirection Areas. These areas will
include a review of land use and development issues at a finer scale than was able to be
done at the level of community comprehensive plan. Some of these areas may require
adoption of a new sub-area plans to guide significant change or in some cases for smaller
areas it may only require adjustments to zoning or development standards. Not all of the
redevelopment opportunities and redirection areas will get addressed at one time.
The category of development standards for zoning and subdivision will be a significant
component of implementing the Plan. Staff does not propose at this time to rewrite the
Zoning Ordinance in its entirety, but instead to adjust zoning standards as needed and
create new zoning districts to fit the character of areas and desired uses for areas as
described with the land use designations. The Subdivision Code will require substantial
changes in terminology and standards to reflect the intent of the Complete Streets policy
of the City.
The Implementation Chapter also addresses administration of the plan, this includes
interpretations, amendments, and regular review of the Plan. Amendments to the Plan
are contemplated to occur over the life of the Plan. Amendments to the principles, policies,
land use designations, land use maps, or other policy components of the Plan would
require a formal review. The current Plan categorizes changes as major or minor and
establishes distinct processes regarding outreach and notification for each type. Staff has
proposed the use of the Major and Minor amendment process with Plan 2040 that is
similar to the categories of amendments included within the current LUPP.
The Minor Amendment process is very similar to the current process and would include
a requirement for public notification and outreach. The Major Amendment process
approaches major changes with a similar perspective to that of the current LUPP, but has
a less prescriptive process related to outreach and evaluation of the scope of an
amendment. Consideration of land use options, public outreach, and notification are still
key components of a Major Amendment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to make a recommendation
on approval of the Plan at its December 1, 2021 meeting. No one from the public was
present at the meeting. The Commission reviewed the Plan and proposed
Implementation Chapter with a draft Appendix A for administration of the Plan. The
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the Plan and include the administration
provisions of Appendix A into the Plan. Note that the draft Appendix A has been
incorporated into Implementation Chapter for the final Plan.
With adoption of Plan 2040, the current Land Use Policy Plan will not longer be in effect
and have any bearing on the land use policy decisions of the City. However, the current
LUPP also includes the Ames Urban Fringe that address policies and process related to
subdivision within the 2 mile Fringe of the City. The City currently has a 28-E agreement
with Story County and Gilbert regarding administration of subdivisions in this area. Story
County notified the City Council approximately a year ago of their desire to update the
planning for the Fringe and City Council approved an extension of the agreement to July
2022.
Staff believes that City Council should establish that it will follow the 28-E agreement for
subdivision procedures within the two-mile fringe during the life of the agreement through
July. The process for cancelling the agreement and defaulting to the policies of Ames
Plan 2040 would take a similar amount of time. Staff plans to present a cooperative
approach with Story County to the City Council in January about an update to the Fringe
Plan. Working on an update with Story County and to include Boone County is one of
the highest implementation priorities of the Plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. City Council may adopt a resolution:
a. Approving a new comprehensive plan known as Ames Plan 2040,
Attachment A, and the proposed Future Land Use Map shown in
Attachment B.
b. Recognizing that the Ames Urban Fringe Plan with its associated 28E
agreement between Story County and Gilbert shall remain in effect for
administration of two-mile fringe until August 1, 2022, with the exception
that the City will consider annexation requests consistent with the Future
Land Use Map of Ames Plan 2040 for the south and west expansion of the
City without requiring amendments to the Fringe Plan.
2. The City Council may direct modifications to the Plan prior to adoption.
3. Defer action on this item and request more information from staff.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed Plan 2040 provides a great amount of flexibility for the City of Ames to
adapt to changing circumstances as it grows over the next 20 years. The Plan works to
coordinate multiple City plans into a cohesive vision and policy document that will facilitate
desired growth of the community and enhancements to the community. City Council will
prioritize implementation measures through the City’s established planning processes,
including the Capital Improvements Program and Department Workplans.
Due to the existing 28-E agreement for the Ames Urban Fringe, it is necessary to address
how Plan 2040 extraterritorial policies apply in the near term. The current agreement is
set to expire in July 2022. Staff recommends recognizing that the current Fringe Plan
and its administration will continue as is for the remainder of the life of the 28-E
agreement.
Therefore, the City Manager recommends that the City Council support Alternative
#1a. & #1b as described above.
D E C E M B E R > > 2 0 2 1
R D G P L A N N I N G & D E S I G N
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
03 >> PREFACE
09 >> DISCOVER
PLAN ELEMENTS
28 >> GROWTH & LAND USE
31 >> GROWTH
43 >> LAND USE
49 >> FUTURE LAND USE MAP
68 >> URBAN FRINGE
72 >> ENVIRONMENT
83 >> PARKS, TRAILS, & GREENWAYS
93 >> MOBILITY
103 >> NEIGHBORHOODS, HOUSING & SUBAREAS
116 >> COMMUNITY CHARACTER
IMPLEMENTATION
124 >> SUMMARY
PREFACE
4 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N P R E F A C E
AMES PLAN 2040
On behalf of the Ames City Council and the City of Ames
planning staff, I want to thank the hundreds of individuals who
contributed their ideas and feedback by attending meetings,
reaching out to city leaders and staff, and participating online.
All of our City Council’s workshops and meetings were streamed
online and recorded to allow people to learn about the project
and see how their contributions influenced presentations,
discussions, and ultimately the Ames 2040 Plan.
Interwoven with Ames Plan 2040 is our recently approved
Forward 45 a long- range transportation plan, and once
completed, the recently initiated Climate Action Plan will be
integrated as appropriate and warranted.
Through your continued involvement in the community, and
active engagement with the planning process, Ames will continue
to be the Smart Choice community for decades to come.
Respectfully,
John A. Haila
Mayor, City of Ames
5 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N P R E F A C E
City Staff
Steve Schainker | City Manager
Kelly Diekmann | Planning and Housing Director
Eloise Sahlstrom | Planner
Tracy Peterson | Municipal Engineer
Damion Pregitzer | City Traffic Engineer
Keith Abraham | Parks and Recreation Director
Consultant Team
RDG Planning & Design
www.RDGUSA.com
HDR, Inc.
www.HDRINC.com
Gruen Gruen + Associates
www.GGASSOC.com
The Land
The starting point and history of
the City of Ames begins with land
acknowledgment. Predating the
establishment of Iowa State University
or the City of Ames, this area was the
ancestral lands and territory of the Baxoje
(bah-kho-dzhe), or Ioway Nation. The
United States obtained the land from
the Meskwaki and Sauk nations in the
Treaty of 1842. We wish to recognize our
obligations to this land and the people
who took care of it, as well as the 17,000
Native people who live in Iowa today.
Source: Iowa State University
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mayor and City Council
John Haila | Mayor
Gloria J. Betcher | Ward 1
Tim Gartin | Ward 2
David Martin | Ward 3
Rachel Junck | Ward 4
Amber Corrieri | At-Large
Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen | At Large
Trevor Poundstone | Ex-Officio
Chris Nelson | Ward 4, former
Planning and Zoning Commission
Michael Clayton
Jon Emery
Ruth Hulstrom
Anuprit Minhas
Doug Ragaller
Kayonna Topp
Carol Spencer, former
6 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N P R E F A C E
POLICY FRAMEWORK
VISION
The Vision was crafted early in the process of preparing Ames Plan 2040 based upon
initial public input and discussion with the City Council. The Vision helps set the tone
for the community and as the guiding principle for preparing Ames Plan 2040.
“An evolving city that will not only grow outwardly, but also invest in existing areas and
support change within the community that ensures Ames is an inclusive, thriving, and vital
community with a diverse economy, environmentally sustainable practices, and a high
quality of living that meets the needs of both current and future residents.”
DISCOVER
The Discover section includes a recap of the planning process and background research
that influences future decision-making, such as understanding that the community may
grow by 15,000 people between 2020 and 2040. The public engagement process led to
four Unifying Themes that are ever- present through all of the elements.
PLAN ELEMENTS
The Plan Elements section addresses topical areas or “elements” of the plan. Each
element begins with a Vision Statement followed by Guiding Principles and Actions
to achieve the vision. Each element includes contextual information and a conditions
snapshot of 2020.
»Growth & Land Use
»Environment
»Parks, Trails, & Greenways
»Mobility
»Neighborhoods, Housing & Subareas
»Community Character
Role of a Comprehensive Plan
The Ames Plan 2040 has two
fundamental purposes:
1. The first provides an essential legal
basis for land use regulation.
2. Secondly, a comprehensive plan presents
a unified and compelling vision for a
community, derived from the aspirations
of its citizens; and establishes the policies
necessary to fulfill that vision.
Additionally, Iowa Code 18B lists 10 smart
planning principles used as the overarching
values that the plan embodies.
1. Collaboration
2. Efficiency, Transparency, and Consistency
3. Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy
4. Occupational Diversity
5. Revitalization
6. Housing Diversity
7. Community Character
8. Natural Resource and Agricultural
Protection
9. Sustainable Design
10. Transportation Diversity
VISION // AMES 2040
AN EVOLVING CITY THAT WILL NOT ONLY GROW
OUTWARDLY, BUT ALSO INVEST IN EXISTING
AREAS AND SUPPORT CHANGE WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY THAT ENSURES AMES IS AN
INCLUSIVE, THRIVING, AND VITAL COMMUNITY
WITH A DIVERSE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES, AND A HIGH
QUALITY OF LIVING THAT MEETS THE NEEDS
OF BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS.
8 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N P R E F A C E
Unifying Themes
Unifying themes that apply throughout
the plan include inclusivity, sustainability,
health, and choices.
»Inclusivity. The people of Ames
are the City’s greatest asset, and
initiatives in this Plan intend to
improve everyone’s quality of life.
»Sustainability. Sustainability relates to
environment, economy, and the City’s
ability to service current and emerging
needs of people for decades to come.
Sustainability is braided throughout
the plan and notably prioritized
within the environment chapter.
»Health. As the City improves, so should
the physical well-being of the people
who live in it. Policies for growth,
transportation, recreation, are all relate
to the overall well-being of its citizens.
»Choices. Choices relate to having
options for housing, mobility, jobs,
businesses, activities, and supporting
a wide range of interests and
opportunities in the community.
VISION
From the overall Community Vision, Ames Plan 2040 takes steps to refine priorities at a more detailed
level that address specific topics (elements) within the Plan. The individual elements include vision
statements to outline the purpose for each.
Growth & Land Use Vision
An evolving city that takes a balanced, environmentally sustainable approach to growth
and development.
Environment Vision
Stewardship that supports a sustainable community, economy, natural resources, and living
environment.
Parks, Trails, & Greenway Vision
Open space and recreation facilities that support the physical and social well-being of the community.
Mobility Vision
A well connected, context-sensitive transportation system that provides for the safety and comfort
of all users.
Neighborhoods, Housing & Subareas Vision
New development and redevelopment choices that address specific needs of the community for
housing, economic development, infrastructure enhancements, and City programs.
Community Character Vision
Aesthetic and design improvements that support a spirit of community, respect Ames’ heritage, and
create new high quality buildings and spaces to build upon our character.
SUSTAINABILITY
HEALTH
INCLUSIVITY
CHOICES
9 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 9 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
DISCOVER
10 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
PLANNING PROCESS
Planning Process Overview
Early input from the community was organized
into themes that framed the structure of the
Ames Plan 2040 and guidance for future
initiatives. As the process diagram shows on
the next page, input and feedback relied on the
following activities:
»Public Open House Kick-off Events
»City Council Workshops and Meetings
»City Council Public Forums
»Focus Group Discussions
»Public Pop-up Stations at ISU Campus
»Public Open House & Design Studio
»Online Questionnaires
Discussions covered broad topics including
population change, land use, housing, economy,
mobility, infrastructure, parks and open spaces,
community facilities, and more. Public input
provided during the process is hosted on the
City’s website and helped guide the policies and
actions within each element.
WWW.CITYOFAMES.ORG/AMESPLAN2040
11 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
PLANNING PROCESS
Online Questionnaire | 500+ Participants Concept Development
February 21
Focus Groups
February 25 February 25
Public Kick-off Event #2
@ ISU Research Park
56
6
17
35 February 26-28
Focus Groups
~50 ~10March 7
ISU Engagement Event
March 14
Neighborhoods Event
April 2 + 23
City Council Events
Conditions Recap
Scenario Approach
December 18
Council Event
Kick-off Meeting
May 28
Design Studio
February 5
Public Event
Kick-off Meeting
Concept Development + Refinement Online Feedback - Mapping Tool
City Completing Infrastructure Models Infrastructure Testing
Conditions Report Submitted Engagement Summary Report Submitted
July 16
City Council Event
Growth Concepts
August 22
Public Open House
Future Land Use
Subareas Input
September 23
City Council Event
Plan Approach
December 4+19
City Council Event
Land Use
Transportation
Infrastructure
~50
JUNE OCTOBER NOVEMBER
Refined Scenarios Publication Report Online Feedback
January 7
City Council Event
Open Public Forum
February
City Council Event
Housing + Neighborhoods
April 21
City Council Event
Land Use Map
May 19
City Council Event
Parks + Environment
June 16
City Council Event
Character + Themes
July
City Council Work
Session
MARCH
Covid-19 Pandemic
PUBLIC EVENTS DISCUSSION GROUPS DRAFT ELEMENTS
2018 2019
2020 2021
Campus Pop-ups (4)
186
ONLINEPARTICIPANTS#
12 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
2017 PREDICTED VS. ESTIMATED POPULATION
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC
POPULATION CHANGE 1960–2017
This section examines demographic and
economic trends that affect Ames. The analysis
examines population and demographic
dynamics, including future population and
important regional issues that will affect the
quality of the City’s environment.
Population Change
The following information presents important
changes in the characteristics and dynamics of
Ames’ population.
»Ames experienced strong growth rates
over the past 60 years with overall growth
of 140%. During this same period, the
state of Iowa grew at a rate of 14%.
An effective way of understanding population
changes is to use standard birth and death rates
to predict the way a population would change,
absent any migration, and then to compare the
prediction to actual change. The 2017 predicted
population is based on 2010 Census data.
»The community as a whole also saw a net out-
migration (residents moving out of Ames). The
predicted population for 2017 was 65,544, but
the estimated actual population was 65,005.
»A factor in the prediction is the student
population that leaves after graduation and
therefore is not around to start families.
CHANGES IN AGE COMPOSITION
AGE GROUP 2000 2010 CHANGE 2000-2010 % CHANGE 2017 CHANGE 2010-2017
0-14 6,140 6,756 616 9.4%6,688 -68
15-19 6,880 7,611 731 10.6%10,383 2772
20-24 14,700 17,475 2,775 22.6%19,164 1689
25-34 7,192 9,087 1,895 11.1%8,807 -280
35-44 4,851 4,427 -424 7.5%4,983 556
45-54 4,435 4,501 66 6.8%4,395 -106
55-64 2,640 4,334 1,694 4.1%4,498 164
65-74 1,957 2,417 460 3.0%3,274 857
75-84 1,363 1,643 280 2.1%2,081 438
85+573 714 141 0.9%732 18
TOTAL 50,731 58,965 8,234 100%65,005 6,040
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010
*Changes from 2000-2010 are more accurate using data from the full count. To provide a more recent picture, 2017 data is shown, which uses an estimate and is less reliable.
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
0-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
A
G
E
C
O
H
O
R
T
2017 Estimate 2017 Predicted
0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
80K
90K
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017
#
O
F
P
E
O
P
L
E
49,327
62,783
72,326 74,252
79,981
50,731
29,950 30,577
58,965
89,542
95,888
65,005
30,883
47,198
27,054
45,775
26,551
39,505
23,278
27,003
22,324
Ames Population Balance of County PopulationStory County Population
13 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
Age/Sex Distribution
The demographics of Ames is fairly consistent
with a community that is home to a large
university. The median age of 23 years old
reflects the high percentage of students. Overall,
the age group breakdown has remained steady
since 2000.
»The largest share of the population (29%),
attributed to students at Iowa State
University, is the 20-24 year old age group.
»A slight increase occurred in the share of the
population well into their retirement years,
reflecting Baby Boomers moving into their
retirement years. This is offset by a decrease in
the population between the ages of 35 and 64.
The distributions between males and females in
Ames is about even; with 53% males and 47%
females. This ratio is similar to the ISU student
population.
Race and Ethnicity
Ames is becoming more diverse. Changes
observed between the 2010 Census counts and
2017 estimates of population show:
»The white population in Ames dropped
from almost 85% to just below 79%.
»The Asian population living in
Ames rose from 9% to 14%.
»Populations share of American Indian, Black,
and other races have remained steady.
»The Hispanic population has remained
fairly stable, rising only 0.2% compared
to the state change of 0.9%.
POPULATION BY AGE
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC
2 0 1 7
0–14
15–19
20–24
45–54
55–64
65–74
75+
2 0 0 0
0–14
15–19
20–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65–74
75+
12%
13%
29%
10%
14%
9%
5%
4%
4%
10%
16%
29%
8%
14%
7%
7%
5%
4%
25–34
35–44
14 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S D I S C O V E R
Student Population Trend
The student population at Iowa State University
plays a significant role in the growth of Ames.
Some characteristics of the University’s student
population include:
»The student population will generally not remain
in the community to have additional children,
but will replace itself on an annual basis.
»After nearly a decade of growth, indications are
that enrollment will start to stabilize in the short-
term. National and state demographics show that
Millennials are moving out of their college years
and the generation behind them is not as large.
DIVERSITY OF ISU STUDENT POPULATION
ISU STUDENT POPULATION CHANGE 2000–2018
Source: Iowa State University
POPULATION AND UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT Source: Iowa State University
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC
0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
1980 1990 2000 2002 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
45
,
7
7
5
47
,
1
9
8
50
,
7
3
1
51
,
1
9
9
52
,
6
5
7
56
,
1
8
3
59
,
0
5
8
60
,
4
4
0
61
,
4
2
7
63
,
0
5
3
64
,
7
7
3
65
,
6
8
5
65
,
9
1
5
66
,
3
0
1
24
,
2
6
8
25
,
3
3
9
26
,
8
4
5
27
,
8
9
8
25
,
7
4
1
26
,
8
5
6
28
,
6
8
2
29
,
8
8
7
31
,
0
4
0
33
,
2
4
1
34
,
7
3
2
36
,
0
0
1
36
,
6
6
0
35
,
9
9
3
66
,
0
0
1
66
,
2
5
8
34
,
9
9
2
33
,
3
9
1
Current Land Use
Policy Plan LUPP
ISU
Enrollment
Ames Total
Population
#
O
F
P
E
O
P
L
E
33,591
20K
22K
24K
26K
28K
30K
32K
34K
2000 2010 2016 2019
#
O
F
P
E
O
P
L
E
26,845
28,682
36K
36,660
International or Minority
Student Population
25%
Male Student
Population
57%
Female Student
Population
43%
15 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
Community School Districts
The City of Ames Planning area has five
community school districts (CSD): including
Ames CSD, Nevada CSD, Gilbert CSD, United
CSD, and Ballard CSD. The City’s scenario
evaluations for Plan 2040 and the selected
growth Tiers identify growth primarily affecting
Ames, Gilbert, and United School Districts.
Long-term growth could occur within Ballard
and Nevada Districts as well.
»Ames Community School District had an up and
down decade of enrollment with recent increases
back to a certified enrollment of 4,352 students
in 2020.
ACSD operates six schools for PK-5th grade,
one middle school, and one high school.
ACSD recently completed renovations and
construction of new schools in the last decade.
The new high school will open in fall 2022.
»Gilbert Community School District’s enrollment
has had a steady increase from 1241 students
in 2010 to over 1548 students in 2019. This
growth was fueled by a large amount of new
residential development within its boundaries.
Gilbert operates four school buildings to meet
its enrollment needs, all located within Gilbert.
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC
COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
16 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
Employment Review
Ames has a unique economy with the influence
of Iowa State University and proximity to the
Des Moines metropolitan region. Employment
is experiencing about a 1% annual growth, but
about 50% of the jobs are filled by people who
reside outside the county. The unemployment
rate has been on a downward trend since 2010
and was estimated at 3.1% in the 2017 American
Community Survey. The Bureau of Labor and
Statistics estimated the April 2019 county
unemployment rate was 1.3%.
The number of establishments with 20-100
employees is growing, as are establishments
with over 250 employees. The total number of
jobs estimated in 2015 by U.S. Census Bureau
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
Program (LEHD) was 35,400. The ratio of jobs
in the city to total housing units has remained
stable as employment and housing inventory
have grown (1.47 in 2007 to about 1.41 by
2015). Ames’ job-housing balance is within the
range of 1.3 to 1.7 jobs per housing unit, which
is considered a balanced jobs and housing
relationship.
Competitive Advantages:
»Iowa State University
»Vacant non-residential land for development
»Lower costs of land and building space
than Ankeny and Des Moines
»Retail and commerce hub
»Well-educated and skilled labor base
Constraints:
»Limited supply of shovel-ready sites
»Limited available housing stock
»Limited demand to support
speculative building space
Employment Growth (2005-2017):
»Professional and business
services gained 1,321 jobs
»Education and healthcare gained 1,138 jobs
»Finance, insurance, and real
estate gained 1,020 jobs
»Manufacturing and wholesale
trade gained 1,034 jobs
»Leisure and hospitality gained 892 jobs
*Half within seven buildings
**Little commercial space available
ECONOMICCLUSTERS
Education
Farm Product Wholesalers
Chemical
Printing Manufacturing
ECONOMICGROWTH FIELDS
Education
Farm Product Wholesalers
Chemical
Printing Manufacturing
LABOR SHED
Trade, transportation, and
utilities get workers from
outside Story County
LABOR FORCE
Grew at a higher rate
than the population
Balanced jobs and
housing ratio
SPACE BUILTSINCE 2010
O ce – 13%
Industrial – 5%*
Retail – 10%**
EMPLOYMENTDISTRIBUTION
Shift occurring
from small to
large businesses
AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH 2001-2017
METRO AREA RATE
Ames, IA 0.88
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 0.3
Pittsburgh, PA 0.4
St. Louis, MO-IL 0.5
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 0.7
Kansas City, MO-KS 0.9
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 0.9
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 0.9
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 1.0
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 1.6
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis; Gruen Gruen + Associates
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis; Gruen Gruen + Associates
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC
17 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
Population Projections
Establishing a population forecast for Ames
is complicated by the student population—
comprised of locals, newcomers, and
international students— which impacts the
ability to identify the permanent population,
on which future population gains should be
calculated. Important to note is that not all
enrolled students at ISU live in Ames. Many
students (approximately 10-20% between
2010-2019) commute into Ames for classes or
participate virtually.
The methodology used to determine the
permanent population was to exclude 90%
of the student population. This recognizes
the low retention rates for the majority of the
student population while also recognizing
that Ames likely retains a small share of the
full-time students with local connections or
attending as non-traditional students. Based
on this methodology, it is estimated the city’s
permanent population is approximately 37,340.
Three annual growth rates were developed to
project the final population based on historical
trends and future market understanding from
stakeholder discussions, ISU plans, and regional
demand. A rate of 1.5% is carried forward to
project land use needs. This annual growth
rate is just above the historical growth in Ames
between 1990 and 2010.
Building off the base population of 37,340 and
the assumption that the city has the potential to
capture more growth, including students, at a
rate of 1.5% annually, Ames should reach a total
population of 79,772 by 2040.
2040 PROJECTED POPULATIONS BY GROWTH RATE
PROJECTED POPULATION, 2017-2040
2017 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Projected Permanent Population
1.0% ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 37,470 38,606 40,575 42,645 44,820 47,106
1.5% ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 37,470 39,182 42,210 45,472 48,987 52,772
2.0% ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 37,470 39,764 43,902 48,472 53,517 59,087
Projected Population Plus 2017 Student population
1.0% ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 65,005 65,606 67,575 69,645 71,820 74,106
1.5% ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 65,005 66,182 69,210 72,472 75,987 79,772
2.0% ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 65,005 66,764 70,902 75,472 80,517 86,087
Source: US Census Bureau; ISU; RDG Planning & Design, 2019
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC
1%1.5%2%
74,106
79,772
86,087
18 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
Construction Activity
Construction activity has been growing
significantly since 2011. While multifamily
construction has grown steadily, single-family
development has remained constant and
relatively low for a city the size of Ames. There
was a relatively short period of stagnation after
the 2008 recession; however, Ames’ housing
market quickly recovered. These trends are
not uncommon in university communities in
recent years.
As seen in the Subdivision Growth map on the
following page, residential growth in recent
years has been primarily to the northwest and
west, with some subdivisions established in the
last 18 years in the southwest.
New construction is pushing in all directions
but is limited in the east by the South Skunk
River and industrial areas before reaching I-35.
Southern growth has also been limited due to
land holdings of the University.
Older homes are concentrated at the core,
primarily to the northeast of the University;
however, another pocket of older homes is
located to the south and west of the University.
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Source: City of Ames
people per household
2.3
average annual construction
3874,639
units built 2007-2018
share of new multifamily units
76.8%
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC
127 70 61 58 58 70 126 89 89 105 125 96
116 201
95
356 279
286
446
359
459
625
343
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
U
N
I
T
S
B
U
I
L
T
Single-Family Multifamily
19 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC
SUBDIVISION GROWTH, 1900-2018
1900 and Older
1901-1930
1931-1950
1951-1980
1981-2000
2001 and Newer
20 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
CURRENT LAND USE BREAKDOWN
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: PHYSICAL
This section introduces the existing physical
trends in Ames, including land use trends,
infrastructure, public facilities and projected
land needs based on 20-year population growth.
Land Use
Land use is the central element of a
comprehensive plan because it establishes the
overall physical configuration of the city—the
mix and location of uses and the nature of
community systems that support them. The
land use plan is a statement of policy public
and private decision makers depend on it to
guide individual actions such as land purchases,
project design, and review and approval
processes.
Residential
»In Ames, 41% of developed land is residential.
In most communities, residential land makes
up the largest share of developed land;
however, the acreage devoted to Iowa State
University tips the balance towards civic.
»Of the residential land in the city, approximately
80% is dedicated to single-family use only,
16% multifamily, and 4% in 2-4 unit buildings
which may include single-family conversions.
Commercial
»Several commercial/office clusters are
dispersed throughout Ames; however,
only about half are within walking distance
of a residential neighborhood.
»Downtown is home to many commercial
uses including restaurants, bars, shops
and offices. Due to the destination quality
of this district, the number and diversity
of uses, and the constant state of change,
the district is defined by its location rather
than classified by its individual land uses.
23%
Vacant
Residential
CommercialIndustrial
Agriculture
Right
of Way
Civic
Uses
RESIDENTIAL
40%
7%
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL
CIVIC USES
40%
13%
23%
12%
20%
10%
23%
8%4%
DEVELOPED LAND USE BREAKDOWN
Industrial
»The majority of industrial land is located
along Interstate 35 to maximize mobility
and access to a larger labor force.
»The intensity and impact of industrial uses
can vary greatly, but these are essential
to a healthy and vibrant community.
»The ISU Research Park is a unique
economic opportunity within the
City and for the state overall.
Civic
»Civic uses include government facilities,
university grounds, airport, public and quasi-
public parks, schools, and religious facilities
such as churches and cemeteries. In Ames,
civic uses comprise 43% of all developed land,
not unusual for a city with a major university.
»Parks account for the greatest share of civic
uses (18%), with ISU following at 11%.
21 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: PHYSICAL
EXISTING LAND USE, 2019
Agriculture
Park/Open Space
Civic
University
Residential
Commercial/Office
Light Industrial
Industrial
Vacant
22 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
SCENERIO ANALYSIS - PROJECTED LAND NEEDS Projected Land Needs
Communities can grow in a number of different
ways, ranging from sprawling suburban styles
to compact, walkable urban areas. For Ames,
projections for future development were
created to estimate the necessary acreage
for residential, commercial, and industrial land
by 2040. These scenarios provide a range of
development options geared towards a more
efficient pattern of growth accommodating the
projected 1.5% annual growth rate, resulting in
almost 15,000 new residents by 2040. More
information on scenario analysis and tiers are
included in the Land Use Element.
To project the commercial and industrial land
needs, the population proportion method was
used which applies a ratio of the projected
population to the current acreage devoted to
each use. As a result, both scenarios will require
an estimated 156 acres of industrial land. A
range of land use efficiency factors were applied
to the commercial land projections because a
higher density scenario will have more efficient
patterns of residential development leading to
more efficient commercial development (mixed
use, walkable) than the medium or a low-density
scenario. The graphic to the right illustrates the
land needs and how they were estimated for
the two scenarios. The City selected a hybrid
approach with the final tiers.
Medium-Intensity Scenario
In the medium-density scenario, the share of
low-density residential is reduced from current
rates of 80% to 45%, leaving room to increase
medium and high-density shares.
Overall this would require a total of 1,257 acres
of residential land. The following are housing
types for each density level:
»Low-Density: conventional single-family detached
»Medium-Density: small lot single-family detached,
single-family attached and townhomes
»High-Density: small multifamily and
multifamily typically in the 3-4 story range
»Total commercial land needed in the
medium-density scenario is approximately
150 acres, which assumes some commercial
and retail developments in mixed use
structures and districts, with some traditional
standalone commercial areas, as well.
High-Intensity Scenario
A much larger share of residential use is
allocated towards medium and high-density
levels in this scenario than is currently the case.
Accommodates a growing population with
less residential land needed (1,028 total acres),
reducing the cost to the city for infrastructure
upgrades and service extensions. The following
are housing types for each density level:
»Low-Density: conventional single-family detached
(low-density), small-lot single-family detached,
single-family attached and townhomes.
»Medium-Density: small multifamily.
»High-Density: 4-story or taller multifamily.
»Total commercial land needed in the high-
density scenario is only 127 acres because
more commercial and retail developments
will be in mixed use structures and districts,
than standalone commercial areas.
Source: RDG Planning & Design, 2019
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: PHYSICAL
Share of Demand
# of Units
M E D I U M D E N S I T Y
H I G H D E N S I T Y
Units/Acre
Acres Needed
45% 30% 25%
2,868 1,912 1,240
3 8 25
956 239 62 150 156
Share of Demand
# of Units
Units/Acre
Acres Needed
30% 35% 35%
1,911 2,230 2,230
3 8 25
637 279 112 127 156
23 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
Infrastructure Review
Infrastructure is just as essential to urban life
as municipal and public safety facilities. The
expanse of infrastructure provided by the City
of Ames and partnered organizations is wide,
however with the growth of the city in terms
of both population and new development,
these systems are in need of maintenance and
expansion.
The City maintains operation and capital plans
for continued monitoring of needs as the
community grows and changes. The Ames
Plan 2040 provides a common set of growth
expectations for the City to plan around and
respond to needs. Services considered in this
section include:
»Municipal Facilities
»Public Safety
»Water
»Sanitary Sewer
»Storm Sewer
In addition to the services listed above, there
are four separate electric providers including
Ames Electric, natural gas by Alliant Energy,
and multiple broadband companies serving
the community that are not addressed in the
chapter.
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: PHYSICAL
Municipal Facilities
The City of Ames is a full-service community
providing a wide range of municipal services
directly and jointly with other entities. Some of
the more notable City facilities include:
»City Hall. Located Downtown in the original
Ames High School building, built in 1938. The
building was renovated in 1990 to become City
Hall and house most administrative staff.
»Community Center. Recreational space attached
to City Hall, including the City Auditorium.
»City Library. Newly constructed
facility opened in 2014.
