HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Council Packet Summary February 25, 2025
City Office 515.239.5105 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
515.239.5142 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jeramy Neefus, Principal Clerk, City Manager’s Office
Date: February 21, 2025
Subject: Council Packet Summary
Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of February 21, 2025:
1. Lynn Ballard, Ames Resident – February 8, 2025
RE: Request for Special Use Permit for Gameday Parking at Haunted Forest Lot
2. Cullen Anderson, Ames Resident – February 13, 2025
RE: Request for Code Amendment to Authorize UTV Travel on City Streets
3. Damion Pregitzer, Traffic Engineer – February 20, 2025
RE: Response to Crosswalk Request at Lincoln Way and Wilmoth Avenue
4. Corey Goodenow, Finance Director – February 21, 2025
RE: Property Tax Notice Insert
5. Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director – February 21, 2025
RE: Request for Zoning Changes for Apartment Building at Oakland and Hyland
1
Hall, Renee
From:Lynn Ballard <lynnballard36@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 8, 2025 1:32 PM
To:City Council and Mayor; leehauntedforest@aol.com
Subject:Haunted Forest Camper parking allowance
[External Email]
a request to create an allowance, or a special permit to con nue allowing RVs, campers, to leave their units on our lot
(Haunted Forest Lot) during the ISU football season (Aug 31–November with all units removed from the property on the
Sunday following the last game). We have been parking in our lot since 1975. We have approximately 35 campers that
leave their units versus removing them game to game because of long distance, convenience, etc. any considera on
would be very much appreciated ,,,parents of players from as far as Colorado use our a lot. Thanks again Lynn Ballard (
also a ques on would we be considered grandfathered in since we have been doing this since the beginning of Jack Trice
Stadium)
1
Hall, Renee
From:Cullen Anderson <cullenanderson1296@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 13, 2025 6:31 PM
To:Gartin, Tim
Cc:Lambert, Mark; City Council and Mayor; Schainker, Steve
Subject:Re: Side by side / utv usage in city limits
[External Email]
Mark and Tim, thank you for the help. I would like to suggest that the city of Ames does change their code
to allow the usage of utv/ side by sides in city limits, for recreational use I would suggest reflecting the
codes of the City of Ankeny Which has a population of nearly 75,000 residents, and Council Bluffs which
have nearly 62,000 residents. I believe there is room for these vehicles on our city streets just as there is
for mopeds and motorcycles, given that the city would put safety regulations on these machines, such as
lights, indicator lights, horns, turn signals and brake lights, along with requiring seat belts, valid driver's
license and having a minimum age requirement of 18 years old, set limitations on roads in Which they are
prohibited such as Duff, Grand, and Lincoln way or where there are 4 lane roads. The state of Iowa
changed the state Code in July of 2022 and I believe if we follow the states guideline, that we can fit in
with the rest of the transportation community.
Thank you for taking the time to listen.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 5:37 PM Gartin, Tim <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org> wrote:
Thank you Mark.
Cullen, if you have further questions or recommendations, you are welcome to send those to the city
council (copied on this email). If you believe Ames should change its ordinance, it would be helpful for
us to know if peer communities that have allowed this. The fact that other communities have adopted
such an approach is not determinative, but it helps to start the conversation with us if a proposal has
already been adopted by cities similar to Ames.
Thanks,
Tim
From: Lambert, Mark <mark.lambert@cityofames.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 4:57 PM
To: Cullen Anderson <cullenanderson1296@gmail.com>
Cc: Gartin, Tim <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org>
Subject: RE: Side by side / utv usage in city limits
Cullen,
2
A UTV vehicle is not allowed on City of Ames streets. The Iowa Code section you reference allows them
to be operated under certain circumstances, but does not allow them to be operated on “highways” –
which includes city streets. The state law does allow cities to authorize them to travel on city streets
within the city limits, but the City of Ames has not done so.
I hope this answers your question.
Mark
Mark O. Lambert
City Attorney
515.239.5146 main| 515.239.5142 fax
mark.lambert@cityofames.org | City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue | Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org | ~ Caring People ~ Quality Programs ~ Exceptional Service ~
From: Cullen Anderson <cullenanderson1296@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 3:51 PM
To: Lambert, Mark <mark.lambert@cityofames.org>
Cc: Gartin, Tim <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org>
Subject: Re: Side by side / utv usage in city limits
[External Email]
Sounds great, thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
3
On Feb 12, 2025, at 12:23 PM, Lambert, Mark <mark.lambert@cityofames.org> wrote:
Cullen,
Hi, thanks for your email.
I'm out of the office today, but I will take a look at our municipal code to refresh my
memory and get back to you tomorrow.
