HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - December 9, 2025, Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period of November 16-30, 2025
3.Motion approving Summary of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on November
25, 2025, and the Special City Council Meeting on December 3, 2025
4.Motion approving Civil Service Candidates
5.Motion approving Ownership Update for Special Class C Retail Alcohol License - Ames
History Museum, 416 Douglas Avenue
6.Motion approving new Class C Retail Alcohol License with Outdoor Service - Perfect
Games, 1320 Dickinson Avenue
7.Motion approving new Special Class C Retail Alcohol License (BW) - The Spice, 402
Main Street
8.Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits & Liquor
Licenses:
a. Aunt Maude's, 547 Main Street, Class C Retail Alcohol License with Catering
Privilege and Outdoor Service
b. Cafe Beaudelaire, 2504 Lincoln Way, Class C Retail Alcohol License with Outdoor
Service
c. Cyclone Liquors, 626 Lincoln Way (Back Room Only), Class C Retail Alcohol
License
d. Mickey's Irish Pub, 109 Welch Avenue, Class C Retail Alcohol License with Outdoor
Service
e. Thumbs Bar, 2816 West Street, Class C Retail Alcohol License with Catering
Privilege and Outdoor Service
f. Tip Top Lounge, 201 E Lincoln Way, Class C Retail Alcohol License with Outdoor
Service
g. Torrent Brewing Company, 504 Burnett Avenue, Class C Retail Alcohol License
with Living Quarters and Outdoor Service
9.Motion approving revisions to City's Street Banner Policy
10.Motion authorizing the Police Department to apply for and participate in the 2025
Department of Justice Office of Justice Program's Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
DECEMBER 9, 2025
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments
from the public during discussion. The Standards of Decorum, posted at the
door and available on the City website, define respectful conduct for public
participation. If you wish to speak, please fill out the form on the tablet outside
the door to the Council Chambers or scan the QR Code to the right to fill out
the same form on a personal device. When your name is called, please step to
the microphone, state your name for the record, and keep your comments brief so that others
may have the opportunity to speak.
CALL TO ORDER : 6:00 p.m.
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.
1
11.Requests from Ames Main Street for Snow Magic on December 1, 2025, through
December 31, 2025:
a. Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit
b. Motion approving Blanket Vending License
c. Resolution approving waiver of Vending License fee
d. Resolution approving usage of electricity in Tom Evans Plaza and waiver of fees for
electricity
12.Requests from Ames Main Street to extend free parking to include all remaining
Saturdays in December 2025 to support small businesses:
a. Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit for Downtown and
Campustown on December 13, December 20, and December 27, 2025
b. Motion approving transfer of $7,404.75 from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund to the
Parking Fund
c. Resolution approving suspension of parking regulations and enforcement for
Downtown and Campustown from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on December 13,
December 20, and December 27, 2025
13.Resolution authorizing Public Art Commission to enter into agreements with artists for
2026/27 Ames Annual Outdoor Sculpture Exhibition selections
14.Resolution awarding contract with Tim Adams (dba Stony Creek Landscapes), of
Webster City, IA, in the amount of $30,000 for the fabrication, delivery, and purchase of
the sculptural collection "Perennials" for the bus stop shelters along CyRide's Red Route
15.Resolution approving a Development Agreement for Public Improvements to Cedar Lane
with the Ansley Subdivision Developer
16.Resolution approving contract and bond for the Homewood Golf Course Hole Nine
Crossing Improvement Project with Con-Struct, of Ames, IA, in the amount of $213,410
17.Resolution approving partial completion of required street trees and reducing financial
security on file for Domani Subdivision 1st Addition to $750
18.Resolution approving partial completion of stormwater management maintenance and
reducing financial security on file for Domani 2nd Addition to $6,553.64
19.Resolution approving partial completion of required street trees and sidewalks and
reducing financial security on file for Scenic Valley 6th Addition to $1,620
20.Resolution approving partial completion of required streetlights, trees, and sidewalks and
reducing financial security on file for Scenic Valley 7th Addition to $103,362
21.Resolution accepting the 2023/24 Ames Plan 2040 Sanitary Sewer Extension (S 500th
Avenue County Line Road) project as completed by Rognes Corp., of Ankeny, IA, in the
amount of $542,477.70
22.Resolution accepting the 2024/25 Accessibility Enhancement Program as completed by
TK Concrete, Inc., of Pella, IA, in the amount of $91,701.68
23.Discussion on Municipal Code Chapter 14, Human Relations regarding civil rights
protection for gender identity
24.Hearing on Lease of City Property located East of 731 Billy Sunday Road now known as
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.
ADMINISTRATION:
HEARINGS:
2
Lot 3 of Billy Sunday Subdivision to Lamar Advertising Company
a. Motion to continue Public Hearing to December 16, 2025
25.Hearing on Zoning Text Amendment for Landscaping Rock Mulch within Required
Landscape Areas
a. First reading of ordinance
26.Hearing on Rezoning (with Master Plan) from Intensive Industrial to General Industrial for
23959 580th Avenue
a. First reading of ordinance
27.Hearing on Amendment to Adaptive Reuse/Major Site Development Plan for North Grand
Mall located at 2615 Grand Avenue:
a. Resolution approving Adaptive Reuse/Major Site Development Plan
28.Modifications to Municipal Code Chapters 4 and 19 to address Personal Transportation
Devices
a. First reading of ordinance
29.Modifications to Municipal Code Chapter 19, Parks & Recreation, to clarify expectations
of park use
a. First reading of ordinance
30.Second reading on Zoning Text Amendment for the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed Use
District (S-SMD) Single Family Design Standards
31.Third reading and adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 4577 on rezoning property at 220-400
Freel Drive from General Industrial (GI) to Government/Airport District (S-GA)
32.Staff Report regarding Developers' Request for Housing Incentives
33.Participation with agencies, boards and commissions:
a. Discover Ames (ACVB)
b. Ames Regional Economic Alliance (AREA)
c. Story County Emergency Management Agency (SCEMA)
d. Ames Transit Agency Board of Trustees
ORDINANCES:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL :
REPORT OF GOVERNING BODY:
COUNCIL COMMENTS :
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.
3
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Renee Hall, City Clerk
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Report of Contract Change Orders
Item No. 2
MEMO
The Report of Change Orders for the period of November 16-30, 2025, is
attached for the City Council's review and consideration.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Change Order Report - November 16-30, 2025.docx
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
4
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
Department
General Description
of Contract
Contract
Change No.
Original Contract
Amount Contractor/ Vendor
Total of Prior
Change Orders
Amount this
Change Order
Change
Approved By
Purchasing
Contact
(Buyer)
Public Works 2023/24 Ames Plan 2040
Sanitary Sewer Extension
(S. 500th Avenue County
Line Road)
2 $551,057.70 Rognes Corporation $7,200.00 $302.50 J. Clausen KS
Public Works 2023/24 Ames Plan 2040
Sanitary Sewer Utility
Infrastructure (265th
Street Extension)
2 $2,036,000.00 SM Hentges & Sons, Inc. $167,994.00 $-(30,778.94) B. Phillips KS
Facilities Purchase and Intallation
of Furniture at City Hall
and Parks & Recreation
Administration
2 $130,170.89 Workspace $172.51 $2,926.03 C. Mellies JB
Parks &
Recreation
Purchase and Intallation
of Furniture at City Hall
and Parks & Recreation
Administration
3 $130,170.89 Workspace $3,095.57 $1,929.13 K. Abraham JB
Parks &
Recreation
Bid Package 31-1
Demolition & Earthwork
Work for Fitch Family
Indoor Aquatic Center
5 $532,975.00 Con Struct, Inc. $62,131.00 $2,575.00 K. Abraham KS
Public Works 2024/25 Accessibility
Enhancement Program
1 $88,250.00 TK Concrete, Inc. $0.00 $3,451.68 J. Clausen KS
Period: 1st – 15th
16th – End of Month
Month & Year: November 2025
For City Council Date: December 9, 2025
5
Department General Description
of Contract
Contract
Change
No.
Original Contract
Amount
Contractor/ Vendor Total of Prior
Change
Orders
Amount this
Change Order
Change
Approved By
Purchasing
Contact
(Buyer)
Parks &
Recreation
Bid Package 26-1
Electrical,
Communications,
Electronic Safety &
Security Work for Fitch
Family Indoor Aquatic
Center
8 $1,477,436.00 Van Maanen Electric, Inc. $53,231.00 $2,411.00 K. Abraham KS
Parks &
Recreation
Bid Package 26-1
Electrical,
Communications,
Electronic Safety &
Security Work for Fitch
Family Indoor Aquatic
Center
9 $1,477,436.00 Van Maanen Electric, Inc. $55,642.00 $1,049.00 K. Abraham KS
Parks &
Recreation
Bid Package 08-1
Entrance, Storefront,
Curtainwall & Glazing
Work for Fitch Family
Indoor Aquatic Center
4 $726,526.00 Orning Glass Company,
Inc.
$7,677.00 $438.00 K. Abraham KS
Parks &
Recreation
Parks & Recreation
Maintenance Facility
4 $1,344,075.00
King Knutson Construction $1,822.26 $11,760.00 J. Thompson AM
Parks &
Recreation
Bid Package 03-3 Precast
Concrete & Structural
Steel Work for Fitch
Family Indoor Aquatic
Center
6 $2,710,000.00 Core Construction
Services LLC
$25,628.00 $1,356.00 P. Goldbeck KS
$ $ $
6
To:Mayor & City Council
From:City Clerk's Office
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Approval of Minutes
Item No. 3
MEMO
Attached are the minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting on November
25, 2025, and the Special City Council Meeting on December 3, 2025.
ATTACHMENT(S):
C25-1125 Summary.pdf
C25-1203.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
7
1
SUMMARY OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 25, 2025
The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John
Haila at 6:00 p.m. on the 25th day of November, 2025, in the City Council Chambers
in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members
Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck,
and Anita Rollins. Ex officio Emily Boland joined the meeting electronically.
PROCLAMATION FOR "WREATHS ACROSS AMERICA DAY," DECEMBER 13,
2025: Mayor Haila proclaimed December 13, 2025, "Wreaths Across America Day."
Ames Wreaths Across America Sponsorship Group Chair Jamie Barker and Ames
Legion Post 37 Commander Cliff Barker, accompanied by members of the American
Legion Riders, accepted the proclamation.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Haila noted that the City Council was working from an
amended agenda, which removed Item No. 13 from consent.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to approve the consent agenda.
2. Motion approving payment of claims
3. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period of November 1-15, 2025
4. Motion approving Summary of Minutes of the Joint City Council and Ames
Human Relations Commission Meeting and Regular City Council Meeting
on November 18, 2025
5. Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits &
Liquor Licenses:
a. Ames History Museum, 416 Douglas Avenue, Special Class C Retail
Alcohol License
b. Casey's #4315, 3218 Orion Drive, Class E Retail Alcohol License
c. The Cafe, 2616 Northridge Parkway, Class C Retail Alcohol License with
Catering Privilege and Outdoor Service
d. Casey's #4314, 1118 South Duff Avenue, Class E Retail Alcohol License
6. Motion approving new 5-Day (December 8-12, 2025) Special Class C Retail
Alcohol License - Apres Bar Co, 520 6th Street
7. Motion approving new 5-Day (December 16-20, 2025) Special Class C
Retail Alcohol License - Apres Bar Co, 520 6th Street
8. Motion accepting the Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center Monthly Report
9. RESOLUTION NO. 25-588 accepting Abstract of Votes for November 4, 2025,
Regular City Election
10. RESOLUTION NO. 25-589 accepting unconditional donation of Outdoor
Lighting from Ames Main Street
11. RESOLUTION NO. 25-590 approving Commission on the Arts (COTA) Spring
2026 Special Project Grant contract
12. RESOLUTION NO. 25-591 approving FY 2024/25 Annual Street Financial
Report
8
2
13. Resolution awarding contract to DGR Engineering, of Rock Rapids, IA, for
Engineering Services for Ontario Road Substation and Mortensen Road
Substation Improvements in the amount not-to-exceed $1,302,700
14. RESOLUTION NO. 25-592 awarding contract to Gillig LLC, of Livermore,
CA, for two 40' Heavy-Duty Diesel Buses in the amount of $1,453,822
15. RESOLUTION NO. 25-593 approving entering into an agreement with the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources for Resource Enhancement and
Protection (REAP) Grant for the installation of a pedestrian bridge in Ontario
Park in the amount of $200,000
16. RESOLUTION NO. 25-594 approving entering into an agreement with the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources for Resource Enhancement and
Protection (REAP) Grant for the Moore Memorial Park Pedestrian Bridge
Project in the amount of $200,000
17. RESOLUTION NO. 25-595 accepting the Water Treatment Plant Lime Pond
Underdrain Improvements Project as completed by Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames,
IA, in the amount of $204,369
18. 2023/24 Water System Improvements Program (Kellogg Avenue - 7th Street
to 13th Street) and (11th Street - Burnett Avenue to Kellogg Avenue) project
a. RESOLUTION NO. 25-596 approving Change Order No. 4 with Jet
Drain Services, LLC, of Ames,
IA, an increase in the amount of $33,945.61
b. RESOLUTION NO. 25-597 accepting 2023/24 Water System
Improvements Program as completed by Jet Drain Services, LLC , of
Ames, IA, in the amount of $890,901.93
19. RESOLUTION NO. 25-598 approving final plat for Discovery Place, First
Addition, located at 3300 University Boulevard
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed
by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: The Public Forum was opened by Mayor Haila.
Bonnie Alley, Discover Ames Director of Business Development, recognized and
thanked Chuck Winkleblack for his long-term involvement in neighborhood stabilization,
corridor renewal, and major projects that have influenced daily life in Ames. The Public
Forum was closed by Mayor Haila when no one else came forward to speak.
REQUEST TO SHARE COST FOR PAVING OF A 150 FOOT EXTENSION OF SE 3RD
STREET IN THE KINGSBURY'S FIFTH ADDITION SUBDIVISION: Planning and
Housing Director Kelly Diekmann presented the developer’s request for a cost-sharing
arrangement for the short extension of SE 3rd Street.
Mayor Haila opened and closed Public Input when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve Alternative No. 1: Direct staff
to draft an amendment to the Development Agreement for Public Improvement
obligations with the property owners in the Kingsbury's Subdivision 5 th Addition for cost
9
3
sharing of 50% or up to $30,000 for the construction of the remaining unbuilt 152 feet of
Southeast 3rd Street abutting Lot 3 of Kingsbury's 5th Addition, owned by WW Holdings,
and Lot 2 of Kingsbury's 4th Addition, owned by Ante Opportunity LLC.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE SOUTH LINCOLN SUB AREA
MIXED USE DISTRICT (S-SMD) SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS: Director
Diekmann presented information for the Zoning Text Amendment requested by Ames
resident Jim Gregory regarding design standards in the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed
Use District (S-SMD).
The Public Hearing was opened and closed by Mayor Haila when no one came forward
to speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on first reading an ordinance regarding a
Zoning Text Amendment for the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed Use District (S-SMD)
Single Family Design Standards.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF 731 BILLY SUNDAY
ROAD NOW KNOWN AS LOT 3 OF BILLY SUNDAY SUBDIVISION TO LAMAR
ADVERTISING COMPANY: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to continue the
Public Hearing to December 9, 2025.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING CAMPUS PROJECT UPDATE: Public
Works Director Justin Clausen presented the update alongside Resource Recovery
Superintendent Mark Peebler and Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips. Director
Clausen reported that the design phase was 60% complete. Highlights included changes
to the tunnel configuration, new traffic flow for haulers and trucks, and an added recycling
area for customers.
Council Members raised questions regarding traffic flow, truck weight, facility expansion
capacity, and odor control. Manager Phillips explained that the facility had been designed
based on a 20-year growth horizon to match the duration of the waste disposal
agreement with Carroll County Landfill. Director Clausen noted that the facility would
process waste more efficiently than the current system, thereby reducing odor issues.
SECOND READING ON REZONING PROPERTY AT 220-400 FREEL DRIVE FROM
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) TO GOVERNMENT/AIRPORT DISTRICT (S-GA): Moved
by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to pass on second reading an ordinance rezoning
property at 220-400 Freel Drive from General Industrial (GI) to Government/Airport
District (S-GA).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
THIRD READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 4576 ON ZONING TEXT
10
4
AMENDMENT TO AMEND MATERIAL STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS FOR AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT IN THE RESEARCH
PARK INNOVATION DISTRICT: Moved by Rollins, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to pass
on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 4576 on Zoning Text Amendment to amend
material standards for off-street parking areas and driveways for agricultural equipment
in the Research Park Innovation District.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila noted that there
were two items for consideration. The first was a Downtown Ames Guiding Vision Update
from Ames Main Street Executive Director Travis Toliver.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to place the item on the agenda for the
December 16, 2025, City Council Meeting.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
A request for a Zoning Text Amendment to Accessory Structure Limits from Ames
resident Alicia Wrabek was the second item.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to take no action and to communicate
this decision to the requestor.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REPORT OF GOVERNING BODY: The Members of the City Council and Mayor provided
highlights from their attendance at various board and commission meetings.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: The Mayor and City Council Members reported on various events
attended, upcoming meetings, community events, and items of interest.
CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Haila asked City Attorney Mark Lambert if there was a legal
reason to go into Closed Session. Attorney Lambert replied in the affirmative, citing Section
21.5(1)(c), Code of Iowa, to discuss matters presently in litigation or where litigation is
imminent.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to go into Closed Session at 7:12 p.m.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The City Council reconvened in Regular Session at 8:12 p.m.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to direct staff to proceed with the
direction that was discussed in Closed Session.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
11
5
______________________________ ________________________________
Taylor Swanson, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
______________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
12
1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 3, 2025
The Special Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila
at 8:02 a.m. on the 3rd day of December 2025, pursuant to law. As it was impractical for
the Council Members to attend in person, Council Members Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen,
Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, and Rachel Junck joined the meeting electronically.
Council Member Anita Rollins and Tim Gartin were absent. Ex officio Emily Boland was
also absent.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Haila noted that there was one item on the agenda and
asked if the City Council had any questions for staff.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to approve the consent agenda.
1. Requests from Ames Main Street for Small Business Saturday on December 6,
2025:
a. Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit for Downtown
and Campustown
b. RESOLUTION NO. 25-599 approving suspension of parking regulations
and enforcement for Downtown and Campustown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on Saturday, December 6, 2025
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion/Resolution declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by
the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adjourn the meeting
at 8:03 a.m.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
____________________________ _______________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
13
To:Mayor & City Council
From:City Clerk's Office
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Approval of Civil Service Candidates
Item No. 4
MEMO
Attached are the minutes for the Regular Meeting of the Civil Service
Commission held on November 20, 2025
ATTACHMENT(S):
November 20 2025 Civil Service Minutes.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
14
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 20, 2025
The Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission met in regular session in Council Chambers
of City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, with Commission Members, Kim Lunduska, Chairperson, Harold Pike, Co-
Chair and Larry Conley present. Also in attendance Commission Clerk, Vicki Hillock and Erin Clanton,
Brick Gentry P.C. Human Resources Director, Bethany Ballou, was brought in telephonically.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2025: Moved by Pike, seconded by Conley, to approve
the Minutes of the October 23, 2025, Regular Service Commission meeting. Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion
declared carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF ENTRY-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Linduska, seconded by Conley, to
certify the following individuals to the Ames City Council as Entry-Level Applicants:
Environmental Engineer I Kristin Stein 83
Mirna Surendra 80
Prapti Shetty 75
Jam Khan 69
Shushan Wu **
Ashkan Naghdi **
* Includes preference points
** Indicates carryover from prior certified list
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried.
CERTIFICATION OF PROMOTIONAL-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Conley, seconded by
Pike, to certify the following individuals to the Ames City Council as Promotional-Level Applicants:
Power Plant Maintenance Foreman Todd Safly 77
Chris Sprong 75
* Includes preference points
** Indicates carryover from prior certified list
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried.
COMMENTS: The next Regular Meeting will be held in-person(weather permitting) on Thursday,
December 18, 2025 at 8:15 am in Council Chambers of City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:20 AM.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Kim Linduska, Chairperson Vicki Hillock, Commission Clerk
15
To:Mayor and City Council
From:Taylor Swanson, Deputy City Clerk
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Ownership Update for Special Class C Retail Alcohol License - Ames
History Museum, 416 Douglas Avenue
Item No. 5
MEMO
Please see the attached documentation for an Ownership Update for Special
Class C Retail Alcohol License - Ames History Museum, 416 Douglas Avenue.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Ownership Amendment - Ames History Museum.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
16
Local Authority Review
CITY OF AMES
1208370801
Business Information
Customer Type
BUS
Business Sub-Type
Non-Profit
Business Designation
Legal Business Name
AMES HISTORICAL SOCIETY
VANCE, CASIE 5006 TODD DRIVE AME 0.00
ORNGARD, KATE 839 BROOKRIDGE AVEN 0.00
HALLOCK, PETER 114 8TH STREET AMES 0.00
RINEY-KEHRBERG, PAM 204 24TH STREET AMES 0.00
CIT Y OF AMES
Owners
Owner Type Owner Single Line Address Ownership Percentage
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Old Ownership Information
Owner Type Owner Single Line Address Ownership Percentage
17
CAMERON, KENNETH 2707 DUFF AVENUE AM 0.00
VANCE, CASIE 5006 TODD DR AMES IA 0.00
ORNGARD, KATE 839 BROOKRIDGE AVE A 0.00
RINEY-KEHRBERG, PAM 204 24TH ST AMES IA 5 0.00
City of Ames Special Class "C" Re BW0100156
Criminal Histor y
Has anyone listed on the Ownership page been charged or convicted of a felony offense in Iowa or any
other state of the United States?
No
Has anyone listed on the Ownership page been charged or convicted of a felony offense in Iowa or any
other state of the United States?
No
Local Authority Information
Local Authority Reviewing
City of Ames
*
Local Authority Signature Date
*
Owner Type Owner Single Line Address Ownership Percentage
Owner
Owner Type Owner Single Line Address Ownership Percentage
Owner
Officer
Officer
Jurisdiction Code Permit Type License Number Address
Updated Ownership Information
Owner Type Owner Single Line Address Ownership Percentage
Impacted Active Licenses
Jurisdiction Code Permit Type License Number Address
18
Your online session will timeout after 30 minutes of inactivity. All unsaved information will be lost.
Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
Contact Us
Subscribe to Updates
Other Links
State of Iowa Directory
Website Policies
*Approved/Denied
Required
*Local Authority Attestation Name
Required
*Local Authority Email
Required
*Local Authority Contact Phone Number
Required
Comments
Cancel Save Draft Previous Next
19
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Taylor Swanson, Deputy City Clerk
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:New Class C Retail Alcohol License with Outdoor Service - Perfect
Games, 1320 Dickinson Avenue
Item No. 6
MEMO
Please see attached documentation for a new Class C Retail Alcohol License
with Outdoor Service - Perfect Games, 1320 Dickinson Avenue.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Perfect Games Application.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
20
Alcohol Permit Review
CITY OF AMES
1208370801
Business Information
Name of Legal Entity :AMES WESTSIDE BOWL, LLC
Business Type :Limited Liability Company
SOS Business Number :840296
Permit/License Details
Premises DBA :Perfect GAmes
Premises Address :
Permit/License Type :Class "C" Retail Alcohol License (LC)
Permit/License Length :12 months
Permit/License Effective Date :01-Nov-2025
Permit/License Expiration Date :31-Oct-2026
Sales and Use Permit/License Number :
Premise Type :Bowling Alley
Contact Name :Kelly McPartland
Contact Phone :515-509-3208
Contact Phone Extension :
CITY OF AMES
Permit Details
21
Contact Email Address :kelly@perfectgamesinc.com
Privileges
Outdoor Service Living Quarters Catering
Provided description of the Outdoor Service area:
Premises Information
Control of Premises :Lease
Number of Floors :1
Is your premises equipped with at least
one adequate, conveniently located
indoor or outdoor toilet facility for use
by patrons?
:Yes
Does your premises conform to all local
and state health, fire and building laws
and regulations?
:Yes
Is your establishment equipped with
tables and seats to accommodate a
minimum of 25?
:Yes
Owners
Individual SANDERSON, CAEL 20-Jun-1979 59.68
Individual DODDS, ADAM 08-Jul-1992 16.13
Ownership Type Owner Owner Address Date of Birth US Citizen Ownership Percentage
22
Your online session will timeout after 30 minutes of inactivity. All unsaved information will be lost.