»Parks and Recreation Facilities. In addition to
administrative and maintenance facilities, the
City has an Ice Arena operated jointly with ISU
and its own municipal golf course with a new
clubhouse and meeting space built in 2020.
»Ames Resource Recovery Plant. The Resource
Recovery Plant was built in 1975 as the first
municipally owned and operated waste-to-
energy facility in the nation. The plant sorts
waste for the entire county and provides refuse
derived fuel for the Ames power plant.
»Municipal Airport. Municipally owned
airport for private and charter aviation
needs located in south Ames. The facility
is operated under contract with a third
party operator. The Terminal building was
recently constructed and opened in 2017.
»Fleet and Maintenance. In east Ames
the City maintains fleet services and
storage of Public Works equipment.
Public Safety
The Ames Fire Department consists of full-time
professional fire fighters and administrative
support positions. Ames Fire provides for a
number of services to the community, including
EMS (Emergency Medical Service), fire
suppression, inspections, rescue, and hazardous
materials response. Ames Fire responds to
all calls within the City, including contracted
service with ISU, and has mutual aid agreements
with surrounding fire departments. In total, the
response area is approximately 25.35 miles. The
City has three fire stations located at:
»1300 Burnett Avenue (Station 1/HQ)
»132 Welch Avenue (Station 2)
»2400 S. Duff Avenue (Station 3)
The Ames Police Department serves the entire
community’s public safety needs, with the
exception of ISU properties. ISU operates its
own police force serving the needs of people
located on campus. The City and ISU have
joint jurisdiction and mutual aid agreement for
seamless police protection within the City.
The Police Department is a combination
of sworn officers and other personnel. The
Department provides for dispatch, regular
patrol, community resource officers, parking
enforcement, and investigations. The City of
Ames police station is located Downtown within
City Hall.
24 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
WATER MAIN DIAMETER
6" or less
8"
10" to 12"
15" to 18"
21" to 30"
Water Infrastructure
The City of Ames water supply is provided by
ground water wells located primarily in the east
part of the City. The Ames Water Treatment
facility opened in 2017 and was designed for 15.0
Million Gallons per Day (MGD) of finished water
capacity to serve residential and commercial
needs. The current average daily operation is 5.7
MGD with a maximum day of 9.5 MGD.
The distribution system consists of
approximately 260 miles of water main and
three water towers. The City operates the
distribution system with two pressure zones.
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: PHYSICAL
25 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I N T R O D U C T I O N D I S C O V E R
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The current water pollution control facility
has been in operation since 1989. The plant
treats 12.6 million to 15.7 million gallons per
day. Hydraulic modeling in 2012 identified the
maximum hydraulic capacity to be 26.4 million
gallons per day with four raw wastewater pumps
operating in conjunction with all downstream
unit processes in service. However, normal Ames
WPCF operation diverts peak flows approaching
20.4 million gallons per day to flow equalization
basins with a volume of 4.4 million gallons
during elevated Skunk River elevations and/or
localized precipitation events.
The projections shown in the WPCF Nutrient
Reduction Feasibility Study demonstrate the
facility will be able to meet maximum month
flow through 2040.
SANITARY SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE
SANITARY SEWER DIAMETER
4" or less
6" to 12"
15" to 24"
27" to 42"
45" to 66"
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: PHYSICAL
26 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S D I S C O V E R
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
Storm Sewer Infrastructure
Storm sewers are critical to managing runoff
after rain events or snow melt. Most of the
community is serviced by storm sewer
infrastructure, which empties into local
waterways. Storm sewers are designed to
convey runoff from typical smaller storm events
and do not convey water at the same rate for
larger storm events. Recently the City has taken
on projects for adding rain gardens, support
for private on-site retention, public storm water
detention facilities, and upgrades to existing
storm sewer lines.
Ames has a regulated stormwater program with
a stormwater permit from the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources to discharge stormwater
to the water of the State. Through this permit,
the City of Ames works to reduce the impact
the community has on waterways in the area
through a number of programs.
The City has mandatory storm water treatment
requirements for new development and employs
other best management practices in existing
neighborhoods and throughout the watersheds
to improve water quality. The City also invests
in measures that minimize infiltration of storm
water runoff into the sanitary sewer system, to
prevent it from being conveyed to the treatment
plant unnecessarily.
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: PHYSICAL
STORM SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE
STORMWATER SEWER DIAMETER
4" or less
6" to 12"
15" to 24"
27" to 42"
45" to 66"
72" to 108"
PLAN ELEMENTS
J U LY > > 2 0 2 1
28 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH & LAND USE
VISION // AMES 2040
AN EVOLVING CITY THAT TAKES A BALANCED,
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE APPROACH
TO GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
30
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH & LAND USE
Introduction
The Growth & Land Use section of Ames Plan
2040 establishes and elaborates on the City’s
development vision. While city development
is a complex interplay of different systems –
transportation, market demands, sewer lines,
water mains, utilities, drainageways, topography,
and environment – what is built on or above
the ground generally defines how we view and
experience our neighborhoods and city. The use
of land and the types of structures that are built
on it are the chief concerns of this chapter.
The Discover chapter projects the number of
people who will call Ames home by the year
2040. This analysis, based on both past trends
and potential future growth rates, suggests
the city’s population could increase by 15,000
people during the next twenty years. The overall
challenge then is how to accommodate the
City’s present and future growth in ways that
create the most efficient, connected, rewarding,
delightful, and equitable community possible for
current and future residents. This chapter takes
up that challenge by providing a framework for
the city development decisions that will help
Ames meet that challenge during the next two
decades.
The evolution of cities is a long process. This
Plan must also look beyond the twenty-year
planning “horizon.” Ames will not stop growing
and evolving in 2040. The actions and decisions
made today will affect the character and
efficiency of the city well beyond that year.
Decisions made over a century ago provide
the neighborhoods, parks, greenways, and
institutions that continue to make Ames a
great city for its residents. And to be fair, some
of those decisions also created obstacles or
problems that we continue to live with and
work around.
Two Policy Dimensions
Ames will accommodate a projected population
of 80,000 by 2040. The homes, businesses,
industries, parks, and institutions that support
this future community will locate in both new
areas that are currently undeveloped (typically
referred to as “greenfields”) and the currently
built-up city as redevelopment and infill.
A process that defines where these new
development areas are determines the physical
extent of Ames and in some ways its future
form.
Its principles and its policies are guided by such
factors as efficiency, quality, access, and market
considerations and is described in the following
discussion under the category of GROWTH.
The majority of the 2040 population
(approximately 85%) will live, shop, work, and
play within the City’s presently developed areas.
Most will live in existing neighborhoods; some
will live in areas that redevelop with different
buildings and land uses, or on “infill” sites that
make use of unused or underused land within
the existing boundary. A key to the ability of the
existing city to serve its people is identifying and
preserving its character and assets while also
addressing new interests. Policies that define
and preserve desired patterns of land
use and urban character in both the existing
built-up community and projected new
development are grouped together under the
category of LAND USE.
31
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH: GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Guiding Principles of Growth
G1: Sustainable Growth. The vision is for
new growth to be both economically and
environmentally sustainable. This encompasses
housing densities that minimize the footprint
of growth and reduce service cost per unit;
maximum use of existing infrastructure; new
investments that have citywide benefits; and
preservation of environmental assets.
G2: Contiguous Greenfield Development.
Ames will accommodate much of its projected
population growth in areas contiguous to
the existing built-up city. During the Plan
2040 process, the City identified alternative
contiguous Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas as most
readily able to serve the projected growth in
population and employment. Providing multiple
opportunity areas creates choices that support
a variety of needs of a growing community.
G3: Infill that Enhances Urban Fabric. Ames
will take advantage of existing infill sites within
the existing urbanized area to increase both the
efficiency and quality of its urban environment.
Infill development may change the types and
intensities of land use and introduce new
building forms. Larger areas planned for change
are described as redirection or redevelopment
areas. As such, it requires an assessment
of community needs and character of the
surrounding area to guide planning and policy
decisions on specific changes.
G4: Quality Urban Experience. The City
endeavors to provide urban and suburban
experiences that suit a variety of interests. All
new development areas will be supportive of
a healthy and safe urban environment to be
enjoyed by all residents. New growth will include
a planned diverse mix of housing and include
or provide good access to trails, public parks
and open space, services, and commercial
development. Quality of design, including
building architecture and relationships to its
surrounding, along with improvements to the
public realm, are key components of an urban
experience and a attractiveness of suburban
locations.
G5: Review and Approval Process. The
ongoing land use planning process defines
priorities and policies, while development review
affirms consistency with specific standards
that implement these policies. Decisions will
be made through a transparent, collaborative
process that includes stakeholders, and moves
toward solutions that are compatible with long-
term community goals. This process should be
viewed by all parties as fair and reliable.
G6: Planning for Equity. Ames will continue to
grow in diversity of its people and jobs during
the next twenty years. Equity with growth
requires consideration of the needs of a diverse
population. This includes adding affordable
housing, multiple housing types, and market-
based price points, supporting economic
growth, expanding transportation choice,
providing accessible institutions and services,
and maintaining a variety of amenities.
32
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH: POLICY FRAMEWORK
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
Ames new growth will be both economically
and environmentally sustainable.
G1-1. Establish a minimum gross residential density
target of 6.0 units/acre for each new development
area. Within districts, mix residential development
types to produce this minimum target.
G1-2. Establish a minimum net residential density
in new single-family subdivisions or development
projects of 3.75 units/acre. Medium and higher
density developments shall incorporate 10 units
per net acre or greater. Through master planning,
establish corridors and centers that encourage higher
densities. Encourage integration over separation
of different housing types within a development.
G1-3. Maximize use of existing infrastructure,
focusing on incremental extensions to reduce
added cost of services per unit of development.
Use the Capital Improvement Plan to identify and
implement upgrades of existing infrastructure
needed to support growth and infill.
G1-4. Incorporate transportation system planning and
service levels into project design and development
decisions. Include connections to adjacent
existing and planned development and provide for
alternative transportation modes. See also Mobility
G1-5. Encourage mixed uses, identify locations for
focused growth, and provide efficient transportation
routes to key community destinations. Minimize
community-wide vehicle miles traveled with planned
locations for services and jobs related to housing.
G1-6. Avoid project development in
environmentally sensitive areas when feasible.
Incorporate appropriate buffers, mitigation,
and conservation design techniques when
required to maintain environmental assets.
G1-7. Incorporate growth-related measures
identified by the Ames Climate Action Plan into
this Plan. See also Environment Chapter.
CONTIGUOUS GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT
Ames will accommodate much of its
projected population growth in areas
contiguous to the existing built-up city.
G2-1. Provide a choice in the residential market and
reduce the distance to major employment and activity
centers by distributing growth in multiple directions.
G2-2. Within designated growth areas, place
development priority in the following sequence:
»Areas in all directions contiguous to existing
development that can be served by existing
infrastructure or by relatively low-cost extensions.
»Areas within the urban services area that
require significant infrastructure extensions
or new facilities that will facilitate service to a
broad area or number of different properties.
G2-3. Use the Capital Improvement Plan
in conjunction with specific Development
Agreements to identify, and implement needed
upgrades and extensions of infrastructure
to support new growth and infill.
G2-4. Use Future Land Use Map to define areas
for growth and change and desired development
options to meet housing and economic
development goals. See also Land Use Map.
G2-5. Include higher-density nodes for commercial
and housing that are easily accessible within
each growth area and have adequate density
to support public transportation service.
G2-6. Continue to meet or exceed national
standards for flood plain development protection
requirements. See also Environment Chapter.
G1-8. Support existing commercial areas and
incorporate employment and economic development
initiatives and sites into growth area planning.
»Use economic development and recruitment
strategies for non-resource intensive
uses and for development that expands
or supplements economic choices in the
City. See also Environmental Chapter.
»Future retail and commercial uses will be
impacted by changing trends for online ordering
and delivery of foods, and many businesses
will operate in a hybrid manner of in-store and
online. As more information is known about these
trends, review zoning standards and practices
to address distinctions between primarily in-
store retail needs and location for delivery based
commercial. This may include review of parking
standards, loading areas, pedestrian oriented
design requirements, and commercial use
definitions. See also Growth & Land Use Chapter.
»Continue efforts for the Downtown and Lincoln
Way Corridor to expand in person shopping,
nightlife, and other types of experiences as an
amenity and economic development tool.
»Recognize Campustown as a small business
opportunity area for local and home grown
businesses that support student life around
ISU, but also as an important commercial
center that can benefit the broader
community that sustains small businesses.
»Plan for needs related to small businesses,
start ups, and creative entrepreneurial
activities. This can include reuse of existing
buildings, blocks, or even creating whole
districts for mixed use maker space, innovation
districts, and artisan crafts and goods.
33
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
INFILL THAT ENHANCES URBAN FABRIC
Ames will take advantage of infill sites within
the existing urbanized area to increase both the
efficiency and quality of its urban environment.
G3-1. Identify infill properties and areas within
the existing built-up area, focusing on sites that
are 1) vacant and buildable; 2) underutilized or
sporadically developed; 3) occupied by unnecessary
parking, storage yards, or other paved areas;
and 4) blighting influences in neighborhoods.
G3-2. Coordinate infill development with
the capacity of existing infrastructure.
G3-3. Make smooth transitions in scale and
intensity of use from pre-existing context to higher
intensity development. Support high-density
redevelopment only in planned or targeted land
use redirection areas. Use prevailing density
as the guide for redevelopment but allow for
building variations to meet infill objectives.
G3-4. Establish design standards and guidelines for
individual infill sites that are compatible with the scale
of surrounding neighborhoods or other urban design
factors. In specific areas, planned increases in intensity
of use will determine increased height and an urban
form, but still include architectural design quality.
G3-5. Include within infill projects missing
transportation and trail links necessary
to complete system continuity.
Scale. Infill development often introduces new
and sometimes bigger buildings and different
architectural styles into an existing area. Good
infill design minimizes the conflicts that these
changes can sometimes create with adjacent
properties. For example, a three-story building
can step down when it is adjacent to a one-
or two- story building, or lower buildings
would be located along the adjacent edge.
Densities or footprint of buildings might also
“step down” at these boundary conditions.
The actual context helps determine the best
way to minimize conflicts at these transitions.
QUALITY URBAN EXPERIENCE
New development areas will support
a healthy and safe urban environment
to be enjoyed by all residents.
G4-1. Within new development areas, provide
public spaces that promote positive interaction
(e.g. parks, gardens, trails) and private amenity
spaces that support social engagement and
interaction (e.g. commercial plazas, outdoor
space, clubhouses, walking trails).
G4-2. Incorporate activity centers like
neighborhood commercial development or
include placemaking features to add character
and interest to new development.
G4-3. Include features such as sidewalks, short
street crossings, and connected street/trail design
that promote accessibility to people of all ages.
Avoid placement of routine elements that create
barriers for people with reduced mobility.
G4-4. Provide clear local connections to the
community trail and path system. Encourage clear
paths and wayfinding techniques that direct people
to destinations such as schools, activity nodes, and
trail access points. Use trails as part of an active
transportation system. See also Parks Chapter.
G4-5. Consider innovative street designs such as
woonerfs that slow vehicular traffic and create
opportunities for shared outdoor space.
G4-6. Recognize Complete Streets
typology templates in street design and
streetscape features that are also context
sensitive to the surrounding land use.
GROWTH: POLICY FRAMEWORK
34
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH: POLICY FRAMEWORK
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
Land use decisions will be made through
a transparent, collaborative process.
G5-1. Work with local interests and other stakeholders
to develop sub-area or specific plans that focus on
development details for districts and neighborhoods.
G5-2. Apply guidelines and processes in
advance that increase the level of predictability
to all parties in the development process.
G5-3. Encourage and expedite collaborative
contacts and relationships in sensitive
contexts between project developers and
neighbors and other stakeholders.
G5-4. Continue Ames’ tradition of inviting
community participation at Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council meetings. Use
technology to open access and participation
in the development decision process.
G5-5. Require sufficient detail in master planned
development and subdivisions to provide
prospective property owners with information
about the future use of undeveloped or latter
phase sites and future public improvements.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY
The City will work to include the diverse
voices, opinions, and needs of the range
of residents who call Ames home.
G6-1. Use the land use map and housing policies to
support low income and diverse housing choices.
Consider options for integration of housing choices
within new developments, such as inclusionary
housing standards and incentives in zoning that
encourage builders and developers to develop a range
of housing types, occupancy forms, and price points.
G6-2. Continue to seek diverse membership on
appointed boards that address planning, land
use, development, parks, and neighborhood
preservation issues. This includes factors related to
demographics, income levels, business members,
and residential representations from across the City.
G6-3. Continue to assess needs and serve
all parts of the City with quality public
services, parks, and civic facilities.
G6-4. Work with CyRide and other
transportation providers to provide access
to emerging employment centers.
35
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH SCENARIO: DIRECTIONS
Growth and future public investment policy
should provide adequate choice of locations for
future development while remaining consistent
with the Guiding Principles set forth in this
chapter. Processes used to identify and evaluate
potential growth areas, and provide a sequence
for efficient growth guide this plan and provides
a template for considering future growth priority
areas outside of current projections.
Identify Growth Areas. The planning period
begins with an initial review of the Ames urban
services area (the area capable of being served
by gravity flow into the Ames wastewater
treatment facility). This review was based
on past planning efforts, community input,
environmental features, existing land use
patterns, future growth prospects, infrastructure
capacity, and market trends. It identified five
potential growth regions which, while different,
share characteristics that include:
»Location within Ames urban services area.
»Adequate area to accommodate all or
a significant part of Ames’ projected
population growth to 2040.
»Reasonable proximity to the edge of Ames’
current urban development and potential
connection to existing infrastructure.
»Ability to accommodate a mix of
residential densities and land uses.
»Potential access and linkage to the
city’s park and trail network.
In addition, properties owned by Iowa State
University were not included as areas for
potential urban expansion. While the previous
Land Use Policy Plan considered urban
development of some ISU lands, these sites are
specifically excluded in this analysis.
ABOVE: Composite distribution of major infrastructure. Proximity to
major infrastructure reduces the cost of extension and is a significant
criterion for evaluating different potential growth areas.
RIGHT: Six candidate areas emerged from the preliminary review,
using the criteria described here. Five were evaluated in more detail.
A sixth, the Southeast Expansion area, was considered too far away
from Ames’ established development directions to warrant detailed
evaluation for this planning period, but would have merit in the future
with development to the south.
WATER MAIN DIAMETER
6" or less
8"
10" to 12"
15" to 18"
21" to 30"
SANITARY SEWER DIAMETER
4" or less
6" to 12"
15" to 24"
27" to 42"
45" to 66"
STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
4" or less
6" to 12"
15" to 24"
27" to 42"
45" to 66"
1% Annual Flood Chance
0.2% Annual Flood Chance
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES
36
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH SCENARIO: DIRECTIONS
EAST
NORTH
WEST
SOUTHWEST
SOUTH
GROWTH REGION DIAGRAMS: COMPOSITE
Low-Density Residential
Urban Family Residential
Medium-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Mixed Use / High-Density
Commercial
Open Space
Civic / Public
Evaluation
The evaluation of growth options available to
Ames and consistent with the Growth Principles
involve two steps:
»Conceptual Diagrams for Each Potential Growth
Area. These diagrams illustrate a possible future
for each area, guided by the Growth Policy
Framework presented previously. Depending on
overall density of development, four of the five
growth areas are capable of accommodating
the City’s full 2040 growth projection.
»Infrastructure and Cost Analysis. Provides
planning level consideration of relative costs
of building facilities necessary to serve each
development area. These areas are further
divided in development “tiers,” subareas that
can be developed in sequence based on cost
and feasibility of development. Tiers can then be
assembled in different combinations to create
the city’s overall preferred growth program.
Conceptual Diagrams
A fundamental principle of this plan is mixing
land use intensities and housing density within
potential growth areas. This principle was used
to develop conceptual diagrams, displaying
potential development areas by intensity
categories discussed on the following pages.
These diagrams show a possible geographic
distribution of land use intensities and
transportation frameworks for each potential
growth area. While not detailed land plans, they
help test the population capacity, mix of land
use intensities, location of possible commercial
centers and public facilities, relationships of park
and environmental resources, and transportation
connections that support development. They
also suggest how each area could lend itself to a
distinct design character.
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
;
R
D
G
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
D
e
s
i
g
n
Density. A measure of intensity usually related to residential uses and measured by housing units or people
per unit of spatial unit, typically acre or square mile. Residential zoning is typically tied to density categories
that in theory control traffic, scale, and compatibility. Two other terms describe measurement of densities:
»Gross Density. The number of residential units per acre including all public spaces in the area
of measurement. Policy context most appropriate for new, large development areas.
»Net Density. The number of residential units per acre not including public spaces in the
area of measurement. Policy context most appropriate for project specific areas.
37
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH SCENARIO: UNDERSTANDING INTENSITY AND DENSITY
Low-Density Residential. Typically single-
family detached housing in subdivisions, but
could also include a limited amount of attached
housing. For purposes of evaluation, gross density
in this category averages 3.5 dwelling units per
acre (du/A) and net density about 5 du/A.
Urban Family Residential. Typically single-family
detached housing on small lots, single-family attached
or duplex structures, and small townhouse groups. For
purposes of evaluation, gross density in this category
averages 6 du/A and net density about 9 du/A.
Medium-Density Residential. Typically
higher-density single-family attached or duplex
development, 3- and 4-plexes, townhomes, and
smaller multifamily buildings and projects. For
purposes of evaluation, gross density in this category
averages 10 du/A and net density about 14 to 16 du/A.
High-Density Residential. Typically
multifamily buildings and projects with a
mix of apartments and other higher-density
housing forms. For purposes of evaluation, net
density in this category is about 20 du/A.
Mixed Use / High-Density. Core districts that
combine high-density housing with non-residential
uses such as retail, services, and offices. These
are often located in multi-story buildings, with
commercial uses at street level and residential
and office uses above. For evaluation, gross
residential density in this category averages 12-
16 du/A and net densities of about 20 du/A.
Commercial. This designation applies to areas
where commercial is the dominant if not only use
for an area. They are shown to ensure relatively
equitable access to neighborhood and community
commercial services from each growth area.
Open Space. Applies to potential parks and
greenways, floodplains or other environmentally
sensitive areas, and major existing open spaces.
Civic / Public. This can include all types of
public facilities but in the context of these tests,
usually reserves space for an elementary school.
HARRISON
R
D
WE
L
B
E
C
K
D
R
LINCOLN WAY
S
D
A
K
O
T
A
A
V
E
STEINBECK ST
DI
C
K
I
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
13TH ST
ST
A
N
G
E
R
D
HARRISON RD
GROSS DENSITY
2.1 units per acre
GROSS ACRES
5.6 units per acre
GROSS ACRES
11 units per acre
GROSS DENSITY
3.7 units per acre
GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER
STAN
G
E
R
D
GROSS ACRES
7.9 units per acre
GROSS ACRES
13.5 units per acre
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE
HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE
URBAN FAMILY AND MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE
38
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH SCENARIO: INFRASTRUCTURE AND COST ANALYSIS
EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
After defining potential growth areas and
developing concept diagrams to test their
capacity and potential character, the next
step is evaluating the relative feasibility and
cost of providing critical public services and
infrastructure (transportation, water, and
sanitary and storm sewers) to each area. In
addition to the actual cost of infrastructure
extensions, growth in specific areas can also
affect the existing developed city by creating
a need for “downstream” upgrades and
investments. Projections to evaluate feasibility
were based on several assumptions:
»Costs are based on improvements that
accommodate residential population
growth. Costs related to industrial growth
are excluded because they will apply
equally to all residential options.
»Transportation costs use the 2040 transportation
model used for the current Long Range
Transportation Plan, modified by adding required
projects for each potential growth area.
»Water and Sewer requirements are
based on current conditions, with
growth for each individual growth area
added as part of the evaluation.
»Fire response modeling assumes the need to
relocate Station 2 to the west regardless of
growth direction, A uniform response time
standard is applied for 85% of citywide calls.
»Projected costs were estimated in 2019 dollars.
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
;
R
D
G
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
D
e
s
i
g
n
EXISTING MAJOR STREET NETWORK
39
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH SCENARIO: DEVELOPMENT TIERS
This map illustrates a division of potential growth
areas into four tiers, based on the criteria and
characteristics presented on the following page.
GROWTH REGIONS DIVIDED INTO DEVELOPMENT TIERS: COMPOSITE
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
;
R
D
G
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
D
e
s
i
g
n
EAST
NORTH
WEST
SOUTHWEST
SOUTH
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
40
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH SCENARIO: DEVELOPMENT TIERS
Four of five growth areas are large enough
in themselves to absorb most of the City’s
growth. However, different parts of those
areas are easier to serve with infrastructure
than others. Also, consistent with the growth
policies presented earlier, growth should not
take place in one direction only. The concept
of tiers, identified by capacity of existing
infrastructure and ease of extensions, provides
a finer-grained analysis that helps assemble an
efficient and effective growth plan. This leads
to a land use plan that makes maximum use
of existing infrastructure and transportation
facilities with strategic incremental
investments and extensions. This evaluation
ultimately informed the initial selection of
growth areas that are the basis of the Plan.
TIER 1
»Infrastructure is immediately available or
achievable with short, incremental extensions.
»Street and trail connections are
immediately available.
»Market precedents are clearly
established and demonstrated.
»Job centers and commercial support
are immediately accessible.
TIER 2
»Infrastructure is available with extensions
of existing lines under ½ mile.
»Existing street network or spine trails
are accessible, but require more
substantial extensions than Tier 1.
»Job centers and commercial support are
reasonably accessible, but not directly adjacent.
»Market support is demonstrable but requires
people to build in relatively untested areas.
»Tier 2 areas can develop in the short-
term if adjacent to the developed City.
ESTIMATED POPULATION CAPACITY GROUPED
BY DEVELOPMENT TIER
HOUSING UNITS POPULATION
TIER 1 9,316 23,136
TIER 2 7,610 16,665
TIER 3 15,960 41,664
TIER 4 3,908 9,029
TOTAL 36,794 90,494
TIER 3
»Within the urban service area (serviceable
by existing wastewater treatment plant), but
requires significant pioneer infrastructure.
»New street corridors are necessary
to provide adequate service.
»Regional arterial and interstate routes
are available, but require a major facility
investment, such as a new interchange.
»Currently relatively remote and not
contiguous to existing urban development.
»Requires significant reach into a
new geographic market
»Consistency with long-term
urban development goals
»New community and commercial
service centers are required
»Land in Tier 3 could shift to Tier 2 if
infrastructure improvements are initiated.
TIER 4
»Ultimately, very long-term development but
outside of current urban services area
»Requires major redirection of local
land use or ownership patterns.
»New community and commercial
service centers are required
»Land in Tier 4 will typically be developed after
the 2040 planning horizon of this plan. This
land should be maintained in an Urban Reserve
status for future urban development. This
designation would prevent premature subdivision
into large rural lots with septic systems or
other individual wastewater treatment.
41
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH SCENARIO: EVALUATION AND GROWTH AREA SELECTION
Growth Scenario Evaluation
The five growth regions combined have a
population capacity far greater than Ames’
actual development demand to 2040. This
section presents a growth concept, assembling
the building blocks discussed above into an
efficient land use program.
Two major assumptions, derived from the
larger growth principles underlie the evaluation
process:
»Development will take place in multiple
directions. The principles of compact growth and
market choice argue against placing all growth
in one and only one development direction.
Tiers 1 and 2 provide more than adequate
capacity to accommodate all anticipated growth
to 2040 and beyond. Therefore, growth areas
incorporated into the future land use plan are
limited to these two development tiers. Some
Tier 2 areas and Tiers 3 and 4 are located within
the Ames urban service area -- areas that fall
within watersheds that drain into the City’s
existing wastewater treatment facility – but are
unlikely to develop before 2040.
The criteria used to evaluate these growth
regions against each other to create an orderly
growth sequence included the following factors:
»Infrastructure. The relative cost of serving
the growth region with wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure and water service.
»Environment and Open Space. Relative
buildability, slopes, and impact on topography,
watercourses, and natural resources; serviced
by parks and recreational features.
»Public Safety. The ability and facility costs
involved to provide fire protection, police,
and emergency medical services.
»Market Demand. Adjacency to recent
development, growth precedents,
general acceptance in the market.
»Transportation. The ability of the transportation
system to manage additional traffic loads, cost
of necessary improvements, connections to trail
network, and access to public transportation.
»Community. The ability to add and enhance
the urban environment of Ames; the potential
to create distinctive areas with a variety
of housing types and support services.
The evaluation process concluded that
“greenfield” urban development and resulting
infrastructure investments will focus on four
major areas:
A. TIER 1
»North Growth Region. This includes land
west of Ada Hayden Park to west of GW
Carver Avenue and south of 190th Street.
This sector has been an area of significant
platting activity and logically encompasses
existing residential development trends.
B. TIER 1 & TIER 2
»West Growth Region. This extends the
western edge of Ames incrementally to an
Ioway Creek tributary drainage between
Highway 30 and the Union Pacific mainline.
This will tie into Mortensen Road and continue
significant mixed density development.
C. TIER 1 & TIER 2
»South Development Region. Unlike the
relatively incremental extensions to the
north and west, this represents a significant
community-building initiative that builds on the
potential of the nearby ISU Research Park and
abundant open space and recreation assets.
D. TIER 1
»East Development Region. Like the South
Development Region, this area represents
a new residential market, related to the
13th Street interchange and the potential
for new major commercial and industrial
development in this quadrant. Infrastructure
to serve this area is likely to be provided
through this non-residential growth.
It is important to maintain the flexibility to
respond to specific development proposals and
that contiguous development in an area other
than one of the four focus areas, if properly
financed, could occur. For example, the Tier
2 area of the Southwest Growth Region, also
contiguous to existing urban development,
could experience development during the
planning period.
42
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GROWTH SCENARIO: EVALUATION AND GROWTH AREA SELECTION
PRIORITY GROWTH AREAS COMBINED TIER ONE AND TWO DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
TIER 1 TIER 2 TOTAL T1 + T2
Growth Region Area in
Acres Est Units Est Pop Area in
Acres Est Units Est Pop Area in
Acres Est Units Est Pop Density
(DU/A)
NORTH 453 1,643 4,175 157 722 1,821 519 2,365 5,996 3.64
EAST 152 827 1,722 - - - 152 827 1,722 5.44
SOUTH 199 1,274 2,522 239 2,411 4,486 398 3,685 7,007 7.40
SOUTHWEST - - 314 2,578 5,124 314 2,578 5,124 6.58
WEST 386 1,854 4,118 175 1,099 2,388 484 2,954 6,506 4.88
TOTAL 1,190 5,598 12,537 885 6,810 13,818 1,837 12,408 26,355 6.76
RELATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE COST COMPARISON BY POTENTIAL GROWTH REGION
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
Growth Region Transportation Wastewater Water Total Notes/ Concerns
NORTH
$$$$$$$ $$Moderate future arterial road network and new 190th
bridge over UPRR. Extension of 36” wastewater
trunkline for approximately 1.5 miles. Pressure concerns
corrected by construction of 4 MG water tower.
EAST
$$$$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$Extensive future arterial road network and new I-35
interchange. Construction of new 36” wastewater
trunkline for approximately 6 miles. Pressure concerns
corrected by construction of a 6 MG water tower.
SOUTH $$$$$$$ $$$Moderate future arterial road network including future
N/S parkway. New I-35 Interchange.