Mark
<image.png>
Mark O. Lambert
City Attorney
515.239.5146 main| 515.239.5142 fax
mark.lambert@cityofames.org | City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue | Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org | ~ Caring People ~ Quality Programs ~ Exceptional Service ~
From: Cullen Anderson <cullenanderson1296@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:41 PM
To: Lambert, Mark <mark.lambert@cityofames.org>
Subject: Side by side / utv usage in city limits
[External Email]
Hello,
I’m reaching out to find an answer on if an individual can ride a side by side/ utv in town if it falls
into compliance with state of Iowa code 321l.10(1). I have seen several through town and cannot
find a specific city code that says an individual cannot, I would like to have clear answer, as I do
not want to break any local laws.
4
If they are prohibited, what actions would I have to take as a resident of Ames to try and change
that.
Thank you for taking the time to help me.
Cullen Anderson
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5160 main
515.239.5404 fax
515 Clark Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works – Traffic Division
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Damion Pregitzer, Traffic Engineer
Date: February 20, 2025
Subject: Response to Crosswalk Request at Lincoln Way and Wilmoth
Avenue
At the November 12, 2024, City Council meeting, a request was referred to Staff
regarding the installation of a crosswalk at the intersection of Lincoln Way and
Wilmoth Avenue.
The Walk Bike Roll Plan, the City of Ames Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan,
has identified this location for potential pedestrian improvements. The Plan
prioritizes projects based on safety, connectivity, and available funding. As part
of this process, improvements at this location will be implemented in alignment
with the plan’s established priorities and as funding becomes available.
Additionally, any modifications at this location will require coordination with
CyRide, as this crossing affects one of its bus stop locations. Staff will work with
CyRide to ensure that any future improvements are compatible with transit
operations and pedestrian accessibility.
Staff will continue to monitor conditions at this intersection and consider interim
safety measures if necessary. Any permanent project at this location will be
prioritized next year during the development of the City's Capital Improvement
Plan.
Finance Department 515.239.5113 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
MEMO
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Corey Goodenow, Director of Finance
Date: February 21, 2025
Subject: Property Tax Notice Insert
At the January 31, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to engage with the
Story County Auditor regarding the inclusion of a City-prepared letter within the required property
tax notice sent by the Story County Auditor. Additionally, staff engaged with the Iowa Department
of Management (IDOM) to seek clarification on whether such an inclusion would be permissible
under existing state regulations.
Following our inquiry, IDOM has responded by citing Iowa Code 24.2A, which they believe explicitly
defines the contents that may be included within the mandated property tax notice. According to IDOM’s
interpretation, there is no statutory allowance for additional materials, including a letter from the
City of Ames, to be included within the official mailing. Furthermore, IDOM indicated they have
communicated a consistent stance on this matter to other local governments that have made similar requests,
affirming that the statutory language does not provide any flexibility to accommodate supplementary
information.
In light of this regulatory constraint, staff has considered alternative means of ensuring Ames residents
receive accurate and transparent information regarding the disparities in property tax calculations. We
recognize the importance of providing clear guidance to taxpayers to better understand their tax liabilities
and how these amounts are determined. To this end, staff recommends incorporating language within
the City’s allocated section of the required property tax notice, historically reserved to explain
property tax increases. This would direct taxpayers to visit the dedicated webpage at
CityofAmes.org/propertytax. This online resource, currently under development, would serve as a
centralized hub where residents can access comprehensive property tax details, including a user-
friendly calculator to help them accurately determine their City tax obligations.
Additionally, staff suggests leveraging the City’s existing communication channels to maximize outreach
and public awareness. This may include utilizing official City newsletters, social media platforms, and
email notifications to ensure the public is adequately informed about where they can find pertinent tax-
related information. This multi-pronged approach will help bridge the information gap while ensuring
compliance with state regulations.
Should the Council wish to pursue the option of distributing the originally proposed letter, it will
need to be sent as a standalone mailing, separate from the Story County Auditor’s notice. While this
remains a feasible option, it is important to note that additional costs and logistical considerations would
need to be evaluated to facilitate such a mailing.
Memo
Department of Planning & Housing
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director
DATE: February 21, 2025
SUBJECT: Request for Zoning Changes for Apartment Building at Oakland and Hyland
The request dated February 6th from Chuck Winkleblack involves zoning changes to facilitate
redevelopment of a site at Oakland and Hyland. The redevelopment involves the demolition of a
single-family home and 15-unit apartment complex on parcels at 259 and 263 Hyland for the
construction of a 56-unit apartment complex with 33 one-bedroom units and 23 two-bedroom
units. (Letter attached)
The property is positioned within an area of Ames Plan 2040 designated at RN-4 “Walkable Urban
Neighborhood” reflecting a mix of higher density housing and commercial uses generally in the area
west of Campus extending to Hyland, bounded by Lincoln Way and Oakland.(See location map) This
designation is reflective or existing conditions and does not address significant redevelopment plans for
the area, but does note needs for streetscape improvements and potentially a specific area plan to guide
improvements. (See attached description) The current Residential High Density zoning and
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district accommodate the current uses in the area, but are not
designed to facilitate redevelopment as desired by the developer.