Individual MCPARTL AND, KELLY 27-Jul-1965 24.19
Dramshop Information
Dramshop Provider
INTEGRITY INSURANCE
Criminal Histor y Details
Has anyone listed on the Ownership page been charged or convicted of a felony offense in Iowa or any other
state of the United States?
Has anyone listed on the Ownership page been convicted of any violation of any state, county, city, federal or
foreign law? For traffic violations, only include those that are drug or alcohol related.
Sketch of Premises
Ownership Type Owner Owner Address Date of Birth US Citizen Ownership Percentage
Yes No
Yes No
Cancel Save Draft Previous Next
23
Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
Contact Us
Subscribe to Updates
Other Links
State of Iowa Directory
Website Policies
24
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Taylor Swanson, Deputy City Clerk
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:New Special Class C Retail Alcohol License (BW) - The Spice, 402
Main Street
Item No. 7
MEMO
Please see attached documentation for a new Special Class C Retail Alcohol
License (BW) - The Spice, 402 Main Street.
ATTACHMENT(S):
The Spice Application.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
25
Applicant
Name of Legal Entity : JAKKRA CORP
Business Name (DBA) : THE SPICE
Business Type :Corporation
Insurance Company :SOCIETY INSURANCE
Premises Address
Street :402 MAIN
ST
Suite/Apt :
City :AMES
County :STORY
State :IOWA
ZIP :50010-
6150
Mailing Address
Street :3816
INGERSOLL
AVE
Suite/Apt :
City :DES
MOINES
County :POLK
State :IOWA
ZIP :50312-
3413
Application Information
Application ID :0-009-343-149
Application Type :Special Class "C" Retail Alcohol License (BW) Application
Current Stage :Local Authority Review
Effective Date :04-Nov-2025
Expiration Date :03-Nov-2026
Help
26
Contact Information
Name :MARIA RUBI
Phone Number :(515) 288-3188
Email :maria@communitycpa.com
Application history that predates November of 2022 is not accessible online. Please
make a Public Records Request for this information.
Application Histor y
Application ID Application Type Stage DateApplication ID Application Type Stage Date
0-009-343-149 Special Class "C" Retail A Dramshop Revie 04-Nov-2025
0-009-343-149 Special Class "C" Retail A Local Authority R11-Nov-2025
0-009-343-149 Special Class "C" Retail A New 04-Nov-2025
Ownership
Name :LERDTAWINPAKDEE, JAKKAPHAN
% of Ownership :100.0000
Position :
27
To:Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From:Major Dan Walter, Ames Police Department
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal
Item No. 8
MEMO
The following licenses are eligible for renewal:
a. Aunt Maude's, 547 Main Street, Class C Retail Alcohol License with
Catering Privilege and Outdoor Service
b. Cafe Beaudelaire, 2504 Lincoln Way, Class C Retail Alcohol License with
Outdoor Service
c. Cyclone Liquors, 626 Lincoln Way (Back Room Only), Class C Retail
Alcohol License
d. Mickey's Irish Pub, 109 Welch Avenue, Class C Retail Alcohol License with
Outdoor Service
e. Thumbs Bar, 2816 West Street, Class C Retail Alcohol License with
Catering Privilege and Outdoor Service
f. Tip Top Lounge, 201 E Lincoln Way, Class C Retail Alcohol License with
Outdoor Service
g. Torrent Brewing Company, 504 Burnett Avenue, Class C Retail Alcohol
License with Living Quarters and Outdoor Service
A review of Police Department records for the past 12 months found no liquor law
violations for Aunt Maudes, Cafe Beaudelaire, Cyclone Liquors, Thumbs Bar,
Tip Top Lounge or Torrent Brewing Company. The Police Department
recommends renewal for these businesses.
A review of police records for the past 12 months found Mickey's Irish Pub , 109
Welch Ave, had patrons cited on three different occasions for minor on premise.
The incidents involved fraudulent IDs. The Pub staff has attended bar ID training
and continues to work with the Police Department to reduce minors on premise.
The Police Department will continue to monitor this establishment and
recommends approval for Mickey's Irish Pub.
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
28
ITEM #:9
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:ADMIN
SUBJECT:MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY'S STREET BANNER POLICY
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
The City's Banner Policy serves to protect public safety, protect City property, establish
guidelines for the use of banner hardware, and guarantee a certain level of aesthetic quality.
The policy was last modified in September 2025. Staff has reviewed the policy and is
recommending changes to reflect the number of banner locations in Campustown and the
appropriate methods of installation.
A copy of the modified banner policy is attached. In addition to minor revisions and
corrections, substantive changes are made to Page 4:
"Total Number of Banners: 39 (1 banner/pole)
Welch Avenue – 15
Lincoln Way – 14
Hayward Avenue – 5
Chamberlain Street – 2
Hunt Street – 1
Lynn Avenue – 2"
This section was revised to reflect changes in the number of poles available and
the locations of the available poles.
"Banner Construction: Banners should have rod pockets or tabs that slide onto the
banner arm. Metal grommets (minimum of 1/2" diameter) should be installed adjacent to
the rod pocket or tab on the pole-side of the banner."
This section was revised to update the banner construction requirements to match
changes to the method of securing banners in Campustown.
"Method of Installation: Slide banner rod pockets onto bracket arms. Secure banner to
bracket mounted on the pole (top and bottom) with zip ties (see Figure 1). Zip ties shall
be black, UV-rated for outdoor use, 0.35” width, and have a minimum tensile strength of
175 lbs."
This section was revised to add instructions for securing the banners during
installation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the revised Street Banner Policy as attached.
2. Direct staff to modify the proposed changes to the Banner Policy.
3. Do not approve the revised Street Banner Policy as attached.
29
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
These changes are needed to revise the number of street light poles available in
Campustown as well as directions for installing and securing the banners in this area.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative
No. 1, thereby approving the revised Street Banner Policy.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Banner Policy December 2025.docx
Campustown Banner Poles_Oct25.pdf
30
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
1
Revised 12/09/2025
The City of Ames Street Banner Policy is for regulating all banners to be placed in
the following locations: Campustown, Downtown, University Boulevard - Lincoln
Way to Mortensen Road, University Boulevard - ISU Research Park, South Duff
Avenue, and Main Street.
Requests for Display
Applications for permits to display banners may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office
or the City of Ames website (http://www.cityofames.org), and should be submitted to the
City Clerk's Office. Reservations will be considered no earlier than one year prior to the
first day of the month in which the display is desired (e.g. the earliest a request for June
10 display may be accepted is June 1 of the previou s year).
Permits will be issued by the City Clerk's Office. In the event that display date requests
conflict and cannot be resolved through the primary organization, the City Manager's
Designee will attempt to mediate an agreement. If necessary, a final a ppeal for
resolution may be made to the City Council.
Length of Display
There is no time limit on pole banner displays.
Organizations may display a banner over Main Street at the intersection of Kellogg for
up to fourteen (14) days at a time. Applicants can request a conditional extension of the
14-day limit for up to a total display duration of three (3) months. These requests can be
approved on the condition that any new requests for display submitted for the
conditional extension period automatically override the extension.
Organizations may display a banner on the bollards located on Main Street at the
intersections of Douglas, Kellogg, Burnett, and/or Clark for up to fourteen 14 days prior
to and including the day and/or days of the special event approved by the City of Ames.
Insurance
Applicants and installers shall provide certificates of insurance evidencing general
liability coverage in the amount of $500,000 combined single limit and naming the City
31
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
2
Revised 12/09/2025
of Ames and its employees and assigns as additional insured (with endorsement
naming political subdivision).
Installation & Removal
Permit holders shall be responsible for coordinating installation and removal of banners
by insured installers, with the following exception: Banners may be installed on poles
and the bollards in the Main Street area by adult volunteers.
Methods of installation shall conform with instructions provided by the City of Ames.
Traffic control measures shall be employed as needed. Permit holders shall be
responsible for the cost of repairing any damage done to banner hardware, light poles,
bollards, landscaping or grass in medians and parking areas.
Banners shall be removed on or before the permit expiration date.
Maintenance of Hardware
Routine maintenance of hardware on University Boulevard - Lincoln Way to
Mortensen Road poles will be managed by Iowa State University. Problems should be
reported to Iowa State's Facilities Planning and Management Service Desk at 515 -294-
5100.
Routine maintenance of hardware on University Boulevard - ISU Research Park
poles will be managed by ISU Research Park. Problems should be reported to the
Operations Manager at 515-296-0735.
Routine maintenance of bollards located on Main Street will be managed by the City's
Public Works Department. Problems should be reported to 515 -239-5160.
Routine maintenance of hardware in all other locations will be managed by the City's
Electric Services Department. Problems should be reported to 515-239-5500.
Maintenance of Banners
Problems with banners on display will be reported to permit holders. Corrective action
shall be made within 24 hours of notification. The City of Ames reserves the right to
immediately remove banners and/or revoke permits if any hazard is deemed present.
32
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
3
Revised 12/09/2025
Costs that may be incurred for the removal of banners by City staff shall be charged to
permit holders.
Prioritization
Banner permits will generally be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. See
supplemental information pages for prioritization standards specific to poles on
University Boulevard.
Content & Design
The overhead banner on Main Street shall be utilized only to advertise or announce
particular civic, political, religious, fraternal, or other non-profit activities.
The bollard banners on Main Street and the banner space at the east end of Main
Street shall be utilized only to advertise or announce activities occurring within the
Downtown area.
Pole banners are intended to celebrate and/or promote the Ames/ISU community or
specific local events. Sponsorship recognition, if any, must be restricted to the lower
15% of banners designed for poles.
All banners shall be non-offensive.
Disclaimer
The City of Ames does not assume responsibility for damage to all types of banners.
33
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
4
Revised 12/09/2025
CAMPUSTOWN POLE BANNERS
Requests for banner displays are coordinated with the Ames Regional Economic
Alliance (515-232-2310).
Total Number of Banners: 39 (1 banner/pole)
Welch Avenue – 15
Lincoln Way – 14
Hayward Avenue – 5
Chamberlain Street – 2
Hunt Street – 1
Lynn Avenue – 2
Minimum number to be used per application: 21
Banner Size: 5' H by 2.5' W (60" H x 30" W )
Note: Banner brackets should be double-checked and re-measured (preferably by the
manufacturer) before orders are placed. These mounting brackets are moveable and
also susceptible to rotation or wrenching by high winds.
Banner Construction: Banners should have rod pockets or tabs that slide onto the
banner arm. Metal grommets (minimum of 1/2" diameter) should be installed adjacent to
the rod pocket or tab on the pole-side of the banner.
Method of Installation: Slide banner rod pockets onto bracket arms. Secure banner to
bracket mounted on the pole (top and bottom) with zip ties (see Figure 1). Zip ties shall
be black, UV-rated for outdoor use, 0.35” width, and have a minimum tensile strength of
175 lbs.
34
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
5
Revised 12/09/2025
Figure 1 – Method of Securing Banner to Pole Bracket
Traffic control measures must be followed. Guidance for traffic control for temporary
work zones and short duration mobile operations can be found in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at the Federal Highway Administration =s
website (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm). Part 6, Temporary Traffic
Control, should be reviewed and special attention should be given to Chapter 6G for
mobile or short duration operations. Any additional questions about work zones may be
directed to the City of Ames Traffic Engineer at 515-239-5275.
Length of season: Year-round
Length of use: Unlimited
35
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
6
Revised 12/09/2025
DOWNTOWN POLES (MAIN ST., FIFTH ST., SIXTH ST., CLARK AVE., KELLOGG
AVE., BURNETT AVE., DOUGLAS AVE.)
Requests for display are coordinated with Ames Main Street (515-232-2310).
Total Number of Banners: 191 (1 banner/pole)
Main Street - 62
Fifth Street - 42
Sixth Street - 54
Clark Avenue - 4
Kellogg Avenue - 15
Burnett Avenue - 10
Douglas Avenue - 4
Minimum Number to be used per application:
Main Street - 20
Fifth Street - 14
Sixth Street - 18
(Ames Main Street banners, artistic banners, and seasonal banners are usually
displayed on every third pole in the Central Business District. When requests to use the
hardware for other displays are approved, seasonal banners are removed first and
artistic banners second.)
Banner Size: 4' high by 22" wide
Sewn Banner Sizes: approximately 49.25" high and 22" wide with 3.25@ rod pockets
Note: Mounting brackets can shift, and should be double-checked and re-measured
(preferably by the manufacturer) before orders are placed!
Method of Installation:
Remove the wire retaining clip holding the ball at the end of the rod; remove the ball
from the rod.
Remove seasonal banner; slide new banner onto rod.
Replace ball to the end of the rod and secure with the wire retaining clip.
Traffic control measures must be followed. Guidance for traffic control for temporary
work zones and short duration mobile operations can be found in the Man ual on
36
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
7
Revised 12/09/2025
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at the Federal Highway Administration ’s
website (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm). Part 6, Temporary Traffic
Control, should be reviewed and special attention should be given to Chapter 6G for
mobile or short duration operations. Any additional questions about work zones may be
directed to the City of Ames Traffic Engineer at 515-239-5275.
Note: The lower banner arm is 11 feet above the base of all utility poles, but some poles
are mounted on top of two-foot brick pedestals.
Length of season: Year-round
Length of use: Unlimited
37
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
8
Revised 12/09/2025
UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD - LINCOLN WAY TO MORTENSEN ROAD
Iowa State University is the primary user of poles along this section of University
Boulevard, and requests for display are coordinated with University Marketing and
Communications (515-294-7958).
Total Number of Banners: 74 (34 poles with double brackets; 6 poles with single
brackets)
Minimum number to be used per application: 70
(Two different designs may be used to provide a full complement of banners.)
Banner Size: 7' x 2.5'
Sewn Banner Sizes: 7' x 2.5' (84" x 30") laid flat, with 3" rod pockets
Grommets should be installed on one side of the banner so it may be secured to the
light pole.
Method of Installation:
Traffic control measures must be followed. Guidance for traffic control for temporary
work zones and short duration mobile operations can be found in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at the Federal Highway Administration =s
website (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm). Part 6, Temporary Traffic
Control, should be reviewed and special attention should be given to Chapter 6G for
mobile or short duration operations. Any additional questions about work zones may be
directed to the City of Ames Traffic Engineer at 515-239-5275.
Length of Season: April – November
Length of Use: Unlimited
Prioritization:
1) Major multi-day events with community-wide involvement (e.g. Iowa Games)
2) General community or ISU promotions and events (Ames High Homecoming)
3) Other major events and conferences (e.g. Order of the Arrow Conference)
38
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
9
Revised 12/09/2025
Note: Iowa State University purchases the University Boulevard banner hardware and
donates it to the City of Ames. Iowa State's Office of Facilities Planning and
Management maintains, repairs and installs banner hardware when necessary. It also is
responsible for installing and removing banners on this roadway. The Office of
University Marketing is responsible for scheduling displays and arranging for the
installation/removal of banners.
39
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
10
Revised 12/09/2025
UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD - ISU RESEARCH PARK
ISU Research Park is the primary user of poles along this section of University
Boulevard, and requests for display are coordinated with the ISU Research Park
Operations Manager (515-296-0735).
Total Number of Banners: 49 (1 banner/pole)
20 (2 banner/pole)
Minimum number to be used per application: 44
(Two different designs may be used to provide a full complement of banners.)
Banner Size: 84” high x 30” wide, with the bottom of the banner at 10’ above grade
Method of Installation:
Traffic control measures must be followed. Guidance for traffic control for temporary
work zones and short duration mobile operations can be found in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at the Federal Highway Administration ’s
website (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm). Part 6, Temporary Traffic
Control, should be reviewed and special attention should be given to Chapter 6G for
mobile or short duration operations. Any additional questions about work zones may be
directed to the City of Ames Traffic Engineer at 515-239-5275.
Length of Season: Year round
Length of Use: Unlimited
Note: ISU Research Park purchases the University Boulevard banner hardware and
donates it to the City of Ames. ISU Research Park arranges for Iowa State's Office of
Facilities Planning and Management to maintain, repair and install banner hardware
when necessary. It also is responsible for installing and removing banners on this
roadway. ISU Research Park is responsible for scheduling displays and arranging for
the installation/removal of banners by Facilities Planning and Management staff.
40
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
11
Revised 12/09/2025
SOUTH DUFF AVENUE
Requests for display are coordinated with the Ames Regional Economic Alliance (515-
232-2310).
Total Number of Banners: 13 (1 banner/pole)
Minimum number to be used per application: 13
Banner Size: 8' high x 2.5' wide (96" x 30")
Note: These brackets are moveable and may be affected by high winds or ice loading.
Banner brackets should be double-checked and re-measured (preferably by the
manufacturer) before orders are placed.
Banner Construction: Banners should have rod pockets or tabs that slide onto the
banner arm. Manufacturers may suggest a means of securing banners to the hardware.
Method of Installation: Slide banner rod pockets onto bracket arms.
Traffic control measures must be followed. Guidance for traffic control for temporary
work zones and short duration mobile operations can be found in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at the Federal Highway Administration ’s
website (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm). Part 6, Temporary Traffic
Control, should be reviewed and special attention should be given to Chapter 6G for
mobile or short duration operations. Any additional questions about work zones may be
directed to the City of Ames Traffic Engineer at 515-239-5275.
Length of Season: Year round
Length of use: Unlimited
41
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
12
Revised 12/09/2025
MAIN STREET OVERHEAD BANNER
Total Number of Banners: 1
Banner Size: Vertical height – 3 feet (33-34 inches when hemmed)
Horizontal length – 30 feet
Banner Construction: Banners shall be constructed of heavy-duty canvas or plastic
tarpaulin material or netting. Metal grommets shall be imbedded near each of the four
corners and along the top and bottom edges. The upper and lower edges should each
have at least six grommets. Wind-relief flaps approximately 6" by 6" in area shall be
evenly distributed throughout the banner. A minimum of one wind -relief flap per five
square feet of banner area is required.
Method of Installation: Banners shall be attached to the permanent cables and chains
with metal chains, threaded links and snap links. Corner connections must be capable
of carrying a 1000 lb. load; all others must carry a 500 lb. load. (Wire may not be used.)
Banners shall be secured via metal grommets as described above.
Length of Season: Year round
Length of use: 14 days. Conditional extensions can be requested for up to a total
display duration of 3 months. These extensions can be approved on the condition that
any new requests for display submitted for the conditional extension period
automatically override the extension.
42
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
13
Revised 12/09/2025
Figure 2 – Sample Banner Configuration
43
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
14
Revised 12/09/2025
MAIN STREET BOLLARD BANNER
Requests for display are coordinated with Ames Main Street (515-232-2310).
Total Number of Banners: 8
Douglas and Main – 2
Clark and Main – 2
Burnett and Main – 2
Kellogg and Main – 2
Banner Size: Vertical height – no more than 3 feet (36 inches when hemmed)
Horizontal length – 5 feet.
Banner Construction: Banners shall be constructed of heavy-duty canvas or plastic
tarpaulin material or netting. Metal grommets shall be imbedded near each of the four
corners.
Method of Installation: Banners shall be attached to the bollards with bungee cords to
the metal grommets on the four corners of the banners as described above.
Length of Season: Year round
Length of use: 14 days prior to and including the day and/or days of the special event
approved by the City of Ames.
44
City of Ames
Street Banner Policy
15
Revised 12/09/2025
MAIN STREET - EAST END BANNER
Requests for display are coordinated with Ames Main Street (515-232-2310).
Location Description: Banners in this location may be placed within the area bordered
by Duff Avenue to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad property to the south, East Main
Street to the north, and the Power Plant fence to the east. Banners shall not be placed
in a manner that interferes with pedestrians, traffic, railroad operations, or the visibility of
motor vehicle operators.
Total Number of Banners: 1
Banner Size: Vertical height – 4 feet (45-46 inches when hemmed)
Horizontal length – 10 feet
Banner Construction: Banners shall be constructed of heavy-duty canvas or plastic
tarpaulin material or netting. Metal grommets shall be embedded near each of the four
corners. Wind-relief flaps approximately 6" by 6" in area shall be evenly distributed
throughout the banner. A minimum of one wind-relief flap per five square feet of banner
area is required.
Method of Installation: Banners shall be attached to stakes with metal chains,
threaded links and snap links. Corner connections must be capable of carrying a 1000
lb. load; all others must carry a 500 lb. load. (Wire may not be used.) Banners shall be
secured via metal grommets as described above.
Length of Season: Year round
Length of use: 14 days. Conditional extensions can be requested for up to a total
display duration of 3 months. These extensions can be approved on the condition that
any new requests for display submitted for the conditional extension period
automatically override the extension.
45
134
215
2528
129 2530
200
109
2514
2530
135
120
2300/2302/2306/2310
2513
2613
2338
119
2519
232
129
224
2228
140
221
123
2618
2500
2607
303
111
2515 2401
2546
204
304
117
127
2522
2622
207
2602
2520
2516
112
309
127
218
103
133
2518
124
300-216
108
2320
223
307
228
2617 299 Stanton Ave
212
211
2502-04
2612
225
120
120/1
22/1
24
206
301
125
113
203
2536
107
126
2408
304
210
2303/2307/2309/2311
223
131
217
200
301
2540
116
207
2601
121
105/1
07
116
23202402-08
137
211
2608
2520
242025082532
Chamberlain Pl
Chamberlain St
Lynn Ave
Stanton Ave
Welch Ave
Lincoln Way
Hunt St
Lincoln Way
Chamberlain St
Hayward Ave
MEI 10/28/2025Campustown District
Banner Pole Locations - 39 Total
NO SCALE
¯
Banner Pole Locations(14 on Lincoln Way)
G GG G GG G GGGGG G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
GG
G
G
G
G
Banner Pole Locations(15 on Welch Ave)
G
Banner Pole Location(1 on Hunt St)
G
Banner Pole Location(2 on Chamberlain St)
Banner Pole Locations(5 on Hayward Ave)
G
G
G
G
G
Banner Pole Locations(2 on Lynn Ave)
G
G
46
ITEM #:10
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:POLICE
SUBJECT:2025 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
The Police Department is again requesting permission to apply for funding from the
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP)
program, and to participate in the program should funds be awarded. This program provides
funds to local law enforcement agencies to support the purchase of new and replacement
bulletproof vests for individual officers. This protective device is critical to the safety of police
officers.
Bulletproof vests have an approximate five-year life cycle. The Police Department has a
rotating schedule for replacement of vests for current officers. In addition, as new officers are
added to the department, new vests tailored to the individual officer must be purchased.
During 2025/26 fiscal year, the schedule calls for the acquisition or replacement of 12 vests.
The Police Department has participated in this grant for many years to help supplement the
costs of the vests.
The estimated cost for these vests is $10,680. The grant requires that local agencies must
provide 50% of the cost. To the extent that federal funds are available, the BVP program will
provide the other 50%. The FY 2025/26 Police budget was constructed with the
expectation that a Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant would be applied for and received,
so the Police Department’s 50% share has already been budgeted as a commodities
expense.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Police Department’s application to and participation in the Department of
Justice Office of Justice Programs Bulletproof Vest Partnership program.
2. Do not approve the Police Department’s application to and participation in the
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bulletproof Vest Partnership program.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Bulletproof vests are an indispensable piece of safety equipment for police officers.
Historically the Police Department has successfully participated in this program with
the U.S. Department of Justice to provide protection to our local officers. Participation
in this program allows the City to provide the best product to our officers with half the
cost paid by the Department of Justice. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City
Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
47
ITEM #:11
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:ADMIN
SUBJECT:REQUESTS FROM AMES MAIN STREET FOR SNOW MAGIC
CELEBRATION ON DECEMBER 1, 2025 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2025
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
Ames Main Street (AMS) plans to host its annual Snow Magic Celebration December 1
through December 31. The event will continue throughout the month of December with
promotions in Downtown businesses.
To facilitate this event, AMS has made the following requests:
A blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and a blanket Vending License for the
Downtown from December 1 through December 31 to allow stores to display and sell
merchandise and waiver of Vending License fee ($50 loss to City Clerk’s Office).
Use of electricity in Tom Evans Plaza and waiver of fees for electricity (Loss of $10 to
the Electric Fund).
City staff is requesting that the Council approve these requests retroactively. Although Ames
Main Street submitted its application in a timely manner, the requests were delayed in being
brought to the Council for review. Staff has the authority to approve the Temporary
Obstruction Permit and Vending License, but only the City Council can approve the waiver of
fees.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the requests made by Ames Main Street as indicated above, including the
requested waiver of a Vending License and electricity user fees.