SOUTHWEST
$$$½ $$ $$Moderate future arterial road network and new
pedestrian bridge(s). Extension of 21” wastewater
trunkline for approximately 1.5 miles.
WEST
$$$$ Minor future arterial road network. No improvements
to Union Pacific railroad crossings. Two sanitary sewer
extensions from existing system.
B
A
C
D
43
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Guiding Principles of Land Use
LU1: Relating Land Use and Transportation.
Land use planning must be planned in
coordination with Ames’ network of streets,
trails, paths, and transit lines. The land use
plan is closely related to the Complete Streets
Plan, with higher intensity uses clustered
along streets that have the capacity to serve
them successfully. A system of multi-modal
connections will be the framework for a land use
plan that promotes variety and diversity of uses.
Sufficiency of other related support services,
including infrastructure, emergency response,
and parks will be correlated to the intensity
of use.
LU2: Compatibility with Flexibility. Ames
land use pattern should minimize conflicts
between adjacent land uses. Some land uses
are inherently incompatible and should be
separated. In other cases, a variety of design
techniques where different uses and intensities
meet can reduce incompatibilities and more
successfully integrate different uses into a
cohesive city environment. Homogeneous
building form and uses are not necessarily the
goal of the plan. Guidelines should provide
developers with reasonable flexibility and room
for innovation.
LU3: Residential Density and Diversity. New
residential development in Ames will achieve
densities sufficient to use infrastructure
efficiently, support neighborhood services,
minimize adverse effects on the environment,
and provide residents with a quality urban
environment. As an inclusive community, Ames
will encourage diverse housing types and
price points that serve the reeds of a range of
demographic and economic groups. In addition,
reactions to the Covid pandemic may require
different housing forms than those built to
date, maintaining target densities but with
common space that provides greater distancing
possibility.
LU4: Vital, Convenient Mixed Uses. Ames
will encourage a compatible mix of uses to
create more active, interesting, and efficient
city environments, while providing residents
convenient access to neighborhood commercial
services and other vital community facilities.
LU5: Places for Employment and Enterprise.
Ames will continue to provide appropriately
located space for a wide range of enterprises
that provide employment for existing and
prospective residents. The City’s planning
for industrial uses includes large areas for
expansion within the ISU Research Park and
Prairie View Industrial Center. Additionally, small
business, commercial office, and trade uses are
planned for diverse locations across the City.
Zoning standards will address design and use
requirements recognizing the diverse needs and
locations of employment uses.
44
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: TRANSPORTATION
The Land Use/Transportation
Connection
Land use and transportation are very closely
connected. Development proposals are
evaluated by the ability of the transportation
system to serve them effectively.
Transportation facilities – transit lines in one
area, interchanges and roads in another area
- open new areas to development. Typically,
land use plans, based on single-use density or
use type categories, placed higher intensity
commercial and industrial uses along busier
or wider streets. These corridors have the
lane capacity to accommodate the traffic that
these uses generate but also carry the traffic
and provide the visibility that commercial
development needs.
This makes sense, up to a point. These land
use plans matched single use land categories
(residential, commercial, and industrial) with
a street classification system determined
largely by projected traffic volume (local,
collector, arterial). However, contemporary
plans like Plan 2040 are more nuanced.
Land development categories, like the ones
identified in the previous pages, are based
on neighborhood pattern and character as
well as land use, and encompass a mix of
development types. Streets are increasingly
expected to be more than conduits for cars
and trucks, and should provide safe and
comfortable environments for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit users. Streets are also
one of the most critical parts of the city’s
design environment and fabric. They can unite
like bridges or divide like walls; attract or repel
people; and be places that development turns
toward or away from. It is no wonder that
and guiding policy along urban corridors,
The Forward 2045 Plan, prepared by
HDR, Inc. for the Ames Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization, includes a Functional
Classification Plan of the Ames metropolitan
area network. As part of a comprehensive
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
This classifies corridors by the traditional
hierarchy that typically relates to traffic
volume and speed. The Complete Streets
Plan (2018), prepared by Toole design group
for the City, establishes street typologies
largely determined by context and potential
future roles in the city environment. Together,
they provide a framework for land use and
development policy along these major
corridors. Typology illustrations from the
Complete Streets Plan and land use policy
directions are included as a reference, on the
following pages and later in this document.
many major metropolitan areas have established
and funded Great Streets programs and that
city and state governments have adopted
Complete Streets policies, striving to make these
public corridors safe and appealing for all users.
Ames has been an active participant in this
trend with its adoption of the Ames Complete
Streets Plan The plan classifies streets by their
context and character in addition to traffic
volume. It also recommends design standards
that accommodate different modes of travel
and consider a street’s role in its community and
land use context.
In many ways, then, street function and
character help create their own land use reality.
The Growth & Land Use Principles identified in
Plan 2040 place an emphasis on connection and
mixed uses, and a high value on desirable public
activity and interaction. This in turn suggests
street design that is friendly to this kind of
activity and land use planning and implementing
regulations that encourage it. This can lead to
patterns that are unfamiliar to many people –
residential development along what were once
single use commercial corridors, and activity
nodes and even some commercial development
carefully placed in residential areas.
Two Classification Systems
Despite this aspiration, every street is not
appropriate for mixed use, walkable, high
activity urban environments. Some streets
are utilitarian and serve the single function of
moving trucks and cars safely and efficiently.
Others are intended to maintain quiet
neighborhood environments. To assist in the
process of relating land use and transportation
45
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: TRANSPORTATION
FUTURE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION NETWORK COMPLETE STREETS TYPOLOGY
Highway
Highway - Future
Thoroughfare
Boulevard
Boulevard - Future
Avenue
Avenue - Future
Mixed Use Avenue
Mixed Use Street
ISU Industrial Street
Industrial Street
City Limits
FUNCTIONAL CLASS
Interstate
Other Principal Arterial
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Collector
Minor Arterial
Local
Two Mile Buffer
46
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: TRANSPORTATION
Avenue. Moderate amount of traffic, wider
than a Neighborhood Street. May include
on-street parking and bike lanes. Typical
functional classification will be collector.
Land Use Directions:
»Primarily residential use
»May include varied densities, including attached
units, townhomes, small multifamily buildings
»Possible integration of neighborhood
services and convenience commercial at
collector or minor arterial intersections
»Implies strong street orientation for development
Boulevard. Moderate to high amounts of traffic,
with a landscaped median used to separate lanes of
traffic and provide refuge for crossing pedestrian
and bicycle traffic. Wide range of functional
classifications from major collector to major arterial.
Land Use Directions:
»Often in high image and visibility office and
business parks and campus environments
»Land use context varies considerably, from
low-speed neighborhood settings
to high intensity uses.
»Medium to deep setbacks with
varied street orientations
Thoroughfare. Moderate to high amounts of
traffic, most often used for longer distance
travel and automobile-oriented uses. Often
state highways. Typical functional classification
will be principal, major, or minor arterial.
Land Use Directions:
»Various commercial/high-intensity residential uses
»Lower intensity residential with adequate setbacks
»Uses highly related to context
»Street orientation and setback is contextual, but in
commercial areas may include front yard parking.
Mixed Use Street and Mixed Use Avenue. Diverse
mix of retail, housing, office and/or educational uses,
with people using several types of transportation
to circulate. Typical functional classification
will be major collector and minor arterial.
Land Use Directions:
»Activity centers and commercial nodes
with strong pedestrian/bicycle access
»Horizontal and vertical mixed use development
»Limited setbacks with build-to lines,
strong street orientation
Industrial Street. Low traffic, often with a
high percentage of truck traffic, accessing
centers of manufacturing and large-scale retail.
Range of functional classifications from local
for interior streets to major collector.
Land Use Directions:
»Typically industrial and other non-residential
uses, including general commercial.
»Residential development, if present,
is often obsolescent.
»Some consumer and automotive commercial uses
»Often deep setbacks and limited street orientation
Complete Street Typology and Land Use Directions
Neighborhood Street. Low traffic with housing
and separated walkways, sometimes with on-street
parking. A variation called “Bicycle Boulevard” is
available, which optimizes the street for bicycle
traffic through traffic calming and diversion;
also includes pedestrian enhancements. Typical
functional classification will be local street.
Land Use Directions:
»Primarily residential use
»In infill areas, density would be ruled by
surrounding neighborhood conditions
»New development can integrate
various residential densities
47
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: FUTURE
Land Use Categories
The Future Land Use Map, with its designations
of various land use categories, expresses the
development vision for Ames and establishes
the basis for land use policy, public and private
decision making, and future development
and infrastructure investments and initiatives.
It incorporates the growth scenario analysis
and priorities described earlier in this chapter,
with land use designations that also reflect the
character of the built-up city of 2020.
The land development categories used here
differ in important ways from districts used in
the city’s earlier Land Use Policy Plan (1997) or
single use categories used in conventional land
use and zoning maps:
»Development categories recognize
historic periods and patterns of
development and neighborhood character,
as well as specific land uses.
»Development categories employ a range of
development densities and intensities, rather than
one specific building type or density category.
As such, they may contain a number of different
zoning districts. Issues of compatibility of
different land uses within development categories
are addressed in the compatibility standards.
»The Future Land Use Map was built on the street
framework identified by Ames Complete Streets
Plan. This plan identified to both the function and
context of streets. Within a single development
category, different use intensities may be
appropriate along different types of streets.
Limited Development
Open Space. Areas of publicly or privately owned
land intended to remain undeveloped and natural
in character or in permanent open space uses.
These areas include environmentally sensitive areas,
environmental preserves, lands with conservation
easements, and passive public space. They
typically do not include high activity city parks.
Urban Reserve. Areas within the Ames Urban
Service Area and the growth regions that should
be reserved for future urban development, but
are unlikely to be developed within this plan’s
2040 horizon. These include all tiers of the five
projected growth areas including the southeast
and other parts of the Ames jurisdiction that can
be feasibly provided by urban services. Policies
related to Urban Reserve areas are discussed
in the Fringe Policy section of this chapter.
Rural Character. Areas within the Ames jurisdiction
where urban infrastructure such as water or sewer
service is unlikely or not feasible. Development may
include large-lot residential, low-impact agriculture,
and non-residential uses appropriate to rural areas.
Policies related to Rural Character areas are discussed
in the Fringe Policy section of this chapter.
Residential Neighborhoods
RN-1 (Traditional). Neighborhoods initially
developed in the 19th and first half of the
20th centuries, with a variety of residential
development forms and developed on
a traditional urban street grid.
RN-2 (Established). Fully built-up neighborhoods,
typically built in the second half of the 20th century to
the present. Largely single-family, with some attached
and duplex structures. Layout of neighborhoods often
has larger blocks and curvilinear local street patterns.
RN-3 (Expansion). Neighborhoods principally
developed as expansion of the City since 2000
at low and medium densities. This designation
includes current areas of building and subdivision
activity or proposed for predominately residential
development within the 2040 planning period.
Includes growth areas identified on page 42.
These areas include a variety of residential
types and neighborhood services. The layout of
neighborhoods generally followed suburban form
principles with distinct areas for various uses.
RN-4 (Walkable Urban). Mixed use, mixed
density neighborhoods with a high degree of
connectedness and an orientation to pedestrian
and bicycle scale. Typically includes a distinct,
mixed use activity nucleus. May include
comprehensively planned developments or
urban districts that evolved organically.
RN-5 (Multifamily). Neighborhoods that are
largely multifamily in character, and include large
groupings of apartments, townhomes, and other
attached housing forms. May include supporting
commercial services. Multifamily development may
be integrated on compatible sites into other RN
areas and is not limited to RN-5 designations.
Commercial Centers
Neighborhood Core. Centers that serve
local commercial and service needs for a
neighborhood or cluster of neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use. A special
subset of Neighborhood Core usually associated
with walkable urban neighborhoods. May be
somewhat larger in scale and include residential
uses, with high connectivity to the commercial area.
Community Commercial/Retail. Generally single
purpose centers that serve citywide and even regional
commercial and service needs, originally designed for
primary automobile access with large parking areas.
General Commercial. Areas with a wide
variety of commercial, small business,
automotive, trade services, and light industrial
uses, some with outdoor storage.
48
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: FUTURE
Core. Ames’ unique mixed use central
districts and image centers, for example, the
Downtown and Campustown districts.
Employment-General Industrial. Areas that
mix traditional manufacturing, warehousing and
distribution, and other high impact uses, typically
outside of planned or defined business parks.
Employment-Planned Business and Industrial.
Major concentrations for community and regional
employment, including major office, industrial,
and research establishments and installations on
large sites with substantial surrounding buffers
or other separation from surrounding uses.
INFILL OR OVERLAY CATEGORIES
Redirection. Areas where changes in use or
development patterns are anticipated over the
next 20 years, based upon City policies or current
conditions. These areas are focuses for City
consideration of redevelopment plans and policies
over the next 20 years. In some cases, specific plans
or zoning may be applied to provide direction for
specific types of changes and to address issues of
compatibility and transition. The Redirection Area
designation does not specify a time period or type of
change. It acknowledges a potential for change and
a public interest in guiding it over the next 20 years.
Redirection can also apply to government-owned
lands that are no longer used for government
purposes. Change in these areas to urban uses
that address housing and development goals
of the City would be considered, even though
they are not part of identified growth areas.
Urban Corridor. Strategic community
transportation corridors that are primarily
automobile-oriented and accommodate a mix
of uses. Potential exists for evolution to denser
development with more efficient site design, reuse
of excessive parking, and infill development based
upon the high value of transportation access.
Near Campus Overlay. Residential neighborhoods
adjacent to Iowa State University that experience
development pressures related to ISU, including
demand for student-oriented housing or higher-
density, larger scale development, and parking
and traffic requirements. These pressures produce
development different from the traditional patterns
of the area. Changes to existing conditions are
expected to be limited in this overlay area with a
priority placed on neighborhood conservation.
Hospital/Medical Special Area. Major
hospital and medical campuses and surrounding
ancillary uses including parking, medical office
buildings, clinics, and similar facilities.
PUBLIC AND CIVIC USES
Civic-University. The Iowa State University
campus and other ISU-owned properties.
Civic. Major public facilities, including City of
Ames, Story County, and State of Iowa facilities
and installations; schools; the Ames Municipal
Airport; and bases for other public services.
Parks and Other Public Facilities. Other land-
intensive facilities identified individually on the
Future Land Use Map, including public parks.
49
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
DU
F
F
AV
E
US HIGHWAY 30
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
LINCOLN WAY
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
DU
F
F
A
V
E
UN
I
VE
R
S
I
TY
BL
V
D
LINCOLN WAY
ST
A
T
E
A
V
E
ONTARIO ST
N
O
R
T
H
D
A
K
O
T
A
A
V
E
DA
Y
T
O
N
A
V
E
SO
U
T
H
D
A
K
O
T
A
A
V
E
ST
A
N
G
E
R
D
13TH ST 13TH ST
6TH ST
16TH ST
BLOOMINGTON RD
DA
Y
T
O
N
P
L
24TH ST
ST
A
N
G
E
R
D
4TH ST
MORTENSEN RD
AIRPORT RD
3RD ST
H
Y
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
OAKWOOD RD
US
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
6
9
13TH ST
US
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
69
Core
Core
Core
Redir
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Emp
Emp
EmpEmp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
GC
GC
GC
GCGC
GC
Com
CR Com
CR
ComCRComCR
Com
CR
Com
CR
ComCR
RN-5RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
NCMU
NCMU
NC
MU
NCMU
NC
MU
NC
MU
NCMU
NC
Com-CR
NC
NC
Quarry
Redir
Redir
RN-1
RN-1
RN-1
UCUC
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
RN-4
RN-4
RN-4
Emp
RN-5
ComCR
NC
MU
Core
RN-3
Univ
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-3
GC
GC
Com
CR
Com
CR
RN-5
RN-5 RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
GC
NCMU ComCR
NC
Redir
Redir
RN-1
UC Core
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
RN-4
RN-4
Emp
Emp
Univ
RN-1
RN-3
NC-MU
RN-2
RN-5
UC
RN-3
RN-4
GC
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Univ
RN-2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
Future Land Use
Residential Neighborhood 1 - Traditional (RN-1)
Residential Neighborhood 2 - Established (RN-2)
Residential Neighborhood 3 - Expansion (RN-3)
Residential Neighborhood 4 - Village (RN-4)
Residential Neighborhood 5 - Multi-family (RN-5)
Neighborhood Core (NC)
Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU)
Community Commercial/Retail (Com-CR)
General Commercial (GC)
Core (Core)
Redirection (Redir)
Urban Corridor
Employment (Emp)
Park/Recreation
Open Space
Civic
Civic - University
Hospital/Medical Special Area
Near Campus Overlay
Airport Protection Area
City Limits
Future Land Use Map
City of Ames, Iowa
Final Draft December 8, 2021
0 0.5 10.25 Miles North
FUTURE LAND USE
Residential Neighborhood 1 - Traditional (RN-1)
Residential Neighborhood 2 - Established (RN-2)
Residential Neighborhood 3 - Expansion (RN-3)
Residential Neighborhood 4 - Village (RN-4)
Residential Neighborhood 5 - Multifamily (RN-5)
Neighborhood Core (NC)
Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU)
Community Commercial /Retail (Com-CR)
General Commercial (GC)
Core
Redirection (Redir)
Urban Corridor
Employment
Quarry
Park / Recreation
Open Space
Civic
Civic - University
Hospital /Medical Special Area
Near Campus Overlay
Airport Protection Area
City Limits
LAND USE: FUTURE
FUTURE LAND USE Following the Future Land Use Map includes policy
tables for the land use categories. Each category a
description of characteristics and applicable zoning
districts. Further descriptions provide content on
goals, development guidelines and pubic actions.
Goals are intentions for future direction
in the land use category.
Development Guidelines are applicable
for consideration of changes to land use
designations, zoning consistency, and in
some cases specific project elements.
Public Actions are intended to identify potential
recommendations for the City that relate to
broad City goals and the vision of the Plan.
They do not apply to individual projects.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
50 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
Open Space
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Use greenways as corridors for pedestrian
and bicycle transportation and recreation.
»Acquire strategic open space areas when
possible to maintain corridors or protect
important environmental assets.
»Use Greenways and Open Space as conservation
development techniques in new growth areas.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Agricultural or other similar low intensity
development zoning districts would apply.
During zoning and site plan review, evaluate
proposals for separation distances adequate
to minimize noise, glare, and hazards that
would impair the quality of open space.
»Retain natural areas, open space, and
habitat in the City. See also Parks, Trails, &
Greenways Chapter and Environment Chapter.
Permit development only when serving
environmental, park, or agricultural purposes.
»Allow minor encroachment of residential zoning
for existing uses and limit allowances for new
residential with a precise study of environmental
constraints and plans to locate structures
outside of sensitive areas to retain the natural,
aesthetic, and environmental value of the area
and property. Multiple developable sites would
require a land use map designation amendment.
»Areas within the Ames Urban Fringe are
predominantly natural and agricultural
uses and are subject to the policies of the
Ames Urban Fringe Plan and associated
28E agreements unless addressed more
specifically by other provisions.
»Natural areas are informaitonal
designations applicable to the fringe
area. See also Environment Chapter.
GOALS
»Set aside land intended to remain
primarily undeveloped and natural in
character as permanent open space.
»Limit public open space to passive
activities and conservation efforts.
»Preserve natural areas as passive open space
in accordance with planned greenways or in
support of larger natural preservation areas.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»Government
»Agriculture
»Potential conservation or fringe
overlays in areas where residential uses
might be existing or permitted.
»Large areas of public land intended
to remain undeveloped and natural in
character, including public greenways.
»Privately or publicly-owned environmentally
sensitive areas that should not be developed.
»Agricultural uses are common.
»May include public recreation facilities.
»Specific policy directions are included
in the Urban Fringe Policy.
Development Guidelines are applicable
for consideration of changes to land use
designations, zoning consistency, and in
some cases specific project elements.
Public Actions are intended to identify
potential initiatives for the City that relate to
broad City goals and the vision of the Plan.
They do not apply to individual projects.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
51 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
GOALS
»Preserve long-term development options for
efficient growth with full urban services.
»Avoid impediments to future land annexation
supporting urban and contiguous development.
»Allow reasonable interim use of land consistent
with agricultural and adjacent land uses.
Urban Reserve (UR: See Urban Fringe Map)
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Coordinate park and open space
planning with counties.
»Use Urban Fringe Plan Policies to guide specific
use allowances and joint administration of extra-
territorial area.
Prioritize Policies for:
»Specific underlying land use designations for
interim use or for guiding incorporation of
commercial use into the City.
»Large residential and agricultural minimum
lot sizes.
»Limits on high intensity agricultural and
extraction uses.
»Limits on special uses, such as religious
facilities, wind generators, campgrounds, and
other uses that may not meet urban design and
infrastructure needs.
»Limit agribusiness facilities that do not meet
urban design and infrastructure needs.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Require a minimum lot size large enough
to prevent or discourage development
of rural subdivisions and maintain
a rural agricultural character.
»Permit a variety of rural land uses and
low-impact agriculture, excludes livestock
and animal confinement operations
and other high intensity uses.
»Generally open or sparsely
developed rural or open land.
»Growth area Tiers 1 and 2 and other lands
intended for near and mid-term development.
»Includes growth areas in Tiers 2, 3, and 4 that
are likely to be developed after this plan’s 2040
planning horizon. See also Urban Fringe policies.
»Government
»Agriculture
»Potential conservation or fringe
overlays in areas where residential uses
might be existing or permitted.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
52 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Use Urban Fringe Plan Policies to
guide specific use allowances and joint
administration of extra-territorial area.
»Establish subdivision waiver standards
appropriate to very low-density
rural residential developments.
»Consider cumulative impacts of
similar development and planned
development in the general area.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Develop land plans and building concepts
that maintain rural or open character.
»Design developments that protect landforms such
as steep slopes and natural drainage patterns.
»Encourage use of community wastewater
systems for rural development, including green
infrastructure, with relatively small rural lots.
»Integrate regional transportation path
systems into development designs.
»Promote use of conservation subdivision
techniques adjacent to natural areas.
GOALS
»Provide locations to accommodate demand for
low-density residential development that do not
limit the City’s logical long-term urban growth.
»Promote sustainable development within or
near the City where landforms and environment
make urban development impossible.
»Existing large lot and acreage development,
generally lacking urban infrastructure or services.
»Areas within the subdivision jurisdiction of Ames
but outside the urban reserve, where extensions
of urban infrastructure are not expected.
»Rural commercial, limited agriculture, or
limited industrial/workshop uses that do
not degrade rural residential character.
Rural Character (RC: See Urban Fringe Map)
»Potential conservation or fringe
overlays in areas where residential uses
might be existing or permitted.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
53 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Residential Neighborhood 1 (RN-1: Traditional)
»Most development occurred in late
19th and first half of 20th century.
»Largely but not exclusively residential.
»Diverse housing within the same time periods
and street context. Areas of both larger detached
single-family housing, small single-family
housing, and a mix of two-family and small
apartment buildings with single-family homes.
»Generally small sites and lots, fine-scale
of detail and development patterns.
»Connected traditional grid street with
sidewalk continuity often with alleys.
»Pedestrian rather than automobile
orientation and scale. Garage access
off alleys or setback from street.
»Transit access in some dense areas.
»Later 20th century development not
always compatible in design with original
development styles and patterns.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»UCRM Urban Core Residential Medium-Density
»RM Residential Medium-Density
»RL Residential Low-Density
»O -SFC SFCOD Overlay
»O -H Historic Overlay
»O -UIE University Impact Overlay
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Continue to maintain and enhance
road, sidewalks, street trees, water,
sewer, electric infrastructure. Upgrade
infrastructure capacity as needed, including
adding storm water enhancements.
»Support sidewalk infill to complete
connections and corridors consistent with
complete street and enhanced mobility.
»Preference for infrastructure improvements that
are consistent with the residential character
and context sensitive to historical patterns.
»Support for owner-occupied
housing stock options.
»Support access to transit in denser areas.
»Use design and character priorities in
place of density for planned developments
and small-site infill options.
»Consideration for additional historic or
conservation district inventory and designation.
»Review zoning standards to address design
compatibility and allowances for setback
and coverage exceptions in support of
reinvestment in single-family homes.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Identify architectural qualities and patterns
that support character of an area and support
retention of these features with design guidelines.
»Central locations and good transportation
choices could produce interest in infill and
high intensity uses. Priority is to maintain
existing residential character without a
comprehensive strategy for increasing housing
options on a broader level. Appropriate
infill options should be limited to second
units or small attached townhome type
units that maintain the character and scale
of traditional homes. Maintain single-family
character on single-family residential blocks.
»Develop standards for accessory dwelling
units (ADUs) that allow them without
degrading neighborhood character.
»Infill limited to attached units
and small townhomes.
»Small-scale office and commercial uses
with limited traffic generation that preserve
residential scale along avenues, mixed
use avenues, and thoroughfares.
»Allow common accessory functions,
places of worship, and parks.
GOALS
»Residential neighborhood conservation
is the primary goal, including:
»Building quality of older homes.
»Reinvestment in and improvements to
property.
»Affordable housing opportunities.
»Ownership housing opportunities.
»Infrastructure quality, including street trees.
»Maintain existing residential densities.
Current density ranges from three to
eight units per acre. Future development
should not exceed eight units/acre.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
54 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Residential Neighborhood 2 (RN-2: Established)
»Typically mid to late 20th century
through 21st century development.
»Completely built-up except for infill sites.
»Mostly but not exclusively single-family, with
some attached and small-scale multifamily.
»Relatively large single-use blocks, beginning
of suburban type development patterns.
»Variety of lot and single-family home sizes.
»Common pattern of automobile-oriented
design with front-loaded garages.
»Breaks the fine-scale grid with larger blocks
and curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs and loops.
»Some sidewalk discontinuity, with some
internal pathways and cluster development.
»Limited or no transit access.
»Includes some Planned Developments
with unique design features.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»RL Residential Low-Density
»RM Residential Medium-Density
»F-PRD Planned Residence District
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Infrastructure rehabilitation where necessary.
»Use urban environment enhancements such as
neighborhood gateways, placemaking, traffic
calming, and lighting to add aesthetic value.
»Recognize increasing historic integrity
of mid-century residential design.
»Monitor neighborhood conditions
and develop programs to support
reinvestment in older neighborhoods.
»Support transit service extensions
to serviceable areas.
»Improve pedestrian environment where
necessary and upgrade bike route connectivity
and wayfinding to complement trails.
»Consider exception processes related
to additions, garage placement, and
accessory dwelling units to support
reinvestment in existing homes.
»Use overlays and neighborhood plans to address
specific areas with conservation and design
guidelines to reflect the broad geographic
diversity, lot sizes, and architectural styles.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Maintain character of single-
family residential blocks.
»Infill limited to attached units and small
townhome developments adjacent or near
existing attached units and public space.
»On infill sites, use scale and
design to respect context.
»Small-scale office and commercial uses
with limited traffic generation that preserve
residential scale along avenues, mixed
use avenues, and thoroughfares.
»Recognize street hierarchy and
capacity when considering changes
in land use and transportation.
»Allow common accessory functions,
e.g. places of worship, and parks.
»Support increased use of architectural
features, such as porches, and quality building
materials to enhance the visual appearance
of properties and neighborhoods.
GOALS
»Conservation of general neighborhood
character and structural conditions.
»Target maximum gross density in the range of
6 units/acre, except in multifamily clusters.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
55 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Residential Neighborhood 3 (RN-3: Expansion)
»Contemporary but diverse development options
in planned expansion areas of the City, known as
FS zoned areas. Originally envisioned in the 1997
LUPP as “villages” and residential subdivisions.
»Primarily residential and largely single-
family at low and medium densities. Some
medium-density apartment developments.
»Conventional suburban lot sizes in subdivisions.
»Limited or no transit access.
»Access to private green space, internal
paths, and trails is often included in
development design. Includes storm water
detention features within developments.
»Curvilinear street networks, minimizing cul-de-
sacs, but somewhat limited connectivity at times.
»Common pattern of automobile-oriented
design with front-loaded garages.
»Includes small commercial nodes.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Flexible lot size design standards for diverse
housing types, including architectural
character, environmental, and open
space factors in design decisions.
»Higher residential densities (attached,
townhomes, small multi-unit buildings) on
avenues, boulevards, and mixed use avenues, and
other streets with significant bicycle and potential
transit routes; and within master planned projects.
»Street, sidewalk, and trail connectivity.
»New development requires neighborhood
and community parks. See also
Parks and Recreation Chapter.
»Plan to accommodate transit extensions into
developing areas by design and density levels.
»Allow common accessory functions,
places of worship, and parks.
»Apply minimum density standards to new
development, single-family 3.75 du/A, medium-
density minimum density 10.0 du/A, cores
and high-density areas have higher intensity
and densities than medium-density.
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Review and modify zoning and subdivision
regulations to address intended range
of uses and design standards.
»Permit accessory dwelling units with
lot size and design standards.
»Extend trail network into growth areas.
»Support transit extensions to serviceable areas.
»Use the Capital Improvements Program to
plan for extension of major road, water, sewer
infrastructure. Consider use of development
agreements, connection districts, and
assessments to help facilitate extensions.
GOALS
»Wide range of housing types and price
points, need to incorporate attainably
priced owner occupied housing.
»Planned development of neighborhood
cores, with higher density, linkages to single-
family areas, and neighborhood services.
»High level of internal connectivity and planned
street linkages to surrounding developments.
»Use Complete Street concepts with
development. Include active transportation
linkages. Provide safe access for all to
neighborhood cores and activity areas.
»Target minimum gross density in major new
development areas of 6 units per acre.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»FS-RL Suburban Residential Low-Density
»FS-RM Suburban Residential Medium-Density
»F-PRD Planned Residence District
»PUD Planned Unit Development Overlay District
»RLP Residential Low-Density Park
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
56 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Residential Neighborhood 4 (RN-4: Walkable Urban)
»Based on master development plan or organic
evolution of walkable mixed use districts.
»Strongly connected mixed uses
as a “place” or district.
»High level of street and path connectivity, highly
walkable design where vehicles are secondary.
»Individual development areas may have separate
dominant uses but relate to each other.
»Interior, street-oriented “village center.”
»Common open space and community
streets as elements of urban structure.
»Thematic street character, e.g.
“main street” environments.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Improve streetscape and district identification
to focus attention and encourage reinvestment
in existing areas, such as in the West Street
“village” west of the ISU campus and similar
small-scale mixed use districts. In these areas,
encourage upgrades and improved relationships
among existing multifamily buildings. May
require a special development area plan.
»Review and modify zoning and subdivision
regulations to address the intended
range of uses and design standards.
»Review parking requirements to ensure
there is not excess required parking that
impacts financial feasibility of reinvestment
and design that detracts from character.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Emphasis on mixed uses in the neighborhood
overall with walkability, functional public
space, appropriate street design, and
green infrastructure; provide flexibility in
how these goals are accomplished.
»Similar design approach to a PUD to ensure
details for mixed use and design are successful,
allowing for greater density and more
commercial uses than conventional options.
»Overall minimum gross density > 6 du/A; Village
Centers may have much higher density.
»Avoid dictating specific architectural style,
while recognizing that some styles are more
consistent with intended character than others,
however, elements supportive of street level
design details are required. This includes
features such as porches, large amounts of
fenestration for commercial uses, reduced
setbacks, durable and interesting building
materials, identifiable entrances, and minimized
dead space of walls and garage doors.
GOALS
»Village master planning and development in
key opportunity sites within growth areas.