Historically, the area has had RH zoning, but in 2006 the East and West University Impacted Overlay
was added to the area to establish minimum design standards and more significantly a requirement for
25% more parking than otherwise is required for most apartment types outside of the Overlay. The
parking requirement was a result of concerns from neighborhoods to the south of campus and west of
campus that there would be an overflow of parking into neighborhoods with larger student apartments
and over occupancy of units and more parking should be provided on site.
The RN-4 area that applies to this request does not immediately abut traditional residential
neighborhoods with about a 1- to 2-block buffer from the single-family home areas to the west.
Note that to the west of the RN-4 designation is a Redirection Area planned for future study and
neighborhood planning to consider redevelopment potential, this would include Campus Avenue,
Woodland Street, and Howard Avenue.
There are two significant policy issues embedded in the developer’s request that are applicable to
more than just their one site.
Issue #1 Reduced Parking Requirements Not only does the developer desire to eliminate the Overlay
25% additional parking requirement, they are requesting Council lower the parking rate to a 1-space per
unit standard for 1 and 2-bedroom apartments. This rate is similar to the Campustown CSC Zoning
standard, expect that in Campustown apartment sizes of up to five bedrooms are allowed
compared to this proposal. The justification is the proximity of the site as being walkable with it being
2 blocks from campus. This type of requested change should be thought of applying to the whole
of the area within 2 blocks of campus as the justification would apply to more properties than just
this site.
Staff would generally be supportive of the concept of reduced parking in highly walkable areas,
which is in this case is reflective of the Plan 2040 designation of RN-4. Staff believes that targeting
new construction of smaller units, as proposed by the developer, with lower parking compared to the to
5-bedroom apartment allowances of Campustown would also be appropriate to mitigate overall intensity
of use and related parking concerns.
Ideally, as student housing, resident parking can be lower on a development site due to lower car
ownership and the option of parking remotely as an ISU student. The only obvious parking
impediment to lowering the rate in this area is a low amount of street parking in this area,
meaning that on-site parking is the primary means of meeting demand with little secondary
parking available.
Issue #2 Increased Density The second issue relates to dwelling units per acre density standard. All
RH zoned properties are limited a maximum density of approximately 38.5 dwelling units per acre.
Bedroom counts within the dwelling unit are not part of the density calculation, but traditionally are part
of the parking requirement for a site. The combination of density and parking standards are the primary
controls of intensity of use with RH zoning.
The developer, in tandem with the requested reduced parking rate, could construct more smaller units on
the site than a typical RH development and as a result, the proposed density would exceed the current
RH limitation, approaching a maximum of 74 units per acre where 38.5 per acre is allowed. The reason
for the higher density calculation is the preponderance of 1-bedroom units with the project rather than
larger 3- or 4-bedroom units. For example, the developer’s initial concept would have 56 units and 79
bedrooms. A density-compliant project of 28 units as 3-bedroom units totaling 84 bedrooms would be
similar in intensity and not require a zoning change for density.
From staff’s review of the initial concept, the project can fit within the current West Impacted
Overlay height limit of 4-stories and 50 feet regardless of unit density. Such a building would be
similar in scale to many buildings along Hyland, including across Hyland at the corner of Oakland.
Because a large high rise building like those in Campustown would not be needed to accommodate
the proposed density, changes focused on smaller unit densities could be compatible with the
intent of the RN-4.
OPTIONS:
From the issue discussed above, it is evident how zoning standards of density, parking, and height all tie
together to manage building and development intensity based upon priorities for specific zoning districts
and areas of the City. The developer’s request would require Zoning Ordinance changes and they
would be applicable to other sites. If Council is interested in the request to increase infill densities,
below are three options to respond to the developer’s request.
1. Neighborhood Plan and Rezoning for Sheldon and Hyland corridors with lower parking
standards and higher densities.
The issues identified by the developer and justification of proximity to the University apply
to a broad area along Sheldon and Hyland. It would be appropriate to evaluate existing
conditions and overall redevelopment potential and assess appropriate options for
opportunity sites in the area. This approach would look at the intent of the RN-4
designation for compatible densities, walkability, and preserving or adding small
commercial options. To do this, public consultation would be needed and drafting of
standards for public review before finalizing a plan and new zoning.
This option may meet the developer’s overall interests, but not on the proposed timeline of
developing the site in August 2025. A neighborhood plan would include broader
involvement and not start until the summer of 2025 based upon the Department Workplan.