2. Approve the requests as indicated above but require reimbursement for the blanket
Vending Permit ($50) and electricity use ($10).
3. Deny the requests.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Snow Magic provides an opportunity to draw residents and visitors to the Downtown
and supports local businesses during the holiday shopping season. It is, therefore, the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as
described above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Snow Magic Application 2025.pdf
48
Travis Toliver, IOM
Executive Director
travis@amesalliance.com
304 Main Street, Ames, IA 50010 |515.233.3472 |DowntownAmes.org
Ames Main Street advances and promotes Downtown Ames as the heart of the Ames community.
October 31, 2024
Mayor and City Councill
City of Ames
515 Clark Ave
Ames, IA 50010
Dear Mayor Haila and Members of the Ames City Council,
Ames Main Street is planning to hold the annual Snow Magic event from December 1 through
December 31, 2025.
Specific information about the event can be found on the included Special Event Application. We
request a waiver of fees for the Blanket Vendor Permit, use of electricity in Tom Evans Park
during the kick-off event on Thursday, December 4.
By bringing residents to Downtown Ames for attractions such as this, Ames Main Street is able to
fulfill its mission as a Main Street Iowa community and create an economically vibrant downtown
with unique living, dining, and entertainment experiences.
Thank you for your consideration of this request and continued support of Ames Main Street. We
look forward to seeing you shopping in Downtown Ames!
Sincerely,
Travis Toliver
Executive Director
Ames Main Street
49
1
For Office Use Only
Documents Received
Date: ____________________
___ Completed Application
___ Fireworks Application
($25 fee)
___ Insurance Certificate
___ Public Safety & Event
Management Plan
___ Site Plan/Route Map
($25 fee) (Road Race)
___ Vendor List
($50 fee/each)
___ Parking fees
Special Events Meeting
Date ____________________
Time ____________________
Room ___________________
Documents Sent:
___ Alcohol License
ABD ________________
___ Fireworks Permit
___ Road Race Permit
___ TOP
___sĞŶĚŝŶŐ Permit
___ Other ________________
Departments Included
___ City Manager: Brian
Phillips and Tasheik Kerr
___ CyRide: Jenny Bethurem
or Rob Holm
___ Electric: Mark Imhoff
___ Fire: Jason Ziph or Rich
Higgins
___ Parks & Rec: Craig
Kaufman or Joshua
Thompson
___ Public Works: Brad Becker
or Dave Cole
___ Police:dŽŵ^ŚĞůƚŽŶ or
DŝŬĞƌŬŽǀŝĐŚ
___ Water:,ĞŝĚŝ WĞƚĞƌƐĞŶ
___ Risk Management: Bill
Walton
CAA:^ĂƌĂŚǀŽƌƐŬLJ
D^:^ĂƌĂŚǀŽƌƐŬLJ
ISU: Events
Authorization Committee
City Council Meeting
Date _____________________
___ Added to Agenda with CAF
Approved Y N
Reminder Date ____________
SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION
Applications received less than thirty (30) days before the event may not be processed by
the City in time for the event and will automatically be denied. Each application is viewed
as a new event regardless of previous occasions.
Event Name
Location/Address
Region (Select one or more)
$PHVMain Street (Downtown)
Campustown District
Iowa State University Property
City Parks
Other (please explain)
Please note that events occurring in the Downtown, Campustown, in City parks, or on ISU property
require prior approvals. A letter of support will be required from CAA if the event occurs in
Campustown or from $PHV0DLQ6WUHHW if the event occurs in Downtown. Please contact the
appropriate office well in advance:
Downtown -$PHV0DLQ6WUHHW: (515) 23-
&ustown Action Association: (515)-
ISU - Events Authorization Committee: (515) 294-1437
GLUHFWRU@amesdowntown.org
VDUDKG#DPHVFKDPEHUFRP
eventauthorization@iastate.edu
TIMELINE
Detailed Description of Event Activities (written overview of event and what’s going to happen)
Event Ends Date Time M T W R F Sa Su
Teardown
Complete Date Time M T W R F Sa Su
Event Category
Concert/Performance
Farmer/Outdoor Market
Other (please explain)
Athletic/Recreation
Exhibits/Misc.
Festival/Celebration
Parade/Procession/March
Rain Date Rain Location
Yes No
Is this an annual event? If yes, how many years?
Setup Date Time M T W R F Sa Su
Event Starts Date Time M T W R F Sa Su
Žƌ<ĞǀŝŶ'ƌŝĞƐ
Snow Magic
Downtown Ames
✔
12/4/2025 10:00 am
12/4/2025 5:00 pm
12/4/2025 8:00 pm
Snow Magic is an annual event for the downtown businesses held
December 1-December 31. Special Kick Off on December 4. Rest of month
will be special promotions inside businesses.
12/4/2025 10:00 pm
✔✔
50
2
CONTACTS
State Zip Code
Cell Phone
Cell Phone
Sponsor/Applicant Name
Address
City
Daytime Phone
E-mail
Alternate Contact Name
Daytime Phone
E-mail
ATTENDANCE
Anticipated Daily Attendance
Yes No
Is this event open to the public?
Is your event being held in conjunction with another event (e.g.Farmers' Market, 4th of July,
etc.)? If yes, please list:
ORGANIZATION STATUS/PROCEEDS
For-Profit
Bona Fide Tax Exempt
Nonprofit
Yes No
Are patron admission, entry, or participant fees required? If yes, please describe and provide
amounts:
Are vendor or other fees required? If yes, please provide amounts:
Percentage of net proceeds going towards fundraising %
Percentage of net proceeds going towards for-profit entity %
SECURITY
Ames Police Department 24 hour non-emergency phone number: 515-239-5133
Please complete the course at https://www.crowdmanagers.com/training for crowd management training.
Yes No
Have you hired a professional security company to develop and manage your event’s security plan?
If yes, please fill out the following information:
Security Organization
State Zip Phone
Address
City
Email
Sarah Hurley/Ames Main Street
304 Main St
Ames Iowa 50010
515-232-2310 319-930-2276
sarah@amesalliance.com
Travis Toliver
515-232-2310 701-200-3871
travis@amesalliance.com
800
✔
51
ITEM #:12
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:ADMIN
SUBJECT:REQUESTS FROM AMES MAIN STREET TO EXTEND FREE PARKING TO
INCLUDE ALL REMAINING SATURDAYS IN DECEMBER 2025
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
Ames Main Street (AMS) previously submitted requests for Small Business Saturday on
November 29, 2025, which included providing free parking at metered spaces in Downtown
and Campustown. The City Council approved the requests and approved a transfer of
$2,468.25 from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund to the Parking Fund to reimburse the waived fees.
Due to a significant early snowfall event on that date, organizers asked for an additional round
of these same requests for Saturday, December 6, 2025. This request was approved by the
City Council in the Special Meeting held on Tuesday, December 3, 2025.
On December 4, 2025, AMS submitted a letter extending its request to include all remaining
Saturdays in December in order to provide continued support to small businesses. To facilitate
this, organizers are requesting a blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and suspension of
parking regulations and enforcement for the Downtown and Campustown Areas from 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on December 13, 20, and 27, 2025 ($7,404.75 estimated loss to the
Parking Fund).
In February 2020, the City Council adopted the following new policy regarding metered
parking waivers:
Metered parking fees will not be waived for special events. Any event organizers
intending to provide free parking or to close metered parking spaces must reimburse
the City’s Parking Fund for the lost revenue. The City Council may consider waivers to
this policy on a case-by-case basis for parking spaces that are obstructed by the event
area (not for area-wide free parking).
A total of $10,000 has been included in the FY 2025/26 adopted budget in the Hotel/Motel Tax
Fund to support parking waivers. The table below illustrates the budget for these waivers:
Expenses Funding Source
Summer Sidewalk
Sales $ 1,370.25
Small Business
Saturday 2,468.25
Small Business
Saturday Re-Do
(approved)
2,468.25
Winter Sidewalk Sales
(approved)1,370.25
52
Additional Saturdays in
December (this
request)
7,404.75
Hotel/Motel Tax Fund $ 10,000.00
TOTAL $ 15,081.75 TOTAL $ 10,000.00
Shortfall -$ 5,081.75
The request results in exceeding the budgeted amount by $5,081.75. This amount can be
taken from the available balance in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund, which was $1,635,024 as of
September 30, 2025.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the requests for free parking in all of Downtown and Campustown for the
remaining Saturdays in December 2025 as requested by Ames Main Street, including
the waiver of fees, and transfer of $7,404.75 from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund to the
Parking Fund.
2. Deny the requests.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Small Business Saturday is an annual event for the Downtown and Campustown areas.
This event aims to attract people to Downtown and Campustown and promotes
shopping locally to kick off the holiday shopping season. Although parking was made
free on the original November 29 date, it was not heavily utilized due to the abnormally
severe winter weather. Ames Main Street requested a second round of free parking on
December 6 to compensate for this, but as of the time of this writing, another round of
significant snowfall is expected on that date. To encourage local shopping on
subsequent Saturdays to accommodate for these unusual snowfall events, Ames Main
Street has requested additional free parking days in December. Sufficient funding is
available to reimburse the Parking Fund for the loss of revenue. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted
above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
AMS Letter of Request 12-4-25.pdf
53
304 Main Street, Ames, IA 50010 | 515.233.3472 | AmesDowntown.org
Ames Main Street advances and promotes Downtown Ames as the heart of the Ames community.
December 4, 2025
Ames City Hall
515 Clark Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
Mayor and Members of the Ames City Council,
On behalf of Ames Main Street, I respectfully request that this letter be placed on the agenda
for your meeting on Tuesday, December 9.
As we move through the remainder of the 2025 holiday season, our Downtown and
Campustown businesses are experiencing a critical need for increased customer traffic. To
help support these districts during this important time, we are requesting consideration for
extending free parking on Saturdays for the rest of December 2025. Feedback from our
business owners shows that providing this added convenience results in more residents and
visitors come to shop locally and strengthen our business community during one of the
busiest retail periods of the year.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate your continued support of a
vibrant and thriving Ames.
Onward!
Travis Toliver, IOM
Executive Director
54
ITEM #:13
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:ADMIN
SUBJECT:2026/27 AMES ANNUAL OUTDOOR SCULPTURE EXHIBITION
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
The Ames Annual Outdoor Sculpture Exhibition (AAOSE), the longest running program for the
Public Arts Commission (PAC), will celebrate its 30th annual downtown exhibition in 2026.
Through this program, artists submit sculptural entries to be displayed in Downtown Ames
from May 2026 through April 2027. At the conclusion of the display, sculptures are available
for purchase by private individuals or by PAC through the Neighborhood Sculpture Program.
This year, 36 AAOSE entries were received from 17 artists .
The entries were evaluated by a jury which then made recommendations to PAC. At its
meeting on December 2, 2025, PAC reviewed the jury's recommendations and voted to
recommend nine sculptures and one alternate. The alternate would be pursued in the event
one of the nine selected sculptures becomes unavailable prior to the loan agreement being
signed.
Attached are photographs of the sculptures recommended for the 2026/27 AAOSE.
Installation of the exhibit will take place in April after further risk analysis by City staff .
Artists will be paid a $2,000 honorarium for each selected sculpture, and a Best-in-Show
award of $1,000 will be made to a winner determined by the public, for a total expenditure of
$19,000. All expenses will be paid for through the PAC budget. Funding for the AAOSE
exhibition was included in the FY 2025/26 Public Art Budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize PAC to enter into agreements with artists for the exhibition of sculptures and
make honorarium payments.
2. Do not approve the agreements.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This annual program allows for works of art to be displayed throughout the City. This
program aligns with the City Council’s value of a fun, vibrant community that attracts
and retains people. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
2026-27 AAOSE Selections.pptx
55
SELECTIONS FOR THE
2026-2027 AMES ANNUAL OUTDOOR
SCULPTURE EXHIBITION
DECEMBER 9, 2025
56
“CORAL” BY TIM ADAMS
Media: Upcycled Painted Steel
Dimensions: 10’x4’x35”
Weight: 300 Pounds
Cost: $10,000
Year: 2021
57
“CATHEDRAL FORM” BY JAMES BEARDEN
Media: Blackened Steel
Dimensions: 8’x24”x24”
Weight: 250 Pounds
Cost: $12,500
Year: 2025
58
“WINGS” BY HILDE DEBRUYNE
Media: Mild Steel
Dimensions: 8’x5’x4’
Weight: 260 Pounds
Cost: $22,500
Year: 2024
59
“STALK 1005/2RE/H400-6” BY MATT MOYER
Media: Painted Steel
Dimensions: 8’x5’x5’
Weight: 250 Pounds
Cost: $4,200
Year: 2025
60
“ICE FLOW” BY JUDD NELSON
Media: Hot Forged Steel
Dimensions: 7’x2’x2’
Weight: 300 Pounds
Cost: $9,700
Year: 2021
61
“SEEKING BALANCE” BY JIM & RYAN PEDERSEN
Media: Powder Coated Steel
Dimensions: 86”x36”x24”
Weight: 350 Pounds
Cost: $9,795
Year: 2024
62
“FRACTURED” BY JIM & RYAN PEDERSEN
Media: Steel and Brass
Dimensions: 120”x36”x34”
Weight: 900 Pounds
Cost: $14,500
Year: 2022
63
“MARK 8:36” BY BEN PIERCE
Media: Steel, Stainless Steel, and Acrylic
Dimensions: 8’x4’x2’
Weight: 300 Pounds
Cost: $20,000
Year: 2025
64
“ART OF HEART” BY ALBERT RHEA
Media: Stainless Steel
Dimensions: 90”x24”x13”
Weight: 110 Pounds
Cost: $9,500
Year: 2025
65
ALTERNATES
FOR THE 2026-2027 AMES ANNUAL OUTDOOR SCULPTURE EXHIBITION
66
“HEART OF IOWA” BY ANNA MODELAND
Media: Steel
Dimensions: 63”x45”x45”
Weight: 200 Pounds
Cost: $4,200
Year: 2019
67
ITEM #:14
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:ADMIN
SUBJECT:PUBLIC ART COMMISSION ACCESSIBLE MAP ENVISIONING
SCULPTURES (A.M.E.S.) PROJECT
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
The Public Art Commission (PAC) receives funding from the City Council each year to: 1)
manage the public art collection, 2) present the Ames Annual Outdoor Sculpture Exhibition, 3)
purchase art for the Neighborhood Art Program, and 4) purchase art for the Art in the Parks
Program. Unused funding in these four program areas is carried over into subsequent fiscal
years.
PAC has accumulated a balance of funding in the Neighborhood Art Program that it wishes to
dedicate to a new project, titled Accessible Map-Envisioning Sculptures (A.M.E.S.). This
project is intended to enhance wayfinding and create a cohesive visual identity at selected bus
shelters located on portions of the CyRide Red Route.
The A.M.E.S. project is designed to assist passengers with disabilities, those with language
barriers, and those unfamiliar with Ames by providing distinctive, tactile art elements at each
shelter. The sculptures will be freestanding, not attached to bus shelters, and will not obstruct
visibility for passengers or drivers. Each sculpture will be placed adjacent to the shelter on its
own concrete pad, and PAC will be responsible for all installation, maintenance, and related
costs associated with the artwork.
Sculptures will be placed at seven shelters: Mortensen Road/Pinon Drive, Mortensen
Road/Coconino Avenue, South Dakota Avenue/Lincoln Swing, Lincoln Way/Beedle Drive,
Lincoln Way/Marshall Avenue, Lincoln Way/Lynn Avenue, and Lincoln Way/Elm Avenue.
Public art easements have been secured where necessary, except for one shelter location .
Staff is optimistic that an easement will be obtained for that site before the sculptures are
delivered, and will identify an alternative location if the easement is not able to be obtained.
After consultation with CyRide staff and the Transit Board of Trustees, on June 16, 2025, a
Request for Proposal was issued to commission an artist for the project. Responses were due
July 16, 2025, and twenty proposals were received. The proposals were evaluated by a team
consisting of PAC members, an Ames resident, and a CyRide staff member.
Following evaluation of the proposals received, PAC recommends entering into a contract with
Tim Adams of Webster City, Iowa. His design, titled "Perennials", features sculptural forms
inspired by natural leaves and plant motifs that will be visually engaging throughout all four
seasons and encourage tactile interaction by the public. PAC is recommending his design
concept because it provided strong visual flow along the route and complemented the
surrounding landscape.
The submitted concept drawings are incorporated into the artist contract, which is attached.
The artist will warranty the work for a period of five years from the time of acceptance, which is
68
standard for the City's sculpture acquisition contracts. The fee to deliver a completed sculpture
is $30,000. Staff estimates the cost for the preparation of the concrete pads and plaques to be
approximately $5,000. The PAC Neighborhood Sculpture Program account has a current
balance of $42,197, which is sufficient to cover the expenses related to this contract.
The Ames Transit Board of Trustees approved the project proposal at its November 20,
2025, meeting. Subsequently, at its meeting on December 2, 2025, PAC recommended
that the City Council approve a contract with that artist.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a contract with Tim Adams (dba Stony Creek Landscapes), of Webster City,
Iowa, in the amount of $30,000 for the fabrication, delivery, and purchase of "Perennials"
for the bus stop shelters along CyRide's Red Route.
2. Refer this item back to staff or the Public Art Commission for further information.
3. Do not approve the contract.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed sculptures meet the desires of the Public Art Commission to provide
unique, interactive, and visually appealing wayfinding efforts. Staff has prepared a
contract outlining the terms for the delivery of the completed works. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1, as described
above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Contract with Tim Adams - Perennials.pdf
69
1 of 11
CITY OF AMES
AGREEMENT TO FABRICATE AND SELL ARTWORK
ACCESSIBLE MAP-ENVISIONING SCULPTURES (A.M.E.S.) PROJECT
“Perennials” by Tim Adams (dba Stony Creek Landscapes)
THIS AGREEMENT is made effective this 9th day of December, 2025, between the City
of Ames, Iowa, hereinafter called the “OWNER”, and Tim Adams (dba Stony Creek
Landscapes) of Webster City, Iowa, hereinafter called the “ARTIST”. The Owner’s
Representative shall be the Assistant City Manager.
1. CONDITIONAL PURCHASE. ARTIST does hereby agree to fabricate, deliver, and
sell to OWNER the work of art in the form of the sculptural collection entitled
“Perennials” (ARTWORK), as generally described in ARTIST’s response to City of
Ames Request for Proposal No. 2025-184, for and in consideration of the payment
by OWNER to ARTIST of the sum of $30,000.00 subject to and in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement.
2. INSTALLATION. The OWNER shall install this ARTWORK at the site selected by
the OWNER. The OWNER shall be responsible for site preparation work, including
design, preparation and installation of the foundation.
3. PERMITS AND INSPECTION. The OWNER shall obtain such permits and
engineering designs as the City Building Official shall deem necessary, and the
ARTWORK shall not be installed until the City Building Official has approved the
foundation.
4. MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS. Prior to acceptance of the ARTWORK, the
ARTIST shall provide to the Owner’s Representative complete written instructions
for appropriate maintenance and preservation of the ARTWORK.
5. ARTIST’S STATEMENT. Prior to the acceptance of the ARTWORK, the ARTIST
shall provide to the Owner’s Representative a written ARTIST’S statement regarding
the ARTWORK that may be used for publication and exhibition purposes.
6. COMPLETION. The ARTIST shall advise the Owner’s Representative in writing
when all services required under this Agreement have been completed. Within
twenty (20) working days after receipt of this notification, the Owner’s
Representative shall notify the ARTIST in writing of the OWNER’s final acceptance
or non-acceptance of the ARTWORK. Failure to provide written notification of
70
2 of 11
acceptance or non-acceptance after twenty working days shall constitute final
acceptance on the part of the OWNER.
7. RISK OF LOSS. At the time of delivery, the risk of loss or damage to the ARTWORK
shall be borne by the CITY and the CITY shall take such measures as are necessary
to protect the ARTWORK from loss or damage through all phases of installation.
8. INDEMNITY. The ARTIST agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the OWNER from
any claims, liabilities, willful or non-willful acts of negligence by the ARTIST, by the
ARTIST’S subcontractors or agents, and by volunteers assisting the ARTIST in the
design, fabrication and installation of the ARTWORK, for any loss, theft, mutilation,
vandalism or other damage (including that caused by acts of God) that may befall
the ARTWORK during any activities related to the planning, creation, delivery and
installation of the ARTWORK, or for any failure of warranty as hereinafter stated.
9. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE. Title to the ARTWORK shall pass to the OWNER upon
OWNER’S final acceptance of the completely installed ARTWORK. Upon final
acceptance of the ARTWORK, and to the extent permitted by Iowa law, the OWNER
shall indemnify and hold harmless the ARTIST against any and all claims or liabilities
arising thereafter in connection with the ARTWORK, the site, the project or this
Agreement, caused by the OWNER’S negligence.
10. PAYMENT. The OWNER shall pay the ARTIST $30,000.00 for the ARTWORK,
which shall constitute full compensation for all services furnished by the ARTIST
under this Agreement. This amount shall be paid within thirty (30) days of final
acceptance of the ARTWORK by the Owner’s Representative, and shall represent
full payment for all services provided.
11. WARRANTIES. The ARTIST represents and warrants that:
a) the ARTWORK is solely the result of the artistic effort of the ARTIST;
b) except as otherwise disclosed in writing to the Owner’s Representative, the
ARTWORK is unique and original and does not infringe upon any copyright;
c) the ARTWORK, or a duplicate thereof, has not been accepted for sale
elsewhere;
d) the ARTWORK is free and clear of any liens from any source whatever;
e) the ARTWORK, as fabricated and installed, will be free of defects in material
and workmanship, including any “inherent defect” or qualities which cause
or accelerate deterioration of the ARTWORK; and
f) reasonable maintenance of the ARTWORK will not require procedures
71
3 of 11
substantially in excess of those described in the maintenance
recommendations to be submitted by the ARTIST to the Owner’s
Representative hereunder.
The warranties described in this Section shall survive for a period of five years after
the final acceptance of the ARTWORK. The OWNER shall give notice to the ARTIST
of any observed breach with reasonable promptness. The ARTIST shall, at the
request of the OWNER, and at no cost to the OWNER, cure reasonably and promptly
the breach of any such warranty which is curable by the ARTIST and which cure is
consistent with professional conservation standards (including, for e xample, cure by
means of repair or refabrication of the ARTWORK).
12. ARTIST INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that the
ARTIST is an independent contractor and not an employee of the OWNER; and that
the OWNER shall not have any worker’s compensation liability to the ARTIST or the
ARTIST’S employees, volunteers or subcontractors. It is further understood that
the ARTIST’S subcontractors shall have no recourse for payment of costs of labor
and materials against the OWNER. Further, in consideration of this contract,
ARTIST does hereby indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all claims
arising from the negligence of the ARTIST or the ARTIST’S employees, volunteers
and subcontractors.
13. REPRODUCTION RIGHTS. In view of the intention that the ARTWORK in its final
dimension shall be unique, the ARTIST shall not make any additional duplicate
reproductions of the final ARTWORK, nor shall the ARTIST grant permission to
others to do so except with the written permission of the OWNER. The ARTIST
grants to the OWNER and its assigns an irrevocable license to make two
dimensional reproductions of the ARTWORK for any purpose including commercial
purposes, and by way of specification but not lim itation, reproductions used in
advertising, calendars, posters, brochures, media, publicity, catalogues, or other
similar publications.
14. MAINTENANCE. The OWNER recognizes that maintenance of the ARTWORK on
a regular basis is essential to the integrity of the ARTWORK. The OWNER shall
reasonably assure that the ARTWORK is properly maintained and protected, taking
into account the instructions of the ARTIST provided in accordance with Section 4.
15. RELOCATION OR REMOVAL. The OWNER reserves the right to alter the location
of the ARTWORK; relocate the ARTWORK to another site; and remove the
ARTWORK from public display.
72
4 of 11
16. DEACCESSION OF ARTWORK. Deaccession of the ARTWORK will be carried out
in accordance with the CITY’S adopted Deaccession Policy.
17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This writing embodies the entire Agreement and
understanding between the parties hereto, and there are no other agreements and
understandings, oral or written, with reference to the subject matter hereof that are
not merged herein and superseded hereby. No alteration, change, or modification
of the terms of the Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by
both parties hereto and approved by appropriate action of the OWNER.