»Extension of positive “village” development
principles into more conventional
development options that achieve walkable
and identifiable centers to neighborhoods.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»PRD Planned Residence District
»F-VR Village Residential
»RH Residential High-Density
(existing development only)
»PUD Planned Unit Development Overlay District
»RLP Residential Low-Density Park
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
57 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Residential Neighborhood 5 (RN-5: Multi-family)
»Large groupings or concentrations of
attached housing and apartment buildings.
»May include some commercial or
community services such as child care.
»Single-family development is atypical and
generally not appropriate in these neighborhoods.
»Often but not always in unified developments.
»Includes public streets, but local circulation
and parking are typically internalized.
»New developments may include private
amenity space and facilities for residents.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Encourage higher residential densities on
thoroughfares, avenues, mixed use avenues,
and boulevards, including corridors with
bicycle facilities and transit service.
»Achieve minimum gross density greater
based upon building types and locations
with 16du/A in larger multifamily settings,
and 10 du/A in townhome and small
footprint apartment configurations.
»Low-impact office/commercial development
may be integrated into original project design.
»Building design and housing types
to serve a diverse market and not be
specific to student housing in growth
areas and redevelopment areas.
»Move toward more urban building
arrangements, creating neighborhoods with
public streets and connections rather than
groupings of self-contained projects.
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Continue use of the Rental Housing Code
to monitor quality of existing multifamily
developments and provide mechanism
for rehabilitation when required.
»Consider reduced on-site parking requirements
in walkable/bikeable and transit accessible areas.
»Review and modify zoning and subdivision
regulations to address the intended
range of uses and design standards.
»Consider intensity measurement by bedroom
configurations rather than dwelling units.
»Encourage rehabilitation and potential
redevelopment of obsolete developments.
GOALS
»Maintain and enhance quality of existing
neighborhoods, including addressing
property maintenance and quality
of the public environments.
»In new developments, move toward more
urban development forms with street grids
and orientation, better relationships among
buildings and public spaces, and pedestrian
and bicycle integration into site planning.
»Expand architectural design diversity
and incorporate differentiated and
durable quality building materials.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»RH Residential High-Density
»F-PRD Planned Residence District
»FLP Residential Low-Density Park
»RM Residential Medium-Density
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
58 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
»Serves local consumer needs for
a group of neighborhoods.
»Smaller scale development may include
convenience commercial, personal
services, specialty or small-retail, grocery,
small multi-tenant building, child care,
local services and office uses.
»Typically located at sites convenient to
automobile access, including intersections
of boulevards, thoroughfares, and avenues.
Older neighborhoods may have street
parking and minimal off-street parking.
»Usually characterized by single-use buildings
but may accommodate mixed uses or
some multi-tenant buildings. Typically
separated from street by parking.
Neighborhood Core (NC)
GOALS
»Provide neighborhood commercial and
support services to all residential areas.
»Recognize role of neighborhood centers as
important features for residential communities.
»Generally oriented around small businesses
and low intensity of use in older areas.
»Compatible scale and visual quality
with surrounding residential areas.
»Improve pedestrian and bicycle access
between commercial clusters or establishments
and constituent neighborhoods.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Encourage walkability and planned
relationships among separate buildings
in multi-building projects.
»Relate and orient buildings to
surrounding public streets, including
direct sidewalk to front door access.
»Reduce visual impact of parking areas
that separate buildings from streets.
»Provide improved accommodations for
pedestrian and bicycle access, including
direct paths from residential areas that avoid
using major streets and bicycle parking.
»Support incremental upgrades to existing
properties to meet neighborhood
design and compatibility goals.
»Increasingly incorporate elements of
“Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use”
standards in the routine design of
neighborhood commercial projects.
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Develop standards for shared access and
interconnected parking when possible,
improved front yard landscaping and street
relationship, and alternative neighborhood
access on foot or by bicycle.
»Support placemaking initiatives, enhanced
landscaping, and other features that
improve visual quality and reinforces
neighborhood connections.
»In historic neighborhoods or special character
areas, develop and adopt standards for site
reinvestment and enhancements that strengthen
street orientation and site and building quality.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»NC Neighborhood Commercial
»CGS Convenience General Service
»CCR Community Commercial Residential
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
59 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU)
»A special subset of Neighborhood Core usually
associated with Walkable Urban Neighborhoods.
»Designed for a high level of pedestrian/
bicycle /transit access with parking
located behind buildings.
»In large, master planned developments,
may be located off major streets and
in the interior of the community.
»Often simulate “main street” character with
buildings strongly oriented to adjacent
streets and built close to the property line.
»Includes or is located directly
adjacent to residential uses.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»F-VR Village Residential
»NC Neighborhood Commercial
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Encourage walkability and planned
relationships among separate buildings
in multi-building projects.
»Relate and orient buildings to
surrounding public streets, including
direct sidewalk to front door access.
»Reduce visual impact of parking areas
that separate buildings from streets.
»Emphasize fine grain design details and building
interest for neighborhood compatibility
and use site design techniques emphasizing
connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists.
»Incorporate residential uses into planned
developments or in mixed use core areas,
including live-work environments.
»Develop a high quality, human scale streetscape
as part of development design; incorporate
small and effective public spaces.
»Accommodate existing and future
transit accommodations.
»Support incremental upgrades to existing
properties to meet neighborhood goals.
»Maintain a mix of uses that address
everyday needs.
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Encourage mixed uses in neighborhood cores.
»Support extension of future transit service
to emerging neighborhood cores.
»Develop special district plans or guidelines
prior to development in growth areas
identified as Neighborhood Core - Mixed
Use on the Future Land Use Map.
GOALS
»Provide neighborhood commercial and
support services to all residential areas.
»Recognize role of neighborhood cores as
activity centers for residential communities.
»Provide access choice from residential
neighborhoods to commercial cores,
including non-automotive options.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
60 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Community Commercial / Retail (Com CR)
»Major commercial destinations, with
citywide and even regional market reach.
Changes in retailing, including the growing
importance of on-line sales, will affect mix of
retail uses and character of these areas.
»Includes a variety of settings from North Grand
Mall and large-format free-standing commercial.
»Usually auto-oriented with large parking
lots, often sized to peak parking needs.
»Includes major commercial corridors,
ordinarily along high traffic arterials -
thoroughfares and boulevards.
»Includes commercial office areas.
»To date, typically found in single-
use commercial environments.
»Typically separated from street by parking.
»Arterial or interstate visibility and access.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»CCN Community Commercial Node
»HOC Highway Oriented Commercial
»NC Neighborhood Commercial
»PRC Planned Regional Commercial
»O -G Gateway Overlay Districts
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Develop plans for upgrading major commercial
corridors to address functional, aesthetic,
and land use issues – access management,
streetscape, multi-modal transportation, local
circulation, and land use opportunities.
»Explore public/private partnerships to
enhance existing major commercial assets.
»Develop secondary circulation ways to reduce
local traffic on main corridors. Work with major
establishments to interconnect parking lots.
»Encourage creation of a SSMID to help
finance district wide improvements.
»Review commercial design needs
and zoning regulations in light of
changing consumer patterns.
»With changing retail markets, provide
flexibility to permit the evolution of single-
use large commercial projects into new retail
formats and mixed use developments.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Re-evaluate parking needs in light of changing
consumer patterns and potential access
via alternative transportation modes.
»Redesign large parking areas for better
user orientation and pedestrian/bicycle
access, reduce influence of parking.
»Improve street orientation and connection of
building entrances to the public domain.
»Implement access management along
corridors, reduce the number of curb
cuts, and encourage interconnectivity of
parking areas and shared access points.
»Provide secondary circulation where possible
to separate local and through traffic streams.
»Improve the physical appearance and
safety and functionality of transportation
alternatives, including bicycles and other
micro-mobility modes and transit.
GOALS
»Maintain viability as major elements
of the Ames economy.
»Improve quality and user experience
to maintain competitiveness.
»Increase efficiency of land use and
improve environmental performance.
»Introduce new and more varied
land uses where appropriate.
»Move away from solely auto-
oriented design approaches.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
61 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
General Commercial (GC)
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Improve street appearance to the degree
feasible, with strategic landscaping, definition
of parking areas and driveway access,
upgraded building facades or features.
»Apply commercial design standards
for compatibility and transitioning
rather than industrial standards.
»Screen outdoor storage or minimize
exposure from public right-of-way.
»Provide screening and landscaped buffering
against any adjacent residential uses.
»Wide variety of commercial uses, including
non-retail commercial such as trade services
and automotive sales and services.
»May also include more consumer-
oriented uses and services.
»Also includes light and small-scale industrial.
»Sites may include substantial
outdoor storage and activity.
»Utilitarian site use, generally
minimum landscaping.
»Generally small to medium sites differentiated
from larger industrial operations.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
GOALS
»Provide a compatible place with room
to grow for a variety of commercial,
automotive, and light industrial uses that are
significant parts of the local economy.
»Limit impact of external effects from uses that
generate negative visual and operational impacts.
»Allow space for small commercial
and service uses, including non-retail
commercial establishments, that benefit
from locations along arterial streets.
»While allowing for a variety of uses that include
service and light industrial uses, maintain
commercial design standards that support higher
quality community aesthetics and compatibility
not ordinarily typical of industrial uses.
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Complete reviews of general commercial
corridors to identify access management and
appearance improvement opportunities.
»Where possible, manage street access
with shared driveways and parking/
service area interconnections.
»Improve appearance of public properties
with industrial impact within these areas.
»Work with business owners on tactical
improvements such as district identification,
branding, and facade improvements appropriate
to the nature and character of businesses.
Develop a business manual illustrating
possibilities for private reinvestment.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»HOC Highway Oriented Commercial
»PRC Planned Regional Commercial
O-G Gateway Overlay Districts
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
62 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Core
»Principal mixed use central districts and
identifiable image centers for Ames:
Downtown and Campustown.
»Variety of uses, with a focus on street-oriented
“main street” retail, food and beverage
establishments, civic and public facilities, offices,
services, medium and high-density residential.
»Pedestrian orientation, with well-
developed sidewalk environments,
often with enhanced streetscapes.
»Parking provided on-street or in public lots or
structures, rather than by individual businesses.
»Major transit centers.
»Often includes locations that host special
events, festivals, or other civic activities
for the district or larger community.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Support marketing and management
programs for maintenance, event
programming, and district promotion.
»Update specific district development
plans and design guidelines.
»Evaluate street sections to retain customer
convenience including on-street parking
availability to serve the broader community.
Emphasize use by pedestrians and plan for
bicyclists and users of micro-mobility modes.
»Allow high intensity infill development options
that meet street level design objectives.
»Support Historic District design
character for Downtown.
»Consider district expansion opportunities
south of Main Street in Downtown and
in carefully designated areas adjacent
to Campustown. Establish a sharp edge
to this redevelopment activity.
»Evaluate commercial options in light of
changing online retail environment.
»Review existing ordinances and right-
of-way use to maximize potential for
outdoor dining as appropriate.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Continued investment and updating of the
public environment as community destinations.
»Recognize areas as employment and activity
areas, including support for nightlife.
»Reinforce design standards and goals with
enhanced building materials, large windows,
pedestrian orientation, and design articulation.
»Improvement of routes and facilities
for alternative transportation, including
bicycle infrastructure and parking; and
comfortable and direct connections to
the City shared use path system.
»Support for continued urban commercial
and mixed use development.
»Support high intensity floor area ratios and
minimum development intensity standards.
»Avoid prominent surface parking lots
and plan for structured parking with new
development and redevelopment.
GOALS
»Maintain status as significant centers
of public life and community.
»Continue to provide opportunities for
business innovation and small business.
»Expand with a variety of new uses, including living
environments, into underutilized surrounding
areas, while reinforcing adjacent neighborhoods.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»DSC Downtown Service Center
»S-GA Government
»CSC Campustown Service Center
»DGC Downtown Gateway Commercial
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
63 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Employment (Emp)
»Includes both general industrial areas and
large-scale employment centers that are part
of planned business or ISU Research Park.
»Mixes traditional manufacturing warehouse
activities on the east side of the City
and office and R&D uses in ISU Research
Park and areas near South Bell.
»Can include high impact and
heavy industrial uses.
»Older areas include single purpose industrial lots
and relatively low-density site development.
»Planned facilities include large
blocks and large sites.
»High truck traffic generation with good
access to regional transportation facilities.
»City policy to focus most new large
industrial development east of I-35.
»Service uses are clustered in Boone County and
can be expanded with the West Growth Areas.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Implement infrastructure and
transportation projects necessary to
open the East Industrial area.
»As East Industrial, Prairie View, develops out
with large uses, evaluate options for smaller
industrial sites and locally serving commercial
uses. Large format retail is not permitted.
»Use economic development tools and standard to
support resource and environmentally conscious
uses, minimize water and sewer capacity demand.
»Support commuter transportation alternatives
to single occupant automobiles.
»Adapt zoning to provide for large manufacturing
facilities based on automation.
»Differentiate zoning for business park use
types from individual general industrial uses
oriented to small or independent businesses.
»East scenario Tiers 3 and 4 have planned
residential uses adjacent to industrial uses north
of the railroad. Consider future compatibility
of use and traffic levels with industrial.
Development options north of the railroad.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Phase out small obsolete industrial clusters
in primarily non-industrial areas, such as
industrial pockets along the railroad.
»Use screening and landscaped
buffering to address building scale
and typical utilitarian appearance.
»Residential uses should not be permitted
in these areas. Site design should provide
separation and buffering between intense
industrial and adjacent residential use.
»Apply aesthetic enhancements to
sites along major corridors.
»Plan for improved pedestrian connectivity and
access for alternative modes of transportation.
»Large sites may allow for incorporating
green infrastructure, renewable energy,
or other GHG reduction and sustainable
design techniques to existing site and
development in new employment areas.
»Focus Research Park uses on R&D and
office with high employment intensity.
»Ensure truck traffic and transportation
capacity is adequately addressed in
siting new large industrial facilities.
GOALS
»Provide attractive and well-functioning
settings for a range of industrial enterprises.
»Build on Ames’ natural and historic
strength in research.
»Minimize impact and external effects
on City neighborhoods.
»Discourage industrial uses that are large
resource users for water and sewer
services with system capacity impacts.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»GI General Industrial PI Planned Industrial
»RI Research Park Industrial
»II Intensive Industrial
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
64 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Develop and implement subarea concept plans to
guide future development and decision-making.
»When applicable, make surplus public
properties available to developers.
»Require master development plans of private
developers working with redirection areas.
»Identify potential development incentives
necessary to realize the goal for redevelopment
areas, including public improvements,
assistance with land assembly where
possible and site preparation, and tax
increment financing for redirection projects
that meet city development priorities.
»Maintain current zoning categories with
overlay district designation, signaling
future changes in category.
»Monitor infrastructure quality and availability
with potential redevelopment in redirection
areas. Evaluate infrastructure to determine
capacity to support land use intensification.
Redirection (Redir)
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Support private land assembly
and redevelopment activity.
»Ensure public infrastructure supports
desired redevelopment intensity.
»Incorporate important existing community
assets in redirection proposals, including existing
strong businesses and important structures.
»In new residential redevelopment, encourage
housing variety, income diversity, and other
design and economic development goals.
»Consider options with specific plans and
guidelines for how to include attainable housing
for lower income households when using financial
assistance to encourage redevelopment.
»Civic or public land designations will
require a Future Land Use Map amendment
prior to rezoning for any use other than
RN-3 with single-family zoning.
»Opportunities for major redevelopment.
»May include a variety of current uses, including
low-density or scattered residential, small
industrial uses, transitional or interim commercial
uses, storage, and other marginal activities.
»In many cases, location near major activity
centers or community features produce a
market demand for intensified land use.
»Currently low intensity of use areas.
»Although not mapped, University property
may be considered a redirection area.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
GOALS
»Identify on the Land Use Map preferred areas
for intensification to meet housing, commercial,
and aesthetic character goals of the city.
»On redirection sites, encourage development
that provides housing, services, and other
features that are attainable for people
across Ames’ income spectrum.
»Enhance transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
access and usage by increasing development
designed for higher density, mixed uses,
and active transportation modes.
»Understand that redevelopment is an evolving
process, with actual implementation occurring
throughout the life of this plan. Existing
uses may be incorporated into projects, and
their complete redevelopment or approval
is not necessarily intended or required to
meet the goals of this designation.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»Maintain zoning appropriate for the
existing use, while understanding that
the designation recognizes that this
is likely to change in the future.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
65 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Complete corridor development plans
using the Lincoln Way model for other
candidate corridors. Re-evaluate parking
requirements and design standards.
»Create a new mixed use urban corridor
zoning base or overlay district, reflecting
permitted uses and revised standards.
»Improve accommodations for transit users
on key routes, with shelters/stations, arrival
information, bicycle parking, and other amenities.
»Reinvest in the public street environment.
Organize corridors increasingly as “districts” with
common theming, promotion, and maintenance.
»Consider development incentives
for development projects consistent
with specific corridor plans.
Urban Corridor
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Manage street access and increase
parking efficiency by consolidating access
points, interconnecting parking lots,
and sharing common access points.
»Incorporate medium- and high-density
residential use on underused sites,
unnecessary parking areas, and gaps
along corridors, including Lincoln Way.
»Re-purpose aging and outdated buildings.
»May require specific development plans
that establish intensity and density
ranges for different contexts.
»Improve pedestrian connections from
public domain to business entrances.
»Major strategic arterial corridors, initially on
Lincoln Way but potentially extending to avenues,
mixed use avenues, boulevards, and thoroughfares.
»Connect regional, community, and
neighborhood mixed use nodes.
»Auto-dominated public environment and typical
development pattern, emphasizing visible parking
and road access. Typically include CyRide service.
»Potential for denser redevelopment with more
efficient site design, reuse of unnecessary
parking, infilling of left-over sites.
»Dominant commercial uses, but may
include residential and sometimes maker
and service uses. Older lower-density
residential can be in poor condition.
»Different community roles and business
mixes, with high public visibility.
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
GOALS
»Increase diversity of uses along major
corridors and recognize their potential
as mixed use urban districts.
»Encourage positive evolution of corridors through
application of Corridor Urbanism principles:
respect for past development patterns and
existing businesses; increasing the number
of people living along appropriate corridors;
capitalizing on opportunities presented by
oversized parking lots, vacancies, and underused
sites; improving transportation function for all
modes; and enhancing the street environment.
»Increase connectivity and improve
accommodation for active transportation
modes along major streets.
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»O -LMU Lincoln Way Mixed Use Overlay
District as a pattern for other corridors
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
66 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
APPLICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»RL Residential Low-Density
»RM Residential Medium-Density
»RH Residential High-Density
»UCRM Urban Core Medium-Density
»O -UIE University Impacted Overlay East
»O -UIW University Impacted Overlay West
Near Campus Overlay
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Establish design guidelines for single-family
homes and other attached housing structures.
»Establish a form-based transitional area to
manage redevelopment of older structures.
»Support reinvestment in single-family
homes and higher levels of owner
occupied single-family housing.
GOALS
»Recognize the diverse mix of neighborhood
occupants but use zoning and design
requirements to maintain the housing
character and quality of the area.
»Support a heterogeneous neighborhood
that is strengthened by a mix of residents.
»Developing clear edges and transitional
standards to moderate near off campus-
related densities to protect traditional
neighborhoods within the Campus Overlay.
»Strong influence of ISU campus affecting land use
demand and development pressure on the area.
»Existing neighborhoods of various density
and campus related high-density residential
in blocks adjacent to campus. Transitions
to lower-density neighborhoods with single
and mixed-density environments.
»Concentrations of off-campus student
housing in single-family structures.
»Frequent land use issues at interface
of student housing environments with
surrounding neighborhoods.
»Connected street grid with some interruptions.
»High-density of CyRide service.
»Boundary conditions are currently covered
by near campus residential regulations
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Establish a new overlay district or amendments
to the existing University Impacted District
overlays to incorporate revised guidelines.
»Because encroachment of additional high-
density uses is not planned for existing areas
in the University Impacted District, remove
the zoning overlay district in areas where
dominant campus-related use is well-established.
These include certain areas along Lincoln
Way, Campus Avenue, and Wood Street.
CHARACTERISTICS
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
67 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Hospital / Medical Special Area
LAND USE: CATEGORIES
»The hospital is a long established use
in the area and provides a vital service
to the community and region.
»Typical uses associated with the hospital
emergency room medical treatment (ER)
outpatient diagnostic and surgical centers
and special treatment facilities that involve
extended stay. Ancillary medical uses include
out-patient clinics, offices, laboratories,
teaching facilities, meeting areas, cafeterias,
maintenance facilities, housing facilities for staff
or trainees, and gift and hospitality shops.
»McFarland Clinic is the largest private
medical facility in the area, but there are
also other medical office uses as well.
»Expansion of the hospital and the medical offices
in the past has involved displacement of several
residences.
»The area has substantial volumes of traffic
and activity due to its traffic and activity on
two arterial streets and the nature of the
uses. The area has good transit access. The
mix of medical uses in the area also have high
levels of pedestrian activity between them.
»The scale of the facilities in size and
appearance are markedly different
than the homes that abut them.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
»Vertical building expansion is supported
in lieu of horizontal expansion.
»Landscaping, screening and buffering
requirements for the purpose of providing
a transition between the Hospital Medical
Special Area and adjacent residential areas.
»Building and site investments in upkeep
and maintenance of existing facilities and
site that support the community needs.
GOALS
»Efficiently utilize the existing hospital-medical
campus to minimize future expansion demands
that would pressure conversion of existing
residential property to commercial uses.
»Direct new medical service facilities toward
alternative commercial locations.
»Consider possible detrimental impacts to
adjacent residents and neighborhoods with
any expansion of hospital-medical facilities.
PUBLIC ACTIONS
»Accommodate the hospital’s primary
functions through intensification of the
present site. This may require zoning changes
with reduced setbacks that support urban
design principles along Duff Avenue.
»Continue to minimize impacts to adjacent
residences and neighborhoods by applying
architectural transition standards and utilizing
landscape buffers. Redevelopment of sites
or parking areas shall include landscape
enhancements to the extent feasible.
»Support primary access points from arterial
streets rather than from local streets to
reduce traffic levels in residential areas.
68
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
URBAN FRINGE: ANNEXATION AND FRINGE AREA
Growth at the Edge
The previous sections of this chapter focused
on a Growth & Land Use Vision for the Ames
urbanized area of 2040. The growth section
established basic principles and identified
the planned growth areas necessary to meet
the emerging needs for the next twenty
plus years, accommodating population
growth of about 15,000 people. The land use
section presented basic guiding principles
and a future land use plan for 2040, based
largely on character and function-based
development categories, along with goals,
policies, and actions for each category.
Much of the land area covered by the land
use plan is built up and within the corporate
limits, but realization of the growth plan will
require significant annexations to expand
the urbanized area of Ames. In addition to
annexation policies, Ames maintains a two-
mile extraterritorial subdivision jurisdiction
and cooperative planning area, consisting
largely of open space and agricultural
uses, with some built up rural development
areas, such as northeast of Ames. This
“Urban Fringe” area was the subject of a
cooperative planning effort completed in
2006 that involved the cities of Ames and
Gilbert and Boone and Story Counties. This
section is intended to address annexation of
growth areas and provide an updated policy
framework to the 2006 document.
Growth Areas and Annexation
In review, the Ames Plan 2040 process focused
on four growth directions: north, south, east,
and west/southwest. A northwest growth
option, previously proposed by the City’s Land
Use Policy Plan of 1997, was removed from
consideration because of the extensiveness and
cost of infrastructure improvements. In addition,
a southeast growth area, south of Highway 30
and east of I-35, is not in the line of probable
development during the planning period but
holds long-term promise that could be unlocked
by a new trunk line sanitary sewer and a south
interchange, described elsewhere in Plan 2040.
The Future Land Use Map depicts the general
layout of uses and infrastructure for the four
primary growth areas and sets expectations
for types and intensities of uses to meet the
community needs and use resources efficiently.
The precise delineation of uses will occur
through the application of zoning districts that
address more detailed information on specific
uses and development patterns. The Future
Land Use Map guides decision making for
zoning and is in and of itself not considered to
establish a right to a specific zone or use.
The projected growth areas were then
divided into four development tiers, based
on infrastructure availability. Tiers 1 and 2
incorporate areas served by incremental
extensions of existing lines, while Tiers 3 and 4
build on that base to achieve full maturity. The
criteria for annexation do not dictate a precise
order for development, but instead outline
factors that will affect the timing and desirability
of annexation in the future.
The City’s capital improvement planning is
based largely upon growth within these four
growth areas and their development tiers.
Extensions of water, sanitary sewer, parks,
and roads are all needed for full build-out of
each of these growth areas. This informs the
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) programming,
but it does not in and of itself commit the
City to the extension or timing of specific
infrastructure at the City’s cost. Indeed, much of
the infrastructure and improvements identified
within a growth area will be the obligation of
a property owner or developer and in some
instances in coordination with the City.
Each of the planned expansion areas
includes a detailed discussion of needed
infrastructure and desired outcomes. At the
time of annexation the City will identify the
relationship of the annexation to the scenario
analysis and consider developer proposals for
infrastructure extensions. The City will ensure
that the extensions are logical and beneficial
to overall goals for the area and not just for the
convenience of one development project.
The City’s priority for development is
incremental growth that builds upon prior
improvements and improvements funded
through developer-based construction. In some
circumstances, the City may find an investment
in “up-sizing” or completing critical connections
is vital to the long-term success of the City
and its expansion through partnering with
developers or moving forward with pioneer
infrastructure. This Plan does not specify timing
or investment obligations by the City as it will be
addressed through the City’s CIP. The City will
include an infrastructure extension program in
69
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
the CIP to plan for coordinated improvements,
but funding and timing will be an annual
decision with the CIP budget approval.
Pioneer infrastructure and oversizing interests
will be addressed by the City based upon
general benefit to the City and its expansion into
a defined area. Timing is a critical component
to having the City participate in extensions of
infrastructure. City participation may include
the use of development agreements for
offsetting projects, connection districts, street
assessments, or financial incentives based upon
City policy. If a desired project is not within the
5-yr CIP a developer would need to request
changes in timing or begin the project as a
developer project.
The City is not conferring a development right
to property owners or obligation upon the City
to make infrastructure available at any specific
time or cost during the planning horizon of
the Plan. This means that only upon rezoning
and subdivision approval, when infrastructure
adequacy and specific uses are evaluated,
is there certainty in how to proceed with
development.
Annexation of Lands Other than Growth Areas
In addition to the larger Growth Area Scenario
analysis, there may be instances where
individual properties abutting the City will
also be appropriate to be annexed, to meet
the needs of a growing City. These properties
should be viewed in the light of their immediate
serviceability or development potential
compared to long-term prospects coordinated
within the planned growth areas. Large areas
of annexation, for example exceeding a quarter
section, will require a determination of timing
consistency with planned infrastructure and
the vitality of the planned and emerging
growth areas, meaning the areas should not
directly undermine planned growth areas
viability for build-out in a predictable or
sustainable economic manner. Annexation
of other areas may be justified due to readily
available infrastructure, a large master planned
community approach with a development
partner, or a lack of investment or development
in targeted areas and need for additional land
development options.
Fringe Area Policies
Ames has subdivision authority based upon
state law for areas within two miles of its
municipal limits, referred to as the Urban Fringe.
Effective management of the Fringe is essential
to planning future growth options and ensure
that non-urban development practices do not
negatively affect the City of Ames. In addition,
preservation of natural areas and development
practices compatible with agricultural needs is
critical to the general well-being and welfare of
the City of Ames and Story and Boone Counties.
Ames, Gilbert, and Story County have
coordinated the management of the Fringe
since 2011. The current agreement is based upon
a 2006 Ames Urban Fringe Plan that identified
policies for various issues that included
agricultural preservation, natural areas, rural
residential development, and the expansion
of Ames and Gilbert through annexation. City
policy is to continue to plan for the Fringe area,
to work in this cooperative planning effort
with Story County, and to look to expand the
URBAN FRINGE: ANNEXATION AND FRINGE AREA
joint planning and subdivision review authority
coordination with Boone County as well.
The City’s primary interests are planning
for areas around the City as Urban Reserve
based upon future opportunities for growth
and urban services. Limited expansion of
growth in the Fringe helps to meet other goals
for managing natural resources and county
infrastructure capacity as well. An agreement
with the Counties helps to streamline policy
and project review for the Fringe to help focus
on City priorities in the Fringe and add design
requirements that address future compatibility
and service needs related to rural development.
70
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Guiding Principles for the
Urban Fringe
The following policies can form the foundation
for a new and more detailed Fringe Area Plan as
Part of Plan 2040 and helps coordinate multi-
jurisdictional land use and subdivision planning
and administration in the Ames jurisdiction.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING
UF1-1: Designated Limited Area for Rural
Development. Designate areas of existing rural
development and limited areas for new rural
development as they relate to future potential
expansion for the City. A fundamental objective is for
new development to occur within an urbanized area,
limiting impacts to rural uses and providing urban
infrastructure and services that support a compact
and efficient development pattern for urban services.
UF1-2: Regional Partnerships. Work on
regional partnerships for mutually beneficial
planning of recreational uses, conservation
areas, and watershed management.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS
UF2-1: Existing Development. An Existing
Development designation applies to previously
developed areas of varying density below three
dwelling units per acre. These areas were primarily
developed through rural subdivisions and lack
urban infrastructure. They are subject to county
zoning for limited levels of residential development.
Only limited development of existing lots or minor
subdivisions of existing lots with existing zoning
are anticipated during the life of this Plan. Minimum
lots sizes should reflect the rural character of
the area and limited infrastructure capacity to
support development intensification. Annexation
of these areas is undesirable due to the low-
density of development and minimal infrastructure
improvements. These developments fall under the
Rural Character category of the land use plan.
UF2-2: New Rural Residential. Rural Development
Areas reflect county planning interests and are limited
to areas that are well beyond the potential Urban
Reserve areas and City limits. Designation of this
land use should consider impacts to infrastructure,
adjacent agricultural uses and natural areas; changes
to storm water runoff and drainage basins; and
cumulative effects of development near other cities on
county and state highways. The low suitability of the
site for agricultural uses due to a CSR score or a LESA
score does not alone justify change of use to rural
development. County zoning will vary for density and
use, typically a rural subdivision would be limited to a
minimum of 1 unit per net acre and a maximum density
of 2.5 units per net acre and are to be developed as
a subdivision plat. The City will review infrastructure
needs for rural development and consider case by
case waivers of urban infrastructure standards.
UF2-3: Rural Non-Residential Development.
Certain areas adjacent to the City but in the county
may include activities such as mining that are not
desirable as an urban use or typically compatible
with surrounding uses. In addition, limited areas
of pre-existing commercial or light industrial uses
occur within two miles of the City. The largest
such areas are within Boone County. The Fringe
Area recognizes these existing uses. However,
further expansion of these non-residential uses
is undesirable, especially within the growth areas
where they can impact the future plans for City
expansion. Further development in these existing
areas will be limited by current infrastructure
improvements. The City will review infrastructure
needs for rural development and consider case by
case waivers of urban infrastructure standards.
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL AREAS
UF3-1: Agricultural Preservation. Agricultural
areas are designated to preserve appropriate
land for farming and limit the encroachment of
residential and other uses into these areas. Land
divisions are permissible only to allow for splitting
off an existing homesite or farmstead from a farm
area. Minimum lot sizes are proposed at 35 acres
matching Story County A-1 zoning standard.