A subsequent rezoning would require an additional two to three months after the
completion of a plan.
2. Create New Overlay for individual property rezonings that allow lower parking and higher
densities on a project specific basis. (Developer Preferred)
This approach would not assess overall conditions of the area or formulate a general plan as
described in Option 1, but instead focus on creating a new Urban Walkable Area Overlay
zoning district that focuses on reducing parking and compatible design standards for medium
to high-density apartments. This process would establish a new overlay that then could be
applied to specific project sites as needed, rather than rezone the whole area at one time.
This option would likely meet the developer’s overall interests and could be accomplished
with approval of a text amendment and property rezoning within the next five months. This
option would be focused on specific changes and not involve broader outreach to shorten
the overall timeline. The text amendment process could be prioritized by Council to begin
at the end of March 2025 and may allow for all steps to be completed by August 2025 due
to limited public outreach expectations.
3. Direct staff to include lower parking and modified density standards for the West University
Impact Area with Zoning Ordinance Update.
This option would be similar to Option 2, but instead of being prioritized for immediate
response, it would be included as part of the Zoning Ordinance update planned to occur this
year and next. This would be one of many zoning standards changes that would occur within
the update.
This option may meet the developer’s overall interests, but not on the proposed timeline of
developing the site in August 2025.
4. Take no action at this time and consider it with a future Workplan update in May 2025.
The request has significant policy implications for the general area and could be weighted
against other Council interests with the next workplan update to determine if it is a high-
ranking priority. A decision on the timing and process would then occur with the next
workplan review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The concepts of the developer are worthy of policy consideration based upon the Goals and Policies of
Plan 2040. This RN-4 area was not designated a priority for implementation of the Plan with zoning
changes and was assumed be a component of a broader ordinance update. Council would need to
determine where this request fits with other Council priorities of the Workplan. Staff believes the
item should be placed on the March 11th agenda for further discussion and direction from Council
if there is an interest in either Option 1 or 2. If Council prefers Option 3 or 4, then further discussion
at this time is not needed.
RN-2
RN-2
Near Campus Overlay
NC MU
OS
Univ
RN-4
CA
M
P
U
S
A
V
E
HY
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
SH
E
L
D
O
N
A
V
E
WEST ST
OAKLAND ST
WO
O
D
L
A
N
D
S
T
UNION DR
S
HELDON
AVE
EXT
Ames Plan 2040 Excerpt - Future Land Use Map
0 0.04 0.070.02
Miles
Ames
¯
Near Campus Overlay
Civic - University
Open Space
Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use
(NC MU)
Residential Neighborhood 4 -
Village (RN-4)
Residential Neighborhood 2 -
Established (RN-2)
Plan 2040 Future Land Use
Parcels
Parcels
Legend
Subject
Property
COUNCIL ACTION SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 11, 2025
Agenda Item #: Dispositions
SUBJECT: Request from Chuck Winkleblack, Hunziker Companies, for Zoning Code
changes
ACTION TAKEN: Refer to staff for a memo
MOTION BY: Corrieri
SECOND BY: Junck
VOTING AYE: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri,Gartin, Junck, Rollins
VOTING NAY: None
ABSENT: None
By: Grace A. Bandstra, Deputy City Clerk
Sent to: Director of Planning and Housing, Kelly Diekmann
February 6, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Council,
The Hunziker Companies currently own the property located at 263 North Hyland, and I own the
adjacent property to the South at 259 Hyland. Combined, these two properties currently contain 15
apartment units and one single family home. Both of those properties are in need of a major
transformation. These properties are located on the western edge of Campus, making them an ideal
location for student housing. The preliminary plan that we have for the property could increase the
density from 16 total units to 56 total units.
For that to happen there will need to be some changes to the current zoning codes and overlay.
The 2040 plan calls for this area to be RN-4. There have been no actual zoning ordinances written for
the new classification. The current zoning is RH- which is high density. It does not allow for the
density and intensity that we are looking for in this area.
The other issue that needs to be addressed is the parking standards. The current overlay requires
1.25 parking stalls per bedroom. We would ask that the parking standards be amended to the same
standard as the Campustown area.
Last week we took this project through the DRC review process with the city staff. I believe that staff
were generally supportive of the project except for the issues that I have outlined in this letter.
I would respectfully request that you direct staff to consider an overlay for this area to allow for this
type of density in the area. That will allow staff time in the future to develop the zoning ordinance that
is consistent with the 2040 plan. Our goal would be to start the project in August of 2025 so that the
building would be completed by August of 2026. For this to happen we will need to have the changes
made in the next 4 to 5 months.
We believe that this is a great example of infill and adaptive use of the area so close to the
University. By providing student housing in such proximity, we can help reduce the need for car use,
promoting a more sustainable and walkable campus community.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chuck Winkleblack