ARTIST OWNER
By: ________________________ By: ________________________
Tim Adams Brian Phillips, Assistant City Manager
Stony Creek Landscapes City of Ames
404 E. 2nd Street 515 Clark Avenue, PO Box 811
Webster City, IA 50595 Ames, IA 50010
515-832-1281 515-239-5101
tim@timadams.art publicartcommission@cityofames.org
Date: _______________________ Date: _______________________
73
5 of 11
74
6 of 11
75
7 of 11
76
8 of 11
77
9 of 11
78
10 of 11
79
11 of 11
80
ITEM #:15
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:P&H
SUBJECT:ANSLEY SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS TO CEDAR LANE
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
The Ansley Development off Cedar Lane was approved with a rezoning and Master Plan on
May 10, 2022, which changed the zoning from Agricultural (A) to Floating Suburban -
Residential Low Density (FS-RL) with a Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD)
(Attachment A).
A Rezoning Agreement executed at the time of the rezoning requires the developer to
"assume all financial responsibility for road improvements to Cedar Lane", including offsite
improvements to the frontage between the north and south areas of the site (Attachment B).
This includes the extension of Cedar Lane to the southernmost street in Ansley, Rothway
Road, and the construction of sidewalk along the east side of the Cedar Lane from Rothway
Road north to the northernmost street connection, Ansley Avenue.
Note that the Ansley developer is only responsible for constructing the east half of
Cedar Lane. The other half of the responsibility belongs to Iowa State University, which
owns the field on the west side of Cedar Lane.
Subsequent to the rezoning, the preliminary plat was approved on November 8, 2022
(Attachment C). It included a waiver of the construction of Cedar Lane and utilities
south of the southernmost interior subdivision road, Rothway Road, which connects to
Cedar Lane through the development of future phases (Attachment D).
The 2019 Pre-Annexation for this area stipulates that the owners of the properties on Cedar
Lane will grant to the City at no cost the necessary right-of-way or easements for road
extension and construction. The agreement further states that the City will pay for any survey
costs and acquisition plat preparation associated with the ROW and easements.
CEDAR LANE PAVING WAIVER REQUEST:
In 2024, the developer returned with a request to waive the requirement to pave the future
extension of Cedar Lane from Middleton Road to Rothway Road. Specifically, the request was
for the City to assume responsibility for constructing roughly 700 linear feet in front of three
parcels that front on Cedar Lane but are not a part of the Ansley Subdivision. On September
10 of that year, Council directed staff to prepare a Development Agreement whereby the
City would assume responsibility and define the developer's remaining obligations.
The City's assumption of the developer's responsibility will be for half of the street
paving. ISU will retain its obligations for the west side of Cedar Lane per the existing
agreement. The timing of the City paving Cedar Lane is at the discretion of the City.
More details of the agreement are described below.
81
DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT:
The proposed agreement (Attachment E) is summarized below:
1. The developer is responsible for the construction of Cedar Lane, except as follows:
2. The City assumes responsibility for constructing Cedar Lane for the relevant 700 feet not
in front of Ansley. The developer is responsible for all Cedar Lane frontage
improvements abutting the Ansley Development, including the intersection of Cedar
Lane and Rothway Road. The City will acquire all necessary easements and/or right-of-
way.
3. The developer will remain responsible for constructing the sidewalk along Cedar Lane for
this distance.
4. The developer shall provide completed public improvement plans for the paving of Cedar
Lane at the time of final plat for the addition that includes Rothway Road.
5. The approval of public improvement plans will be determined at the time of platting for
the connection of Rothway Road to Cedar Lane.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a resolution for the Development Agreement between the City and the Ansley
developers as it pertains to the construction of and obligations for Cedar Lane paving.
2. Direct staff to modify the proposed Development Agreement terms and return with an
updated agreement.
3. Deny the Development Agreement request.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed Development Agreement sets forth the obligations and timing for the
improvements (street and sidewalks) to Cedar Lane. Per the agreement, the City will now take
responsibility for constructing one half of roughly 700 feet of Cedar Lane in front of three
parcels that are bordered by, but not a part of, Cedar Lane. (The obligation to pay for the other
half belongs to Iowa State University, which is not affected by this Development Agreement.)
The developer will provide the City with public improvement documents, the delivery of which
will be tied to the construction of the third and final (and southernmost) Ansley street to
connect to Cedar Lane (two connections are already built).
The proposed agreement is in keeping with previous Council direction. Therefore, it is
the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative 1, as
described above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment A - Master Plan.pdf
Attachment B - Ansley Rezoning Agreement.pdf
82
Attachment C - Preliminary Plat.pdf
Attachment D - Reference Maps.pdf
Attachment E - Proposed Development Agreement.pdf
83
ATTACHMENT A
Master Plan Excerpt
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
ATTACHMENT C
Preliminary Plat Excerpt
94
ATTACHMENT D
Reference Map
Waived Cedar Lane
Construction
700’ Portion of
Cedar Lane
Requested for City
Responsibility
Ansley Avenue
Middleton Road
Rothway Road
Cedar Lane
Constructed –
Sidewalk Needed
No Sidewalk
95
96
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – Ansley Subdivision
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into ___________________, 2025, by and
between the City of Ames, (hereinafter “City”) and Burgason Enterprises L.L.C., and Ansley
Land, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as “Developer”), their successors and assigns, both
collectively known as the “Parties” herein, do agree and covenant as follows:
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Developer is in the process of improving approximately 58.7 acres located
in the vicinity of Cedar Lane known as the Ansley Development as described in a certain Rezoning
Agreement (defined as the “Site” in said Rezoning Agreement and also in this Agreement) which
was dated May 10, 2022, and filed May 23, 2022, as Inst. No. 2022-04969; and
WHEREAS, the Developer was required in said Rezoning Agreement to “assume all
financial responsibility for road improvements to Cedar Lane as required by the City for
development of the Site, including offsite improvements to the frontage between the north and
south areas of the [S]ite;” and
WHEREAS, on or about September 10, 2024, Developer requested that the City assume
responsibility for paving an approximate 700-foot portion of Cedar Lane along the frontage of
three parcels along the East side of Cedar Lane contrary to the requirements of the Rezoning
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Developer’s request subject to the Developer
continuing to have all other responsibility for the remaining cost and construction of portions of
Cedar Lane as set forth in the Rezoning Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties herein have agreed and do agree as follows:
S P A C E A B O V E R E S E R V E D F O R O F F I C I A L U S E
Legal description:
Return document to:
Document prepared by:
97
I. IMPROVEMENT OBLIGATIONS
1. Developer shall be responsible for all street paving and related improvements for the
extension of utilities and streets from within the Site to the intersection with Cedar Lane,
except as set forth below.
2. The City shall be responsible for the paving of the East Half of Cedar Lane lying adjacent
to the West boundary of: (a) 3314 Cedar Lane (Tax Parcel No. 09-21-200-330), (b) the
parcel directly South of 3314 Cedar Lane (Tax Parcel 09-21-200-320), both of which are
currently owned by Steven Burgason and Anne Burgason, and (c) 3618 Cedar Lane (Tax
Parcel ID No. 09-21-200-340) owned by Jeffry and Cynthia Jorgensen.
a. The Parties acknowledge that the cost of obtaining the necessary right-of-way,
temporary or permanent construction easements, or utility easements, from any of
the parcels identified above is governed by Section 7 of a certain Pre-Annexation
Agreement filed July 29, 2019, as Instrument No. 2019-06546, and nothing herein
shall modify the terms of said Pre-Annexation Agreement, or in any way require the
City to pay for “any temporary or permanent construction easements, utility
easements or right-of-way required by the City, in a form deemed acceptable to the
City.”
b. The City shall determine the appropriate timing of its paving responsibility in its
sole discretion.
c. Developer shall continue to bear the responsibility for the installation of a sidewalk
that meets City standards that is parallel to and East of the portion of Cedar Lane
described in paragraph 2 above. Developer shall install the sidewalk as required by
the City, but no later within six (6) months of when the City installs the paved
portion of Cedar Lane as described in paragraph 2 above. Developer shall be
responsible for all costs associated with the construction of the sidewalk.
3. Prior to final plat approval for any subdivision within the Site that has the extension of
Rothway Road to Cedar Lane, Developer shall provide completed improvement plans for
the paving of Cedar Lane from Middleton Road to Rothway Road.
4. The final approval of public improvement plans and the extent of improvements completed
by the Developer will be determined at the time of final plat approval for Rothway Road.
5. Developer shall bear the sole responsibility for the installation of all sidewalks required by
the City within the Site. Nothing herein is intended to modify Developer’s obligations
under the Sidewalk Agreements filed for Ansley Subdivision, First Addition, recorded
October 30, 2023, as Inst. No. 2023-07709, or Ansley Subdivision, Third Addition,
recorded June 12, 2025, as Inst. No. 2025-04454. For the required sidewalk abutting 3310
and 3312 Cedar Lane, the sidewalk connecting the First and Third Additions of the Ansley
Subdivision must occur no later than May 1, 2028.
98
6. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall supplement the Rezoning Agreement and that
the Rezoning Agreement shall continue have full force and effect in accordance with the
terms thereof, unless expressly amended by this Agreement.
II. NON INCLUSION OF OTHER IMPROVEMENT OBLIGATIONS
The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is being executed in contemplation of
a plan for development, without further review or approval of subsequent specific plans for
development of the Site. The intent of the Parties to this Agreement is that the Improvement
Obligations addressed above are not an exhaustive list of public improvements that may be
required by the City for the subject Site. The parties acknowledge and agree that it is not
possible to anticipate all the infrastructure and code requirements that the Developers may be
required to complete or comply with to properly develop the site. Therefore, the parties agree
that all work done by and on behalf of the Developers with respect to other improvements,
including but not limited to, building design, building construction, and utilities, both on-site
and off-site, shall be made in compliance with the Iowa Code, SUDAS, and all other federal,
state and local laws and policies of general application, including but limited to building and
zoning codes, whether or not such requirements are specifically stated in this Agreement.
III. COVENANT WITH THE LAND - MODIFICATION
This Agreement may not be modified without the written consent of all Parties thereto.
This Agreement shall run with the Site and be binding upon the Developer, its successors and
assigns. The terms of this Agreement shall not constitute a lien upon any platted Lot within
either Ansley Subdivision, First Addition or Third Addition, that is not owned by either or both
Developer entities as of the date of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed
effective as of the date first above written.
[S I G N A T U R E S ON F O L L O W I N G P A G E S ]
99
DEVELOPER:
Burgason Enterprises L.L.C.
By:
Manager
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, SS.:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ______________________, 2025, by Steven W.
Burgason, as Manager of Burgason Enterprises, L.L.C.
NOTARY PUBLIC
ANSLEY LAND LLC
By:
By:
Steven W. Burgason,
Anne F. Burgason,
Ansley Land LLC
By:
Manager
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, SS.:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ______________________, 2025, by Steven W.
Burgason and Anne F. Burgason, as Managers of Ansley Land LLC.
NOTARY PUBLIC
100
Passed and approved on ____________________________, 202_____, by Resolution No. 25-
___________ adopted by the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa.
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
John A. Haila,
Renee Hall,
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, SS.:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 202_____, by John A.
Haila and Renee Hall, as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Ames, Iowa.
NOTARY PUBLIC
101
LEGAL DESCRIPTION – Exhibit ‘A’
ANSLEY SUBDIVISION, FIRST ADDITION, AMES, STORY COUNTY, IOWA; and.
ANSLEY SUBDIVISION, THIRD ADDITION, AMES, STORY COUNTY, IOWA.
102
To:Mayor and City Council
From:Carly M. Watson, Deputy City Clerk
Date:December 5, 2025
Subject:Contract and Bond Approval
Item No. 16
MEMO
There is no Council Action Form for the Homewood Golf Course Hole Nine
Crossing Improvement Project with Con-Struct, Ames, Iowa, in the amount
of $213,410. City Council approval of the contract and bond for the project is
simply fulfilling a State Code requirement.
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
103
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Justin Clausen, P.E., CPWP-M, Public Works Director
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Domani Subdivision 1st Addition financial reduction
Item No. 17
MEMO
Please see attached documentation for partial release of financial security on file
with the City.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Domani Subdivision 1st Addition Partial Release 8.docx
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
104
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Engineering 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010
Phone 515-239-5160 Fax 515-239-5404
November 26, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Domani Subdivision 1st Addition Financial Security Reduction #8
Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify that the partial completion of street trees required as a condition for approval
of the final plat of Domani Subdivision 1st Addition have been completed in an acceptable
manner by various contractors. 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 $750. The remaining work
covered by this financial security include Street Trees.
Sincerely,
Justin Clausen, P.E.
Public Works Director
JC/MB
cc: Finance, Planning & Housing, Subdivision file
105
Domani Subdivision 1st Addition
November 26, 2025
Page 2
Remaining Work Items Unit Quantity
Street Trees EA 5
106
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Justin Clausen, P.E., CPWP-M, Public Works Director
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Domani 2nd Addition
Item No. 18
MEMO
Please see attached documentation for partial release of financial security on file
with the City.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Domani Subdivision 2nd Addition Maintenance Year 3.docx
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
107
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Engineering 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010
Phone 515-239-5160 Fax 515-239-5404
November 26, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Domani 2nd Addition Stormwater Maintenance Financial Security LOC Reduction #3
Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify that portion of the Financial Security covering 3 year of the 4 Year Stormwater
Management Maintenance requirements as per the Post Construction Stormwater
Management (Chapter 5B) for Domani 2nd Addition have been completed in an acceptable
manner. The stormwater management practices 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 on file with the City
be reduced to $6,553.64. The remaining work covered by this financial security includes two (2)
years of inspection of the maintenance practices.
Sincerely,
Justin Clausen, P.E.
Public Works Director
JC/MB
cc: Finance, Planning & Housing, Subdivision file
108
Domani Subdivision 2nd Addition
November 26, 2025
Page 2
Item pending to complete and accept Unit Quantity Remaining
4-Year Maintenance Year 1
109
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Justin Clausen, P.E., CPWP-M, Public Works Director
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Scenic Valley 6th Addition
Item No. 19
MEMO
Please see attached documentation for partial release of financial security on file
with the City.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Scenic Valley 6th Addition Partial Release 5.docx
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
110
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Engineering 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010
Phone 515-239-5160 Fax 515-239-5404
November 26, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Scenic Valley 6th Addition Financial Security Reduction #5
Letter of Credit on File: #169
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 various
contractors.
1. Portions of Sidewalk, PCC, 4”
2. Street Trees
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 $1,620. The remaining
work covered by this financial security includes portion of Sidewalk PCC 4”.
Sincerely,
Justin Clausen, P.E.
Public Works Director
JC/MB
cc: Finance, Planning & Housing, Subdivision file
111
Scenic Valley 6th Addition
Financial Security Reduction #5
November 26, 2025
Page 2
Remaining public improvements description and quantities to be completed and accepted.
item Description Unit Qty
31 Sidewalk, PCC, 4” SY 36
112
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Justin Clausen, P.E., CPWP-M, Public Works Director
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Scenic Valley 7th Addition
Item No. 20
MEMO
Please see attached documentation for partial release of financial security on file
with the City.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Scenic Valley 7th - Partial Release #2.docx
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
113
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Engineering 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010
Phone 515-239-5160 Fax 515-239-5404
November 26, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Scenic Valley 7th Addition Financial Security Reduction #2
Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify that the streetlights and partial completion of sidewalk and street trees required
as a condition for approval of the final plat of Scenic Valley 7th Addition have been completed in
an acceptable manner by Various Contractors. 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 $103,362. The remaining
work covered by this financial security includes asphalt surface pavement, utility adjustments,
public sidewalk, ADA sidewalk ramps, COSESCO (erosion control), and street trees.
Sincerely,
Justin Clausen, P.E.
Public Works Director
JC/MB
cc: Finance, Planning & Housing, Subdivision file
114
Scenic Valley 5th Addition
November 26, 2025
Page 2
Items to be completed and accepted
Item Unit Quantity
Pavement, HMA, Surface 2” Ton 431
Manhole Adjustments EA 9
Sidewalk PCC 4” SY 833
ADA Sidewalk Ramps LS 1
COSESCO AC 15.87
Street Trees EA 33
115
ITEM #:21
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:PW
SUBJECT:2023/24 AMES PLAN 2040 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
(S 500TH AVENUE/COUNTY LINE ROAD)
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
This program involved installation of public sanitary sewer infrastructure into the priority
growth tiers shown in the Ames Plan 2040. Installation of the sanitary sewer system
proactively opens the ability to develop land in the adopted growth tiers. This project
included extending a new 15" sanitary sewer from south of Norris Street west to S 500th
Avenue (County Line Road), then north approximately 300 feet.
On November 12, 2024, City Council awarded a contract to Rognes Corp of Ankeny, IA in the
amount of $551,057.70. Three change orders were approved as part of the project. Change
Order No. 1 was approved in the amount of $7,200 for repair of field tile. Change Order No. 2
was approved in the amount of $302.50 for installation of Type III Matting. Change Order No.
3 (balancing) was administratively approved by staff and included a deduction in the amount of
$16,082.50. The balancing change order reflects the actual measured quantities completed
during construction. Construction was completed in the amount of $542,477.70.
Revenue and expenses associated with the project are estimated as follows:
Description Available Revenue Estimated Expenses
American Rescue Plan
(ARPA) Funds $661,058
Construction (as bid) $551,057.70
Change Order No. 1 7,200.00
Change Order No. 2 302.50
Change Order No. 3
(balancing) (16,082.50)
Final Construction Cost $542,477.70
Engineering/Administration $110,000.00
TOTAL $661,058 $652,477.70
*Remaining funding will be utilized for other ARPA eligible projects.
On January 27, 2025, Rognes Corp workers accidentally started a fire at the job site that
resulted in damage to two properties and injury to one individual. Representatives of
Rognes Corp immediately took action and engaged with the property owners. The City
of Ames has not been involved in the handling of this incident, but has communicated
with Rognes Corp's insurance company regarding the status of the claims. The claims
are all either settled or in the process of being settled. All communications with the
claimants have occurred between either Rognes Corp or its insurer.
As with all City construction projects, the contract language requires that the
116
contractor to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any negligence from acts of
the contractor or their subcontractors during construction. Rognes Corp is solely
responsible for addressing damages arising from this incident. Rognes Corp has
indicated via the attached letter that they are continuing to work through their
insurance company to settle claims from this incident.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the 2023/24 Ames Plan 2040 Sanitary Sewer Extension (S 500th Avenue County
Line Road) project as completed by Rognes Corp of Ankeny, Iowa, in the amount of
$542,477.70.
2. Direct staff to pursue changes to the project.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications. This project will extend public sanitary sewer infrastructure into priority
tiers shown in the Growth Plan 2040.
The City Attorney has advised, after consultation with the City’s insurance provider and
outside counsel, that proceeding with contract closure and release of retainage does
not place the City at legal risk. Responsibility for resolving the claims arising from the
incident rests with the contractor and its insurer, who continue to work directly with the
impacted property owners.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative
No. 1, as described above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
B01(CAF).pdf
Certification Letter 23-24 Ames Plan 2040 Sanitary Sewer Ext. (S 5ooth Ave County Line
Rd).pdf
Letter from Rognes Corp 11-26-25.pdf
117
118
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
November 20, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify the 2023/24 Ames Plan 2040 Sanitary Sewer Utility Infrastructure (S 500th
Avenue County Line Road) project was completed in an acceptable manner by Rognes Corp,
of Ankeny, Iowa, in the amount of $542,477.70 and was inspected by the Public Works
Department of the City of Ames, Iowa.
Sincerely,
Justin A. Clausen, PE, CPWP-M
Public Works Director
JAC/lbc
cc: City Clerk, Finance, Contractor, Administrative Services, Project File
119
120
ITEM #:22
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:PW
SUBJECT:2024/25 ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
This annual program combines sidewalk and pedestrian ramp improvements with additional
accessibility upgrades at traffic signals and other City-owned facilities. The program provides
for removing and replacing sidewalk intersection crosswalk panels and accessible ramps at
locations that fail to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for truncated
dome warning panels.
This program also includes retrofitting existing signalized traffic control devices with audible
and vibrotactile pushbuttons, as well as upgrading parking stalls to meet current accessibility
standards at any on-street location or in City-owned parking lots. Where feasible, this program
is combined with other roadway, traffic signal replacement, or shared use path improvement
projects for pedestrian ramp reconstruction. This project included six different locations,
as shown in the attached location map.
On May 13, 2025, City Council awarded the project to TK Concrete, Inc. of Pella, Iowa in the
amount of $88,250. Change Order No. 1 was administratively approved by staff in the amount
of $3,451.68 to reflect final field measured quantities. Construction was completed in the
amount of $91,701.68. The revenues and expenses for the project are as follows:
Revenues Expenses
2024/25 Accessibility
Enhancement (Road Use Tax)$90,933
2024/25 Accessibility
Enhancement (Local Option
Sales Tax)
$72,342
Design $23,500.00
Construction (this Council
action)$91,701.68
Design/Construction
Administration $20,000.00
Total $163,275 Total $135,201.68
The FY 2024/25 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) allocates $200,000 ($100,000 in Road Use
Tax and $100,000 in Local Option Sales Tax) to the Accessibility Enhancement Program
a n n u a l ly. Several small projects have been completed utilizing this funding leaving
$163,275 ($90,933 in Road Use Tax and $72,342 in Local Option Sales Tax) available for
funding this project. Remaining funding will be utilized for future Accessibility
121
Enhancement Program priorities.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the 2024/25 Accessibility Enhancement Program as completed by TK Concrete,
Inc., of Pella, IA, in the amount of $91,701.68.
2. Direct staff to pursue modifications to the project.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The project has now been 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, as noted above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Map.pdf
Certification Letter 24-25 Accessibility Enhancement Program.pdf
122
123
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
December 5, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify the 2024/25 Accessibility Enhancement Program project was completed in an
acceptable manner by TK Concrete, Inc., of Pella, Iowa, in the amount of $91,701.68 and was
inspected by the Public Works Department of the City of Ames, Iowa.
Sincerely,
Justin A. Clausen, PE, CPWP-M
Public Works Director
JAC/lbc
cc: City Clerk, Finance, Contractor, Administrative Services, Project File
124
To:Mayor and City Council
From:Mark O. Lambert, City Attorney
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Discussion on Municipal Code Chapter 14, Human Relations
regarding civil rights protection for gender identity
Item No. 23
MEMO
BACKGROUND:
At the November 18, 2025, joint meeting of the Ames City Council and the Ames
Human Rights Commission, State Senator Herman Quirmbach asked the Council
to consider adopting an ordinance providing civil rights protection for gender
identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations in Ames. The
Council directed that the matter be placed on a future agenda.
In 2007, the Iowa Legislature added “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as
protected classes under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Earlier this year, the Iowa
Legislature removed “gender identity” as a protected class under the law.
The first question is whether the Council has the authority to enact a civil
rights ordinance establishing gender identity as a protected class. The
answer to that question is “yes.”
The Iowa Civil Rights Act, Chapter 216 of the Iowa Code, specifically establishes
that local governments can enact local ordinances protecting civil rights, and that
such ordinances may include broader protections than state law, as long as such
local ordinance doesn’t conflict with state law. The law specifically states that the
Legislature is not “occupying the field” on this topic, and that a local government
can adopt an ordinance giving broader civil rights protection than the state law.
Here is the Iowa relevant Iowa Code section, with italicized emphasis
added:
216.19 Local laws implementing chapter.
1. All cities shall, to the extent possible, protect the rights of the citizens of this
state secured by the Iowa civil rights Act. Nothing in this chapter shall be
construed as indicating any of the following:
a. An intent on the part of the general assembly to occupy the field in
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
125
which this chapter operates to the exclusion of local laws not
inconsistent with this chapter that deal with the same subject matter.
b. An intent to prohibit an agency or commission of local government
having as its purpose the investigation and resolution of violations of
this chapter from developing procedures and remedies necessary to
insure the protection of rights secured by this chapter.
c. Limiting a city or local government from enacting any ordinance or
other law which prohibits broader or different categories of unfair or
discriminatory practices.
As an example, Iowa City has an ordinance that prohibits discrimination on the
basis of gender identity (along with other defined classes of individuals).
One question the Council must consider is how would such an ordinance be
enforced? Our current Human Relations ordinance (Chapter 14) does not include
enforcement language, and states that we refer complaints about discrimination
to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC – now a part of the Iowa Office of
Civil Rights). As gender identity is no longer a protected class under the Iowa
Civil Rights Act, any complaint received alleging discrimination on that basis
would not be able to be investigated by ICRC.