UF3-2: Natural Area Conservation. Natural areas
include sensitive areas of natural habitat, steep
slopes, and waterways. Natural area designations
are informational based upon the Environment
Chapter and the 2006 AUFP. Creation of new
parcels within these areas for new development is
prohibited. Property divisions for land conservation
purposes is permissible with City approval.
URBAN RESERVE AREAS
UF4-1. Urban Reserve District. Create an Urban
Reserve area for the short- and long-term expansion
of the City. These areas fall within the urban service
area where municipal services, most notably sanitary
sewer, can be feasibly extended. Only subdivisions
that meet full urban development subdivision
and improvement standards would be allowed.
UF4-2: Annexation. Urban Reserve Areas are
appropriate for annexation to the City to meet
future growth needs of the City. Areas are
planned for residential, commercial, and industrial
expansion based upon the scenario and Tiers
analysis of this Plan. A precise determination
of use will be determined upon annexation.
UF4-3: Lot Subdivision. Land divisions are
permissible only to allow for splitting off an
existing homesite or farmstead from a farm
area. Divisions should not create parcels that
can limit future annexation options. Land
Divisions within the Urban Reserve Area shall
meet a minimum lot size of 35 acres.
UF4-4: Infrastructure. All developments are
subject to urban infrastructure standards unless a
conditional waiver is granted by the City Council.
URBAN FRINGE: POLICY FRAMEWORK
71
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
D
U
F
F
AV
E
US HIGHWAY 30
US HIGHWAY 30
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
LINCOLN WAY
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
INTERS
TATE
35
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
DU
F
F
A
V
E
UN
IVE
R
S
I
TY
BL
V
D
LINCOLN WAY
ST
A
T
E
A
V
E
ONTARIO ST
NO
R
T
H
D
A
K
O
T
A
A
V
E
DA
Y
T
O
N
A
V
E
SO
U
T
H
D
A
K
O
T
A
A
V
E
ST
A
N
G
E
R
D
13TH ST 13TH ST
6TH ST
16TH ST
BLOOMINGTON RD
DA
Y
T
O
N
P
L
24TH ST
ST
A
N
G
E
R
D
4TH ST
MORTENSEN RD
AIRPORT RD
3RD ST
HY
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
OAKWOOD RD
US
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
6
9
US
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
6
9
13TH ST
US
HI
G
HW
AY
69
US
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
6
9
Core
Core
Core
Redir
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Emp
Emp
EmpEmp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
GC
GC
GC
GCGC
GC
Com
CR Com
CR
ComCRComCR
ComCR
ComCR
ComCR
RN-5RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
NC
MU
NCMU
NC
MU
NCMU
NC
MU
NC
MU
NC
MU
NC
Com-CR
NC
NC
Quarry
Redir
Redir
RN-1
RN-1
RN-1
UCUC
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
RN-4
RN-4
RN-4
Emp
RN-5
ComCR
NCMU
Core
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-3
GC
GC
ComCR
ComCRRN-5 RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
GC
NCMU
NC
Redir
Redir
RN-1
UC Core
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
RN-4
RN-4
Emp
Emp
Univ
RN-3
NC-MU
RN-2
RN-5
UC
RN-3
GC
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Univ
RN-2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
Fringe Land Use Designations
Natural Areas
Rural Character
Boone CO Urban Reserve
Story CO Urban Reserve
Future Land Use
Residential Neighborhood 1 - Traditional (RN-1)
Residential Neighborhood 2 - Established (RN-2)
Residential Neighborhood 3 - Expansion (RN-3)
Residential Neighborhood 4 - Village (RN-4)
Residential Neighborhood 5 - Multi-family (RN-5)
Neighborhood Core (NC)
Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU)
Community Commercial/Retail (Com-CR)
General Commercial (GC)
Core (Core)
Redirection (Redir)
Urban Corridor
Employment (Emp)
Park/Recreation
Open Space
Civic
Civic - University
Hospital/Medical Special Area
Near Campus Overlay
Airport Protection Area
City Limits
Urban Fringe Map
City of Ames, Iowa
Final Draft December 8, 2021
0 0.55 1.10.28 Miles North
FRINGE AREA MAP
URBAN FRINGE: ANNEXATION AND FRINGE AREA
Fringe Land Use Designations
Natural Areas
Rural Character
Boone County Urban Reserve
Story County Urban Reserve
FUTURE LAND USE
Residential Neighborhood 1 - Traditional (RN-1)
Residential Neighborhood 2 - Established (RN-2)
Residential Neighborhood 3 - Expansion (RN-3)
Residential Neighborhood 4 - Village (RN-4)
Residential Neighborhood 5 - Multifamily (RN-5)
Neighborhood Core (NC)
Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU)
Community Commercial /Retail (Com-CR)
General Commercial (GC)
Core
Redirection (Redir)
Urban Corridor
Employment
Quarry
Park / Recreation
Open Space
Civic
Civic - University
Hospital /Medical Special Area
Near Campus Overlay
Airport Protection Area
City Limits
72 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
ENVIRONMENT
VISION // AMES 2040
STEWARDSHIP THAT SUPPORTS A SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITY ECONOMY, NATURAL
RESOURCES, AND LIVING ENVIRONMENT.
74
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Ames has a strong tradition of environmental
stewardship through the activities and learning
programs of Iowa State University and initiatives
by the City of Ames. Environmental stewardship
and sustainability initiatives of the 21st century
is paramount to the future of Ames and the
welfare of community members. These interests
are incorporated not only into our daily life with
City programs and services, but also in how we
consider long range planning and management
of growth. Within the past 50 years, the City
has led a number of progressive environmental
efforts, including its unique effort to reduce
landfill needs and reduce energy demands with
its first of its kind Resource Recovery Plant
that not only allows for sorting of trash and
recyclables, but also creates refuse derived
fuel to supplement the Ames Electric Plant.
These traditions also include the City’s creation
of Ada Hayden Heritage Park, diversifying its
electric energy sources by eliminating use
of coal and increasing natural gas, wind, and
solar, participating in Ioway Creek Watershed
Management Authority, addressing Emerald
Ash Borer infestation, creation of the SolSmart
Community Solar Garden, water conservation
programs, storm water management and water
quality programs, creating the EcoSmart brand
for City environmental programs, and planning
for compact and efficient growth patterns of
the community.
During the development of the 1997 Land Use
Policy Plan the City spent a great deal of time
identifying natural resources (Norris Study) and
environmental constraints that affect growth
and land use of the City. These studies help
to shape development policies and growth
choices for the City. Not only does the City
understand the direct physical impacts of
changes to the environment, with growth but
we have incorporated indirect considerations
of growth related to density of development
for efficient use of land in order to reduce
our footprint of growth, support for infill and
intensification within Campustown and other
urban neighborhoods and corridors, citywide
storm water management controls that benefit
our creek and natural areas. Another critical
relationship is land use and transportation,
where planning supports efforts to reduce
vehicle miles traveled and multi-modal
transportation choices with neighborhood
open spaces and parks, sidewalks, shared
use paths, transit, and conveniently located
commercial services.
The City has also experienced environmental
impacts from the effects of extreme weather
events throughout its history, with significant
large-scale floods in the 1990s, 2008, and 2010
and recently the 2020 Derecho windstorm.
The City has responded to these constraints
with development policies limiting impacts in
flood plains, removing highly impacted housing
from the flood plain, and adding mandatory
storm water management standards to new
development. The City has also responded
by incorporating planning and resiliency into
our services and infrastructure, including our
emergency response planning and new bridges
and flood mitigation projects.
Looking forward into the 21st century with
Ames Plan 2040 we will continue to plan for a
growing and thriving community that includes
stewardship principles in its decisions, but also
identifies new opportunities for improving the
quality of the natural environment. Addressing
the impacts of forecasted climate change
and assessing community wide greenhouse
gas emissions are some of those challenges
that are on the horizon. The City has started a
community wide Climate Action Plan process
to help study these issues. Although this Plan
incorporates broad environmental conservation
policies into it now, at the conclusion of the
community wide CAP process there will
potentially be new policies for the City to
incorporate into Ames Plan 2040 for emerging
environmental issues.
With this background of environmental
stewardship by the City, Ames Plan 2040
endeavors to help guide the growth of the
City and the expansion of its economy with
identification of potential environmental
constraints and opportunities for environmental
enhancements. A number of environmental
issues are integrated into other topics of
the Plan, such as Land Use and Parks and
Recreation. Environmental factors will guide
a number of project specific standards that
implement the vision of this Plan with the City’s
zoning and subdivision standards.
75
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Climate
Ames has launched numerous initiatives for
managing conditions that contribute to climate
change and continues to establish programs
and projects that can be demonstrations for the
State of Iowa and beyond. The City encourages
sustainability through the programs and services
provided to the community. From hybrid public
transit buses, to bike lanes, to electric vehicle
charging stations, the City continues to look for
ways to help its citizens make green decisions.
Balancing the need to be fiscally responsible
with a commitment to a cleaner, greener
community, Ames is committed to being a
steward for a better environment.
Climate Action Initiatives. In 2019, the City
completed a Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Vulnerability
Assessment, and Renewable Energy Potentials
Study. These projects provide a baseline metric
to measure changing conditions. This plan
identifies future initiatives to better understand
the community’s influence on the climate. Work
has continued and the City contracted with a
consultant in 2021 to prepare a Climate Action Plan.
EcoSmart. EcoSmart is the City of Ames’
comprehensive strategy to reduce energy
consumption and decrease its carbon footprint. Many
of the city’s efforts are new, while others have been
around for decades. The programs and initiatives
represent the City’s commitment to protecting and
enhancing the community’s natural environment.
Natural Resources
Preserving the City’s existing natural resources
is vital to the community. They provide habitat
for wildlife, minimize stormwater run-off,
stabilize soils, influence climactic effects, offer
visual appeal and serve some recreational
purposes. In recognizing their value, this plan
identifies the natural features present in Ames
and reviews some of the current initiatives for
their preservation.
When considering natural features, some lots
are better for development than others from
an environmental, developmental cost, and
long-term maintenance standpoint (e.g., land
containing steep slopes, floodplain).
The following pages identify the natural
features to be considered and are combined
to create the Critical Natural Resource Areas
map. The map identifies areas that are
suitable for development or may influence
how development proceeds within identified
growth areas.
Natural resource mapping for Plan 2040 relied
upon geographic information system (GIS)
data from multiple sources. This information is
updated and relied upon by the City on a regular
basis.
Natural features shown in the upcoming maps
include:
i. Floodplains
ii. Wetlands and Streams
iii. Impaired Stream Segments
iv. Hydric Soils
v. Slopes and Topography
vi. Watersheds
vii. Species Richness
viii. Sandy Soils and Green Infrastructure
ix. Vegetation
x. Critical Natural Resource Areas
76
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Wetlands and Streams
Wetland mapping is an important strategy
to look at connecting the hydric (wet) soils
and sensitive areas. Individual site assessment
is often needed to verify water resource
conditions. Most of the wetlands are adjacent
to streams or within the floodplain, but
several small-scale wetlands are scattered
throughout the region. Wetlands are essential
to the hydrological ecosystem because
of their water-cleansing properties. The
number of wetlands surfacing in the region
indicates value in exploring the potential of a
wetland mitigation bank to serve this region.
When wetland mitigation occurs within the
watershed of the original wetland, it’s more
effective at replicating the functions of the
original wetland, assuming the mitigating
wetland is well designed and managed.
Impaired Stream Segments
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources
publishes impaired stream data every two
years. When looking at stream impairment, it’s
important to recognize impaired waterways can
range from slight to severe. This analysis focuses
primarily on Category 5 impairments – stream
segments requiring a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL), a study of the pollution amount
(i.e. “load’) a stream segment can withstand
and meet state water quality standards. The
TMDL study provides a detailed look at a stream
segment’s impairment and offers details that
relate to potential corrective measures. Due
to the number of impaired waters in Iowa,
significant time lapse often occurs between
calling out the need for and completing a
TMDL study. At this “comprehensive plan” level,
impaired segments reveal stream stretches that
likely need buffers to reach their full potential.
The map identifies the South Skunk River as a
Category 5.
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
G
S
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
o
w
a
D
N
R
2
0
1
8
Floodplains
Floodplains are fundamental to the watershed
and habitat. The 100-year flood plain is
represented as a 1% chance of flooding in any
given year.
Ames is no stranger to flooding, which caused
significant damage in 1993, 2008, and 2010.
The City has created a flood watch program to
monitor risk and better predict when flooding
may occur. While flooding cannot be stopped, it
can be planned for to ensure safety of residents
and minimal damage to property.
The City participates in the National Flood
Insurance Program and manages the floodway
and floodway fringe in accordance with
requirements of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The City applies standards that exceed these
requirements for new development in the
floodway fringe.
CONDITIONS
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Forested
Lake
Riverine
Flood Hazard Area Impaired Streams
So
u
r
c
e
:
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
(
F
E
M
A
)
77
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
1160'
830'
Hydric (Wet) Soils
The United States Department of Agriculture
defines hydric soils as those soils that are
sufficiently wet in the upper part to develop
anaerobic conditions (saturation) during the
growing season. Ames’ area soils with a high
potential for saturation follow drainage/water
ways very closely and reinforce the need for
buffering and connections of creeks, streams,
and drainage ways.
Topography
Slopes have a direct impact on flooding/erosion,
development suitability, and habitat. Much of
Ames is flatter, with low-lying topography, but
even modest slopes of 6% can have a significant
impact on development, particularly in areas
where the building footprint requiring flat terrain
is large. Minimizing development in areas with
steep slopes (greater than 8%) will help prevent
excessive erosion and stabilize stream corridors.
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
G
S
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
G
S
CONDITIONS
Watersheds
Watersheds define areas that are impacted
locally by stormwater runoff from a general
area and demonstrate the integrated natural
of waterways.
So
u
r
c
e
:
R
D
G
,
F
E
M
A
,
U
S
G
S
50-95% Hydric Soil
95-100% Hydric Soil
78
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Species Richness
Using a gap analysis provided by Iowa
State University and the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources, one can understand
Ames’ capacity for supporting amphibians,
reptiles, and bird species. The zones of light to
modest development in the region are largely
reflected in the species richness maps. The
least disturbed lands tend to better support
wildlife than areas that have been plowed or
paved. There may still be pockets, however, of
environmentally sensitive areas and/or native
vegetation throughout the region.
Sandy Soils and Green
Infrastructure
“Green infrastructure” speaks to the use
of a series of natural systems to replace or
supplement pipe and concrete infrastructure
that has traditionally been used to manage
stormwater in modern times. Buffers, rain
gardens, and other practices that promote
slowing and soaking up water make up green
infrastructure. Systems that use infiltration
(soaking) methods – rain gardens and
bioswales– are best suited to sandier soils,
particularly in areas with a lower water table.
Infiltration is not the whole of the green
infrastructure story. Surface based water quality
improvement practices (filter strips, buffers)
help remove “suspended solids” and harmful
pollutants (fertilizers, oils) while slowing water
down before it reaches a creek or stream. Often
a series or “treatment train” of measures are
used for pre-treatment of runoff along with
detention and retention ponds.
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
G
S
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
o
w
a
D
N
R
CONDITIONS
Vegetation
Vegetation and land cover are major resources
that can help manage stormwater, prevent
erosion, and provide more appealing physical
environments.
Restoring and/or preserving native vegetation
helps protect the habitat and provides
opportunities for migratory birds and wildlife.
Ames has a high correlation between species
richness and some of the City’s more wooded
areas. Many of these areas have been difficult
for development (due in some instances to wet
conditions, in others to steep slopes) and have
left their vegetation largely intact.
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
o
w
a
D
N
R
Sandy Soils
Green Infrastructure
High
Low
79
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Critical Natural Resource Areas
The Critical Natural Resource Areas broadly
identified via this composite map can be
used to point the City in the direction
of areas to be included in a possible
Environmental Conservation Overlay.
The overlay would help to maintain the
natural resource functions of these lands.
These functions include erosion prevention/
watershed protection, potentially some
modest level of flood mitigation, wildlife/
habitat protection, and potential recreation
functions.
To repeat an important point made in the
Species Richness section, there may still
be pockets of environmentally sensitive
areas and/or native vegetation throughout
the region that are beyond the loose
“boundaries” of these Critical Natural
Resources. The City should develop a
process for mapping environmentally
sensitive areas in the region.
CRITICAL NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS
So
u
r
c
e
:
R
D
G
,
F
E
M
A
,
U
S
G
S
NATURAL RESOURCES
High
Minor Potential Compatibility
Substantial Potential Incompatibility
Low
LAND/FARMLAND CLASS
Prime Farmland
Forested/Wetlands
FLOOD RISK
1% Annual Chance
0.2% Annual Chance
HYDRIC CLASSIFICATION - PRESENCE
At least 50% Hydric
100% Hydric
80
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Guiding Principles for
the Environment
E1: Design for environmental priorities.
Ames’ most environmentally sensitive land
is protected from development, while areas
that allow development have environmentally-
friendly guidelines. The City’s greenway network
connects neighborhoods to nature and presents
a framework for linking the entire community.
Priorities related to development include habitat
preservation, water quality, dark skies, and flood
plain management.
The Future Land Use Map shows locations
for preserving environmental features from
redevelopment and with the Greenways map in
the Parks and Open Space Chapter.
E2: Improve water quality. Ames’ green
network mimics the natural system of rainwater
management, thereby preventing flooding,
improving our water quality, and influencing the
regional watersheds and the health of habitat.
E3: Preserve a network of green spaces.
Support a network of connected natural areas,
parks and open spaces in and around the City.
These spaces will be located throughout the city
and adjacent fringe areas to preserve nature’s
ability to manage stormwater, flooding and
water quality; provide habitat for plants and
animals; and human experiences of recreation
and natural space enjoyment.
E4: Apply climate change policies. This
principle recognizes the planned growth of
the community will occur to meet housing and
economic needs and that the City will explore
effects of climate change as they relate to
Ames. Maintain a greenhouse gas inventory
and complete a Climate Action Plan to assess
strategies to reduce Ames’s community-based
emissions related to climate change and plan
for potential climate related changes that could
impact the community.
SEE OTHER RELATED PRINCIPLES...
Ensure Sustainable Growth-Ames new growth
will be both economically and environmentally
sustainable - Growth Principle
81
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
1 Assess a wide range of environmental
conditions pertinent to Ames.
The City should maintain an inventory
of known environmental resources and
attributes of the community that affect
environmental quality. This applies to the
existing community as well as to areas
planned for growth. While an inventory will
be an ongoing effort, Ames should update
their entire inventory every 5-10 years,
which may include:
i. Natural features, including floodplains,
wetlands, streams, soil quality,
topography, vegetation, species
richness, tree canopy, sandy soils,
critical natural resource areas, principal
flow paths, and drainage-ways.
ii. Watershed protection
iii. Greenhouse gas inventory
iv. Climate data
v. Travel demand and patterns
vi. Solid Waste, RDF, recycling
vii. Funding contributed to
environmental initiatives.
2 Use planning documents and
models to assist in managing
environmental quality.
Ames will apply appropriate data related to
current conditions to the policies of a wide
range of plans and activities administered
by the City, which will include:
i. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Climate
Action Plan
ii. Stormwater Management Plan
iii. Watershed plans focused on water
quality monitoring and measuring.
iv. Transportation Plan that considers
multi-modal transportation
v. Parks Master Plan
vi. Development standards and
ordinances, such as flood plain,
subdivision, zoning, environmentally
sensitive overlays
3 Support for alternative
energy systems.
Support energy efficiency and alternative
energy sources that reduce reliance on
fossil fuels. This includes planning for
infrastructure needed to support shifts on
vehicle fuels and power for buildings.
Ames Electric provides the majority of
residents and businesses within Ames their
electricity in 2020, however most of the
planned growth of the City is within Alliant,
Consumers, and Midland electric territories.
The City will have to work with other energy
providers to support this principle.
ACTIONS
82
P L A N E L E M E N T S E N V I R O N M E N T
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
ADOPTEDADOPTED
4 Adopt policies and implement strategies
identified in prepared plans.
Design for environmental priorities in
development plans and city projects that
would include the following:
i. Natural stream way preservation
and water quality enhancement for
supporting human and aquatic life.
ii. Stormwater run-off and water quality
management.
iii. Air quality preservation through the
avoidance of pollutant emitting uses.
iv. Use zoning and other development
standards for landscaping and
vegetation management. Vegetation
maintenance and enhancement for its
beautification, air cleaning, water run-
off reduction, and climate modification
qualities. Prioritize native planting and
other plantings with demonstrated
hardiness for the Ames climate.
v. Natural resource areas conservation.
5 Economic development goals
shall consider resource availability
and intensity of use.
Ames strives to grow economically and
be wise in the use of its natural resources.
Economic development priorities should
reinforce that the City prefers low-
water usage activities and non-polluting
industries.
vi. Preserve greenway areas as identified
in this plan for growth areas, if possible
before development occurs. Also,
examine efforts to re- establish natural
corridors in areas that are already
developed.
vii. Apply Flood Plain protection standards
as a minimum within the 100-year
Floodway Fringe and consider policies
for broader protection within the 500-
year flood plain.
viii. Minimize new encroachments of
development into sensitive areas within
growth areas. Support cooperative
planning with counties in the Ames
Urban Fringe area related to this Plan..
ACTIONS
SEE OTHER RELATED ACTIONS...
Apply conservation standards in growth areas -
Parks Principle
83 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 83 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
PARKS, TRAILS, & GREENWAYS
VISION // AMES 2040
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES
THAT SUPPORT THE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL
WELL-BEING OF THE COMMUNITY.
85
P L A N E L E M E N T S P A R K S , T R A I L S & G R E E N W A Y S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
The Ames Parks Master Plan, adopted in 2013,
provides a vision for the Ames park system
stretching ahead to the year 2030 and beyond.
This plan outlines steps to manage current and
future park land, placing emphasis on minimizing
negative environmental impacts to protect
biological diversity and preserve essential
ecological functions and providing for continued
community recreation opportunities. The City
relies upon private open space and larger
county regional parks to augment recreational
opportunities for residents of Ames.
The City operates parks and plans for amenities
at a variety of scales. The following identifies the
types of parks and current services including
coverage, level of service, and amenities.
Regional Parks. An area suitable for regionally
based recreation activities and selected for its
natural and ornamental quality. The size of the
park is typically from 200 to 500 acres in size.
Its size is based on its capacity to preserve
its natural character while accommodating a
variety of activity areas with buffering between
activity areas. Access to water bodies is of
particular importance during site selection.
Community Parks. Parks located to serve a
population within a one to two mile radius, although
the facilities often serve the needs of the entire
community. The size of the park will vary from 30 to
100 acres. Community parks generally contain sports
fields for organized leagues, swimming pools, unique
natural elements (forests, hills, ponds, streams, etc.)
and any other facilities designed for community-wide
use. Amenities could include large shelter houses,
restrooms, playground structures, slides, swings,
tennis courts, and hard-surfaced parking lots.
Neighborhood Parks. Parks located to serve a
population within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius. The size
of the park will vary from 5 to 30 acres, depending
on the location. Site development at this level
generally includes open space, walkways, and
landscape material. Amenities could include a
swing sets, play structure, small shelter house,
grills, picnic tables, 30’ x 60’ basketball pad, a
drinking fountain, and on-street parking.
Woodland and Open Spaces. Land set aside to
be left in a natural state, not meant for planned
activities. Trails may be established along with
other passive activities and conservation efforts.
Greenbelts. Open space most often located along
a creek or stream which serves the purpose of
managing the floodway, linking an open space
system, offering recreational and education
opportunities, and protecting natural resources.
Many greenbelts are informal or private areas
within Ames. Greenbelt parks can offer intermittent
recreational areas, as well as serve as scenic
connections and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Developed Spaces. A space designed for
either passive or active usage with amenities
incorporated at the site (play equipment,
restrooms, shelters, drinking fountains, etc.).
Shared Use Paths. Multi-purpose trails that
serve transportation and recreation needs.
Commonly located within greenways, parks and
natural areas as well as along primary streets.
Focus is on recreational value and harmony
with the natural environment surroundings.
»Type 1 : Trails are hard-surfaced for use by
bicyclists, in-line skaters and walkers/joggers.
»Type 2: Nature Trails for use by pedestrians.
May be hard or soft surfaced.
Private Open Spaces. Land set aside
within residential developments where the
intended primary use is for those adjacent
property owners, not the public at large.
Recreation Facilities. Recreation facilities
typical are purpose-driven and include buildings,
they may be standalone or within a park. These
include the Ames/ISU Ice Arena, Homewood
Golf Course, Furman Aquatic Center, Ames
Community Center, and the Municipal Pool.
CITY PARK FACILITIES
TYPE COUNT ACRES SERVICE AREA
Regional 1 437 Entire community
Community 5 38-82 1-2 mile radius
Neighborhood 22 0.5-28 0.25-.50 mile radius
Specialty/Other 8 0.25 -17
Recreation Facility 5 2-64
Woodland/Open Space 4 3-100
Source: City of Ames, 2019
86
P L A N E L E M E N T S P A R K S , T R A I L S & G R E E N W A Y S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Current Level of Service
Parkland in Ames covers approximately 1,215
acres or a total of 1,760 acres when including
all open space such as golf courses or ISU land.
Ada Hayden Heritage Park alone has 437 acres.
Since 1995, Ames has steadily increased its
parks from 629 acres.
At present, Ames contains about 18.4 acres per
1,000 residents, which is greater than the City’s
current policy of committing 10 acres.
A half-mile radius is drawn around each park
on the map, equating to a walkable distance to
each of Ames’ 38 parks.
PARKS AND SERVICE AREAS
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
87% of Ames’ residents
consider “access to parks or open
space within a 10-minute walk” to
be important or very important
to support a healthy lifestyle and
enhanced personal well-being.City of Ames Park
Half Mile Buffer
87
P L A N E L E M E N T S P A R K S , T R A I L S & G R E E N W A Y S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Trails and Greenways
Ames has a strong trails and greenway system.
Many public comments emphasized the
importance of trails in the community. The
Future Active Transportation Facilities Concept
in the Mobility Element shows the combined
bike facility and trail network with currently
planned links.
Several gaps between pathways (trails and
sidewalks) need to be filled along with the safety
of high traffic routes, which should be detailed in
a future Parks and Trails Plan Update.
EXISTING TRAILS AND GREENWAYS
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
80% of Ames’ residents
consider the “additional walking
and biking trails and paths” to be
important or very important as a
quality of life priority for the City.
Parks
Greenways
88
P L A N E L E M E N T S P A R K S , T R A I L S & G R E E N W A Y S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Guiding Principles for Parks,
Trails & Recreation
P1: Bring people together. Public spaces should
reflect community values for social and physical
well-being that private open space alone cannot
accomplish.
The parks and greenway system is the jewel of
the community and point of pride that brings
people together from across the community.
P2: Be accessible and desirable. The Parks
system is a key supporting element of an active
lifestyle and community wellbeing. Provide
for parks and open spaces that are walkable
from adjacent homes. Larger parks are often
of community scale and accessible via multiple
modes of transportation.
P3: Build new parks to service new areas.
As the city grows, so should its park system.
Future development will require provision of
new neighborhood parks as well as a larger
community parks within designation growth
areas. Plan for new parks and coordinate
dedication and improvements with development
proposals when possible. Specialty parks and
neighborhood parks may also be added to
existing areas of the City.
P4: Enhance and maintain the system of
parks. Incorporate features into existing parks
and new parks to serve the overall community
and its changing needs. Parks and trails will be
designed to ensure that the spaces are safe,
enjoyable, fun, and distinct.
P5: Plan a system of interconnected
greenways. A system of greenways should
preserve environmentally sensitive areas, while
offering opportunities for connecting people
to the outdoors, including pathways and
water trails. Recognize that certain park trails
and greenway trails can be a vital part of the
Transportation System.
P6: Stewardship and variety of open space.
Public open space can provide for recreation
as well as natural and environmentally sensitive
area preservation. The City’s planning will
account for needed passive area experiences
as well as active recreation. Some facilities may
serve a dual purpose and offer opportunities
to enhance the natural environment with flood
control, stormwater management, water quality,
and reestablishment of habitat.
P7: Be fiscally responsible. The parks and trail
system have substantial ongoing operation costs
with limited financial resources. Planning and
budgeting for improvements should not affect
the quality of existing parks and ongoing costs
shall be considered when planning for parks and
trails.
P8: Support partnerships. Ames will welcome
partnerships to provide a diversity of recreation,
natural features, and locations in the parks
and trails system. Ames continues to foster
partnerships with Friends Groups, Iowa State
University, Ames Public Art Commission, and
County Conservation groups.
89
P L A N E L E M E N T S P A R K S , T R A I L S & G R E E N W A Y S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
ACTIONS
1 Maintain a high quality and ample
park system and recreation
facilities as the City grows.
i. Use a Parks Master Plan update process
to guide park improvements and facility
needs. As the community changes,
needs will evolve within existing parks
that could result in changes to existing
facilities as well as the creation of new
facilities.
ii. Plan for new 40-60 acre community
parks with recreational facilities in larger
growth areas.
iii. Strive to maintain an overall open
space similar to the current ratio of
approximately 18 acres per 1,000 people
(includes public land, partnerships,
greenways, parks, special facilities).
iv. Continue the target ratio of a minimum
5 acres of new developable parkland per
1,000 people in expansion areas. Provide
for additional open space (public or
private) of 5 acres per 1,000 people.
Plan for park dedication as part
of the development process with
parkland dedication based upon
Neighborhood Park needs.
i. Create a park land dedication ordinance
or include as part of a rezoning
process, allow for in lieu fee in some
circumstances. Usable active space is
the most desirable land for dedication to
meet neighborhood park needs.
ii. Time park development with buildout of
an area and as funding is available.
iii. Require private open space in
addition to public open space within
development in expansion areas to
augment overall open space.
iv. Set-aside natural areas as passive open
space in accordance with planned
greenways or in support of larger natural
preservation areas.
Support the user experience.
i. Parks and open spaces are
neighborhood and community
destinations that should be safe,
family-friendly, and support strong
social networks.
ii. Design parks as publicly available
resources for everyone.
iii. Consider opportunities for specialty
parks to meet local needs in
underserved and marginalized areas.
Planning processes should involve
park users and the neighborhood in its
design.
iv. Greenways can be used for open
space linkages and in some cases
transportation linkages.
»Plan to create uninterrupted
greenways with continuous trails.
»Plan for separated road crossings of
major roadways for continuous trails
when creating greenways (Include
Map for Future Major Trails).
»Linkages with external areas are
desirable.
2 3
90
P L A N E L E M E N T S P A R K S , T R A I L S & G R E E N W A Y S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
4
ACTIONS
Provide a park system that supports
a variety of user needs.
i. Create a park system that shares a
consistent image from and between
parks that identify it as a City of Ames
park. Unifying features may include
signage, lighting fixtures, and displays
within the park.
ii. Continue to use a hierarchy of park
classifications, such as regional,
community, neighborhood, specialty
parks, and recreation facilities - to serve
the various needs of their users.
»Apply neighborhood park basic
amenity features equitably across the
City based upon space and needs.
»Include opportunities for new
parks in existing areas.
»Consider the overall system a collection
of community resources that has unique
components and distinct features as
an attraction to the community overall
and that each park is identifiable
in character when possible.
»Plan for community scale amenities within larger
areas that may have broad appeal. Examples
include splash pads, disc golf, natural playscapes,
ropes courses, sports complexes, gardens,
amphitheaters, nature trails, and fishing.