Iowa City has a staff person whose job is to investigate and process civil rights
complaints under its ordinance. The Iowa City ordinance contains no specific
penalty, so apparently default municipal infraction penalties would apply. If the
City of Ames were to adopt such an ordinance, the Council should
consider establishing violations as a municipal infraction and setting a civil
penalty level. Unless a higher penalty amount is specifically adopted, t he default
penalties for a municipal infraction in Ames are $30 for a first offense, $100 for
first repeat offense, and $200 for subsequent repeat offenses. (Section 1.9,
Ames Municipal Code). Iowa Code allows cities to establish civil penalties for
municipal infractions at not more than $750 for a first offense, and not more than
$1,000 for a repeat offense.
Please be aware that, upon determining that a violation has occurred, a
municipal infraction would have to be filed and prosecuted in court.
NEXT STEPS:
In summary, the Council first has to decide whether or not to direct staff to
proceed with drafting an ordinance for consideration. If so, the Council should
decide in advance how to enforce the ordinance, including:
1. Who would investigate allegations of discrimination
2. What level the civil penalty should be.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Iowa City Human Rights ordinance.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
126
chapter-14-human-relations-2024-2-supplement.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
127
128
129
130
131
CHAPTER 14 – Page 1
CHAPTER 14
HUMAN RELATIONS
Sec. 14.1. PURPOSE OF CHAPTER.
The purpose of this chapter is to implement the provisions of the Iowa Civil Rights Act and to further
provide for the general welfare of persons in the City of Ames, Iowa, by establishing a to undertake projects of
education to prevent discrimination and to effect cooperative undertakings with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission
and to aid in effectuating the purposes of the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
[State Law Ref. Iowa Code Sec. 216.1] (Ord. 3123, 3-26-91; Ord. 3377, 3-5-96; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19)
Sec. 14.2. DEFINITIONS.
When used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Commission" means the Ames Human Relations Commission created by this chapter.
(2) "Commissioner" means a member of the commission.
(3) "Disability" means the physical or mental condition of a person which constitutes a substantial
disability, and the condition of a person with a positive human immunodeficiency virus test result, a diagnosis of ac-
quired immune deficiency syndrome, a diagnosis of acquired immune deficiency syndrome-related complex, or any
other condition related to acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The inclusion of a condition related to a positive
human immunodeficiency virus test result in the meaning of "disability" under the provisions of this chapter does
not preclude the application of the provisions of this chapter to conditions resulting from other contagious or
infectious diseases.
[State Law ref. Iowa Code Sec. 216]
(4) “Gender Identity” means a gender-related identity of a person regardless of the person’s assigned
sex at birth.
(5) "Public accommodation" means each and every place, establishment, or facility of whatever kind,
nature, or class that caters or offers services, facilities, or goods for a fee or charge to nonmembers of any organiza-
tion or association utilizing the place, establishment, or facility, provided that any place, establishment, or facility
that caters or offers services, facilities, or goods to the nonmembers gratuitously shall be deemed a public
accommodation if the accommodation receives governmental support or subsidy. Public accommodation shall not
mean any bona fide private club or other place, establishment, or facility which is by its nature distinctly private,
except when such distinctly private place, establishment, or facility caters or offers services, facilities, or goods to
the nonmembers for fee or charge or gratuitously, it shall be deemed a public accommodation during such period.
"Public accommodation" includes each state and local government unit or tax-supported district of
whatever kind, nature, or class that offers services, facilities, benefits, grants or goods to the public, gratuitously or
otherwise. This paragraph shall not be construed by negative implication or otherwise to restrict any part or portion
of the pre-existing definition of the term "public accommodation".
(Ord. No. 2912, 12-18-84; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19)
(6) "Unfair practice" or "discriminatory practice" means those practices specified as unfair or
discriminatory in this chapter.
(Ord. 3123, 3-26-91; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19)
(7) "Sexual Orientation" means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
"Sexual orientation" does not include participation in acts which are prohibited by law.
(Ord. 3128, 5-28-91; Ord. 3377, 3-5-96 Ord. No. 4385; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19)
132
CHAPTER 14 – Page 2
Sec. 14.3. COMMISSION APPOINTED.
(1) Commission Appointed. The Ames Human Relations Commission shall consist of seven (7)
members appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council. Appointments shall take into consideration
the various racial, religious, cultural and social groups and geographical areas within the City of Ames in so far as
may be practicable. The term of office shall be three (3) years and shall begin April 1 of the fiscal year of
appointment, except that the Mayor may prescribe a shorter term for any appointment or reappointment in order to
stagger terms. Six (6) of the members shall serve 3-year terms, and one (1) of the members shall serve a special 1-
year term. Vacancies shall be filled for any unexpired term in the same manner as original appointments. Any
member or all members of the Commission may be removed from office at any time by the Mayor with the approval
of the City Council, for good cause. No member who has served two (2) full consecutive terms is eligible for
reappointment. The Commission shall elect one of their members to be chairperson, and develop their own rules of
procedure, not inconsistent with this chapter.
(Ord. No. 3820, 3-08-05; Ord. No. 3943, 2-19-08; Ord. No. 4129, 11-13-12; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19)
[State Law Ref. Iowa Code Sec. 216.3] (Ord. 3377, 3-5-96; Ord. No. 3943, 2-19-08; Ord. No. 4520, 02-27-24)
Sec. 14.4. COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.
The members of the Commission shall serve without salary, wages or other compensation provided that
they may receive reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred as allowed by the City Council pursuant
to such procedures and policies for the reimbursement of expenses as shall be established by the City of Ames from
time to time.
[State Law Ref. Iowa Code Sec. 216.4] (Ord. 3377, 3-5-96; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19)
Sec. 14.5. POWERS AND DUTIES.
The Commission shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) To investigate and study the existence, character, causes, and extent of discrimination in public
accommodations, employment, apprenticeship programs, on-the-job training programs, vocational schools, credit
practices, and housing in this city and to attempt the elimination of such discrimination by education.
(2) To issue such publications and reports of investigations and research as in the judgment of the
commission shall tend to promote good will among the various racial, religious, and ethnic groups of the City and
which shall tend to minimize or eliminate discrimination in public accommodations, employment, apprenticeship
and on-the-job training programs, vocational schools, career and technical programs, or housing because of race,
creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.
(Ord. 3128, 5-28-91; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19)
(3) To prepare and transmit to the Mayor and City Council from time to time, but not less often than
once each year, reports describing its proceedings, and the other work performed by the commission.
(4) To make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for such further legislation concerning
discrimination because of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation or
gender identity as it may deem necessary and desirable.
(Ord. 3128, 5-28-91; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19)
(5) To cooperate, within the limits of any appropriations made for its operations, with other agencies
or organizations, both public and private, whose purposes are consistent with those of this chapter, and on the
planning and conducting of programs designed to eliminate racial, religious, cultural, and intergroup tensions.
(6) To adopt, publish, amend, and rescind regulations consistent with and necessary for the
enforcement of this chapter.
(7) To receive, administer, dispense and account for any funds that may be voluntarily contributed to
the commission and any grants that may be awarded the commission for furthering the purposes of this chapter with
the approval of the City Council.
(8) To refer a complaint to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission under commission rules.
[State Law Ref. Iowa Code Sec. 216.5] (Ord. 3377, 3-5-96; Ord. No. 4385, 5-14-19).
133
To:Mayor and City Council
From:Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning and Housing
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Continue Hearing on Lease of City Property located East of 731 Billy
Sunday Road now known as Lot 3 of Billy Sunday Subdivision
Item No. 24
MEMO
The City Council set a date of Public Hearing for the lease of City Property
located East of 731 Billy Sunday Road now known as Lot 3 of Billy Sunday
Subdivision to Lamar Advertising Company for a digital billboard on City property.
City staff is working through final language for the lease agreement and requests
this hearing be continued to December 16, 2025.
KD/cmw
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
134
ITEM #:25
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:P&H
SUBJECT:ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR LANDSCAPING ROCK MULCH WITHIN
PLANTER AREAS
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
Representatives of the Iowa State University Research Park (ISURP) recently contacted City
Council with a request to consider a text amendment to allow the use of rock mulch where the
City standards require organic mulch material. The request is in response to a site condition
where rock was inappropriately used for some of the front yard landscaping areas. Other
areas of the site, such as the parking lot, are in compliance with the City landscaping
requirements for use of organic mulch.
City Council considered the request, authorizing a Zoning Text Amendment application
from the ISURP for changes to the landscaping standards regarding decorative rock for
use as landscape area mulch, which would then apply citywide on October 14.
The City’s landscape standards were comprehensively rewritten and approved by the City
Council in 2017. The City’s landscape standards focus on use of vegetation as ground cover
with specific minimum plantings for front yard landscaping and parking lot landscaping. With
adoption of the new standards, one of the questions discussed at that time was whether to
continue with the living ground cover and use of organic mulch in required planters compared
to a development community request to have an option to utilize rock. At that time, staff
described the benefits for plant health with organic material compared to rock and contrasted
the maintenance differences for the owner. Generally, rock is more expensive than organic
mulch and has less annual maintenance.
Staff also asked the City's landscape architect consultant to provide an opinion regarding the
use of mulch compared to rocks. Use of rock versus mulch varied by community and in the
landscape architect's professional opinion, mulch is better, but rock does not necessarily
impede plant vitality. It was emphasized that plant vitality is more dependent on having soil
with high organic content and performing general upkeep, rather than mulch type.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:
The City’s general standards are for all areas of a site that are landscaped areas must include
living ground cover or other plants materials. Mulch in planter areas with trees or shrubs is
acceptable as an alternative to living ground cover. The proposed change would allow
inorganic mulch material of decorative landscaping rock in lieu of organic mulch
material.
It is important to emphasize that use of rock as mulch would not serve as a substitute
f o r planted materials used as landscaping. Language has been incorporated to indicate
that areas of rock without plantings are not acceptable to meet the landscaping requirement.
No specification of the rock type is proposed with this change, but the landscape plan must
135
indicate what material is proposed for use in a landscape planter. Pictures of rock and organic
mulch planter examples are attached for reference.
The proposed change affects the following section of the City’s General Development
Standards of Article IV of the Chapter 29 Zoning Ordinance (new language is underlined).
29.403 (3) (D) Minimum planting standards.
(7) All required planters, bufferyards, and islands must include living groundcover. Foundation
planters may use inorganic or non-living materials for ground cover. Organic mulch may be
used in lieu of living ground cover beneath or around shrubs and trees.
a. An exception to utilize decorative landscape rock materials, in lieu of organic mulch, may be
approved for areas within required planters immediately around decorative plantings, shrubs
and trees. Details of the landscape rock material type and location shall be specified on the
landscape plan. Decorative plantings may be required within planters along with the use of
decorative landscape rock.
Decorative landscape rock in and of itself does not meet the definition of landscaping,
therefore, it may not be utilized in lieu of landscape plantings and is to be confined to defined
planter areas with shrubs, trees, and decorative plantings.
b. Decorative landscape rock materials are subject to the standards and limitations of other
zoning districts, such as CSC and the University Impact Overlays.
Planning and Zoning Commission:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment at its
November 5 meeting. Commissioners discussed the examples of planters with rock materials
compared to mulch. Commissioners expressed concerns about the general health of
plantings, depth and type of rock used for mulch, the appearance of rock planters (specifically
if landscape material died or were not present), and the overall aesthetics of the proposal.
Staff described that code enforcement does not prioritize landscape maintenance and a
refresh of plantings typically does not occur unless a subsequent permit for the site is
reque ste d . The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend denial of the text amendment.
Generally, the Commissioners were concerned about its city-wide application to parking lot
and front yard landscaping and believed the current standard was a better standard.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve on first reading an ordinance amending the allowed landscaping planter mulch
requirements to allow use of decorative rock landscape material as mulch consistent
with the attached draft ordinance.
2. Direct staff to modify the proposed standards and approve the ordinance on first reading.
3. Request additional information from staff and take no action to approve on first reading.
4. Deny the application for a zoning text amendment. (Planning and Zoning Commission
Recommendation)
136
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The issue of landscape planter materials is a city-wide issue and not unique to any one zoning
district. As such, the request would modify standards city-wide and benefit ISURP as the
applicant. The use of decorative rock versus organic mulch is primarily a balancing of
aesthetics, plant vitality, and cost.
Staff believes that with intentional landscape design focused on the base requirements
of planting and limited use of mulch combined with the organic soil content
requirements, the decorative rock mulch option will likely be a successful alternative
for developments. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council approve Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Rock Mulch Attachment Landscape Examples.pdf
Ordinance-ZTA Minimum Planting Standards-Mulch.PDF
137
Landscaping Examples (outside of Ames)
138
139
140
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY
AMENDING SECTION 29.403(3)(D)(7) THEREOF,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING MINIMUM
PLANTING STANDARDS FOR LANDSCAPE
MULCH REQUIREMENTS, REPEALING ANY AND
ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES
IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH
CONFLICT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and
the same is hereby amended by amending Section 29.403(3)(D)(7) as follows:
Sec. 29.403. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING.
* * *
(3) General Requirements All Sites.
The following standards are required on all residential and non-residential sites.
* * *
(D) Minimum planting standards.
* * *
(7) All required planters, bufferyards, and islands must
include living ground cover. Foundation planters may use inorganic or non-living
materials for ground cover. Organic mulch may be used in lieu of living ground
cover beneath or around shrubs and trees.
(a) An exception to utilize decorative landscape
rock materials, in lieu of organic mulch, may be approved for areas within
required planters immediately around decorative plantings, shrubs and trees.
Details of the landscape rock material type and location shall be specified on the
landscape plan. Decorative plantings may be required within planters along with
the use of decorative landscape rock.
Decorative landscape rock in and of itself does not meet the definition of
landscaping, therefore, it may not be utilized in lieu of landscape plantings and is
to be confined to defined planter areas with shrubs, trees, and decorative
plantings.
(b) Decorative landscape rock materials are subject to
the standards and limitations of other zoning districts, such as CSC and the
University Impact Overlays.
141
Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
____________________________________________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
Passed on:
I, Renee Hall, City Clerk of the City of Ames, Iowa, hereby certify
that the above and foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No. ______________,
passed by the City Council of said City at the meeting held on
______________________and signed by the Mayor on
___________________________, and published in the Ames Tribune on
___________________________.
________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
142
ITEM #:26
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:P&H
SUBJECT:REZONE OF 23959 580TH AVENUE FROM "II" (INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL)
TO "GI" (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT WITH MASTER PLAN
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
Jason Dietzenbach, Avec Design + Build, on behalf of Larson Leasing LC, is requesting
to rezone the property at 23959 580th Avenue from Intensive Industrial (II) to General
Industrial (GI) with a Master Plan. The property was annexed into the City in summer 2021.
The City supported annexation to allow for its reuse consistent with City standards due to its
prominent gateway type of location.
The 18.65-acre parcel is the former Caremoli food manufacturing facility. It was previously
developed in the County and includes one main building approximately 27,000 square feet in
size and six other additions/connected buildings ranging between 5,000 and 9,000 square
feet. The site was rezoned in November 2021 to Intensive Industrial (II) to reflect the intended
industrial nature of the broader east industrial area of Prairie View. Attached is a zoning
location map and an addendum with more background information.
The current zoning has a more limited set of allowable uses compared to the requested
GI zoning and is focused on accommodating traditional industrial types of uses. The
requested GI Zone allows a broader mix of allowable uses manufacturing, wholesale, office,
institutional, and some retail trade uses.
GI was a zoning district originally established in 2000 to address a broad range of existing
uses within Ames on small and large sites and was not planned for expansion areas of the
City. Generally, the City has relied upon Planned Industrial, Research Park Innovation District,
and Intensive Industrial zoning districts to more specifically guide future industrial development
as the City has expanded, and retained GI zoning only for legacy areas of the City because of
its diverse range of uses.
REZONING MASTER PLAN:
The applicant has had limited s uccess in tenanting the building under the II zoning
standards, primarily because of the nature of it being a previously developed site for a
specific type of industrial use. The owner believes the broader range of GI uses,
including non-traditional industrial uses, is desirable for the site, and has therefore
requested rezoning to GI.
While the applicant desires broadening of the allowed uses at the site, City staff
requested the applicant propose an accompanying Master Plan (see attached). Staff
believes the Master Plan is needed to address the goals of the City for site
improvements and appropriate uses at this gateway location. The applicant agreed to
propose a Master Plan with the rezoning to address site improvements and use
limitations.
143
A rezoning agreement to finalize the Master Plan details that are described herein and shown
on the Master Plan attachment will be brought to Council for consideration no later than the
third reading of this rezoning. The rezoning agreement will state the requirements of the
Master Plan, including:
Site Improvements
The Master Plan indicates the locations of building, parking, storage, and maneuvering areas
based upon a combination of County approvals and existing conditions. With the Master Plan,
91 gravel and paved parking spaces are recognized as existing and permitted to serve as
parking areas with reuse of the site. The Plan includes requirements for when paving and
parking lot stripping is triggered, and landscaping requirements associated with new uses and
improvements.
The number of spaces provided are sufficient for a mix of manufacturing, warehousing, office,
and retail uses. The Master Plan illustrates one potential breakdown of the buildings' square
footage with selected uses from those allowed, but does not limit the site to only this
breakdown. Any use allowed by the Master Plan may occupy the existing buildings if it does
not create a need for more parking than is provided.
Uses
In addition to manufacturing and warehousing uses allowed in II, the Master Plan also allows
for Wholesale Trade, Sports Practice Facility, and Retail Service and Trade. Retail Service
and Trade uses exceeding 3,000 square feet and Sports Practice Facilities require a Special
Use Permit. Offices, except medical and dental, are also permitted. To ensure industrial
uses are the primary use of the site, the Master Plan requires no more than 40% of the
square footage of the buildings shall be retail sales and service or sports practice
facility uses.
Keeping in mind the City’s intent for use of the site, the proposed Master Plan restricts most
miscellaneous uses allowed in GI, such as institutional uses, schools, day care, religious, and
major event entertainment facilities that may not be compatible with the II zoning of the larger
Prairie View Industrial Center. It also prohibits salvage yards and towing uses, which would be
in conflict with the City’s view of the area as a gateway.
The Master Plan does allow vehicle service facilities (gas stations), automotive and marine
craft trade, and other industrial service uses related to heavy trucks and equipment such as
repair and sales. For these and any use that is to be established outside the existing
buildings, or as a new building, the Master Plan requires full compliance with City
standards for landscaping, paving, and other site improvements. This includes any
outdoor display and storage areas. Establishment of these outdoor uses may not displace
the otherwise legal nonconforming parking spaces shown.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the request at its
November 19, 2025 meeting. The Commission's discussion focused on the compatibility of
industrial uses with retail, office, and sports practice uses allowed in the GI Zone that may be
mixed together on the site instead of separate properties.
144
Staff noted that this site is unique in that there may be multiple uses on the same site,
whereas in other GI areas there may be multiple different uses on the same block. In this
situation, the Building Code, Fire Code, and Fire Suppression system requirements are the
fundamental instruments for ensuring safety rather than property separation. The Special Use
Permit requirement for retail sales and service over 3,000 square feet and sports practice
facilities will also help address any compatibility issues.
One specific concern was whether agricultural chemical storage would be permitted.
Staff stated that manufacturing and processing uses that involve Standard Industrial
Classification Major Industrial Groups 28 & 29 are not permitted in the GI Zone. This
includes manufacturing of chemicals and through chemical processes, including
agricultural chemicals, and manufacturing involving petroleum products.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve on first reading the rezoning of the property located at 23959 580th Avenue
from “II” Intensive Industrial to “GI” General Industrial with Master Plan subject to the
condition that a Rezoning Agreement for the Master Plan is reviewed and approved by
City Council no later than the Third Reading of the rezoning ordinance.
2. Direct the applicant to modify the Master Plan use limitations or other site improvement
conditions and return with an updated Master Plan for Council approval.
3. Deny the request to rezone the property located at 23959 580th Avenue from “II”
Intensive Industrial to “GI” General Industrial with Master Plan.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
While the existing II zoning is consistent with intent for industrial development with
Prairie View Industrial Center, it has not resulted in substantial reuse of the site. The
applicant believes the GI Zone will better support re-tenanting of the site as multi-
tenant facility rather than a single industrial use.
This is a unique circumstance for the east industrial area because of its previously
developed nature. Through the Master Plan process, establishing improvement
expectations and suitable allowable uses, the rezoning can be found to be consistent
with Plan 2040 expectations for quality industrial sites and better serve as a gateway to
Ames and the Prairie View Industrial Center. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City
Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative 1.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Addendum
Existing Zoning and Location Map.pdf
Master Plan.pdf
Ames Plan 2040 Excerpt and Future Land Use Map.pdf
Applicant Request Letter.pdf
145
ADDENDUM
REZONING BACKGROUND:
Site History. The current owner bought the vacant food manufacturing facility with the
intent of repurposing it. The property was annexed into the City in the summer of 2021.
The City supported annexation to allow for its reuse consistent City standards. The
prominent location as a gateway to the planned Prairie View Industrial Center north of the
site was part of this consideration and controlling types of use and site improvements that
further this intent was desirable compared to County use limitations.
The annexation also allowed rezoning of the property to support reuse of the existing
buildings. At the time of annexation, the subject property was assigned an “A” Agricultural
zoning classification. The property was then rezoned to Intensive Industrial (II) in
November of 2021, consistent with the property’s Plan 2040 “Employment” designation
and the City’s intent for large scale industrial uses east of I -35 for the Prairie View
Industrial Area. At that time, the II Zone District was a newly created industrial zoning
district to be used for properties located within this development area.
Existing Uses of Land. This property is the former Caremoli site, a food manufacturing
facility, developed in the County. Properties to the north and west are undeveloped and
part of 2021 annexation. Highway 30 is located to the south. To the east are
commercial/light industrial properties located in unincorporated Story County.
Land uses that occupy the subject property and other surrounding properties are
described in the following table.
Direction from Subject Property Existing Primary Land Uses
Subject Property Developed; Former Caremoli Facility
North Turing Drive; Crop Production
East Light Industrial/Commercial
South US Highway 30; Crop Production
West Crop Production
Ames Plan 2040 Designation. Ames Plan 2040 designates the property with the
“Employment” designation, which supports industrial zoning districts and this the rezoning
request to II, Intensive Industrial. See attachment for a Plan excerpt and map. Standard
zoning categories listed for the Employment land use designation include “GI” (General
Industrial), “RI” (Research Park Industrial) and “II” (Intensive Industrial) as the designation
is meant to include a wide range of industrial uses.
146
The Employment designation can include high impact, heavy industrial uses as allowed
in II or traditional manufacturing, warehouse, and office uses allowed in GI. The
designation also includes goals for attractive, well function industrial sites with appro priate
landscaping and screening. Staff believes that with this previously developed site,
the GI rezoning with the Master Plan addressing site conditions and limited uses
can be found consistent with Plan 2040. Reuse of the site with II uses has proven
difficult compared to planned use of undeveloped land in this area with II uses.
Proposed Zoning. A request to “GI” (General Industrial) is consistent with the proposed
re-use of the property and existing buildings. While the zoning of the larger Prairie View
Industrial Center is II, the GI zoning will facilitate reuse of the subject previously developed
property and aesthetic improvements, which will benefit the area.
Infrastructure
No City utilities will immediately serve this site. The existing structures can continue to
use rural water service provided by the Iowa Regional Utilities Association (IRUA). The
site includes an onsite water tank to assist in meeting fire protection requ irements. The
site is served by an onsite septic system.
Limitations on availability of sewer service were known at the time of annexation and are
not changed with this rezoning.
The property currently maintains a Story County address. The address will be updated to
a City address when new tenant spaces are created and permits issued.
Findings of Fact. Based upon an analysis of the proposed rezoning and laws pertinent
to the proposed map amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact:
1. The subject property is owned by Larson Leasing LC. The rezoning request and
statement of justification is included as Attachment D.
2. Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1507(1) allows the property owner to initiate an
amendment to the Official Zoning Map. The rezoning process may require a Master
Plan.
3. The subject properties are consistent with the designation of “Employment” identified
on the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map.
4. Expectations for site improvements with reuse of the buildings, or if new development
is proposed, is established by the accompanying Master Plan. This ensures
incremental improvements to the quality of the site.
5. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel is consistent with what is
already anticipated for the area and the near adjacent Prairie View Industrial Center.
Public Notice. The City provided mailed notice to all property owners within 400 feet of
147
the subject property prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in accordance
with the notification requirements of Chapter 29.
148
A
A
II
IIII
5
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
TURING ST
58
0
T
H
ST
HIGHWAY 30 R A M P
S
TELLER
AVE
US HIGHWAY 30
241ST ST
Zoning Map
0 0.1 0.20.05
Miles
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
LINCOLN
24TH
13THONTARIO
INTERSTATE
35
D
A
Y
T
O
N
ST
A
N
G
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
16TH
GEORGEW CARVER
SO
U
T
H
DA
K
O
T
A
AIRPORTHY
L
A
N
D
LINCOLN
WAY
¯Legend
Parcels
Subject Properties
ROW
City Boundaries
Zoning Districts
Agricultural Zone "A" (sec
29.600)
Intensive Industrial Zone "II"
(sec 29.904)
Government/Airport District
"S-GA" (sec 29.1002)
23959 580th
Avenue
149
58
0
T
H
A
V
E
TURING ST
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
20
'
-
0
"
20'-0"418'-0"
20'-0"
14
3
'
-
0
"
29
9
'
-
6
"
40
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
12
5
'
-
1
0
"
409'-10"40'-0"
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
20'-0"848'-0"20'-0"449'-10"
1,
1
0
8
'
-
0
"
ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING
GRAVEL TO BE REMOVED
(0.07 ACRES)
BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED
BY OWNER (.015 ACRE),
AT GRADING PAVING TO
REMAIN (0.11 ACRE),
NET CHANGE (-.04 ACRE)
78
'
-
0
"
EXISTING TRUCK SCALE
14
3
'
-
0
"
94
5
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
27560 SF
6 PS REQ.
6500 SF
13 PS REQ.
5334 SF
1 PS REQ.
2050 SF
1 PS REQ.
8100 SF
17 PS REQ.
8180 SF
9 PS REQ.
9288 SF
19 PS REQ.
3090 SF
10 PS REQ.
2592 SF
9 PS REQ.
1
119'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
81
'
-
0
"
20
7
'
-
0
"
35'-2"
9
21
11
23
24
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
1
6
12
7
2
99
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
45
'
-
0
"
45
'
-
0
"
18'-0"63'-0"
54'-0"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
54
'
-
0
"
2
2
WATER HOLDING TANK
COVERED LOADING DOCK
24'-0"
1
FH
4 4
4
6
5
EXISTING GRAVEL
EQUIPMENT STORAGE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EQUIPMENT STORAGE &
VEHICLE MANEUVERING
4
5
PIV
6
6
225' -6"
233' -0"
USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION KEY (IBC-CH.3)
ASSEMBLY A-3, RECREATION
BUSINESS B, OFFICE
FACTORY F-1, MODERATE HAZARD
STORAGE S-1, MODERATE HAZARD
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI)
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS (TABLE 29.406(2)):
RETAIL SALES & SERVICE
OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL SERVICE
WAREHOUSES
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:
A-3, RETAIL SALES & SERVICE
B, OFFICE
F-1, INDUSTRIAL SERVICE
S-1, WAREHOUSES
MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES (ADA-CH.5)
76-100 = 4 STANDARD, 1 VAN = 5 TOTAL (STANDARD + VAN)
2 SPACES/1,000 SF
1 SPACE/300 SF
1 SPACE/500 SF
1 SPACE/5,000
35 SPACES (17,468 SF)
19 SPACES (5,682 SF)
29 SPACES (14,600 SF)
7 SPACES (34,944 SF)
90 SPACES REQUIRED
75 EXISTING LEGAL SPACES
2 NEW SPACES (NEW PAVING)
14 NEW SPACES (EXISTING PAVING)
91 SPACES SHOWN
NEW GENERAL ZONING NOTES
A. THE AREAS DELINEATED AS GRAVEL OR PAVED PARKING
SPACES ON THIS MASTER PLAN (91 SPACES) ARE
RECOGNIZED AS LEGAL NONCONFORMING PARKING
SPACES.
B. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS & ACCESSIBLE ROUTES TO
THE BUILDING ENTRANCE ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAVED.
PARKING LOT RESTRIPING AND PAVING OF ACCESSIBLE
SPACES WILL REQUIRE A ZONING PERMIT PRIOR TO WORK
AND IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO RE-TENANTING OF EXISTING
BUILDINGS AND OCCUPANCY.
C. ALLOWED USES AS INDICATED ON THE MASTER PLAN ARE
PERMITTED WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDINGS IF THEY DO
NOT CREATE A NEED FOR MORE PARKING THAN IS
PROVIDED.
D. NEW USES OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS OR NEW
BUILDINGS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE PARKING
SPACES SHOWN ON THE MASTER PLAN. ANY VEHICLE
DISPLAY, PARKING, AND STORAGE AREA FOR THESE USES
SHALL BE A NEWLY CREATED AREA MEETING CITY
STANDARDS INCLUDING DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING, AND
PAVING, ETC.
E. VEHICLE PARKING OR MANEUVERING AREAS NOT SHOWN
ON THE MASTER PLAN REQUIRE A MINOR SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR ZONING PERMIT, AS APPLICABLE,
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS INCLUDING
PARKING DIMENSIONS, PAVING, AND LANDSCAPING
STANDARDS.
F. A ZONING PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ANY
OUTDOOR STORAGE OR DISPLAY AREAS, INCLUDING ON
THE EXISTING GRAVEL VEHICLE MANEUVERING AREAS.
G. IF ONE (1) ACRE OR MORE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA IS ADDED
OR REPLACED, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR THE SITE. IF ONE (1) ACRE OF AREA IS
DISTURBED, A IDNR NPDES GP#2 AND COSESCO PERMIT
WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE.
H. IF UNDER ONE (1) ACRE CUMULATIVE IS PAVED, & THE
PAVED ARE DOES NOT EXPAND BEYOND THE EXISTING
GRAVEL AREA, IT MAY BE PERMITTED THROUGH A ZONING
PERMIT PROCESS RATHER THAN SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN.
I. PARKING LOT RESTRIPING WILL REQUIRE A ZONING
PERMIT PRIOR TO WORK.
J. ANY NEW ADDITIONS OR BUILDINGS WILL REQUIRE A SITE
SURVEY TO ESTABLISH PARCEL/LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.
K. THE ADDRESS WILL BE UPDATED TO A CITY OF AMES
ADDRESS WHEN NEW TENANT SPACES ARE CREATED &
PERMITS ARE ISSUED.
L. EXISTING TREES ALONG THE HIGHWAY 30 FRONTAGE
SHALL BE MAINTAINED. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AS
PRACTICABLE MAY BE REQUIRED IN THIS AREA THAT
COINCIDES WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
M. REUSE OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND USE OF
PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED PARKING AND MANEUVERING
AREAS DO NOT REQUIRE FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING
COMPLIANT WITH CITY STANDARDS ALONG TURING. ANY
ADDITIONAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE TURING
FRONTAGE SHALL REQUIRE FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING.
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE USES
(TABLE 29.901(2) - (WITH PROPOSED EXCLUSIONS)
USE CATEGORY PROPOSED EXCLUSIONS APPROVAL REQUIRED APPROVAL AUTHORITY
OFFICE USES
OFFICE USES EXCEPT MEDIAL & DENTAL SERVICES SDP MINOR STAFF
TRADE USES
RETAIL SALES & SERVICES *** SDP MINOR / SP STAFF / ZBA
GENERAL SERVICES GREATER THAN ONE 3,000 SF USE PER SITE REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FROM THE ZBA
BANQUET HALLS, EXHIBITION SDP MINOR STAFF
& MEETING AREAS - WHEN COMBINED WITH MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING INDUSTRIAL USE OF THE SAME LOT OR PARCEL
WHOLESALE TRADE SDP MINOR STAFF
INDUSTRIAL USES
MANUFACTURING/PROCESSING SDP MINOR STAFF
EXCEPT MAJOR INDUSTRIAL GROUPS 28 & 29
WAREHOUSING / FREIGHT STORAGE SDP MINOR STAFF
INDUSTRIAL SERVICE EXCEPT SALVAGE YARDS SDP MINOR STAFF
EXCEPT TOWING AND VEHICLE STORAGE
INCLUDING AUTO & TRUCK SALVAGE & WRECKING
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES
PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES SP ZBA
MISCELLANEOUS USES
VEHICLE SERVICING FACILITIES SP ZBA
SPORTS FACILITIES (INDOOR ONLY) SP ZBA
ROCK CLIMBING FACILITIES (INDOOR ONLY) SP ZBA
NOTES:
1. TO ENSURE INDUSTRIAL USES ARE PRIMARY USE OF THE SITE, NO MORE THAN 40% OF THE BUILDING USE SHALL BE RETAIL SALES AND
SERVICE OR SPORTS PRACTICE FACILITY USES.
2. EXCLUDED USES: SALVAGE YARDS, TOWING AND VEHICLE STORAGE, RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION, WASTE PROCESSING AND
TRANSFER, CHILD DAYCARE FACILITIES AND VOCATIONAL & TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, DETENTION FACILITIES,
AND MAJOR EVENT ENTERTAINMENT. (WE BELIEVE THESE ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT FOR THE AREA BASED ON PAST DISCUSSIONS
AND THE INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL ZONING THAT APPLIES TO THE LARGER AREA.)
EXISTING
BUILDING (W/ L.D.) 1.92 ACRES
EXISTING PAVING 1.55 ACRES
TOTAL EXISTING 3.47 ACRES
NEW
BUILDING (W/ L.D.) 1.72 ACRES
EXISTING PAVING 1.66 ACRES
NEW PAVING (WEST) 0.02 ACRES
TOTAL EXISTING 3.40 ACRES
IMPERVIOUS AREA
RETAIL-TO-BUILDING TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN
17,468 SF / 118,483 SF = 14.74%
USE PERCENTAGES
0'120'30'60'
AVEC Design+Build
131 Main Street
Ames, IA 50010
515-233-4641
SITE AND BUILDING CODE EVALUATION FOR
REZONING
SITE AND BUILDING CODE EVALUATION FOR REZONING
NOVEMBER 7, 2025
23959 580th Ave
Ames, IA 50010
SCALE:
TRUE
1" = 60'-0"1 OVERALL SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN NOTES
1 ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING
2 NEW PARKING AS NEEDED BY NEW TENANT
3 EXISTING PARKING LOCATIONS
4 EXISTING PAVEMENT
5 LEGAL NONCONFORMING GRAVE
6 NEW PAVED PARKING
DISCLAIMER:
GENERAL DIMENSIONS BASED ON
EXISTING INFORMATION AVAILABLE.
NO SURVEY WAS PERFORMED
150
Emp
OS
5
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
HIGHWAY30 RAMP
S
TE
L
L
E
R
AV
E
US HIGHWAY 30
241ST ST
Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map
0 0.1 0.20.05
Miles
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
LINCOLN
24TH
13THONTARIO
INTERSTATE
35
D
A
Y
T
O
N
ST
A
N
G
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
16TH
GEORGEW CARVER
SO
U
T
H
DA
K
O
T
A
AIRPORTHY
L
A
N
D
LINCOLN
WAY
¯Legend
Parcels
Subject Properties
ROW
City Boundaries
Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use
Designations
Employment (Emp)
Open Space
23959 580th
Avenue
151
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 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 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
» Ensure truck traffic and transportation capacity is
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.
APPL ICABLE EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES
»GI General Industrial PI Planned Industrial
»RI Research Park Industrial
»II Intensive Industrial
high employment intensity.
adequately addressed in siting new large industrial facilities.
support resource and environmentally conscious uses, minimize water and sewer capacity demand.
152
avecdesignbuild.com 131 Main Street, Ames, IA 50010 515.233.4641
September 11, 2025
Kelly Diekmann
Planning Department
515 Clark Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
Rezoning of 23959 580th Avenue, Ames, IA 50010
Dear Kelly,
This letter accompanies the Rezoning with Master Plan Application Form.
Overview
We reviewed the site and building(s) for potential tenant uses per the allowed General Industrial (GI) zoning. A
mixed use of Office, Retail Sales and Service, Industrial Service, and Warehouse was used. Our evaluation
shows that the existing site has adequate parking and that fire separation between tenants can be achieved.
Reasons for Requesting Rezoning
We are requesting rezoning of the property from Intensive Industrial (II) to General Industrial (GI) to allow for a
broader range of industrial uses, thereby increasing the site’s potential utilization and supporting economic
development. The proposed rezoning will provide flexibility for future growth while maintaining compatibility with
surrounding properties.
Consistency with Ames Plan 2040
Rezoning from Intensive Industrial (II) to General Industrial (GI) is consistent with the goals of the Ames Plan
2040. Specifically, this change will:
• Reduce potential land-use conflicts between neighboring properties.
• Promote more efficient and productive use of the land.
• Aligning future infrastructure demand with community objectives.
• Serve as an effective transitional buffer in areas identified for future mixed or changing uses.
Overall, the proposed rezoning supports the City’s long-term planning objectives and encourages orderly and
compatible industrial development.
Respectfully,
Jason Dietzenbach, AIA
Architect/Partner
Avec Design, Inc.
153
ITEM #:27
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:P&H
SUBJECT:MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADAPTIVE REUSE PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AT 2615 GRAND AVENUE
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, an Adaptive Reuse Plan (ADP) was adopted for the North Grand Mall site, which
contained allowances to waive certain parking and landscaping standards. Ed Kaizer,
representing the owner of 2615 Grand (Grand 1350 LLC), is requesting an amendment
to the 2007 Adaptive Reuse Plan and approval of a Major Site Development Plan to
allow a fast-food restaurant (KFC) with a drive-thru on the property, which was
previously a US Bank location.
The proposed new fast-food project alters the current approved ADP in regard to the
total number of parking stalls and site circulation, resulting in the need for an
amendment with a Major Site Development Plan and waivers.
A location map showing the subject property and the ADP boundaries is attached. More
information regarding the ADP and past amendments is included in the addendum.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The building site is a 0.18 acre parcel that is an island within the overall "Mall" site. The Mall
site is divided into multiple ownerships between the original mall area and the redeveloped
mall area. The subject site is a separate parcel surrounded by a property under the same
ownership that includes shared parking stalls and access aisles. Parking for the use and drive-
thru circulation will affect this abutting property under the same ownership. The changes do
not affect the layout of the mall site to the north under separate ownership.
The site contains the bank building, former bank drive-thru area, and three parking spaces on
the south side of the building. The existing brick building will be retained and reused for
the new restaurant. Excerpts from the site plan including building elevations are attached. An
addendum includes more information on the modifications to the building and site design
elements.
Several conditions are proposed requiring a lighting plan, additional directional signage, and
landscaping prior to occupancy. These are further discussed in the addendum. The primary
issue for reuse related to the site is the proposal for circulation of the drive-thru and
additional reduction in required parking.
Site Circulation and Drive-Thru Design
Reuse of the site for a fast-food restaurant was complicated by how to queue vehicles for the
drive-thru without impeding the general circulation within the site. The proposed design directs
traffic to approach the drive-thru from the south. The menu board is located on the southeast
corner of the building, parallel to Grand Avenue. The drive-thru lane adjacent to the building
154
will be one-way and also serve as an access aisle for angled parking. Once ordering is
complete, vehicles will then turn left around the north end of the building to access the pick-up
window and exit to the main mall parking lot driveway.
Staff has reviewed multiple iterations of how to configure a drive-thru to function appropriately
and meet queuing and circulation interests. With vehicles approaching from the south and
following the proposed directional signage, staff believes that adequate queueing will
exist and that the primary drive aisles of the parking area will remain unobstructed.
Due to a limited turning radius around the building's south and east sides, vehicles traveling
east cannot turn left to enter the drive-thru. Staff has proposed a condition to discourage
drivers from approaching the drive-thru at this location. Additional striping on the pavement
near the menu board and a diverter will delineate the drive aisle and reinforce right-turn-only
movement at this location to emphasize that drive-thru vehicles circulate from the south.
Directional signage on the pavement will direct this traffic to turn right before reaching this
point and loop around the off-site parking area south of the building to enter the queue. Staff
proposes a condition that similar signage be installed at the southern entrance to the off-site
parking area to reinforce this routing and prevent vehicles from attempting to enter the queue
near the building. A drive-thru directional sign at the south end of the parking lot may also be
provided.
To approve the proposed drive-thru configuration, a waiver of the 5-foot drive-thru
setback requirement is required with the ADP amendment. The parcel's "island"
configuration would not permit conformance to the typical drive-thru setback standards as the
queue crosses property lines.
Parking
The original ADP and subsequent amendments have addressed parking as an overall
requirement of the combined mall properties that are governed by the ADP. All parking is
considered shared within the context of the ADP with a set minimum number of spaces for the
overall site to serve the specific uses allowed within the ADP.
The result of the proposed fast food plan is a net loss of 6 parking spaces for the
overall ADP due to a change in the configuration of the parking (change from a two-way
access aisle to one-way angled parking along the drive-thru). This requires Council to
grant a waiver to modify the minimum parking allowed with the ADP.
The proposed fast food use requires 1 less parking space than the prior bank use. The
reconfiguration of the parking lot is what results in the need for the parking waiver, not
the change in use.
WAIVERS:
Since City Council has already made the determination of the long-term benefits of the
redevelopment of the site with the 2007 ADP, the amendment requires Council to only
consider the requested waivers to the Development Standards and determine if they
believe it is in the interest of the neighborhood and the City to approve them. Approval
of the Major Site Development Plan, as proposed, will approve the three requested
waivers listed below.
155
The specific waivers requested include:
1. Drive-Thru Setback. The applicant requests waiver of the 5-foot setback for drive-
thrus from property lines to allow queuing across properties under common
ownership. While the setback is not met from the subject property’s property lines, it is
met from all exterior property lines and property lines not under common ownership.
2. Parking. The applicant requests a reduction of 6 spaces and approval of 1,720 total
parking spaces on the site for the proposed and existing mix of uses. The
proposed use itself has sufficient parking on-site and nearby, but the overall ADP site is
short of required parking for all uses established with the original approval and
subsequent amendments. Through approval of the requested amendment to the ADP,
City Council would permit the continued waiver for reduction of overall parking
requirements.
3. Landscaping. The applicant requests City Council determine that the landscaping
as shown on the site plan is adequate for the purpose of enhancing the site and
supporting reinvestment, waiving full landscaping standards. A new drive-thru
island will be landscaped with grass and two overstory trees. The building site currently
has no landscaping. This landscaping significantly increases landscaped area. Staff
believes this is the most landscaping that can be practicably added to the site, given that
proposed improvements are limited to this area.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request at its November 19, 2025,
meeting. The primary focus was on the reconfiguration of the parking and drive-thru access.
The Commission wanted to ensure the accessible parking, which is located across the drive-
thru lane from the building, was permitted because of its separation from the front door and
location crossing through the drive-thru. Staff responded that, at this time, the City's
Inspections Division staff considered it compliant with the Building Code because it is located
along an accessible route. Striping and a sloped ramp will be added to guide pedestrians from
the parking to the entrance. The spaces could be relocated if an additional accessible route is
defined for a different location of the spaces. Staff has also proposed a condition to add a
painted stop bar in front of the ordering board so that drive-thru traffic does not block the
sidewalk and parking lot crossing that occurs at the southeast corner of the building.
The Commission also took an interest in the function of the angled parking stalls and their
transition to 90 degree stall to the south of the menu board ordering location. Staff reviewed
the overlap of a drive-thru lane and access aisle and noted that while it is not ideal, is it not
prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance and is a common configuration for other drive-thrus.
A Commissioner also asked if other improvements to the larger ADP site were triggered by the
proposal or could otherwise be required. Staff did not revisit the overall scope of the mall
property when reviewing this proposal; the review was confined to the footprint of this project.
Prior amendments did trigger other site enhancements, such as landscaping and walkway
connections. Staff responded that this project did not trigger any upgrades to other parking or
common areas based upon the prior ADP conditions.
156
The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the amendment to the Adaptive Reuse Plan and Major Site Development Plan
for 2615 Grand Avenue subject to the following conditions:
a. A painted stop bar shall be added in front of the ordering board so that drive-thru
traffic does not block the sidewalk and pedestrian parking lot crossing in this area.
b. Directional signage be installed at the southern entrance to the drive-thru to direct
traffic prior to occupancy.
c. Prior to Occupancy, work with Planning staff to define the painted area and diverter
options at the southeast corner of the building to deter vehicle entering the drive-
thru queuing area.
d. The 8 shrubs along the site frontage with Grand are replanted prior to occupancy.
e. A lighting plan compliant with City standards is submitted for review and approval
by the Planning Division.
2. Approve the amendment to the Adaptive Reuse Plan and Major Site Development Plan
for 2615 Grand Avenue with modified conditions.
3. Deny the amendment to the Adaptive Reuse Plan and Major Site Development Plan for
2615 Grand Avenue.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In reviewing the proposed amendment to the Adaptive Reuse Plan/Major Site Development
Plan, staff prioritized review of the circulation for the site. The proposed plan accommodates a
drive-thru use that does not impact the overall circulation of the site and creates a new
restaurant space that will be complementary to the uses at the mall and provide services to the
residents of north Ames.
The overall benefit of adding new uses to the site support findings for approval of the
Adaptive Reuse Plan amendment, even with the granting of waivers as requested to
facilitate the design. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council adopt Alternative #1, as described above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
ADDENDUM KFC.pdf
Location Map.pdf
Site Plan Excerpts.pdf
Adaptive Reuse Plan and Major Site Development Plan Criteria.pdf
157
ADDENDUM:
ADP Plan Background
In 2007, City Council approved an Adaptive Reuse Plan (ADP) for North Grand Mall. An
ADP allows for development flexibility (waivers) for redevelopment of economically
significant commercial properties or historic properties. The entire Mall site from 24 th
Street to 30th Street, including a small parcel on the west side of Ferndale Avenue, and
the subject 2615 Grand site, were included within the ADP. The area the ADP applies to
is zoned Planned Regional Commercial (PRC).
While the ADP site encompasses multiple parcels and ownerships, it views all included
properties as a single development area for the purpose of shared parking, access, and
landscaping amenities. Additionally, the ADP includes development parameters for
redoing parking lots and constructing new buildings consistent with the Plan.
In 2012, an amended ADP for the entire site was approved to facilitate redevelopment of
the former Sears store and buildings to the south (e.g. Kohl’s). Other amendments have
been approved to construct the Starbucks project and B -Bop’s.
One of the key waivers granted through the ADP is the parking ratio allowed for the site.
The ADP allows for a ratio of 4 parking stalls/1,000 square feet of building area for the
mall plus other specified use allowances related to parking. The total requi red parking is
accounted for with an overall site plan that includes a minimum number of striped parking
stalls. Any change of use or building that alters this overall plan requires an amendment.
There are currently 1,726 parking spaces site-wide. With the previous amendments, the
parking ratio was permitted to fall below 4/1,000 square feet (3.86 per 1,000 square feet)
due to allowances for fitness uses on the site and new structures impacting existing
parking. The amendments also anticipated long-term improvements to the northeast
corner of the site that will add 20 parking spaces.
Additional Building and Site Design Information
Building
The existing brick building will remain. The canopy that previously covered the bank drive-
through lanes on the north side of the building has been removed.
The brick will be painted and parapet rebuilt. The existing transom windows that wrap all
four sides of the building will be maintained.
A new primary entrance will be on the south side of the building, adjacent to the existing
parking area on the site. While the entrance to the building facing Grand will be removed,
it will be replaced with windows into the dining area. The overall design including the
158
retention of the brick and improved fenestration are consistent with contemporary
commercial design qualities and the Mall site development overall.
Pedestrian Access
A new sidewalk connection will extend from the public sidewalk on Grand Avenue onto
the site. A striped pedestrian crossing is proposed across the drive aisle between the
building and parking spaces along Grand. This will connect with a sidewalk on the sou th
side of the building that provides pedestrian access to the primary entrance.
Parking
The original bank use would have been accounted for at 4 spaces per 1000 gross square
feet, or 9 parking spaces with the 2012 ADP. A fast-food restaurant would apply a
minimum requirement of 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet of customer area, of which staff
calculated as only being 700 square feet for 8 required parking spaces. The seating area
includes fixed seating for 28 people. Based upon zoning minimum standards there is
no net change in parking demand, but the overall supply is reduced by 6 spaces
due to a change in the configuration of the parking, which requires a waiver to the
approved parking ratio of the ADP
The reconfiguration is of the 90-degree parking spaces east of the building along Grand.