»Although neighborhood parks are
typically smaller in size by definition
than a community park, they may
include a community scale amenity.
iii. Apply an access goal to park planning of a
10-minute walk to a park or greenway. This
translates to parks being within a ¼ mile to ½ mile
proximity of homes.
iv. Use plazas as specialty parks in urban living
conditions or as focal points of Core development
areas. Plazas may be a private amenity feature
of new development in Core areas to allow for
commercial use and activities.
Support parks and open space
environmental opportunities.
i. An open space framework is valuable
to the character of the community. In
some instances, open space may provide
primarily environmental benefits rather
than recreation benefits.
ii. Designing for environmental priorities
includes:
»Natural stream way preservation
and water quality enhancement for
supporting human and aquatic life (e.g.
Ada Haden Watershed).
»Stormwater run-off management
through land use design and other
protective measures.
»Air quality benefits through tree
canopy management, continue
planting of trees in response to
Emerald Ash Borer and replacement
of unhealthy trees.
»Support non-vehicular travel and
connections with trails.
»Natural resource/habitat areas
conservation.
5
91
P L A N E L E M E N T S P A R K S , T R A I L S & G R E E N W A Y S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
6 7
ACTIONS
Apply conservation standards
in growth areas.
i. Within Ames’ urban growth area, employ
large-scale conservation development
standards that preserve environmental
resources, parks, greenways, and
other open and natural areas without
compromising overall density targets.
ii. Private open space can be a key
component of attaining this goal of
supporting density and open space.
Identify partnerships for
meeting service needs.
i. Use relationships with school districts
to augment recreation opportunities
when possible.
ii. Work with ISU to maintain availability of
community resources with land leased
from the University, including Furman
Aquatic Center, Brookside Park, and the
Ames/ISU Ice Arena.
iii. Continue work with volunteer
organizations to support maintenance
and programming within the City’s park
and open space system.
iv. Look to take advantage of available
grant funding from local, state, and
federal agencies and non-profit
foundations.
v. Coordinate with Story County
Conservation on planning for regional
trails, greenways, habitat preservation,
especially with the expansion areas of
the City that will be urbanized and are
unlikely to remain rural.
92
P L A N E L E M E N T S P A R K S , T R A I L S & G R E E N W A Y S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
;
R
D
G
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
D
e
s
i
g
n
TRAIL CONNECTIONS
FOR NORTH GROWTH
POSSIBLE GREENWAY TRAIL
STUDY FOR COUNTY
REGIONAL PARK
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
Existing Future
Future Parks and
Open Spaces
Ames Plan 2040 recommends updating the
City’s Parks Master Plan and adopting that
plan as an amendment to this plan. Ames is
expecting to grow by about 15,000 people by
2040, representing a total population of about
80,000.
»Based on the projected population and continued
ratio of 6-10 acres of parks and open spaces
per 1,000 people, Ames will need about 90-
150 acres of new parks and open spaces.
»As the community grows outward, parkland
needs to be included as part of the new
development to keep up the high level of
service Ames provides its residents.
»The Future Parks and Open Spaces Concept
provides an initial program of spaces to be
programmed in the City’s updated Parks
Master Plan. The City’s Future Land Use
Map also includes representative greenway
areas and open space for consideration
during rezoning and development.
FUTURE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES CONCEPT
ACTIONS
Existing Trails
Future Trails
Parks
Greenways
Growth Areas
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
93 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 93 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
MOBILITY
VISION // AMES 2040
A WELL CONNECTED, CONTEXT-SENSITIVE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES FOR
THE SAFETY AND COMFORT OF ALL USERS.
95 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S M O B I L I T Y
CONDITIONS
The City of Ames recognizes the
interconnected relationship of land
use and mobility that is necessary
to reach the City’s vision.
Mobility focuses on the interaction of
transportation and land use and their influence
on the quality of life in Ames. In any community,
the transportation system fills many functions
- as support for business and industry, a tool
for economic development, a form-giver to the
City, and an amenity and service for residents.
The design of the circulation system can also
support an active lifestyle that improves overall
health and wellness of a community.
Transportation facilities, including sidewalks,
trails, streets, highways, transit, and the railroad
corridor, make up a significant amount of Ames’
developed area. The dominance of streets in
the cityscape makes their design and scale
especially important. As streets become wider,
their scale continues to change. The street width
affects the nature of the experience and the
visibility of people, signs, and buildings along
the street.
The following transportation
options are available in Ames:
CyRide. CyRide is a bus system operating as
a collaboration between the City of Ames,
Iowa State University, and Iowa State’s Student
Government. CyRide operates fixed routes
and a Dial-A-Ride service. Service is focused
around central Ames and campus, but also
provides access to employment areas.
Heart of Iowa Regional Transit (HIRTA)
also provides service to Ames.
Bicycle System. Bicycling is recognized as a
primary transportation method as well as for
recreational purposes. Ames was recognized
as a Bicycle Friendly Community (Bronze
Level) in 2016 and is still working toward
ensuring that all areas of town are well-
connected via a variety of bike facilities.
Pedestrian System. The majority of
neighborhoods in Ames are served by
sidewalks. Sidewalks provide connectivity
and defined safe routes for pedestrians.
Sidewalks are a critical element of walkable
commercial districts where outdoor dining
and displays are encouraged as amenities.
Road System. Roads provide for
transportation of people and goods
throughout the community. The City strives
for high levels of connectivity and uses a
hierarchy of road types to meet various needs.
Streets are public spaces that accommodate a
variety of users in an attractive and functionally
efficient way. Many communities such as
Ames find that the aesthetic upgrading of key
community corridors and entrances create
significant economic benefits by encouraging
better development standards. The City’s
walkable commercial districts rely on streets
and sidewalks for customer access as well as
character with outdoor amenities.
Ames’ multi-modal network has been shaped
in recent years through planning efforts. The
first Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
for the Ames area was developed in 2005
after the area was designated as a metropolitan
area based on the 2000 census. Soon after, the
Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(AAMPO) was formed. The AAMPO includes
the City of Ames, Boone County, Story
County, Iowa State University, CyRide, Iowa
Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). The Long Range
Transportation Plan provides a for a 25-year
assessment of transportation needs.
96 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S M O B I L I T Y
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
;
H
D
R
Road Network
Functional classifications are used for general
transportation planning efforts and are also
references for construction standards and
transportation program eligibility. Note that
the function of the street illustrated on the
classification map does not address context
and appropriate design features of the street
itself. Street typologies assist in adding context
to the function.
Interstate. A divided, limited access facility with
no direct land access and no at-grade crossings
or intersections.
Other Principal Arterial. Allows traffic flow
through the urban area and between major
destinations. They carry a high proportion of
urban travel, since movement, not access, is the
primary function.
Arterial. Collects and distributes traffic from
principal arterials and interstates to streets of
lower classification, and, in some cases, allows
traffic to directly access destinations.
Collector. Provides for land access and traffic
circulation within and between residential
neighborhoods and commercial and industrial
areas, as well as distributes traffic movements
from these areas to the arterial streets.
Local. Offers the lowest level of mobility, but
the highest level of local property access.
They make up the largest percentage of street
mileage and provide direct access to adjacent
land uses including private property or low-
volume public facilities.
CONDITIONS
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS FOR ROAD NETWORK
Interstate
Other Principal Arterial
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Collector
Minor Arterial
Local
97 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S M O B I L I T Y
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
;
H
D
R
STREET TYPOLOGY - COMPLETE STREETS PLAN
CONDITIONS
Mixed Use Street
Neighborhood Street
Industrial Street
Avenue
Mixed Use Avenue
Thoroughfare
Boulevard
ISU Institutional Street
PL
A
C
E
T
Y
P
E
S
TRANSPORTATION FUNCTION
EMPHASIZES
ACCESS
BALANCES
ACCESS AND
THROUGHPUT
EMPHASIZES
THROUGHPUT
AC
T
I
V
I
T
Y
CE
N
T
E
R
Shared, Mixed
Use Streets
Mixed Use
Avenue N/A
UR
B
A
N
M
I
X
Shared,
Mixed Use,
Neighborhood
Streets
Mixed Use
Avenue N/A
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
Shared,
Neighborhood
Streets
Avenue Thoroughfare,
Boulevard
L
A
R
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
Industrial
Street Avenue Thoroughfare,
Boulevard
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
Industrial
Street Avenue Boulevard
The City’s Complete Streets approach
requires the context of the surrounding area
and the intended function of the street to
be taken into account, resulting in streets
designed to serve all anticipated users.
For additional details, see Chapter 2 of the
Complete Streets Plan.
98 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S M O B I L I T Y
UNIV
ERSIT
Y
DR
R
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
£¤30
£¤30 17000
38
8
0
0
4850
38
3
0
8600
6700
8600
6200
84
0
0
7400
97
3
0
42
1
0
690011
5
0
11500
3060
6200
27
0
26
0
6000
86
0
0
29500
2230
38
4
0
2190
62
0
0
55
0
0
14500
29
2
0
0
9800
1350
18
0
0
5000
20800
13600
250
26
1
0
0
S
DUFF
AVE
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
LINCOLN WAY
ONTARIO ST
230TH S
T
STANGE
RD
AS
H
A
V
E
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
D
R
E 13TH ST
AIRPORT RD
STATE
AVE
24TH ST
S4TH ST
220TH ST
260TH ST
13TH ST
6TH ST
DU
F
F
A
V
E
S
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
BLOOMINGTON RD
20TH STNORTH
DAKOTA
AVE
BI
S
S
E
L
L
RD
OAKWOOD RD
S
D
A
K
O
T
A
A
V
E
LINCOLN HWLINCOLNWAY
US 30
190TH ST
X
A
V
E
I 3
5
BE
A
C
H
A
V
E
265TH ST
N
DAYTON
AVE
SDAYTONAVE
30TH ST
NORTHWESTERNAVE
50
0
T
H
A
V
E
53
0
T
H
A
V
E
170TH ST
51
0
T
H
A
V
E
RIVERSIDE RD
GEORGE
W
CA
CAMERON SCHOOL RD
270TH ST
210TH ST
58
0
T
H
A
V
E
MATHEWS ST
57
0
T
H
A
V
E
250TH ST ZUMWALT STATION RD
Bo
o
n
e
St
o
r
y
A/ B/ C
D/ E
F
Under Capacity
Approaching Capacity
Over Capacity
Railroad
MPO Planning Boundary
County Boundary
Rivers / Streams
City Boundaries
0 1.50.75Miles
´
LOS is a qualitative measure describing
operational conditions. It can range from
“A” representing free-flow conditions
to “F” representing gridlock.
So
u
r
c
e
:
H
D
R
,
I
n
c
.
,
I
o
w
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Existing Traffic Conditions
The City and Iowa Department of Transportation
gather vehicle counts to monitor performance
of road segments related to vehicle traffic.
The City’s Long Range Transportation Plan
uses existing and projected data to analyze
performance and identify improvement needs.
Frequently, traffic engineers use a Level of
Service (LOS) notation to describe volume to
capacity ratios for different components of
streets, including segments and intersections.
The analysis focuses on the amount of delay
or travel speed experienced by individual
vehicles and highlights relatively good to
low-capacity situations.
Unfortunately, this metric does not directly
address multi-modal needs or safety and
reliable road operation and that the trade off of
increased vehicle capacity can be detrimental
to the quality of other modes of travel and
character. There is also a point of diminishing
return on infrastructure investment for widening
roads. Therefore, the City uses LOS as only one
metric when evaluating its circulation system
and prefers to consider the context and overall
transportation needs for multiple users as
opposed to only vehicle capacity.
CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
PEAK HOUR LOS
A/B/C
D/E
F
SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Under Capacity
Approaching Capacity
Over Capacity
Railroad
MPO Planning Boundary
Rivers/Streams
County Boundary
City Boundary
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
99 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S M O B I L I T Y
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Guiding Principles for Mobility
M1: Complete Streets. Ames will use a
Complete Streets approach to serve all users
and modes. Four principles for Complete Streets
are relevant to Ames Plan 2040:
»Complete Streets serve all users and modes
regardless of age, ability, income, or ethnicity.
»Complete Streets emphasize safety for all.
»Complete Streets form connected multimodal
networks that provide safe, convenient access to
neighborhoods and destinations for all modes.
»Complete Streets are context-sensitive,
and are designed to support the current
and future local land use and development
context while considering impacts to
surrounding streets and neighborhoods.
The City utilizes a Compete Streets Plan to apply
these principles.
M2: Multi-modality. Create and maintain a
connected multimodal network, including
planned extensions of transit, bicycle,
pedestrian, and micro-mobility facilities.
»Use corridor and node planning for intense
development in support of transit operations.
»Streets and associated rights-of-way provide
the most recognizable and best means of
providing for connectivity throughout the City.
Apply a street and block pattern that relates to
walkable neighborhoods, focusing on blocks
lengths of 300 to 600 feet. Certain highways
and commercial/industrial areas will have
block lengths that exceed these parameters.
»Minimize use of street layouts that limit
connectivity, such as cul-de-sacs, loop streets,
and private streets, to unusual circumstances that
conflict with land use or environmental goals.
»Encourage use of off-street trails for
additional neighborhood connectivity
»Apply subdivision and zoning standards that
plan for new development to accommodate
extension of multi-modal infrastructure
into and through development sites.
M3: Context Sensitive Principles.
Transportation facilities in existing and planned
development will be sensitive and appropriate to
the character of their urban environments.
»Use Typologies for streets to address
design character and function.
»Context includes elements related to
speed, access, parking, aesthetics as they
relate to existing and planned uses.
»Private development shall incorporate
multi-modal supportive improvements that
complement the typology of the street. This may
include building location, door access, limited
vehicle parking, street trees, bicycle parking, and
sidewalk extensions. See Growth & Land Use and
Community Character for additional details.
M4: Level of Service. Ames will strive to
maintain a minimum Level of Service (LOS)
standard of “D” for major existing roadways.
»Maintain LOS D for existing streets and signalized
intersections. New roadways and intersection
improvements will focus on a design for LOS
C for existing and projected conditions.
»Review large scale development proposals
for impacts on roadways and intersection
operations and apply appropriate
mitigation measures as needed.
»City projects for widening or expanding
roadways shall consider this LOS
goal along with Principle M5.
100 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S M O B I L I T Y
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
M5: Balanced Transportation Planning.
Ames will balance the size of infrastructure
improvements with cost, environmental
constraints, impacts to all modes, operational
quality and levels of service.
»When the City Council determines other priorities
such as slow speeds, walkable commercial
areas, enhanced multi-modal access, parking
access, or other factors related to Complete
Streets principles, LOS D shall not be required.
»Recognize that travel patterns and associated
vehicle miles traveled and time lost due
to congestion have negative effects on
the environment and are a contributor
to community emissions of GHG.
»The City uses traffic signal systems to manage
corridor operations and are subject to individual
warrant analysis and overall corridor needs.
»Pedestrian access and crossings are intended
to occur at street intersections. At times, mid-
block crossings may be appropriate for trail
crossings or when there are long blocks.
M6: Transportation-Economic Development
Link. Ames will recognize that its transportation
system is a critical component of the city’s
economic success.
»Transportation arteries, including both the
railroad and major roads, are also the corridors
of commerce in Ames. They provide the access,
parking, and visibility that retailers, service
providers, and industry need to thrive.
»Incorporate walking and bicycling facilities into
these areas to support multi-modal access.
EXISTING POTENTIAL
Bike Facility
Shared Use Path
Trail
The Complete Streets Master Plan
identifies active transportation routes.
These routes are included the City’s
Transportation Plan. Completing gaps in
the system will provide better convenience
to the City’s parks and open spaces.
FUTURE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES CONCEPT
101 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S M O B I L I T Y
ACTIONS
1
2 3
Continue to administer current
planning initiatives for mobility.
Ames should have continuity between its
current planning initiatives for enhancing
mobility in the community.
»Ames 2040 Growth & Land Use
Chapter. The Growth & Land Use
Chapter presents a policy framework
that incorporates transportation
elements as it relates to future
development of the City.
»Forward 2045 Metro Transportation
Plan. Forward 2045 is the Long
Range Transportation Plan for the
greater Ames area. It presents a guide
for enhancements to the existing
transportation system within the city
and future improvements. LRTPs
shall continue to evaluate option for
transportation improvements consistent
with the policies of Plan 2040.
»Complete Streets Plan. The Complete
Streets Plan provides a context-
sensitive approach to planning and
designing the street network to be
safer and more comfortable.
»Future assessments of environmental
issues, such as the Climate Action Plan,
may influence planning for or prioritizing
transportation improvements.
»Monitor and apply best technological
practices in support of transportation
management as well as supporting
EV usage and other methods to
reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Schedule and budget for future
transportation studies to
match land use growth.
As the City’s population and businesses
grow, so will demands on the City’s existing
transportation infrastructure. Ames will apply
planned mobility improvements and study
future mobility connections. Studies the
City will need to consider that align with the
Future Land Use Map include:
»G rowth Area Network Studies. Each
growth area shows a network of streets
that, if planned early, will create a
system of streets that creates more
connected neighborhoods. Consider
plans for protected intersections,
such as roundabouts early in the
process. Conceptual layouts are
identified on the next page.
»South Interchange Study. This study
includes a potential new interchange
located south of the Highway 30
Interchange where 290th Street
crosses Interstate 35 and connecting
to 265th Street for access to South
Ames and ISURP. Creating an
interchange at this location provides
circulation options for development
located south of Highway 30.
»South Duff/HWY 30 Interchange
Study. Study for a diverging diamond
interchange, six lane roadway
widening, and Grand Avenue
extension to Airport Road.
Use development review and
rezoning activities to assess
transportation impacts and needs.
»Update Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinance to align with best
practices related to street
typologies and character issues.
»Use traffic studies with large
scale development to address
development impacts and issues
of timing for improvements.
»North Interchange Study. The 13th
Street interchange will eventually
warrant significant improvements.
DOT plans to widen I-35 to six lanes
from Ames to Des Moines. The
plan recommends studying a new
interchange that aligns with streets
that provide better serviceability to
Ames, and allows for separation of truck
traffic, through traffic, and residential
traffic. This alignment may connect with
Riverside Road or Bloomington Road.
»Trail Planning. The City’s trail system
includes expansion outside of the City to
connect to County and regional facilities.
Maintain a trail system map to guide
planning in growth areas and beyond.
102 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
P L A N E L E M E N T S M O B I L I T Y
ACTIONS
B. West Growth Area Connections
Streets constructed by developers to serve
their immediate project and future
neighborhood growth.
»Street that provides continuity from
Thackeray Drive to X Avenue.
»Street that provides continuity from Wilder
Avenue through future western growth.
»Neighborhood Road that provides circulation.
Growth Area Network Studies
A. North Growth Area Connections
Streets to serve their immediate project and
future neighborhood growth.
»Stange Road Extension serves neighborhood
development to the north.
»Cameron School Road Extension provides
greater access to Ada Hayden Heritage Park.
»Collector Streets intersecting GW Carver
Avenue should be aligned, not staggered.
»Welbeck Drive should continue north into
the adjacent future neighborhood.
»Bella Woods Drive Connection. The land south
of Cameron School Road and Bella Woods
Drive should be reserved for a potential
extension to serve future neighborhoods.
C. South Growth Area Connections
Neighborhood Roads are streets constructed
by developers to serve the immediate
neighborhood and future neighborhood growth.
»The proposed Skunk River Road is a public
project that provides residents an alternative
route to Highway 69. It would open market
demand for land that may otherwise be
challenging to develop without it.
»Neighborhood Road that wraps the project area,
providing connections beyond 265th Street.
103 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
NEIGHBORHOODS, HOUSING & SUBAREAS
VISION // 2040 AMES
NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
CHOICES THAT ADDRESS SPECIFIC NEEDS
OF THE COMMUNITY FOR HOUSING,
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE
ENHANCEMENTS, AND CITY PROGRAMS.
105
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
This chapter addresses housing and
neighborhood development issues and policies,
establishing goals and strategies to help Ames
achieve the overall vision of providing quality
housing choices attainable to current and
prospective residents across a variety of income
ranges and household types. It addresses as
these issues from the perspective of affordability
and investigates the role of infill development
in meeting community development needs. The
first chapter of this plan, DISCOVERY, provides
additional housing data oriented to future land
use and land development needs.
Availability and affordability of housing have
become especially critical issues throughout
both urban and rural America in this part of
the 21st Century. The nature of the problem
and the definition of “affordability” are relative,
determined by market conditions, supply, and
the income characteristics of individual regions
and communities. Ames has not escaped these
national trends for higher costs of housing. The
need for affordable housing has always been
with us, but in 2021 as this document is being
written, several factors are aggravating the
situation from a national perspective and could
have effects on future housing policies.
The COVID Pandemic surprisingly did not
suppress housing demand as was first thought
would occur. For various reasons people
reinvested in their homes and sought to buy
homes on the market. The overall inventory
of available homes on the market dropped
substantially across Ames, meaning homes sold
very quickly with few choices for buyers.
New construction was impacted during the
pandemic. Cost of construction increased
due to shortage of labor and materials in
2020 and 2021, causing impacts to meeting
demand for housing as well as increasing its
overall cost. Housing construction costs for
average new home construction appears to
be between $150-$200 a square foot in 2021.
New construction costs greatly exceed the
cost of the median home value in Ames, which
was also true in recent years that preceded the
pandemic.
The overall pace of construction for new single-
family homes has averaged approximately 90
homes a year for the past decade. About 20%
of the new home construction is attached single
family. Peak construction rates occurred prior to
the 2008 Recession with as many as 264 homes
built in one year. City building permit records
indicate a total of 2,421 single-family detached
and attached homes were built between
2000 and 2020. The patterns of development
followed conventional patterns for most of
these homes, despite the City’s encouragement
of Village design principles and support for
different housing types and price points.
Multifamily housing construction had a much
different growth pattern over the past decade.
Apartment development increased substantially
as a result of increased enrollment at ISU along
with the surge in the “Millennial” population
maturing into household formation stages of life.
Ames experienced a large number of student
housing based developments, especially in the
area of Campustown.
These developments differ from typical
apartment construction due to the design
for individual suites and greater occupancy
through rent by the bedroom models compared
to traditional apartments. Purpose built
student housing does limit housing options for
traditional family and workforce-based housing
by catering to a specific market niche, which can
also be higher cost housing due to its design.
City building permit records indicate 6,119
multifamily units were approved from 2000-
2020. Through the past ten years the vacancy
rate of apartments has been typically below
5%; in some years it was estimated at below
2% based about city surveys and census data.
Although there was temporary increase in
vacancy rates in 2019 with changes in ISU
enrollment and peak levels of production,
by 2021 vacancy is once again estimated at
approximately 5%. This indicates the market
weathered the changes in student enrollment by
recalibrating to a more diverse population and
may be in position to expand again.
Additional senior housing was also added to the
City in the past ten years and are included in the
multifamily unit counts.
106
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Housing Trends
Affordability
University cities like Ames face additional
affordability problems compared to national
trends. Major universities have increasingly relied
on the private sector to provide student housing
and students compete with permanent residents
for rental housing, driving up overall production
and potentially rents. A group of students,
pooling their resources and with parental
support, often can afford to pay more for off-
campus housing than a single conventional
household. In some places, parents of sufficient
means have purchased condominium units
or homes that they sell after their student
graduates. These activities have occurred in
Ames in the form of the University housing
policies focused on housing approximately 30-
35% of enrolled full-time students along with the
private market demand factors.
The characteristics of university cities tends to
make affordability analysis difficult by injecting
a large number of student households with low
annual incomes. As a result, use of traditional
census data can be misleading about true
local conditions. Consideration of households,
families, and age statistics helps paint the
complete picture. Despite this complication, the
tables below lead to conclusions that have a
significant impact on housing policy for Ames:
»The ratio of median value to median household
income is a useful quick measure of overall
housing affordability and the burden that housing
costs place on households.
HOUSING OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS
2000 % OF OCCUPIED
UNITS 2010 % OF OCCUPIED
UNITS
CHANGE
2000-
2010
2017 % OF OCCUPIED
UNITS
TOTAL UNITS 18,757 23,876 5,119 26,277
OCCUPIED 18,085 22,759 4,674 25,123
OWNER-OCCUPIED 8,337 46.1%9,703 42.6%1,366 9,877 39.3%
RENTER-OCCUPIED 9,748 53.9%13,056 57.4%3,308 15,246 60.7%
TOTAL VACANT 672 1,117 445 1,154
VACANCY RATE 3.6%4.7%4.4%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010; 2017 American Community Survey
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY COMPARISON
MEDIAN
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
MEDIAN
HOME VALUE
VALUE / INCOME
RATIO
MEDIAN
CONTRACT RENT POPULATION
AMES, IA $42,755 $187,000 4.37 $777 65,005
ANKENY, IA $77,801 $197,500 2.54 $848 56,237
IOWA CITY, IA $45,991 $202,200 4.40 $809 73,415
LAWRENCE, KS $49,297 $183,700 3.73 $714 93,854
FAYETTEVILLE, AR $41,158 $193,000 4.69 $611 81,889
MANHATTAN, KS $47,632 $193,900 4.07 $767 55,427
Source: 2017 American Community Survey
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Median Home Value Median Gross Rent Value to Income RatioMedian Household Income
$42,755 $187,000 $777 4.37*
*A healthy, self sustaining housing
market will have a value to
income ratio between 2 and 3.
While the value in Ames sits at
4.37, the student population
drives down the median
household income and does not
provide a truly accurate picture of
the housing market for the typical
household. The value to income
ratio for just 25 to 44 year olds
(median income of $52,868) is
lower at 3.53, but still shows a
market with a‚ordability issues.
107
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Housing Projection
The growth directions and land use plan are
based on projected population growth of
about 15,000 people between 2020 and 2040,
equivalent to an annual growth rate of 1.5% and
approximately stable enrollment at ISU and
similar housing policies. The demand table on
the following page projects twenty year housing
demand based on this 1.5% annual growth rate
based on the following assumptions:
»Variety. Demand includes all housing types:
apartments, single-family, duplex, etc. in order to
provide options to buyers of all demographics.
»Households. The average number of people
living in each housing unit, or household
population (total population minus the number
of people living in dorms, skilled nursing,
or not in households) remains constant.
»Vacancy. While it may seem counterintuitive to
want a higher vacancy rate, a rate between 5%
and 7% is actually healthy—it provides options
for resident moving into Ames and moving
within Ames. Additionally, the higher vacancy
rate keeps prices more affordable. The vacancy
PROJECTED HOUSING DEMAND
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 TOTAL
1.5% Annual Growth Rate and Steady Student Enrollment
POPULATION 66,182 69,210 72,472 75,987 79,772
HOUSEHOLD POPULATION 57,464 60,094 62,926 65,977 69,265
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
HOUSEHOLD DEMAND 25,123 26,272 27,511 28,845 30,282
PROJECTED VACANCY RATE 4.39%4.9%5.4%5.9%6.4%
ANNUAL REPLACEMENT NEED 75 75 75 75 300
TOTAL UNIT DEMAND AT END OF PERIOD 1,422 1,530 1,647 1,774 6,373
AVERAGE ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION 284 306 329 355 317
In general, a ratio in the range of 2.5 to 3.0
reflects a general population that is appropriately
“burdened” – that is a population with incomes
that support housing cost. Below that range
begins to suggest undervalued housing; above
suggests an “overburdened” population. The
sample of university communities including
Ames displays a V/I ratio substantially higher
than the 3.0 standard. By comparison, Ankeny,
a popular but more conventional suburban
market, has a ratio well within this range without
the distortion of student household incomes.
»Median contract rent is comparable to that
of communities and relatively consistent with
rents across the Midwest. However, typical rents
required for new, market-rate projects without
financing assistance appear to be well above this
level. Notably construction of large scale mixed
use and urban style housing projects will have
higher rents due to higher construction costs.
»Over the last two decades, more rental than
ownership units have been added to Ames
housing inventory. About 60% of Ames’ occupied
units are renter occupied. The percentage of
rental housing to total housing has increased
since 2000. This follows national trends related
to homeownership rates from the past decade.
»ISU provides housing for students that is not
counted as households by the Census. ISU has
a supply of dormitories and apartments for
students. Approximately 12,000 students are
housed by ISU annually, depending on market
conditions. ISU has not indicated they have
any plans to add additional campus housing.
Public Opinion Survey Findings
The opinion survey conducted at the beginning
of the Ames Plan 2040 process provides
important input for future policy and program
development. Key results follow:
»A need for more single-family housing
and a greater variety of new products
in addition to multifamily.
»A relative lack of local builders and
significant concern about affordability.
»A general view that infill development and
redevelopment are important but can also
create opposition in built-up areas.
»Preservation of existing housing
should be an important priority.
»New housing development should
have access to important city services
including CyRide and trails.
»Neighborhood organization is a valuable
tool in conserving existing housing.
»Housing development for students
and for permanent residents should
be in better relative balance.
This overall analysis of affordability and
development issues provides the basis for
housing policy recommendations in the
following section.
108
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
PROJECTED HOUSING DEMAND BY TENURE AND PRICE POINT
2020-2030 2030-2040 2020-2040 % OF TOTAL NEED
TOTAL NEED 2,952 3,421 6,373
TOTAL OWNER OCCUPIED 1,623 1,882 3,505 55%
Under $150,000 221 256 478 7%
$150,000-$225,000 424 491 915 14%
$225,000-$300,000 341 396 737 12%
$300,000-$400,000 401 464 865 14%
Over $400,000 236 274 510 8%
TOTAL RENTAL OCCUPIED 1,328 1,539 2,868 45%
Under $600 547 634 1,181 19%
$600-1,000 368 426 793 12%
$1,000-1,500 229 266 495 8%
Over $1,500 185 214 399 6%
Source: RDG Planning & Design, 2019
PRICE POINTS DISTRIBUTED BY DEVELOPMENT TYPES
LOW MODERATE MIDDLE HIGH
TYPICAL DENSITY <4 du/A 4-10 du/A 10-20 du/A >20 du/A
TYPE 1-Family
Detached
1-Family Small
Lot, Attached,
Townhome, ADU
Townhome,
Rowhouse Small
Multifamily
Rowhouse, All
Multifamily
Under $150,000 Generally accommodated by existing housing
$150,000-$225,000 20%50%30%-
$225,000-$300,000 50%25%25%
$300,000-$400,000 70%10%10%10%
Over $400,000 70%10%10%10%
TOTAL RENTAL OCCUPIED
Under $600 -10%20%70%
$600-1,000 -20%20%60%
$1,000-1,500 -20%20%60%
Over $1,500 25%50%25%
Source: RDG Planning & Design, 2019
rate should increase from 4.39% to 6.4% through
proactive policies to provide more variety/options
in the market for attracting new residents.
»Replacement Need. The replacement need
is estimated to account for units lost either
to conversions or demolition. Many units, due
to neglect and unsafe conditions, will need
to be torn down. Other units will be lost from
homeowners making renovations that lead
to fewer units than before the work started
or conversion to a non-residential use.
Based on the factors above, the planned
population growth of 15,000 (by 2040)
generates production of 6,373 units, or average
annual construction demand of 317 units.
Price Distribution
Housing policy must focus not just on the
quantity of construction but also on the
distribution of products from a tenure and
affordability perspective. On the next page,
the table assumes that the creation of new
family households with the maturing of younger
cohorts over the next 20 years will generate an
increased demand for equity housing. It also
assumes that the concept of “owner-occupied”
housing will continue to expand and diversify
beyond the traditional single-family home
on relatively large lots. Price points for both
types of tenure are allocated proportionately
to estimated income distribution in the 2019
American Community Survey. “Affordability” is
defined as housing cost equal to about 30% or
less of gross household income.