These spaces will be restriped into seven 45-degree angled parking spaces, including
two accessible spaces and their associated access aisle. This is because the access aisle
behind the spaces will be changed to one-way to accommodate the drive through and
angled parking. Although this arrangement of drive through and angled parking is not
ideal, it is approvable. Importantly, there is a large parking area south of the building with
standard parking spaces and access that will likely be the predominant location of
customer parking.
Landscaping
The 2012 ADP included allowances for reduced landscaping compared to Zoning
Ordinance requirements of overall landscape percentages and specific planting
requirements. Along the Grand Avenue frontage, a combination of trees and shrubs were
to be planted. The required shrubs are missing along the frontage abutting the
development area are required to replanted in accordance with the ADP.
The building site currently has no landscaping and therefore is nonconforming. In general,
where there are existing nonconformities, a development is required to conform with
current standards as practicable without causing new deficiencies and in proportion to the
proposed improvements.
The area north of the building will be altered with the drive through plan, including a new
island. The island will be landscaped with grass and two overstory trees, increasing
159
pervious area by 900 square feet. This exceeds the required 10% of the parking area
(500 square feet) that is required to be landscaped, and approaches the 15% (1,200
square feet) of the lot area required to be landscaped.
Staff finds that this is the greatest level of compliance that can be practicably achieved.
There are no other areas impacted by the development where new landscaping could be
added and the landscaped island cannot be enlarged or it will interfere with sit e
circulation.
Screening
New mechanical equipment mounted on the roof will be screened with a metal screen,
painted to match the building trim.
A dumpster will be located east of the drive-through island and enclosed with a 6-foot-tall
fence, meeting screening requirements.
A new transformer is proposed in the drive -through island, behind the centerline of the
building. Due to this location, the Planning Director may approve screening to meet the
requirements of this section solely based upon front yard landscaping and other site
features that obscure equipment. Ornamental grasses that will be 5 feet high at maturity
are to be planted in front of the transformer to meet this allowance.
Signs
All signs including painted wall signs will be required to reviewed and approved separately
after approval of the ADP amendment and Major Site Development Plan. Uniquely, the
site has no street frontage, but it will be granted signage as if the lot line along Grand is
a street frontage. Because Grand Avenue is part of U.S. Highway 69, the Iowa DOT must
also review the signage package in addition to City of Ames review.
The applicant does desire to reuse existing pole sign at the southwest corner of the site.
Its reuse is currently proposed as a standard cabinet sign and not a “chicken bucket” that
was an historic icon for the KFC.
Lighting
A lighting plan will be submitted after approval of the Major Site Development Plan. The
lighting is required to be compliant with City standards prior to occupancy, per a
recommended condition. All outdoor lighting must meet zoning standards based upon
downlighting to address “Dark Sky” requirements. This includes LED accent/strip lighting
and other exterior accent light on the building and any exterior lights aimed at the menu
board or other features. The applicant indicates existing parking lot lighting will remain.
Utilities
160
A new 6-inch water line is shown on the site plan serving the building. This is no longer
required. The existing 1-inch line is adequate to serve the proposed use, as a requirement
to install a sprinkler system for basement is no longer applicable following removal of
internal storage room doors that previously restricted hose access. If the 1-inch line is
upgraded, an easement with the property owner to the north will be required as the service
line crosses over private property under different ownership.
161
28TH
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
A
V
E
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
E
F
E
R
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
G
R
O
V
E
AV
E
RO
Y
KE
Y
AV
E
26TH ST
25TH
ST
24TH ST
KENNEDY ST
DUFF AVE
L
U
T
H
E
R
D
R
30TH ST
JOHNSON
ST
Location Map
0 0.04 0.090.02
Miles
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
LINCOLN
24TH
13THONTARIO
INTERSTATE
35
D
A
Y
T
O
N
ST
A
N
G
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
16TH
GEORGEW CARVER
SO
U
T
H
DA
K
O
T
A
AIRPORTHY
L
A
N
D
LINCOLN
WAY
¯Legend
2012 Adaptive Reuse Plan
Limits
Parcels
Subject Property
2615 Grand
Avenue
162
1
13
13
B7d
B4e
5
KFC
2615 GRAND AVE
AMES IA
2127 SQ FT
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
9
4
4
66
7
2
3
9
12
'
12
'
12
11
9
9
9
20
'
-
0
12"
22
'
-
1
"
10
'
UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W
10'
18
'
-
9
5
8"
13'19'-95 8"
9'
21
'
5'
5
5
6
6
8
8
8
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
8
TYP.
14
15
14
16 24'-218"
28'17
17
18
19
19
17
17
18
17
9'
9'
2
S15b
18
'
-
6
14"
9
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
20
2121
8
DR
I
V
E
TH
R
U
22
23
24
TYP.
24
TYP.
8
TYP.
9'
17'-718"
SITE WORK KEYNOTES B
SITE PLAN 3/32"=1'-0"1
1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LATEST EDITION OF THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION'S "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION", AS APPLICABLE.
2. THE BUILDING AND PARKING FACILITIES ARE PARALLEL
WITH OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITIONS
FROM PROPOSED FEATURES TO EXISTING FEATURES AS
NECESSARY.
4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR SODDED
AFTER FINISH GRADING IS COMPLETED UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL NEW SEEDED OR SODDED AREAS
SHALL HAVE A TOPSOIL LAYER OF 4" MINIMUM. TOP OF
TOPSOIL LAYER SHALL BE PLACED 1" BELOW TOPS OF
CURBS, WALKS, OR PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS WHERE
TOPSOIL ABUTS THOSE AREAS.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR, RESURFACE, RECONSTRUCT
OR REFURBISH ANY AREAS DAMAGED DURING
CONSTRUCTION BY THE CONTRACTOR, HIS
SUBCONTRACTORS OR SUPPLIERS AT NO ADDITIONAL
COST TO THE OWNER.
6. ALL PAINT STRIPING SHALL BE 4" TRAFFIC PAINT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL
BE YELLOW.
7. ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, DUMPSTERS, DETACHED
TRAILERS, OR SIMILAR ITEMS OR PROHIBITED ON THE
PUBLIC STREETS OR WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
GENERAL SITE NOTES C
NEW PANEL SIGN ON EXISTING ROOF MOUNT
PYLON. COORDINATE INSTALLATION WITH SIGN
VENDOR. PYLON FRAME AND POST TO BE PAINTED
BLACK BY G.C.
G.C. SHALL PROVIDE CONCRETE BASE AND
ELECTRICAL AT DT SIGNAGE (MENUBOARD &
ORDER CANOPY). DT SIGNAGE SUPPLIED AND
INSTALLED BY SIGN VENDOR.
G.C. SHALL PROVIDE CONCRETE BASE AT DT
SIGNAGE (CLEARANCE BAR). DT SIGNAGE SUPPLIED
AND INSTALLED BY SIGN VENDOR.
LIMIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE SIDE WALK.
NEW WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE RAMP TO BE
CONSTRUCTED BY G.C.
G.C. TO ADD NEW 4- INCH CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO
EXISTING SIDEWALK.
EXISTING PAINTED PARKING LINES AND STRIPING TO
BE REPAINTED YELLOW BY GC.
NEW PARKING LINE / STRIPING TO BE PAINTED BY
GC.
NEW 6" Ø BOLLARDS TO BE INSTALLED BY GC. PAINT
YELLOW.
EXISTING PARKING SHALL REMAIN.
TRASH CORRAL SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY GC,
SEE DETAIL ON C-2.0.
TRANSFORMER AND PRIMARY WIRING BY
LANDLORD
NEW ADA SYMBOLS TO BE PAINTED BY GC. SEE
DETAIL 2/C-3.0.
NEW 6" WATER SERVICE WITH 10' UTILITY EASEMENT.
SEE NORTH GRAND MALL UTILITY PLAN BY BOLTON
AND MENK STAMPED BY GREGORY BROUSSARD.
NEW ELECTRICAL SERVICE WITH 10' UTILITY
EASEMENT. SEE NORTH GRAND MALL UTILITY PLAN
BY BOLTON AND MENK STAMPED BY GREGORY
BROUSSARD.
G.C. TO ADD ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN
ROUTE. FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS TO PROVIDE
DESIGN TO MEET FEDERAL AND JURISDICTION
REQUIREMENTS. THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OF THE
SIDEWALK SHALL HAVE A TARGET SLOPE OF 6.25%
AND NOT TO EXCEED A SLOPE OF 8%.
ADD NEW CONCRETE WHEEL STOP.
RE: 3/SP501
NEW CURBSIDE SIGN (QUICK PICK-UP
PARKING SIGN). RE: 11/SP501
NEW SIGNS AT ADA PARKING STALLS. ONE SIGN
SHALL DENOTE A VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE.
RE: 3/SP501
NEW LANDSCAPE TURF- SOD. INSTALL A LOCALLY
SOURCE FESCUE MIX SOD. REFER TO LANDSCAPE
NOTES ON SHEET C1.1.
PROVIDE NEW DECIDUOUS TREES AS NOTED IN THE
PLANTING SCHEDULE ON THIS SHEET.
NEW ROCK MULCH. INSTALL 3" DEPTH OF LOCALLY
SOURED RIVER ROCK MULCH.
PROVIDE NEW GRASSES AS NOTED IN THE PLANTING
SCHEDULE ON THIS SHEET.
ALL CURBS AND SIDEWALKS SHALL BE 6" ABOVE
EXISTING GRADE.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SITE SIGNAGE D
·REFER TO GRAPHICS PACKAGE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
·S14 SERIES IS OPTIONAL, ALL OTHER SIGNS ARE REQUIRED
DT CLEARANCE BARB7d
ORDER CANOPYB4e
MENU BOARDS15b
TAG ITEM DESCRIPTION ELEC
YES
YES
NO
PLAN NORTH
TRUE NORTH
10
11
12
13
SITE INFORMATION A
PARCEL NUMBER: 05-34-227-100
ADDRESS: 2615 GRAND AVE. AMES, IA
COUNTY:STORY
OWNER:FIT DEVELOPMENT
564 N SUNRISE AVE
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
ACRES: 0.18
ZONED:PRC - PLANNED REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL
PRIMARY CLASS: COMMERCIAL
EXISTING PARKING WITH IN LEASE AREA: 3 STALLS, INCLUDING 0
ACCESSIBLE
REQUIRED PARKING: 7 STALLS, INCLUDING 1 ACCESSIBLE
PARKING REQUIREMENT: 12 STALLS PER 1,000 SQ . FT. OF
CUSTOMER EATING OR WAITING AREA.
REQUIRED PARKING: 530 SQ. FT. / 1,000 X 12 = 6.4 TOTAL
STALLS
PROPOSED PARKING: 21 STALLS, INCLUDING 2 ACCESSIBLE
WITHIN LEASE AREA: 3 STALLS, INCLUDING 0
ACCESSIBLE
SHARED PARKING WITH SHOPPING CENTER: 18 STALLS,
INCLUDING 2 ACCESSIBLE
12 STALLS, INCLUDING 2 ACCESSIBLE
PARKING DIMENSIONS: 90° - 19' X 9'
60° - 9' X 21'
45° - 9' X 19.8'
TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 8,000 SQ. FT.
TOTAL NEW PERVIOUS AREA: 918 SQ. FT.
AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 1,556 SQ. FT.
NOT NET GAIN OR LOSS OF PERVIOUS OR IMPERVIOUS AREA.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER, NORTHEAST QUARTER SECTION 34, T 84 N, R 24 W,
THENCE NORTH 707.0 FEET, THEN WEST 100.0 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST 80.0 FEET, THENCE NORTH 100.0
FEET, THENCE EAST 80.0 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 100.0 TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING, STORY CITY, IOWA.
TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA WITH IN PROPERTY LINE IS - 918 SF
THIS IS AN INCREASE IN PERVIOUS AREA.
14
15
16
17
18
19
SIGNS ARE NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN FOR REFERENCE ONLY TO
ILLUSTRATE THE INTENDED FUNCTION OF THE DRIVE THRU. ALL
SIGNS ARE APPROVED BY SEPARATE PERMIT.
CONTACT: SARA VAN MEETEREN AT
SARA.VANMEETEREN@CITYOFAMES.ORG OR 515-239-5255
FOR SIGN PERMITTING PROCEDURES
SIGNAGE NOTE E
LANDSCAPE NOTES E
”
20
21
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE QTY
TREES
Nyssa sylvatica
Tupelo 1.5" Cal.Per Plan 2
GRASSES
Panicum virgatum 'Northwind'
Northwind Switch Grass 2 gal.PER PLAN 5
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING QTY
GROUND COVERS
Rock Mulch - River Rock 2-4" Diameter 3" Depth 18 sf
PLANT_SCHEDULE
22
23
24
C-1.1
SITE PLAN
SHEET NO.
SHEET TITLE
STORE NO.
ISSUE DATE
PROJECT TITLE
AMES, IA 50010
2615 GRAND AVE
DT1800
RED
C029078
10.01.2024
ByDateMark
REVISION:
I hereby certify that the portion of this technical
submission described below was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and responsible charge. I am
a duly licensed architect under the laws of the state of
Iowa.
License number 07053
Renewal date 06/30/2027
Pages or sheets covered by this seal include Title,
Site and Architectural.
Lee Manske Date
08.12.2025 KRJ
RTC SITE3
I hereby certify that the portion of this technical
submission described below was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and responsible charge. I am
a duly licensed architect under the laws of the state of
Iowa.
License number 07053
Renewal date 06/30/2027
Pages or sheets covered by this seal include Title,
Site and Architectural.
Lee Manske Date
10.24.2025 KRJ
RTC SITE
10.24.2025 KRJ
RTC SITE4
11.05.2025 MEW
CITY RTC5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11-5-25
Drive Through PIckup
Drive Through Order
16
3
LIFE SAFETY PLAN 1/4"=1'-0"AOCCUPANT LOAD KEY PLAN B
BUILDING PROPERITES C
5.FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING
ELEMENTS (HOURS):(2018 IBC)
STRUCTURAL FRAME:
COLUMNS & GIRDERS, BEAMS, TRUSSES
BEARING WALLS:
EXTERIOR
INTERIOR
NONBEARING WALLS & PARTITIONS:
EXTERIOR
NONBEARING WALLS & PARTITIONS:
INTERIOR
FLOOR CONSTRUCTION:
INCLUDING SUPPORTING BEAMS & JOISTS
ROOF CONSTRUCTION:
INCLUDING SUPPORTING BEAMS & JOISTS
0 HOUR
0 HOUR
0 HOUR
0 HOUR
0 HOUR
0 HOUR
(2018 IBC)
FIRE-RESISTANT RATING FOR EXTERIOR WALLS:
X ≥ 30'-0" TO ADJACENT BUILDING 0 HOUR
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION:1.
(IBC)
2.
3.AREA & HEIGHT LIMITATIONS:
BUILDING PROPERTIES
4.FIRE SUPPRESSION / ALARM:
(NFPA 101)
RESTAURANT A-2
TYPE V-B (000) UNSPRINKLERED
(2018 IBC)
UNSPRINKLERED
IA=PROTECTED B=UNPROTECTED
(NFPA 101)
SUPPRESSION:
STORIES PROVIDED =1 STORY + BASEMENT
AREA PROVIDED:=2,127 SF
PROJECT PROPERTIES
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW:
NEW ASSEMBLY (A-2) RESTAURANT
(SEE 2018 IBC TABLE 602)
MAX STORIES = 1 STORY
MAX HEIGHT = 40'-0
MAX AREA = 6,000 S.F.
HEIGHT PROVIDED =17'-2"
EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN
FIRE PROTECTION LEGEND:
NOTES
1. NO FIRE RATED WALLS ARE REQUIRED FOR TYPE VB BUILDINGS.
VERTICAL SHAFTS: (2018 IBC & NFPA)N/A
INCIDENTAL USE: (2018 IBC)
TENANT SEPARATION: (2018 IBC)
N/A
6.OCCUPANT LOAD:
(NFPA TABLE 7.3.1.2)
7.EXIT CAPACITY:
(NFPA TABLE 7.3.3.1)
96" PROVIDED.2" PER OCCUPANT (LEVEL COMPONENTS): (FLOORS)
.3" PER OCCUPANT (STAIRWAYS):
8.COMMON PATH, DEAD-END, & TRAVEL DISTANCE LIMITS
(NFPA TABLE A.7.6)
COMMON PATH LIMIT:
DEAD-END LIMIT:
TRAVEL DISTANCE LIMIT:68'-2"< 200 FT.
N/A
N/A
N/A
49 OCCUPANTS TOTAL
BUILDING PROPERTIES
(NON SPRINKLED)
100 FT.
20 FT.
200 FT.
49 x 0.2 = 9.8" REQUIRED
(NON SPRINKLED)
(NON SPRINKLED)
N/A
PROJECT PROPERTIES (CONT.)
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW:
NEW BUSINESS - RESTAURANT
(2018 IBC)
(2018 IBC)
(2018 IBC)
SEE PLAN THIS SHEET
OCCUPANT LEGEND
ASSEMBLY:FIXED
TABLES & CHAIRS
28 SEATS = 28 OCCUPANTS
ASSEMBLY: STANDING
CUSTOMER STANDING SPACE
59 SF NET / 5 = 12 OCCUPANTS
KITCHEN
EMPLOYEE SPACE
908 SF NET / 200 = 5 OCCUPANTS
ACCESSORY STORAGE
COLD STORAGE
62 SF NET / 300 = 1 OCCUPANT
TOTAL GRADE LEVEL OCCUPANT LOAD 46
PLAN NORTH
TRUE NORTH
LIFE SAFETY PLAN NOTES C
EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN
EMERGENCY ILLUMINATED FIXTURE
CONTINUOUSLY LIT LED FIXTURES
TYPE K FIRE EXTINGUISHER
20 LB TYPE ABC FIRE EXTINGUISHER.
1
2
3
4
5
DN
EDGE OF TABLEEDGE OF TABLE
OFFICE
KITCHEN
DN
34
"
/
.
2
"
=
1
6
0
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
PE
R
S
O
N
S
T
O
E
X
I
T
T
H
I
S
D
O
O
R
.
MA
X
I
M
U
M
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
EX
I
T
H
A
R
D
W
A
R
E
:
P
A
N
I
C
H
D
W
R
.
COOK LINE PACK LINE
BREADING
COOLER
WARE WASH
UTILITY
PREP
DR
I
V
E
T
H
R
U
CUSTOMER
SERVING
KITCHEN
TR
A
V
E
L
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
=
3
3
'
-
0
"
MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE = 61'-0"
MEN'S WOMEN'S
SEATING
32"/.2" = 160 PERSONS
PERSONS TO EXIT THIS DOOR.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
EXIT HDWR: PUSH, NO LATCH
1
2 3
4
5
2
2
1
1
TYP
5
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
MA
X
I
M
U
M
T
R
A
V
E
L
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
=
6
6
'
-
0
"
A-0.1
LIFE SAFETY PLAN
SHEET NO.
SHEET TITLE
STORE NO.
ISSUE DATE
PROJECT TITLE
AMES, IA 50010
2615 GRAND AVE
DT1800
RED
C029078
09.11.2024
I hereby certify that the portion of this technical
submission described below was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and responsible charge. I am
a duly licensed architect under the laws of the state of
Iowa.
License number 07053
Renewal date 06/30/2025
Pages or sheets covered by this seal include Title,
Site and Architectural.
Lee Manske Date
21689R24001
ByDateMark
REVISION:
OWNER COMMENTS
MEW
2
2
04.01.2025
2
16
4
LIFE SAFETY BASEMENT PLAN 1/4"=1'-0"AOCCUPANT LOAD KEY PLAN B
NOT USED C
OCCUPANT LEGEND
ACCESSORY STORAGE
COLD / DRY STORAGE
2005 SF NET / 300 = 7 OCCUPANT
TOTAL BASEMENT OCCUPANT LOAD 7
UP
MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE = 66'-0"
FREEZER
UP
UTILITY ROOM
STORAGE
STORAGE
FREEZER
STORAGE
FIRE
EXTINGUISHER
MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE = 66'-0"
STORAGE
STORAGE
A-0.2
LIFE SAFETY
BASEMENT PLAN
SHEET NO.
SHEET TITLE
STORE NO.
ISSUE DATE
PROJECT TITLE
AMES, IA 50010
2615 GRAND AVE
DT1800
RED
C029078
09.11.2024
I hereby certify that the portion of this technical
submission described below was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and responsible charge. I am
a duly licensed architect under the laws of the state of
Iowa.
License number 07053
Renewal date 06/30/2025
Pages or sheets covered by this seal include Title,
Site and Architectural.
Lee Manske Date
21689R24001
ByDateMark
REVISION:
OWNER COMMENTS
MEW
2
2
2
22
04.01.2025
2
2
16
5
MAIN ENTRY ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"A
NOTE:
SIGNAGE AND BUILDING ELEMENTS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET.
REFER TO "VENDOR SUPPLIED / INSTALLED ELEMENTS" GENERAL NOTE; THIS SHEET.
EXTERIOR GRAPHICS CEXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE F GENERAL NOTES D
EXTERIOR WALL AREASYMBOL MANUFACTURER
GREY EIFS 1.5"1 STO CORP.
BLACK EIFS 3" (ALTERNATE)
EIFS
EXTERIOR CLADDING
5 JAMES HARDIE
DESCRIPTION NOTES
METAL TRIM
14 EXTERIOR METAL TRIM (BLACK)
15 EXTERIOR METAL TRIM (RED)
ARTISAN SHIPLAP SIDING
WITH MATCHING 2.5" TRIM
PAINTED p-9
www.jameshardie.com
Hardie Artisan Siding - Shiplap
9" Exposure
2 RED EIFS 1.5"STO CORP.
FIBER CEMENT SIDING - HORIZ. SHIPLAP ON
2x2 FURRINGS W/ 1/2" PLYWOOD
3 STO CORP.
11 EXTERIOR WOOD FACADE (LIGHT)
12 EXTERIOR WOOD FACADE (MEDIUM)
13 EXTERIOR WOOD FACADE (DARK)
IDENTITY WOOD
PRODUCTS
IDENTITY WOOD
PRODUCTS
IDENTITY WOOD
PRODUCTS
13 OF EACH, SEE 18/A6.1 FOR PATTERN. SUBMIT MOCK
UP TO OWNER / ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL.
COLOR: KFC BISCUIT
COLOR: KFC FINGER LICKING
COLOR: KFC ORIGINAL RECIPE
WOOD
SEE SHEET A1.1 "WINDOW TYPES" FOR WINDOW ELEVATIONS.
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE ON SHEET A7.3 FOR MORE INFORMATION.
MISCELLANEOUS:
A.
B.
PROVIDE SEALANT PER MFR'S SPECIFICATIONS AT ALL WALL
AND ROOF PENETRATIONS.
PROVIDE SEALANT PER MFR'S SPECIFICATIONS AT ALL
STOREFRONT, STOREFRONT DOOR, WINDOW AND SERVICE
DOOR FRAMES @ HEAD AND JAMB ONLY. DO NOT SEAL SILL
AT WINDOWS.
SEALERS:
A.
B.
GC TO COORDINATE WITH VENDOR PROVIDED / VENDOR
INSTALLED SIGNAGE AND BUILDING ELEMENTS.
VENDOR SUPPLIED / INSTALLED ELEMENTS:
NOTE: NOT ALL KEY NOTES APPLY TO THIS SHEET
S39a KFC CHANNEL LETTERS - WHITE (USE PROPORTIONAL SIZED BUCKET 60")
TAG ITEM DESCRIPTION ELEC
YES
NOTES:
1.FOR WINDOW DECALS AND SIGNAGE, REFER TO INTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET A8.0 AND SIGNAGE SCHEDULE ON SHEET A7.3.
2.REFER TO GRAPHICS PACKAGE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
NOT USED.
NOT USED.
PARAPET COPING. COLOR AS NOTED.
EXISTING STOREFRONT WINDOWS TO REMAIN.
INSTALL NEW ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW / DOOR SYSTEM. SEE SHEET A1.1.
NOT USED.
FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING.
EXISTING BRICK TO REMAIN.
NEW GLAZING TO BE SUPPLIED AND INSTALL BY GC. MODIFY FRAMING AS REQUIRED.
WINDOW VINYL DECAL "S38", SEE A-7.3.
INDICATES TOP OF EXISTING ROOF.
NOT USED.
GAS METER. DO NOT PAINT METER.
CONCRETE SILL TO REMAIN, PAINT AS SPECIFIED
1.5" EIFS - COLOR AS NOTED.