This analysis suggests the highest need in the
middle ranges of owner occupancy (about 40%
of total demand) and lower ranges of renter
occupancy (about 31% of total demand). It is
important to note that Ames’ high percentage
of students living out of group quarters and
in household units tends to depress income
distribution statistics. As previously noted,
students pooling resources or taking advantage
of parental support can build demand for higher
rental units.
109
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
POTENTIAL 20-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM BY HOUSING TYPE
LOW MODERATE MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL
TYPICAL DENSITY <4 du/A 4-10 du/A 10-20 du/A >20 du/A
TYPE 1-Family Detached
1-Family Small
Lot, Attached,
Townhome, ADU
Townhome,
Rowhouse Small
Multifamily
Rowhouse, All
Multifamily
Under $150,000 Generally accommodated by existing housing
$150,000-$225,000 212 530 318 0 1,060
$225,000-$300,000 427 213 213 0 853
$300,000-$400,000 701 100 100 100 1,002
Over $400,000 413 59 59 59 591
TOTAL RENTAL OCCUPIED
Under $600 -118 236 827 1,181
$600-1,000 -159 159 476 792
$1,000-1,500 -99 99 297 495
Over $1,500 -100 199 100 399
Total 1,753 1,378 1,384 1,858 6,373
Source: RDG Planning & Design, 2019
Housing Types
Rising construction costs, limits on resources
available to prospective homebuyers, and the
need for greater efficiency in transportation and
infrastructure create forces that suggest more
diversity in types of housing development. The
market cannot provide units under $150,000.
To remain affordable, owner-occupied housing
will diversify beyond the traditional detached
home on a large subdivision lot to smaller
lots, attached units, townhomes, rowhouses,
and condominiums. Hybrid forms like owner-
occupied duplexes and accessory dwelling
units on single-family lots also have roles to
play. Affordable to moderate and middle-
income households will gravitate toward these
alternative configurations over time. Similarly,
rental housing environments may evolve away
from large buildings and apartment blocks to
small footprint structures with limited common
space and corridors – partially the result of the
COVID experience.
The table on page 115 displays an estimate of
the percentage of given price points served
by different physical construction types, and
distributing Ames’ demand projection according
to these percentages. These then relate to
the land use categories and density ranges
discussed in the Growth & Land Use Chapter.
This calculation indicates the need for a relative
balance in all four general density categories of
housing construction. While this methodology
suggests that conventional single-family
detached and high-density multifamily will
continue to account for the most new units,
a much greater number of middle-density
development will be needed. This has important
policy implications for land use regulation and
potential development incentives. It is also not
meant as a specific prescription for housing
development but rather as a benchmark
to evaluate construction output during the
planning period.
110
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Guiding Principles for
Neighborhoods, Housing
& Subareas
H1: Housing Choice and Attainability. Ames
will support housing choice and attainability for
people of all income ranges. Growth and Land
Use Policies include a range of housing types
that meet the programmatic and economic
requirements of all demographic groups.
Support for increased supply is important
to moderate cost increases due to supply
constraints; however, a variety of housing types
and size of housing can create a broader range
of price points making ownership housing more
attainable for a wider segment of the population.
Although the City endeavors to increase the
percentage of ownership housing units in the
City as a percentage of total units, adding rental
housing opportunities is important to health of
the community as well. Rental housing choices
are key components of land use planning in
growth areas and redirection areas where they
help to fulfill overall community development
goals in addition to housing. The evolving senior
housing demographic will also impact housing
design and choice over the next 20 years.
H2: Neighborhood Quality. Ames will
support maintaining the quality of existing
neighborhoods by encouraging reinvestment
and conserving and enhancing existing housing.
The majority of Ames’ affordable housing
inventory is already on the ground - and existing
residential represents the city’s largest single
capital asset. Maintaining the quality of existing
neighborhoods is fundamental to an effective
city housing policy.
Neighborhood conservation has two primary
focuses: 1) maintaining the quality and integrity
of existing investment and 2) strategic infill
development that both addresses problems
and increases the value and quality of the local
environment. Neighborhoods in Ames are not
islands and neighborhood conservation is a
dynamic process. Change will occur, but change
must be managed and directed in ways that
strengthen the city’s residential areas.
H3: New Development Areas that Build
Community. Ames will use density, scale, and
building types to define development areas that
build connected communities, each of which
provides housing choices.
Planning and development in “greenfield”
growth areas should align with the overall
housing goal of providing choice and variety
of tenure, design, and price. The growth
concept presented in the Growth & Land Use
chapter establishes development areas that
are connected to the City, served by logical
extensions of greenway and transportation
systems, and a mix of both land uses and
residential densities. They are intended to
help build community both within themselves
and together with previously established
neighborhoods. They are not intended to be
unstructured clusters of subdivisions.
H4: Redirection Areas. Ames will Identify land
use redirection and infill areas and encourage
their eventual redevelopment.
Infill development can provide a variety of
urban housing environments in areas that are
underused or inefficiently used and can take
advantage of Ames’s existing resources.
Underused but strategically located sites
can provide important resources for housing
development that take advantage of existing
commercial development and community
services. In many cases, these opportunities are
located along or near major urban corridors.
City policy should identify these opportunities
and advance their redevelopment through
planning and private sector partnerships.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
111
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
POLICY FRAMEWORK
HOUSING CHOICE AND ATTAINABILITY
Ames will have housing choice that are
attainable for people of all income ranges.
H1-1. Establish a goal and coordinated
program to increase annual production of non-
multifamily housing units, specifically focusing
on single-family attached and detached,
duplex forms, townhomes and rowhouses, and
small footprint apartment developments.
H1-2. Establish standards and appropriate areas
within both growth and infill redirection areas for
a variety of residential types. The intent is support
a general variety of housing that is integrated
within a neighborhood. Discourage purpose-built
student housing located away from campus.
H1-3. Work with neighborhoods to explore
modification of selected single-family zoning
districts to permit accessory dwelling units
and duplexes on lots that meet specific
criteria focused on design compatibility.
H1-4. Evaluate City programs and development
standards for diversifying housing types, tenure,
and price points within developments over a
certain size. This includes consideration of financial
incentives and acquisition of land for low-income
housing and consideration of public participation
in infrastructure or other development costs
to create additional housing opportunities.
H1-5. Utilize a variety of funding sources and
programs to support retention and creation of
affordable housing. This includes supporting use
of Section 8 vouchers within the community,
partnerships with private or nonprofit development
corporations, use of CDBG and HOME funds, and
other housing trust, state and federal programs.
H1-6. Encourage development of housing forms
that provide a source of rental income for potential
owner-occupants, in coordination with Policy
HD-3. These include owner-occupied duplexes,
accessory dwelling units, and co-housing concepts.
NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY
Ames will support maintaining the
quality of existing neighborhoods by
encouraging reinvestment and conserving
and enhancing existing housing stock.
H2-1. Maintain the character of existing single-
family blocks in established neighborhoods. When
diversifying density, limit higher-density infill to
areas with frontages along avenues and boulevards
as designated in the Complete Streets Plan.
H2-2. Make strategic investments in public
infrastructure that enhance character and sustain the
value of neighborhoods. Examples include support
of neighborhood driven and identified improvements
as well as regular City investment in infrastructure
upgrades and maintenance for consistent quality and
features across the community. Infrastructure includes
sidewalks, lighting, street trees, storm water, public
art, traffic calming, and other traditional infrastructure.
H2-3. Support use of a Rental Code and other
property maintenance codes to ensure safe and
high-quality living conditions for Ames residents.
Addressing nuisances and dilapidated or dangerous
building conditions may require specific intervention
tools and methods to alleviate impacts to the
surrounding and neighborhood character.
H2-4. Identify resources, such as the use of CDBG
and HOME funds, for targeted programs that
1) maintain the integrity of residential building
envelopes, 2) encourage energy efficiency, and
3) fund acquisition/rehab/resale programs for
homes that become available at feasible cost.
H2-5. Use zoning and building standards to address
neighborhood design and architectural compatibility.
Specific overlays, such as Historic Districts, Hospital
Medical, and Single-Family Conservation, address
design features, scale, transitions, and uses for the
purpose of maintaining neighborhood character.
NEW DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Ames will use density, scale, and building
types to define development areas that
build connected communities, each of
which provides housing choices.
H3-1. Implement the essence of this plan’s growth
area concepts by providing specific land use
guidance for their development with required
density ranges. Plan for a mix of housing types
that match the land use intent for the growth areas
and infill areas. Monitor development as it occurs
over time to ensure trends are consistent with land
use, growth, environment, and housing goals.
H3-2. Emphasize design quality with density to
create compatibility of uses and lasting character
for new neighborhoods and developments. Through
the development approval process, encourage
attributes such as walkability, continuous and usable
public space, trail connectivity, and placemaking
features. Establish general standards and outcomes
that give applicants both the flexibility and the
responsibility to demonstrate consistency with
the goals for housing diversity and quality.
112
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
POLICY FRAMEWORK
REDIRECTION AREAS
Ames will Identify land use redirection and infill
areas and encourage their eventual redevelopment
through Sub-Area Plans and/or zoning tools.
H4-1. Identify land use redirection sites as special
development areas that are opportunities for
a customized change of use and development
strategy. Redirection areas are located in strategic
locations where a variety of housing types,
including new residential forms that take full
advantage of convenient services, walkability, and
access to major attractors would be desirable.
Some locations may include commercial uses in
support of redevelopment goals for a specific
area. Types of land use redirection areas include:
»Major corridors, with an emphasis on vacant
sites, obsolete uses like isolated single-
family houses and outdated commercial
development, over-sized parking lots and
other hard-surfaced areas, and vacant sites.
»Central sites with low-density or spottily
developed property in high value,
centrally located environments.
»Large sites or areas with substantial
deterioration in building quality, uncoordinated
transitions of use, or incompatible
operations and design qualities.
H4-2. Complete Corridor Action Plans for key
city corridors. Such a plan was developed
for the Lincoln Way Corridor, and includes
development concepts for infill, redevelopment,
and transportation improvements. Corridor Action
Plans focus on corridors that provide key linkages
and connections throughout the City. They may
be integrated into a Neighborhood Plan, Subarea
Plan, or may be an independent document.
The corridors for possible study listing identifies
candidate corridors for future study over the
twenty year life of this plan. The order of priority
and sequence of proceeding with studies
are subject to available resources and their
priority. Like the Lincoln Way Corridor Plan,
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
Corridors for possible future study include:
»Duff Ave from 13th St to south of Highway 30
»Duff Ave from Airport Rd to south of 265th St
»North Grand Ave from 24th St to 190th St
»North Grand Ave from 24th St to Lincoln Way
»East Lincoln Way (east of downtown)
»West Lincoln Way (west of Dakota Ave)
»Dayton Ave, south of Lincoln Way
the planning process should engage direct
stakeholders and the community at-large.
H4-3. As potential infill redevelopment areas
are identified, prepare detailed concept plans
to support the desired outcomes for an area. A
successful infill development plan will connect
to neighborhoods, consider context-sensitive
design, and increase density around existing
transportation corridors and services. The Infill
Opportunity Map identifies candidate infill sites
and subareas that may warrant master planning to
ensure continuity between independent projects.
»Subarea Plans. Redevelopment in subareas
should trigger a master planning process to
ensure continuity between future development
proposals. Properties in subareas often involve
multiple owners, so the area’s redevelopment
should be coordinated to maximize
everyone’s interests - private and public.
»Infill Candidate Sites. Infill candidate
sites identified in the map are those that
meet the identified infill development
criteria. Development of these properties
is subject to existing regulations.
The following pages illustrate potential examples of
redirection for selected sites. They are intended to
illustrate possibilities, rather than prescribe the nature
of future development. They also display the ability of
central city sites in unusual or underused locations to
accommodate a variety of housing types.
113
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
POLICY FRAMEWORK
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
;
H
D
R
REDIRECTION AREA OPPORTUNITIES
Subareas
Infill Candidate Areas
LINCOLN WAY & DAKOTA AVENUESOUTH CAMPUSTOWN
EAST LINCOLN WAY
NEAR-SOUTH DOWNTOWN
114
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
POLICY FRAMEWORK
A
CB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Site Existing DU Possible DU
A 21 60
B 9 72
C 4 10
D 17 40
E 16 36
F 24 30
G 0 30
Total 90 278
Site Existing DU Possible DU
A 16 68
B 0 68
C 0 26
Total 16 160
South Campustown Subarea
The South Campustown Concept includes a mix
of multifamily buildings and townhouses. This
demonstration shows how an area can triple the
number of units as part of a redevelopment effort,
providing housing options for ISU faculty and others
wanting to be near campus. It also demonstrates
a method of transitioning between the intensive
Campustown environment to the single-family
neighborhoods south of the University.
Implementing a project of this type is likely to require
policy and zoning revisions, including refinement of
existing provisions to protect university-influenced
neighborhoods.
Near-South Downtown Subarea
The Near-South Downtown Concept that converts
excess parking lots and a low-density housing enclave
adjacent to the city center into a new neighborhood
of urban townhomes and rowhouses. The concept
features a rail side park and pedestrian crossing over
Grand Avenue. It displays a potential for adding 160
units of owner-occupied housing into an area rich in
convenience and neighborhood services.
SOUTH CAMPUSTOWN SUBAREA CONCEPT
NEAR-SOUTH DOWNTOWN SUBAREA CONCEPT
115
P L A N E L E M E N T S N E I G H B O R H O O D S , H O U S I N G & S U B A R E A S
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
POLICY FRAMEWORK
East Lincoln Way Subarea
The East Lincoln Way concept explores the possibility
of major mixed use development adjacent to
Downtown Ames and north of the Duff Avenue
commercial corridor. The idea re-envisions industrial
blocks immediately east of Downtown as an
innovation district, mixed use commercial/residential
development along Lincoln Way and lower density
townhomes farther to the south, overlooking a
promenade at the lop of the escarpment with views
to the South Skunk River greeenway below. This
concept includes about 470 units as part of a
redevelopment effort.
»Higher intensity uses (mixed use, multi- family)
along Lincoln Way provides commercial
spaces oriented to the street with residential
blocks over parking set back from the road.
»Lower intensity townhomes would be served
by a relocated and improved 2nd Street. Borne
Avenue would connect the area to Target
and major commercial uses along Duff.
A
B
C
EAST LINCOLN WAY SUBAREA CONCEPT
Site Existing DU Possible DU
A 19 96
B 21 304
C 0 72
Total 40 472
116 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 116 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
VISION // 2040 AMES
AESTHETIC AND DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS
THAT SUPPORT A SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY,
RESPECT OF AMES’S HERITAGE, AND
CREATE NEW HIGH QUALITY BUILDINGS AND
SPACES TO BUILD UPON OUR CHARACTER.
P L A N E L E M E N T S C O M M U N I T Y C H A R A C T E R
118 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
Community character in a sense is larger than the
physical appearance of the City because “character”
has a much larger human component. Character is more
about who we are than about what we look like. Because a
comprehensive plan like Ames Plan 2040 is largely about
the City’s built and natural environment, this section
and its policies focus on the physical component. The
City’s environment communicates its messages to two
audiences - internally, to people who live, work, and invest
in Ames and externally, people who come to the City to
work, learn, visit, and do business. To the former, the
messages help determine their level of satisfaction with
the City. To the latter, they create the impression that
people come away with and communicate to others.
This plan began with a discussion of four
unifying themes - Sustainability, Health,
Choices, and Inclusivity - that underlie the
directions and policy recommendations of
this document. These fundamental values
are the aspirational lens through which we
view both the Plan and the hundreds of
individual decisions that it may influence
in coming years. It is appropriate, then,
that the Ames 2040 Plan document ends
with a discussion of community character:
how the physical environment expresses
these values.
SUSTAINABILITY
HEALTH
INCLUSIVITY
CHOICES
119
P L A N E L E M E N T S C O M M U N I T Y C H A R A C T E R
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
CONDITIONS
CORRIDORS OF CIVIC IMPORTANCEThe Character of Ames
Ames is a community characterized by a
relatively compact form that encourages
interaction, an intimate and active traditional
main street, an extensive system of greenways
and trails that both define and connect the city’s
subareas, and of course the distinctive Iowa
State University campus that attracts tens of
thousands of people from around the world. Its
historic neighborhoods and streets feature a
human scale and extensive tree canopy which
set a tone for newer development.
In addition to downtown, the City has
several urban activity centers that include
Campustown, Somerset Village, North Grand
Mall area, ISU Research Park, open space and
parks, and mixed use corridors, each of which
offers specific features. The City is known for
learning and research and the application of
that research to real world problems. Overall,
it is a place where people can experience the
opportunities associated with a major urban
setting and still enjoy the benefits and feel
of a close-knit community. The community’s
vision seeks to maintain this character, while
continuing to expand opportunity and enhance
quality of life. When planning for growth, the
connection and integration of people, places
and activities is sought in creating a sense of
place in a special community called Ames.
The experience of entering a city and traveling
through its public realm is very important to
the quality of the city experience. For example,
people arriving in Ames from its primary
Interstate 35 and Highway 30 entrances gain
their first impression of the community here and
are influenced by the pathways that they travel
to and from their destinations – home, work,
and other places. Ensuring quality land uses
and maintenance of its entrances and corridors
is just as important as the quality of their
destination.
Ames’ community character is significantly
influenced by the land uses and maintenance of
its “CORRIDORS OF CIVIC IMPORTANCE” that
lead to its special districts. While the Growth &
Land Use chapter includes many of the guiding
principles and actions to achieve a stronger
community character, the intent of this chapter
is to supplement those policies to support
a greater sense of place and connectivity,
physically and psychologically, in building a
neighborhood and overall community identity
and spirit.
Interstate
Arterials
Collectors
120
P L A N E L E M E N T S C O M M U N I T Y C H A R A C T E R
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Guiding Principles for
Community Character
C1: Maintain and enhance Ames’ heritage.
Ames seeks to identify, conserve, preserve, and
restore historically significant structures and
archaeological resources.
Historic Districts and other resources help
connect people to the past. The City’s Historic
Preservation Plan guides City priorities.
C2: Recognize the value of the arts in
enhancing Ames’ appearance and expanding
its cultural options. Ames will continue to
support the Arts as an enhancement to our
culture and built environment.
Art installations, exhibitions, music, festivals, and
other community events are desirable to create
a sense of community and bring economic
advantages to the City.
C3: Provide for community involvement and
diverse opportunities. Community events,
programming, and other activities are an
opportunity to bring people from different
backgrounds together and equitably meet
diverse needs of Ames.
Additionally, the City can use expanded
outreach efforts when planning for public
spaces, community plans, and other significant
projects to involve traditional stakeholders and
under-represented or lower public participation
populations, e.g. families with children, minority
groups and students, in support of an inclusive
environment.
C4: Recognize and reinforce a sense of place
for existing and new areas. Ames seeks to
sustain its recognized character while planning
for change and building upon its past success
into the future with desirable design features
and amenities.
Features and amenities include pedestrian/
bicycle friendly environments, urban and
concentrated centers, connections throughout
neighborhoods, districts, and the City,
enhancement of environmental resources, and
architectural quality and compatibility. This
includes maintaining and enhancing downtown
and campustown, creating greenways,
and supporting existing and emerging
neighborhoods and commercial areas.
C5: Add distinctive design characteristics.
Land use and site design characteristics for
areas adjacent to gateways and nodes should
be guided through consideration of building
placement, parking, and access that reinforces
the walkability and aesthetic environment of the
surroundings.
Gateways to Ames should include specialized
signage, lighting, and landscaping approach.
Recognize that some areas are more reliant on
historic character for their success and quality
while some areas will embrace new design
techniques and create a new high- quality
environment. Blending of these ideas is essential
for successful transitions.
C6: Improve design quality. Ames seeks
to expand the use of good design features
within private development as well as City
infrastructure.
The goal is to create positive investment in the
aesthetics and image of the City with design,
not just efficiency and density. Embellish the
surroundings to create interest, whimsy and
identity that include a focus on people and the
environment. New development, buildings, and
public spaces are expected to address design
features with new proposals.
C7: Create options for activity. Ames has a
variety of places to go where people can gather
and be active in their community – parks,
trails, event facilities, and unique shopping
experiences.
New development will incorporate similar
features and uses reflective of these community
preferences and expand opportunities as the
City’s region grows.
121
P L A N E L E M E N T S C O M M U N I T Y C H A R A C T E R
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
ACTIONS
Leverage city programs to
promote historic preservation.
The City offers programs (façade grants)
and zoning standards that support the
preservation and restoration of buildings,
sites, and districts. Protecting the integrity
of Ames’ history will remain a priority for
the community.
Apply high quality design features
throughout the community and
with all types of development.
Modify zoning standards and City
specifications to address placemaking,
environmental protections, building design
goals for priority areas of the City.
i. Update commercial zoning to recognize
placemaking priorities compared to
automobile access and parking priorities.
Updates should rely on architectural
interest, pedestrian enhancements, and
high-quality landscaping rather than
large building setbacks and suburban
design principles.
ii. Public spaces, including parks and open
spaces, support community identity and
activity. Coordinate with principles of the
Parks and Recreation Element.
Create infill and development
standards for compatibility in
residential areas and transition areas
focused on design over density.
i. This Plan includes compatibility
standards in the Growth & Land Use
chapter. These standards may be
refined and updated to the City’s
changing needs.
ii. Planning for sub-areas should evaluate
the character of the area and its evolving
differences for appropriate context
sensitive design features. This approach
is not to be viewed as requiring
preservation or negating other priorities
of the City for redirection areas.
Use art installations and programming as
an invitation to explore the community
and create unique experiences.
i. Support both public/private investments
in display of art as elements that create
interest and accentuate positive design
qualities. This includes sculptures,
artisan crafted architectural features,
and murals. Discourage private branding
and signage as “art” for public display.
ii. Explore with community partners the
interest and need for a comprehensive
public arts master plan. Prioritize
installations and events in conjunction
with placemaking interest of the City.
iii. Continue emphasis on downtown and
neighborhoods for art. Also expand
opportunities to new centers and growth
areas, including gathering areas with
new development.
Include public involvement and
outreach for public initiative.
Future planning initiatives and large City
projects should include public awareness and
a public engagement component to ensure
equitable and diverse input tailored to the
scope of project, such as a neighborhood
scale up to the entire community.
Plan for coordinated city beautification
through gateways, medians, corridors
to support identity and beautification.
The Community Taxonomy Map identifies
routes to and through the City that
influence people’s perception of Ames.
Enhancing these corridors with coordinated
streetscaping and better functional design
will improve the City’s overall image. See also
Action on next page.
i. Develop a public right-of-way plan for
common themes or motifs that guide
a thoughtful and integrated approach
to beautification with trees, art,
landscaping, lighting, and signage.
ii. Use mobility improvements respecting
Complete Streets principles to enhance
appearance when feasible.
1
2
3
4
5
6
122
P L A N E L E M E N T S C O M M U N I T Y C H A R A C T E R
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
ACTIONS
Community Taxonomy
This section of the plan builds off of the City’s
complete streets concept and provides a basic
taxonomy (map next page) of the community’s
character that supports the culture within it.
Elements that frame the City include gateways,
corridors, districts, nodes, destinations, and
environmental fabric.
Gateways
Gateways are locations that convey to the
visitor that they have arrived at their destination
— Ames. Each gateway has their own distinctive
character and categorized into the following:
»Primary – Arrivals to community
usually from heavily traveled roads like
Interstate 35 and Highway 30.
»Secondary – Arrivals to special districts like
Downtown, Campustown, and Somerset Village
Gateways should be regularly maintained and
their design should be revisited over time.
Corridors
The appearance and maintenance of
corridors give visitors a lasting impression
of the community. While the experience of
every corridor is important, the role of the
“Corridors of Civic Importance” are often
most recognizable. Features that influence
the person’s perception includes the buildings
(design, scale, use, setback, etc.), plantings
(trees, grasses, shrubs, and flowers), quality
(maintenance of roads and special features),
and experience of the trip (lighting, pace of
travel, convenience, and sense of safety).
Nodes
Nodes are decision-making points for travelers.
These are typically crossroads of frequently
traveled corridors and categorized as major and
minor nodes.
»Major nodes are typically the crossroads
of arterial streets. These intersections have
significant exposure to visitors and the nature
of their design reinforces the image that the
visitor remembers. These nodes are priorities
for maintenance and enhancement.
»Minor nodes are typically crossroads
of arterial with collector streets.
Districts
Districts are areas with distinctive character,
including special business districts, historic
areas, and ISU campus. Neighborhoods and
centers of commerce can also be districts. The
section on Neighborhoods & Subareas identifies
areas that are subject to further study.
Destinations
Destinations include schools, cultural-oriented
sites, and registered historic buildings. While
the map is not comprehensive, clusters of
destinations appear in downtown and on ISU’s
campus. Preserving and enhancing destinations
is a priority and often achieved through
partnerships.
Environmental Fabric
Parks, greenways, waterways, and sensitive
areas for the underlying connections throughout
the City. The chapters on Environment and
Parks, Trails, & Greenways offer numerous
actions to enhance the beauty of Ames.
Special attention to the maintenance along the
123
P L A N E L E M E N T S C O M M U N I T Y C H A R A C T E R
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
ACTIONS
COMMUNITY TAXONOMYThe chapters on Growth & Land Use and
Mobility captures the policies and actions to
ensure that the integrity of Ames’ corridors
and neighborhoods continue to reinforce the
character of the community, connecting people
from origin to destination. The Community
Taxonomy Map builds off of the Complete
Streets Plan and identifies gateways, nodes,
districts, and landmarks.
Destinations
Gateways
Nodes
Corridors
Districts
Environment
Combined
Fringe Land Use Designations
City Limits
Major Gateway
Minor Gateway
Major Node
Minor Node
Cultural Site
School
Registered Historic Building
Commerical Areas
Historic District
ISU
Complete Streets
Mixed Use Street
Industrial Street
ISU Institutional Street
Mixed Use Avenue
Avenue
Avenue Future
Boulevard
Boulevard - Future
Thoroughfare
Highway
Highway - Future
Neighborhood Street
Neighborhood Street - Future
Two Mile Buffer So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
m
e
s
IMPLEMENTATION
125 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Introduction
The previous chapters, with their narratives
and maps, are the core of the Ames Plan
2040. This last chapter provides an overview
of the plan. With the approval of Ames Plan
2040 there will be much work to be done as
the community builds toward its Vision.
»Plan Administration
»Supplemental Information
»Scheduled Review
»Overview: Initiatives
»Overview: Principles + Policies/Actions
»Project Review Process
Plan Administration
Administration of the Plan will be subject to the
polices of the City Council as outlined herein
and as may be amended by the City Council
from time to time. The Plan is designed to
inform many of the City’s planning processes,
standards, and certain land use entitlement
activities. Annexation, rezoning, sub-area plans,
zoning standards, and subdivision standards
are examples of future actions that require
consistency with the Plan. The Plan includes
references to current 2021 zoning districts to
help provide examples or contextual conditions
that existed at the time of preparation of the
Plan. These zoning district references are not
mandatory requirements and are included
as informational references within the Plan.
New zoning districts will also be created
for implementation of the Plan along with
modifications of existing zoning districts to
better fit the land use designation descriptions.
Future Land Use Map and Zoning
The Future Land Use Map includes designations
that describe the character of an area and
intended goals, guidelines, and actions that
would further the Vision and Principles of
the Plan. The Map includes supplemental
information, such as street layouts, public facility
locations, flood plain, and natural areas that are
not in and of themselves land use designations.
The boundaries between land use designations
are intended to be general and not property
specific unless specified through an action by
the City Council. The general boundary allows
for some flexibility regarding appropriate
transitions between designations through
precise zoning delineations as determined by
the City Council.
Due to the transition period of adopting a new
comprehensive plan and further implementing
its policies, rezoning of a property from its
current zoning is not an obligation of the City
Council. The Plan does not vest a particular land
use right through the Future Land Use Map for
a property owner nor does it define a precise
timeline for implementation of new zoning
standards.
Amendments Process
Amendments to the Plan are intended to
address unforeseen issues or opportunities that
would further the general Vision described for
each Element of the Plan. Amendments to the
Plan Principles, Policies, and the Future Land
Use/Fringe Maps may only be initiated by the
City Council. Amendments to the Plan require
review and a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission prior to adoption by the
City Council.
Annexation of land is not an amendment to
the Plan. Upon annexation the land shall reflect
the designation represented on the Future
Land Use Map for the defined growth areas or
as otherwise indicated by Land Use Policies.
Additionally, the precise delineation of a land
use designation with a corresponding rezoning
is not an amendment to the Plan. A change
from the general planning of growth areas as
evaluated within the scenario evaluation process
as depicted on the Future Land Use Map would
be an amendment to the Plan.
Amendments may be classified as a Minor
or Major Amendment by the City Council
depending upon the nature of the request. The
City Council may add supplemental procedures
for either type of amendment at any time.
126 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Classification of a proposal as a Minor
Amendment would be based upon a
determination by the City Council that the
proposal does not conflict with Principles of the
Plan and it would not have a significant effect
on character of an area. A Minor Amendment
to the Future Land Use Map requires
neighborhood outreach prior to consideration
of the Amendment by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. City Council is the approval
authority of a Major Amendment upon
determining the need and benefit of the change.
Redirection Area designations do not necessarily
require Future Land Use Map amendments as
they are intended for redevelopment based
upon zoning district changes. However, broader
planning and sub-area plans may require a Minor
Amendment when more precise planning efforts
for a broad area are needed.
Major Amendments involve significant changes
to the text of the Plan Principles, approval of
large sub-area plans, or changes to the Land
Use Map that substantially alter the intended
character of an area as defined by the Plan.
Major Amendments require initial public
outreach to review the character of the area and
to define the scope of the proposed change.
Additional public outreach may be required to
refine a specific proposal prior to public hearings
with the Planning and Zoning Commission. City
Council is the approval authority of a Major
Amendment upon determining the need and
benefit of the change.
»Review Considerations. Amendments to the
Plan are intended to address unforeseen
issues or opportunities that would further
the general Vision described for each
Element of the Plan. At times their may
be competing interests embodied in the
Principles or Policies of the Plan related
to a proposed changed that will need to
be evaluated as part of the amendment
process. In coordination with a review of
applicable Plan Principles and Policies, the
following consideration may apply to the
review or justifications of an amendment:
»City resources needed to support the change,
including personnel, equipment, facilities,
utilities, transportation facilities, parks, and
other city services needed to support a
proposed amendment.
»Relationship of the proposal to projected
population and employment needs and the
corresponding land use types and areas
identified to serve these needs by the Future
Land Use Map.
»Community character enhancements that
bolster the image of the community and
promote a defined area with a sense of place
and compatibility with its surroundings.
»Cumulative impacts of a proposed change
taken into consideration with other proposed
or reasonably anticipated changes.
Supplemental Information
Additions of supplemental information, such as
references to zoning districts, locations of public
facilities, other maps and information related to
technical resources, e.g. flood plain updates, are
not in and of themselves amendments to the
Plan that require a formal amendment process.
During the first 18 months of the adoption
for the Plan, edits to the text and maps for
clarification purposes do not require a formal
amendment process, only approval by the City
Council.
Scheduled Review
Ames Plan 2040 is based upon the best
information available at the time of its adoption.
The Plan should be reviewed regularly to
ensure that information, assumptions of future
conditions, and needs align with conditions
as they actually unfold over time and with
community values as they may change over
time.
»Five-Year Review Cycle. The Plan
should be reviewed approximately
every five years to consider:
»The broader vision and principles of the Plan
and their relevance in light of new information,
new methods and technologies, changes in
local and regional conditions, and changing
values of the community.
»Review progress on implementation priorities.
»Whether development and growth is occurring
in line with projections and estimates within the
Plan.
127 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
OVERVIEW: INITIATIVES
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS
PLANS AND SUB-AREAS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ZONING AND SUBDIVISIONS
»Use the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to
include Growth Area investment strategies for
major roadways, trails, water, parks ,and sanitary
sewer.
Develop a Project Planning guide for 1-5
year and 5-10 year infrastructure needs.
»Continue to address future water service needs
within growth areas through agreements with
Xenia Rural Water and Iowa Regional Utility
Association (formerly Central Iowa Water).
»Coordinate an Ames Urban Fringe Plan update
with Boone County and Story County.
»Prepare a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan (Transportation Division)
»Prepare a Parks Master Plan Update
(Parks and Recreation Department)
»Create city gateway and beautification
plan for rights of way.
»Evaluate redirection areas and
needs for sub area plans.
»Initiate new South Lincoln Mixed Use Sub-
Area Plan from Cherry Street to Walnut Avenue.
»Initiate redirection area planning and zoning
changes for University Overlay areas along
Hunt Avenue and Sheldon Avenue.
»On a biannual basis identify redirection
and sub-area planning priorities.
»Update Subdivision Code to include
Complete Streets typologies and
standards for public improvements.
»Update Zoning Ordinance to include
references to new design requirements/
guidelines and relationships to street
typologies of the Complete Streets Plan.
»Prepare and ordinance for parkland
dedication requirements with subdivisions.
»Amend FS-RL and FS-RM zoning to address
broader housing options, such as mix of
housing types, allowances for two-family
dwellings and density ranges matching intended
uses for growth area land use patterns.
»Citywide assessment of potentially allowing for
Accessory Dwelling Units, including review of
issues related to lot sizes, occupancy limitations,
covenant restrictions, design standards,
size limitations, parking requirements.
»Analyze University Impact Area Overlay parking
and design standards in order to reduce
parking and update design requirements.
»Review zoning districts and general standards
for conformity with new land use designations
and described uses, including but not limited to:
»F-VR zoning to address neighborhood
and village land use descriptions
for future growth areas.
»Update of commercial zoning districts
along with creation of new general
commercial zoning district.
128 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
OVERVIEW: PRINCIPLES + POLICIES/ACTIONS
GROWTH AND LAND USE
GROWTH RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
G1 Sustainable Growth New growth will be both economically and environmentally sustainable.
G2 Contiguous Greenfield Development Accommodate much of its projected population growth in areas contiguous to the existing built-up city.
G3 Infill that Enhances Urban Fabric Take advantage of infill sites within the existing urbanized area to increase both the efficiency and quality of its
urban environment.
G4 Quality Urban Experience New development areas will support a healthy and safe urban environment to be enjoyed by all residents.
G5 Review and Approval Process Land use decisions will be made through a transparent, collaborative process.
G6 Planning for Equity Work to include the diverse voices, opinions, and needs of the range of residents who call Ames home.
LAND USE RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
LU1 Relating Land Use and Transportation Relating land use and transportation: Land use planning must be planned in coordination with Ames’ network of
streets,
LU2 Compatibility with Flexibility Ames land use pattern should minimize conflicts between adjacent land uses.
LU3 Residential Density and Diversity New residential development will achieve densities sufficient to use infrastructure efficiently, support
neighborhood services, minimize adverse effects on the environment, and provide a quality urban environment.
LU4 Vital, Convenient Mixed Uses Encourage a compatible mix of uses to create more active, interesting, and efficient city environments, while
providing residents convenient access to neighborhood commercial services and other vital community facilities.
LU5 Places for Employment and Enterprise Continue to provide appropriately located space for a wide range of enterprises that provide employment for
existing and prospective residents.
POLICIES
UF Urban Fringe Continue maintenance of Urban Fringe Area Plan.
The tables summarize the guiding principles, policies and actions proposed in the Plan. Users of the plan should refer to the main chapter for more description.
The Plan’s principles generally apply to future decisions throughout the life of the Plan. This means that many of these statements are to be applied at the time
the community is changing or considering making changes to city plans and standards in the future.
All principles are ongoing priorities. Additionally, a number of the policies and actions are currently part of the city’s operation and will continue to guide the
city on a regular basis. Also, there are new specific actions and follow up steps related to policies of the Plan that will occur as prioritized by the Ames City
Council. Implementation of the Plan will occur over many years as the city changes in the future.
129 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
OVERVIEW: PRINCIPLES + POLICIES/ACTIONS
ENVIRONMENT
RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
E1 Design for environmental priorities.
E2 Improve water quality.
E3 Preserve a network of green spaces.
E4 Apply climate change policies.
ACTIONS
1 Assess a wide range of environmental conditions pertinent to Ames.
2 Use planning documents and models to assist in managing environmental quality.
3 Support for alternative energy systems.
4 Adopt policies and implement strategies identified in prepared plans.
5 Economic development goals shall consider resource availability and intensity of use.
130 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
OVERVIEW: PRINCIPLES + POLICIES/ACTIONS
PARKS, TRAILS & GREENWAYS
RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
P1 Bring people together.
P2 Be accessible and desirable.
P3 Build new parks to service new areas.
P4 Enhance and maintain the system of parks.
P5 Plan a system of interconnected greenways.
P6 Stewardship and variety of open space.
P7 Be fiscally responsible.
P8 Support partnerships.
ACTIONS
1 Maintain a high quality and ample park system and recreation facilities as the City grows.
2 Plan for park dedication as part of the development process with
parkland dedication based upon Neighborhood Park needs.
3 Support the user experience.
4 Provide a park system that supports a variety of user needs.
5 Support parks and open space environmental opportunities.
6 Apply conservation standards in growth areas.
7 Identify partnerships for meeting service needs.
131 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
OVERVIEW: PRINCIPLES + POLICIES/ACTIONS
MOBILITY
RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
M1 Use a Complete Streets approach to serve all users and modes.
M2 Create and maintain a connected multimodal network.
M3 Transportation facilities will be sensitive and appropriate to the character of their urban environments.
M4 Strive to maintain a minimum Level of Service (LOS) standard of “D” for major existing roadway.
M5 Balance the size of infrastructure improvements with cost, environmental constraints,
impacts to all modes, operational quality and levels of service.
M6 Recognize that its transportation system is a critical component of the city’s economic success.
ACTIONS
1 Continue to administer current planning initiatives for mobility.
2 Schedule and budget for future transportation studies to match land use growth.
3 Use development review and rezoning activities to assess transportation impacts and needs.
132 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
OVERVIEW: PRINCIPLES + POLICIES/ACTIONS
NEIGHBORHOODS, HOUSING & SUBAREAS
HOUSING CHOICE AND ATTAINABILITY RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
H1 Support housing choice and attainability for people of all income ranges.
POLICIES
H1-1 Establish a goal and coordinated program to increase annual production of non-multifamily housing units
H1-2 Establish standards within both growth and infill redirection areas.
H1-3 Work with neighborhoods to explore modification of selected single-family zoning districts
H1-4 Evaluate City programs and development standards for diversifying housing.
H1-5 Utilize a variety of funding sources and programs to support retention and creation of affordable housing
H1-6 Encourage development of housing forms that provide a source of rental income for potential owner-occupants.
NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
H2 Support maintaining the quality of existing neighborhoods by encouraging
reinvestment and conserving and enhancing existing housing.
POLICIES
H2-1 Maintain the character of existing single-family blocks
H2-2 Make strategic investments in public infrastructure
H2-3 Support use of a Rental Code and other property maintenance codes to ensure safe and high-quality living conditions.
H2-4 Identify resources for homes that become available at feasible cost.
H2-4 Use zoning and building standards to address neighborhood design and architectural compatibility.
133 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
OVERVIEW: PRINCIPLES + POLICIES/ACTIONS
NEIGHBORHOODS, HOUSING & SUBAREAS
NEW DEVELOPMENT AREAS THAT BUILD COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
H3 Use density, scale, and building types to define development areas that build connected communities.
POLICIES
H3-1 Implement the essence of this plan’s growth area concepts by providing specific
land use guidance for their development with required density ranges.
H3-2 Emphasize design quality with density to create compatibility of uses
and lasting character for new neighborhoods and developments.
REDIRECTION AREAS RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
H4 Identify land use redirection and infill areas and encourage their eventual redevelopment.
POLICIES
H4-1 Identify land use redirection sites as special development areas that are
opportunities for a customized change of use and development strategy.
H4-2 Complete Corridor Action Plans for key city corridors.
H4-3 As potential infill redevelopment areas are identified, prepare detailed concept plans to support the desired outcomes for an area.
134 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
OVERVIEW: PRINCIPLES + POLICIES/ACTIONS
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
RESPONSIBILITIES
PRINCIPLES
C1 Maintain and enhance Ames’ heritage.
C2 Recognize the value of the arts in enhancing Ames’ appearance and expanding its cultural options
C3 Provide for community involvement and diverse opportunities.
C4 Recognize and reinforce a sense of place for existing and new areas.
C5 Add distinctive design characteristics.
C6 Improve design quality.
C7 Create options for activity.
ACTIONS
1 Leverage city programs to promote historic preservation.
2 Apply high quality design features throughout the community and with all types of development.
3 Create infill and development standards for compatibility in residential areas and transition areas focused on design over density.
4 Use art installations and programming as an invitation to explore the community and create unique experiences.
5 Include public involvement and outreach for public initiative.
6 Plan for coordinated city beautification through gateways, medians, corridors to support identity and beautification.
135 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS - MIXED USES
The Future Land Use map displays an overall
development vision and policy framework for
the City. On a day-to-day basis, this vision is
largely implemented through zoning. Traditional
zoning divides the city into districts that
regulate what specific parcels can be used for
and how they can be developed. “Compatibility”
is a critical principle of these regulations, and
one of the primary purposes of the nation’s first
zoning ordinance (New York City, 1916) was to
separate residential from industrial land uses to
protect public health and safety. Compatibility
can be thought of as the degree to which
different uses and types of development can
exist and function comfortably next to or in the
vicinity of each other.
Zoning and the compatibility criterion have been
used in various ways over the 105-year history of
its use in America.
Although single-purpose zones served a
valuable purpose by separating incompatible
uses and reducing the effects and sometimes
hazards historically raised by these conflicts,
they often excluded other traditional and
acceptable uses. Single-use zones that
separate residential, commercial, and
employment areas sometimes discourage
the more diverse and walkable/bikeable
communities that people increasingly prefer.
They also can produce more dispersed land use
patterns that are more expensive to serve and
more dependent on automobile transportation.
Ames Plan 2040 strives to address a broad
array of needs in the land use designations.
Land use regulations that build on the base
of the city’s existing districts can implement
these concepts by allowing a more diverse
range of uses. Revisions are based on the idea
that diversity has positive benefits and that
compatibility does not mean uniformity. They
can provide new tools that address design
quality and operations of certain uses and their
adjacency to other established uses.
Conventional future land use plans, like
conventional zoning districts, typically
designate different areas by single uses -
residential, commercial, industrial, and so
forth. This creates a relative correspondence
between the plan and zoning decisions. But
more contemporary plans like Ames Plan 2040,
which are more concerned with character
and policy, include district designations that
accommodate a variety of uses.
Ames also has a robust array of zoning tools,
many of which are sensitive to specific settings
in the city. This provides a solid regulatory
base for implementing a character-based,
flexible land use plan. Adjustments to zoning
categories will occasionally be needed to
ensure that different uses are compatible with
one another.
For example, a small retail or convenience
service use may be perfectly welcome in a
residential area, but its design should limit the
impact of cars on the neighborhood. Similarly,
different types of housing construction may
be acceptable within a single residential area,
but placing a six-story building next door to a
single-family home will almost inevitably present
a problem for the owner of the house. These
transitions must be managed to administer
mixed use areas successfully and provide both
guidance and flexibility for decision-makers
and developers, and reasonable protections for
residents.
Relating Plan to Projects
Planners often say that a land use plan is
implemented by zoning. But over the course
of two decades, thousands of private and
public investment, development, and review
decisions actually form growth and change in
the city. An effective land use plan, together
with land development ordinances, provide both
a coherent vision to guide those decisions and
the review that public decision makers carry
out to maintain and mold that vision. Ultimately,
the vision rises or falls through the execution of
individual projects.
This section then is intended to provide a bridge
that connects the land use plan, zoning, and the
review and approval of individual projects. This
matrix is intended to be advisory and designed
to guide future zoning ordinance updates.
136 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS - MIXED USES: PLAN COMPLIANCE
This framework addresses:
»The relationship between the Future Land
Use Plan and Zoning categories.
»Evaluation of the compatibility of new land
development proposals with pre-existing
development in mixed use areas.
»Methods that can increase the compatibility
between different types of uses and
projects that comply with the land use plan
but which could introduce conflicts.
The project review and approval process raised
by these three key points can be thought of as
three specific evaluative “tests,” designed to
realize the benefits of a mixed use philosophy
while avoiding its potential problems:
»Test One. Is the proposed project within the
range of zoning districts that correspond
with the Future Land Use Plan category?
»Test Two. Is the project generally compatible
with adjacent or surrounding developments and
located along an appropriate type of streets,
as defined by the Complete Street Typology?
»Test Three. If there is a potential incompatibility,
can the project be modified or designed
in a way that makes it compatible?
TEST #1: Plan Compliance and
Zoning Districts
The Ames zoning ordinance establishes 23 base
zones, four floating zones, and 12 overlay zones.
Base zones identify the predominant use of each
district – agricultural, residential, commercial,
industrial, and special purpose. Floating zones
apply to areas identified as “urban residential” in
the Ames Urban Fringe Plan and provide special
flexibility for the design of new residential
developments. These will carry over into the
growth areas defined by this plan. Overlay
zones combine with base districts to establish
additional regulations and guidelines in areas
of special importance to city character or the
environment. The policy tables presented on
pages 50 through 67 display the existing zoning
districts that apply to each category in the
Future Land Use Map. It is important to note that
the land use plan is not a zoning map: in fact,
most of the land use categories in the Future
Land Use Plan include more than one zone.
Test One then relates the Future Land Use Plan
to the City’s Zoning Map for the purpose of
determining whether a development proposal
complies with the comprehensive plan. The table
on the next page displays the Future Land Use
Plan’s development categories with the zoning
districts that they typically contain. In general,
these zoning designations and their specific
provisions are consistent with the intent of these
categories in the land use plan. Thus, a project
that is properly zoned or requires a rezoning to a
district consistent with the table passes the first
test of plan compliance. The table includes two
levels of zoning/land use consistency:
»Primary Consistency. These reflect the
principal zones appropriate to the specific
Future Land Use category. For example, the
RL (Low-Density Residential) zone is the
primary district for the RN-2 (Established
Neighborhood) Future Land Use plan category.
»Provisional Consistency. This level expresses
the mixed use character of the plan categories.
The densities and uses permitted by these zoning
designations stretch into higher density or
intensity uses that can enhance diversity, urban
activity, and character in these city regions.
However, they require certain conditions to be
compatible with their neighborhood context. An
example of such a provisional consistency is a
project requiring NC Neighborhood Commercial
zone in the RN-2 (Established Neighborhood)
category. These conditions include:
»Location along or near an appropriately
classified street in the Complete Streets Plan,
including thoroughfares, boulevards, avenues,
and mixed use avenues.
»Adjacency to an existing similar intensity zone
or development.
»Modifications or special features in the
development design that make the proposed
project compatible with its surroundings,
despite their difference in density or use.
TEST #1
Plan/Zoning
Compliance
TEST #2
Compatibility
TEST #3
Increasing
Compatibility
TEST #1
Plan/Zoning
Compliance
TEST #2
Compatibility
TEST #3
Increasing
Compatibility
137 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS - MIXED USES: PLAN COMPLIANCE
RELATING LAND USE CATEGORIES AND ZONING DISTRICTS: DETERMINING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH AMES PLAN 2040
ZONING DISTRICTS
Ag Residential Commercial Industrial Special Floating / Overlay
A RL RM UCRM RH RLP NC CCN HOC PRC CCR CVCN DSC CSC CGS GI PI RI S-HM S-GA S-SMD
LA
N
D
U
S
E
C
A
T
E
G
O
R
I
E
S
Open Space S-GA, O-E
Urban Reserve O-E
Rural Character F-PRD
RN-1 (Traditional)O-SFC, O-H, O-UIE/W
RN-2 (Established)O-UIW, O-UIE, F-PRD
RN-3 (Expansion)F-PRD, FS-RL,
RN-4 (Village)F-VR
RN-5 (Multifamily)F-PRD
Neighborhood Core O-LMU
Neighborhood Core MU O-LMU
Community Commercial O-GSE, O-GSW
Core S-GA
General Commercial O-GSE, O-GSW
Employment-Planned O-GNE
Employment-Industrial
Redirection -
Urban Corridor O-GNE
Near Campus (O)O-UIE/W
Hospital/Medical
Civic-University
Civic
Other Public Facilities
Primary Consistency
Provisional Consistency
138 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS - MIXED USES: TESTING COMPATIBILITY
TEST #2: General Compatibility
Mixed use districts, based on character and a
level of diversity, will sometimes place different
types of development next to each other. These
adjacencies should be harmonious rather than
conflicting. Accomplishing this flexibility while
protecting pre-existing or planned development
involves two items:
»Identifying the degree and nature
of potential incompatibilities.
»Proposing ways to mitigate
these potential conflicts.
The degrees of potential incompatibility, when it
exists, include:
»Minor. Possible issues can be remedied or
minimized by site design, traffic mitigation,
and building design and scale.
»Substantial. Differences in scale or external
effects that require major measures to
reduce impact to acceptable level.
»Major. Differences or impacts that are
so great that the project should not
proceed under normal circumstances.
Potential incompatibilities fall into four
categories:
»Density/intensity. Differences in the amount
or density of proposed development and its
relationship to neighboring properties. A potential
example could be a proposed townhome project
in a low-density single-family neighborhood.
»Building scale, size, and site design. Significant
differences between height and scale of a
proposed project and adjacent properties.
An example would be a three-story building
proposed on a street lined with one- or two-
story existing buildings, or a large grocery store
in a commercial area of smaller buildings.
»Traffic. Potential conflicts generated by
differences in the amount, timing, and routing
of traffic generated by a proposed project
and existing uses. Examples might include
a child care business in a residential area.
»Operations. These potential conflicts are caused
by operational characteristics such as noise, light,
hours of operations, emissions and odors, and
storm drainage onto surrounding properties. A
possible example would be a neighborhood ice
cream shop on a street corner adjacent to houses.
These potential incompatibilities can all be
managed for the benefit of their adjacent
neighborhoods. The Compatibility Matrix is
the first step, helping to define the extent and
type of potential conflict that exist between a
proposed project and its neighbors. It provides
guidance on when or if mitigation or special
design features can make different land uses
or intensities compatible with one another. The
categories shown in the matrix represent a scale,
with actual ranges of intensity to be worked out
during the process of drafting and approving
ordinance changes.
Using the Matrix
The matrix helps define potential areas of
incompatibility that should be addressed by the
design and operation of the proposed use.
An example of its use would be a project review
of a retail building, classified as “commercial
low,” proposed on a site in a mixed use district
adjacent to a medium-density apartment
development, classified as “residential medium.
The matrix indicates that the proposed
project presents the possibility of “minor
incompatibility” and the primary issues that
need to be addressed are traffic, building scale,
and site design. This then helps the proposer
craft a plan and design that addresses problems
in advance.
TEST #1
Plan/Zoning
Compliance
TEST #2
Compatibility
TEST #3
Increasing
Compatibility
139
P L A N E L E M E N T S C O M M U N I T Y C H A R A C T E R
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS - MIXED USES: INCREASING COMPATIBILITY
TEST #3: Increasing Compatibility
When potential incompatibilities emerge
between land development proposals and pre-
existing development, various techniques and
design modifications should be employed to
compensate. This section proposes examples of
mitigation measures that can resolve potential
conflicts which are consistent with the overall
objectives and guiding principles of the Land
Use Plan. Mitigation measures represent a
starting point for implementation.
DENSITY/INTENSITY
D1: Density Stepdowns. Step down residential
density (measured by units per acre) from the
higher intensity to the lower intensity area.
D2: Buffers. Use landscaped buffers to reduce
conflicts between adjacent land uses of different
densities including commercial and industrial land
uses from adjacent residential property. Landscape
buffers should increase in horizontal distance as
visual and operational incompatibilities increase.
Vertical features such as ornamental fences and
landforms may reduce the necessary width of buffers.
D3: Screening. Use dense landscaping, evergreen
materials, and “green” walls or fences to make
edges of potentially incompatible land uses
less visible from one another. At edges of
developments, reflect the patterns of buildings,
yards, paved areas, and streetscape displayed
by adjacent pre-existing development.
D4: Public Realm. Incorporate streetscape
amenities along street frontages. These
amenities may include street trees and street
landscaping, green corridors, exterior windows
and storefront details, street furniture, thematic
lighting, medians, and enhanced sidewalks.
D5: Location of Uses. In mixed use projects,
locate land uses similar to adjacent existing uses at
project boundaries. For example, when a project
containing both residential and commercial uses
adjoins a residential area, development near the
existing residential area should be residential.
D6: Amenities that Benefit Neighborhoods. Provide
neighborhood convenience features like services
and food that serve pre-existing development.
BUILDING SCALE AND SITE DESIGN
B1: Building Mass Transitions. Place building
elements with greater mass and height away from
pre-existing structures with lower-density or height.
B2: Single-Family Adjacency. Minimize the mass of
buildings that directly face single-family structures.
B3: Visual Impact. Reduce the visual impact of larger
or higher density buildings that directly face smaller,
pre-existing buildings by using larger setbacks
than those prevailing on the street and including
design and elevation features that give the effect
of reducing the mass of the building and which
complement adjacent, lower-density development.
B4: Size Transitions. At transitions to lower-
intensity areas, step buildings down to a scale
(building bulk, footprint size, and height)
consistent with surrounding development.
B5: Rooftop Equipment Screening. Screen
rooftop mechanical equipment from public view.
B6: Human-Scaled Details. At edges with pre-
existing, lower-intensity residential uses or densities,
use features such as bays, insets, porticoes, porches,
stoops, variations in wall planes, gables, balconies,
and other features to maintain residential scale.
B7: Drive-Through Services. Screen drive-through
services and integrate screening into the overall
design of buildings and landscaping. Contain the
visual impact of these service functions from adjacent
public streets and neighboring residential properties.
B8: Consistent Site Features. Adjust yards,
landscaping, and building setbacks to reflect patterns
in adjacent, lower-intensity residential areas.
B9: Parking Lot Scale. Use landscape, pedestrian
ways, bioswales, and parking design to divide
large parking lots into smaller blocks.
BELOW: Building stepdown diagram. Three story multifamily building
steps down to two stories adjacent to existing single-family homes.
TEST #1
Plan/Zoning
Compliance
TEST #2
Compatibility
TEST #3
Increasing
Compatibility
140
P L A N E L E M E N T S C O M M U N I T Y C H A R A C T E R
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
B10: Parking Lot Location. Locate parking lots
outside of the area of the site between a public street
and the building to reflect development patterns
of adjacent pre-existing residential development.
B11: Buffered Parking. Use landscaped
buffers to reduce the impact of parking
facilities on adjacent residential areas.
B12: Interior-Directed Residential Parking. Provide
most parking in the interior of multifamily residential
projects rather than between buildings and the street,
using residential buildings to define the street edge.
B13: Signage. Use building or business signage
that contributes naturally to the primary façade
design. Recommended sign types include but are
not limited to small projecting signs in historic
contexts or as part of a comprehensive project
sign plan; wall signs using individual letters, awning
signs, and attached accent or thematic signs using
contemporary materials such as neon or LED’s.
B14: Lighting Design. Design lighting of
commercial and industrial signage to minimize
impact on adjacent residential areas.
B15: Environmental Resources. Preserve
environmental resources, including
drainageways and swales, mature trees,
wetlands, and prairies and grassland areas.
B16: Stormwater Management. Encourage
stormwater management features (including
retention and detention basins, swales, surface
drainageways, constructed wetlands, and greenways)
to be located, designed, and managed to provide
visual amenities or entryway features, or to
provide opportunities for passive recreation.
B17: Stormwater in Parking Lots. Use best
stormwater management practices in parking
lots. Limit the amount of continuous paving with
landscaping and/or stormwater management features.
B18: Service Areas. Avoid locating service
areas, outdoor storage, equipment, loading
docks, and other building services next
to and visible from residential uses.
TRAFFIC
T1: Location along Major Streets. To
the maximum degree possible with good
project design, orient higher intensity uses
to appropriate street types, consistent with
the Complete Streets Plan – thoroughfares,
boulevards, mixed use avenues, and avenues.
T2: Traffic Routes. Provide means of access to
residential areas that avoids requiring residents
to use arterial streets for short-distance trips.
»Avoid channeling traffic generated by
higher-intensity uses onto local or residential
streets except as part of comprehensively
planned, mixed use projects.
»Make maximum use of internal cross-
easements and shared access points between
or within individual projects when possible.
»Use traffic calming techniques to reduce
speeds between adjacent properties.
»Connect buildings on the site with
internal streets and drives, and pedestrian
connections and pathways to prevent
unnecessary local traffic in adjacent areas.
»Establish routes that direct traffic from more
intensive uses away from local streets.
»Use street design techniques that logically
direct traffic along desired access routes.
T3: Transportation Alternatives. Utilize site
designs, building groupings, and site features
that accommodate and encourage the use of
transportation alternatives, including pedestrian,
bicycle, and public transportation. Examples of
techniques include continuous walkways from public
sidewalks, transit stops, and multi-use paths and
trails to building entrances; use of durable surface
materials to define pedestrian routes and crossings;
and visible and convenient bicycle parking facilities.
T4: Connectivity. Increase street connectivity
to reduce reliance on single routes for access.
OPERATIONAL IMPACT
O1: Containment of Effects. Contain operating
effects (including noise and odors) of high-intensity
uses within building walls to the maximum degree
possible and at least within site boundaries.
O2: Vertical Screening. Use vertical screening to
block visual effects of high-impact components
such as mechanical equipment and service areas.
O3: Illumination. Direct light generated by higher
intensity uses, including direct illumination of parking
and service areas, signs, and structures, away from
adjacent residential areas and public streets.
O4: Drive-Through Services. Screen drive-through
services and integrate screening into the overall
design of buildings and landscaping. Contain the
visual impact of these service functions from adjacent
public streets and neighboring residential properties.
O5: Sound Insulation. Reduce noise using additional
wall insulation or mass, plantings, fences and
walls, and strategic placement of openings.
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS - MIXED USES: INCREASING COMPATIBILITY
141 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S U M M A R Y
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS - MIXED USES: TESTING COMPATIBILITY
COMPATIBILITY MATRIX - EXISTING USE
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL MIXED USE
Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High Low High Low Med High
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
Low
Med D,B
High D,T V D,T
OF
F
I
C
E
Low B,T
Med B,T B,T
High B,T B,T B,T
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
Low B,T B,T
Med B,T,O B,T,O T,O
High D,B,T,O D,B,T,O B,T,O
IN
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
Low D,B,T,O D,B,T,O B,T,O B,O B,O B,O B,O O
High D,B,T,O D,B,T,O D,B,T,O B,T,O B,T,O B,O B,T,O O O
MI
X
E
D
U
S
E
Low D,B,T,O D,B,T,O B,T,O B,T,O B,T,O
Med D,B,T,O D,B,T,O B,T,O O O
High D,B,T,O D,B,T,O B,T,O B,T,O B,T,O O O
Compatibility Definitions
The illustrative compatibility review matrix
shown at left displays general use types that
encompass the great majority of project
proposals - residential, office, commercial,
industrial, and mixed use. It then defines three
intensity or impact ranges - low, middle, and
high. Criteria that define these ranges should
be consistent with Ames’ zoning categories
and development regulations, with details to be
worked out during the implementation process.
General variables to consider in determining
these categories might include:
Residential. Building type, residential density
Office. Building height and footprint area,
height, floor area ratio, impervious coverage
Commercial. Building footprint, floor area ratio,
traffic generation, proposed business targets,
impervious coverage, hours of operation
Industrial. Types of industry, external operating
effects, outdoor storage, building size, traffic
characteristics including truck movements
Mixed Use. Building footprint and height, floor
area ratio, dominant use and overall mix
TYPES OF INCOMPATIBILITY
D Density / Intensity
B Building Scale and Site Design
T Traffic
O Operational
DEGREE OF COMPATIBILITY
Compatible
Minor Potential Compatibility
Substantial Potential Incompatibility
Major Potential Incompatibility
DUF
F
AV
E
US HIGHWAY 30
US HIGHWAY 30
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
LINCOLN WAY
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
DU
F
F
A
V
E
UN
IVE
R
S
ITY
BLV
D
LINCOLN WAY
ST
A
T
E
A
V
E
ONTARIO ST
NO
R
T
H
D
A
K
O
T
A
A
V
E
DA
Y
T
O
N
A
V
E
SO
U
T
H
D
A
K
O
T
A
A
V
E
ST
A
N
G
E
R
D
13TH ST 13TH ST
6TH ST
16TH ST
BLOOMINGTON RD
DA
Y
T
O
N
P
L
24TH ST
ST
A
N
G
E
R
D
4TH ST
MORTENSEN RD
AIRPORT RD
3RD ST
HY
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
OAKWOOD RD
US
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
6
9
13TH ST
US
HIGHW
AY
69
Core
Core
Core
Redir
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Emp
Emp
EmpEmp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC
Com
CR Com
CR
Com
CRCom
CR
Com
CR
Com
CR
Com
CR
RN-5RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
NC
MU
NC
MU
NC
MU
NC
MU
NC
MU
NC
MU
NC
MU
NC
Com-CR
NC
NC
Quarry
Redir
Redir
RN-1
RN-1
RN-1
UCUC
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
RN-4
RN-4
RN-4
Emp
RN-5
Com
CR
NC
MU
Core
RN-3
Univ
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
Emp
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
RN-3
GC
GC
Com
CR
Com
CR
RN-5
RN-5 RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-5
RN-2
RN-2
RN-2
GC
NC
MU
Com
CR
NC
Redir
Redir
RN-1
UC Core
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
Univ
RN-4
RN-4
Emp
Emp
Univ
RN-1
RN-3
NC-MU
RN-2
RN-5
UC
RN-3
RN-4
GC
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
Univ
RN-2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
Future Land Use
Residential Neighborhood 1 - Traditional (RN-1)
Residential Neighborhood 2 - Established (RN-2)
Residential Neighborhood 3 - Expansion (RN-3)
Residential Neighborhood 4 - Village (RN-4)
Residential Neighborhood 5 - Multi-family (RN-5)
Neighborhood Core (NC)
Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU)
Community Commercial/Retail (Com-CR)
General Commercial (GC)
Core (Core)
Redirection (Redir)
Urban Corridor
Employment (Emp)
Park/Recreation
Open Space
Civic
Civic - University
Hospital/Medical Special Area
Near Campus Overlay
Airport Protection Area
City Limits
Future Land Use Map
City of Ames, Iowa
Final Draft December 8, 2021
0 0.5 10.25
Miles North
Attachment C-Final Map Amendment
Four proposed changes to reflect existing conditions.