3/4" EIFS V-GROOVE, TYP. SEE DETAIL 13/A-6.0.
VENDOR SUPPLIED CANOPY. SEE DETAIL 2/A-6.2.
NOT USED.
CONTINUOUS LINEAR ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE - RED. REFER TO ELECTRICAL.
NOT USED .
CONTINUOUS LINEAR ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE - WHITE. REFER TO ELECTRICAL. SEE
DETAIL 17/A-6.2.
NOT USED.
EYEBROW CANOPY AND VERTICAL ELEMENT WITH ACM PANELS. SEE DETAILS 3/A-6.2
6/A-6.2.
NOT USED
WHITE PAINTED STRIPING AS INDICATED.
2.5" FIBER CEMENT TRIM TO MATCH PLANKS.
NOT USED
NEW 2024 PANEL SIGN ON EXISTING ROOF MOUNT PYLON. COORDINATE
INSTALLATION WITH SIGN VENDOR. G.C. TO PAINT PYLON FRAME AND POST BLACK.
INFILL EXISTING OPENING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND BRICK VENEER TO MATCH
SURROUNDING
S30a 29.5" HIGH KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN WHITE STACKED LETTERS NO
S28a 11 HERBS & SPICES - STENCIL (10 DEGREE ROTATION)NO
S32a ILLUMINATED BUCKET WITH COLONEL ONLY (STANDARD)YES
S35 IT'S FINGER LICKIN' GOOD STENCIL NO
PAINT
7 RED EXTERIOR PAINT
8 WHITE EXTERIOR PAINT
p-1
p-2
BENJAMIN MOORE BM EXOTIC RED 2086-10
BM WEDDING VEIL 2125-70
9 BLACK EXTERIOR PAINT
p-9
BM BLACK JACK 2133-20
ef-1
ef-2
ef-3
fc-1
w-1
w-2
w-3
m-3
m-1
EIFS ALTERNATE FOR fc-1
PROVIDE 3/4" HOIZONTAL V-GROOVE SCORING 9" APART.
S31e POSTER FRAME - ON DISPLAY NO
KEY NOTES E
SIGNAGE AREA
20.5 S.F.
58 S.F.
37.7 S.F.
25 S.F.
100.7 S.F.
8.44 S.F.
SIGNAGE DIMENSIONS
2'-6"H X 8'-2.3"W
12'-0" DIA.
8'-0" H X 7'-4.25"W
60" X 60"
7'-6"H X 13'-5" W
45"H X 27"W
S39b KFC CHANNEL LETTERS - WHITE (ALTERNATE - USE PROPORTIONAL SIZED BUCKET 48")YES13.1 S.F.2'-0"H X 6'-6.6"W
S32b ILLUMINATED BUCKET WITH COLONEL ONLY (ALTERNATE)YES16 S.F.48" X 48"
6 ACM PANELS
ac-1
ALPOLIC
MATCH BM PAPER WHITE 1590
MATCH BM EXOTIC RED 2086-10
MATCH BM BLACK JACK 2133-20
MATCH BM BLACK JACK 2133-20
MATCH BM EXOTIC RED 2086-10
MATCH BM EXOTIC RED 2086-10
BENJAMIN MOORE
BENJAMIN MOORE
10 GREY EXTERIOR PAINT
p-10
BM PAPER WHITE 1590BENJAMIN MOORE
FRONT ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"B
50'
5 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3 14314
ELEV. 8'-0"
B.O. EYEBROW CANOPY
ELEV. 0'-0"
T.O. FINISH FLOOR
ELEV. 17'-2"
T.O. PARAPET
7"
5"
7"
5"
7"EQ EQ
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
3 14314
ELEV. 15'-4"
T.O. HARDIE SIDING
ELEV. 8'-0"
B.O. EYEBROW CANOPY
ELEV. 0'-0"
T.O. FINISH FLOOR
ELEV. 17'-2"
T.O. PARAPET
ELEV. 15'-4"
T.O. HARDIE SIDING
ELEV. 14'-0"
T.O. EX.ROOF
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8 8
9 9
9
1152121
623
825
S39a
2'3'-6"EQ
EQ
623
26
28
1'
64'-6" (TO BE VERIFIED ON SITE)
28
1 15
19 S32a
8 8
8 9
8 9
8 7
115
5 97
S30a 62319
78
S28a
6 23
ELEV. 14'-0"
T.O. EX.ROOF
16
16
S40a KFC CHANNEL LETTERS - RED (USE PROPORTIONAL SIZED BUCKET 60")
S40b KFC CHANNEL LETTERS - RED (ALTERNATE - USE PROPORTIONAL SIZED BUCKET 48")
YES20.5 S.F.2'-6"H X 8'-2.3"W
YES13.1 S.F.2'-0"H X 6'-6.6"W
2121
28
26
26
B3e
B3e DT WINDOW CANOPY - SIGNAGE VENDOR N/A N/A YES
15174'
1'
2'
-
6
"
ELEV. 11'-0"
B.O. CANOPY
29
29
13
11
11
87
10
10 10 10
4
A
A5.0
B
A5.0
1'-6"SPACED EQUALLY1'-6"
SPACED EQUALLY 1'-6"1'-6"
A-4.0
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
SHEET NO.
SHEET TITLE
STORE NO.
ISSUE DATE
PROJECT TITLE
AMES, IA 50010
2615 GRAND AVE
DT1800
RED
C029078
09.11.2024
I hereby certify that the portion of this technical
submission described below was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and responsible charge. I am
a duly licensed architect under the laws of the state of
Iowa.
License number 07053
Renewal date 06/30/2025
Pages or sheets covered by this seal include Title,
Site and Architectural.
Lee Manske Date
21689R24001
ByDateMark
REVISION:
OWNER COMMENTS
MEW
2
2
2
2
04.01.2025
16
6
DRIVE THRU ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"A
NOTE:
SIGNAGE AND BUILDING ELEMENTS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET.
REFER TO "VENDOR SUPPLIED / INSTALLED ELEMENTS" GENERAL NOTE; THIS SHEET.
EXTERIOR GRAPHICS CEXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE F GENERAL NOTES E
EXTERIOR WALL AREASYMBOL MANUFACTURER
GREY EIFS 1.5"1 STO CORP.
BLACK EIFS 3" (ALTERNATE)
EIFS
EXTERIOR CLADDING
5 JAMES HARDIE
DESCRIPTION NOTES
METAL TRIM
14 EXTERIOR METAL TRIM (BLACK)
15 EXTERIOR METAL TRIM (RED)
ARTISAN SHIPLAP SIDING
WITH MATCHING 2.5" TRIM
PAINTED p-9
www.jameshardie.com
Hardie Artisan Siding - Shiplap
9" Exposure
2 RED EIFS 1.5"STO CORP.
FIBER CEMENT SIDING - HORIZ. SHIPLAP ON
2x2 FURRINGS W/ 1/2" PLYWOOD
3 STO CORP.
11 EXTERIOR WOOD FACADE (LIGHT)
12 EXTERIOR WOOD FACADE (MEDIUM)
13 EXTERIOR WOOD FACADE (DARK)
IDENTITY WOOD
PRODUCTS
IDENTITY WOOD
PRODUCTS
IDENTITY WOOD
PRODUCTS
13 OF EACH, SEE 18/A6.1 FOR PATTERN. SUBMIT MOCK
UP TO OWNER / ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL.
COLOR: KFC BISCUIT
COLOR: KFC FINGER LICKING
COLOR: KFC ORIGINAL RECIPE
WOOD
SEE SHEET A1.1 "WINDOW TYPES" FOR WINDOW ELEVATIONS.
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE ON SHEET A7.3 FOR MORE INFORMATION.
MISCELLANEOUS:
A.
B.
PROVIDE SEALANT PER MFR'S SPECIFICATIONS AT ALL WALL
AND ROOF PENETRATIONS.
PROVIDE SEALANT PER MFR'S SPECIFICATIONS AT ALL
STOREFRONT, STOREFRONT DOOR, WINDOW AND SERVICE
DOOR FRAMES @ HEAD AND JAMB ONLY. DO NOT SEAL SILL
AT WINDOWS.
SEALERS:
A.
B.
GC TO COORDINATE WITH VENDOR PROVIDED / VENDOR
INSTALLED SIGNAGE AND BUILDING ELEMENTS.
VENDOR SUPPLIED / INSTALLED ELEMENTS:
NOTE: NOT ALL KEY NOTES APPLY TO THIS SHEET
S39a KFC CHANNEL LETTERS - WHITE (USE PROPORTIONAL SIZED BUCKET 60")
TAG ITEM DESCRIPTION ELEC
YES
NOTES:
1.FOR WINDOW DECALS AND SIGNAGE, REFER TO INTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET A8.0 AND SIGNAGE SCHEDULE ON SHEET A7.3.
2.REFER TO GRAPHICS PACKAGE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
S30a 29.5" HIGH KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN WHITE STACKED LETTERS NO
S28a 11 HERBS & SPICES - STENCIL NO
S32a ILLUMINATED BUCKET WITH COLONEL ONLY (STANDARD)YES
S35 IT'S FINGER LICKIN' GOOD STENCIL NO
PAINT
7 RED EXTERIOR PAINT
8 WHITE EXTERIOR PAINT
p-1
p-2
BENJAMIN MOORE BM EXOTIC RED 2086-10
BM WEDDING VEIL 2125-70
9 BLACK EXTERIOR PAINT
p-9
BM BLACK JACK 2133-20
ef-1
ef-2
ef-3
fc-1
w-1
w-2
w-3
m-3
m-1
EIFS ALTERNATE FOR fc-1
PROVIDE 3/4" HOIZONTAL V-GROOVE SCORING 9" APART.
S31e POSTER FRAME - ON DISPLAY NO
KEY NOTES G
SIGNAGE AREA
20.5 S.F.
58 S.F.
37.7 S.F.
25 S.F.
100.7 S.F.
8.44 S.F.
SIGNAGE DIMENSIONS
2'-6"H X 8'-2.3"W
12'-0" DIA.
8'-0" H X 7'-4.25"W
60" X 60"
7'-6"H X 13'-5" W
45"H X 27"W
S39b KFC CHANNEL LETTERS - WHITE (ALTERNATE - USE PROPORTIONAL SIZED BUCKET 48")YES13.1 S.F.2'-0"H X 6'-6.6"W
S32b ILLUMINATED BUCKET WITH COLONEL ONLY (ALTERNATE)YES16 S.F.48" X 48"
6 ACM PANELS
ac-1
ALPOLIC
MATCH BM PAPER WHITE 1590
MATCH BM EXOTIC RED 2086-10
MATCH BM BLACK JACK 2133-20
MATCH BM BLACK JACK 2133-20
MATCH BM EXOTIC RED 2086-10
MATCH BM EXOTIC RED 2086-10
BENJAMIN MOORE
BENJAMIN MOORE
10 GREY EXTERIOR PAINT
p-10
BM PAPER WHITE 1590BENJAMIN MOORE
REAR ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"B
1
9
2
ELEV. 8'-0"
B.O. EYEBROW CANOPY
ELEV. 0'-0"
T.O. FINISH FLOOR
ELEV. 17'-2"
T.O. PARAPET
ELEV. 15'-4"
T.O. HARDIE SIDING
825ELEV. 14'-0"
T.O. EX.ROOF
S39a
S32a
15 2
1'10"1'10"1'EQEQ
3 14115
5 97 115
62319
6 23
8 8
8 9
S35 8 8
8 9
8 9
16
8 9 8 9
9 8
8 7
7 8
1'6'-8"10"1'10"1'3 14
115 115
15 2
S40a KFC CHANNEL LETTERS - RED (USE PROPORTIONAL SIZED BUCKET 60")
S40b KFC CHANNEL LETTERS - RED (ALTERNATE - USE PROPORTIONAL SIZED BUCKET 48")
YES20.5 S.F.2'-6"H X 8'-2.3"W
YES13.1 S.F.2'-0"H X 6'-6.6"W
8 7
S32a
S40a
21
21 21
28
28
16
8 8
8 8
115
4
3 1416
ELEV. 8'-0"
B.O. EYEBROW CANOPY
ELEV. 0'-0"
T.O. FINISH FLOOR
ELEV. 17'-2"
T.O. PARAPET
ELEV. 15'-4"
T.O. HARDIE SIDING
ELEV. 14'-0"
T.O. EX.ROOF
7 8
18
6
B3e DT WINDOW CANOPY - SIGNAGE VENDOR N/A N/A YES
B3e
1517
10'-11"
1'
2'
-
6
"
B3e
15 17 4'
1'
2'
-
6
"
11
11
ELEV. 11'-0"
B.O. CANOPY
26
8 7
1'-6"
1'
-
6
"
4'
-
4
"
1'-6"SPACED EQUALLY 1'-6"1'-6"
12 9
814
20
20
4
SECURITY DOOR. G.C. TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL.
G.C. TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW. SEE SHEET A1.0.
PARAPET COPING. COLOR AS NOTED.
EXISTING STOREFRONT WINDOWS TO REMAIN.
NOT USED.
WALL LIGHTING - LIGHTING VENDOR SUPPLIED / GC INSTALLED. SEE SHEET E4.0.
FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING.
EXISTING BRICK TO REMAIN.
NOT USED.
NOT USED.
INDICATES TOP OF EXISTING ROOF.
KEEP AIR VENT AND PAINT AS SPECIFIED.
NOT USED.
CONCRETE SILL TO REMAIN, PAINT AS SPECIFIED
1.5" EIFS - COLOR AS NOTED.
3/4" EIFS V-GROOVE, TYP. SEE DETAIL 13/A-6.0.
VENDOR SUPPLIED CANOPY. SEE DETAIL 2/A-6.2.
STAINLESS STEEL CORNER GUARDS.
CONTINUOUS LINEAR ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE - RED. REFER TO ELECTRICAL.
EXISTING BOLLARD TO REMAIN AND TO BE PAINTED YELLOW.
CONTINUOUS LINEAR ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE - WHITE. REFER TO ELECTRICAL. SEE
DETAIL 17/A-6.2.
NOT USED
EYEBROW CANOPY AND VERTICAL ELEMENT WITH ACM PANELS. SEE DETAILS 3/A-6.2
AND 6/A-6.2.
NOT USED
WHITE PAINTED STRIPING AS INDICATED.
2.5" FIBER CEMENT TRIM TO MATCH PLANKS.
NOT USED
NEW 2024 PANEL SIGN ON EXISTING ROOF MOUNT PYLON. COORDINATE
INSTALLATION WITH SIGN VENDOR. G.C. TO PAINT PYLON FRAME AND POST BLACK.
INFILL EXISTING OPENING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND BRICK VENEER TO MATCH
SURROUNDING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
8 14
22
4
29
A-4.1
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
SHEET NO.
SHEET TITLE
STORE NO.
ISSUE DATE
PROJECT TITLE
AMES, IA 50010
2615 GRAND AVE
DT1800
RED
C029078
09.11.2024
I hereby certify that the portion of this technical
submission described below was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and responsible charge. I am
a duly licensed architect under the laws of the state of
Iowa.
License number 07053
Renewal date 06/30/2025
Pages or sheets covered by this seal include Title,
Site and Architectural.
Lee Manske Date
21689R24001
ByDateMark
REVISION:
OWNER COMMENTS
MEW
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
04.01.2025
167
9
ATTACHMENT C: Adaptive Reuse Plan Criteria
Sec. 29.306. ADAPTIVE REUSE.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of these adaptive reuse provisions is to foster the
renovation and reuse of structures that have historic, architectural, or economic value
to the City and are vacant or at risk of becoming under-utilized, vacant or demolished.
(2) Qualifying Adaptive Reuses. Any proposal for the adaptive reuse of
a structure or group of contiguous structures, whether or not the proposal involves
one or more Nonconforming Uses, Nonconforming Structures, and/or Nonconforming
Lots, shall qualify for City Council review if the proposal meets all of the following
conditions:
(a) The proposed adaptive reuse must be residential, commercial, or
a combination of such uses except if it is located in an industrial zone. If the proposed
adaptive reuse is located in an industrial zone, it may be devoted to any use or uses
that the City Council finds compatible with the uses permitted in the industrial zone.
All adaptive reuses proposed in industrial zones, except industrial uses, require a
Special Use Permit.
(b) The structure or group of structures proposed for adaptive reuse
must have historic, architectural, or economic value to the City justifying renovation
and preservation, as determined by the City Council.
(c) The City Council must determine that the long-term benefits of
the proposed adaptive reuse outweigh any negative impact on the neighborhood of
the proposed project and on the City, as compared with the alternative of having the
structures demolished or remaining vacant or under-utilized.
(d) In all matters relative to the administration of the Adaptive Reuse
requirements, the City Council shall obtain a recommendation from the Historic
Preservation Commission on all structures that are determined to have architectural
or historic value.
(3) Adaptive Reuse Performance Standards. If the City Council
determines that a proposed project qualifies for consideration as an adaptive reuse,
then the City Council may waive some or all of the applicable Zone Development
Standards and General Development Standards set forth in Article 4, so long as the
project conforms to the following:
(a) The renovation and remodeling of structures for adaptive reuse
may not destroy or obscure essential architectural features. In addition, such
architectural features must be enhanced to the extent that it is feasible and prudent to
do so.
(b) Where landscaping and public space required by Section 29.403
cannot be provided on site, any area on site that is available for landscaping shall be
so utilized. When the City grants permission, the owner or operator of the site must
also use areas within the public right-of-way and adjacent to the site to satisfy
landscaping requirements.
(c) Where necessary parking cannot be provided on site, reasonable
provision for parking shall be provided off site.
(4) Adaptive Reuse Procedures. Any property in any zone is eligible for
adaptive reuse status if it meets the requirements of this Section 29.306, unless
168
10
otherwise limited by the Use Table for the zone. Submission and review of a project
qualified for adaptive reuse shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Section 29.1502(4)(c), Major Site Development Plan.
169
11
Attachment E: Major Site Development Plan Criteria
1. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provisions for
surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface
water to adjacent and downstream property.
Impervious coverage is proposed to be reduced. As a redevelopment site, it does not
trigger the requirement for a stormwater management plan. Public Works has
reviewed existing site grades and, generally, the site will remain unchanged and will
drain in the same manner as it does today.
2. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for
connection to water, sanitary sewer, electrical, and other utility lines within the
capacity limits of those utility lines.
The existing utilities were reviewed and found adequate to support the anticipated
load of the proposed development. Only a new transformer is required.
3. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for fire
protection through building placement, acceptable location of flammable
materials, and other measures to ensure fire safety.
The fire inspector has reviewed access and fire truck circulation and found that the
needs of the fire department are met.
No sprinkler system is required if all rooms in the basement remain without doors and
accessible with a hose.
All grease will remain in jugs provided by the manufacturer prior to use.
4. The design of the proposed development shall not increase the danger of
erosion, flooding, landslide, or other endangerment to adjoining and
surrounding property.
It is not anticipated that this proposed development will be a danger due to its location
on the site. Grading of the site will generally remain unchanged.
5. Natural topographic and landscape features of the site shall be incorporated
into the development design.
The developer is working with the existing topography of the site as a 100%
developed site.
6. The design of the interior vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall provide for
convenient flow of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall prevent
hazards to adjacent streets or property.
170
12
A new sidewalk will be installed from the public sidewalk on Grand Avenue connecting
to the building.
The drive through will use the parking lot access aisle closest to Grand for queu eing
to provide adequate stacking without interfering with the flow of traffic using the more
primary access aisles.
7. The design of outdoor parking areas, storage yards, trash and dumpster areas,
and other exterior features shall be adequately landscaped or screened to
minimize potential nuisance and impairment to the use of adjoining property.
The dumpster area will be screened with as required by code and grasses that will
reach five feet at maturity.
The missing landscaping along Grand Avenue that provides screening of the parking
area will be replaced as a condition of approval.
8. The proposed development shall limit entrances and exits upon adjacent
streets in order to prevent congestion on adjacent and surrounding streets and
in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle movement.
All access into the development will remain at their existing locations. The proposed
drive-through is designed to allow for queuing on site with minimal interruption to
overall circulation of the site.
9. Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in
order to maintain adequate security, while preventing a nuisance or hardship
to adjacent property or streets.
All lighting will be required to comply with the City’s Outdoor Lighting code, Section
29.411. Building lighting must also meet down lighting requirements. A lighting plan
compliant with City Standards is required as a condition of approval.
10. The proposed development shall ensure that dust and other forms of air
pollution, noise disturbances, odor, glare, and other nuisances will be limited
to acceptable levels as prescribed in other applicable State and City
regulations.
The proposed development is not expected to generate any nuisances.
11. Site coverage, building scale, setbacks, and open spaces shall be in proportion
with the development property and with existing and planned development and
structures, in adjacent and surrounding property.
The proposal is for reuse of a former bank building and site as a fast-food
restaurant and drive-through. No new buildings will be constructed. The existing
building was part of the previous ADP.
171
ITEM #:28
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:CMO
SUBJECT:MODIFICATIONS TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 4: BICYCLES AND 19:
PARKS AND RECREATION TO ADDRESS PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION
DEVICES
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
In October 2024, City Council directed staff to develop a micromobility ordinance for Council
consideration. On March 11, 2025, a staff report was provided and presented to Council,
which included 1) presenting research findings on micromobility ordinances in other
communities and 2) outlining ordinance components being proposed, and seeking Council
direction on various components.
Specifically, at the March 11, 2025, meeting, City Council directed staff to:
maintain current rules governing where bicycles are allowed and not allowed to operate
and extend those guidelines to other mobility devices.
exclude City parks and refer considerations of micromobility in parks to the Parks and
Recreation Commission (Commission).
direct staff to proceed with a 20 mph speed limit for non-roadway uses, except in City
parks.
include staff recommendations of exceptions for parades and ADA devices.
request staff include signage concepts with the future draft ordinance on micromobility.
Important Note: While the term "micromobility" had been commonly used to describe using
transportation devices such as scooters, e-scooters, e-bikes, etc., staff is recommending that
the City use a more accurate term, "personal transportation devices". The definition being
proposed is a slight modification of what the Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization uses. A personal transportation device, therefore, is a "mobility device, which
may be equipped with an electric motor for assistance or sole propulsion, designed for
conveying the operator, with speeds of less than 20 miles per hour, but excluding a bicycle or
low-speed electric bicycle”.
Examples include: Any small, lightweight, electric-powered vehicle designed for
single/tandem- passenger use, such as scooters, electric scooters, electric skateboards, one-
wheelers, and similar devices. Any gas-powered device or higher-powered device than a 750
watt engine is already prohibited on sidewalks and shared-used paths.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
After the March meeting, staff developed an online survey to gather public feedback on the
172
use of bicycles and personal transportation devices. The Personal Transportation Survey was
open from May 1 – May 16, 2025, and 257 responses were received. The purpose of this
survey was to gather public feedback around bicycles and personal transportation uses and to
use the input to inform any updates to City ordinances around the use of these devices. Staff
has analyzed the survey results (see Attachment A - PTD Survey Analysis).
Notably from the feedback,
73.7% (approximately 180 people) of respondents felt somewhat safe or very safe using
a bicycle or personal transportation device; 67.9% (approximately 166 people) felt
somewhat safe or very safe being around these devices on the sidewalk; and 78.2%
(191) felt somewhat safe or very safe being around these devices on a park path or trail.
79% of respondents felt most comfortable riding a personal transportation device in
parks and trail, 51% were comfortable riding on bike lanes, 61.7% felt uncomfortable
riding on a roadway (street), and about half of respondents felt comfortable riding on
sidewalks.
A majority of survey respondents (58.37%) supported no size restrictions on bicycles
and personal transportation devices.
Opinions were split on whether to have a speed limit or not, however, the primary area
for support for speed limit restrictions were in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic, like
shared-use trails or sidewalks, although there was no clear consensus on what that
speed limit ought to be (e.g., 10 mph, 15 mph). As such, the proposed ordinance
suggests 20-mph everywhere except on road where other speeds are posted and Parks,
since it was referred to the Park and Recreation Commission.
When asked if survey takers have experienced or witnessed any issues with personal
transportation uses, the most common issues observed were unsafe riding (50% or
130/257) and collisions or close calls with vehicles (49% or 126/257) and pedestrians
(40% or 103/257).
When asked what other safety concerns there are, the most common themes from
responses related to 1) speed and users going too fast, especially on trails 2) pedestrian
conflicts and the lack of warnings when passing 3) drivers not yielding and unsafe
intersections 4) riders ignoring traffic laws and 5) lack of helmets or poor lighting,
possible distracted riders.
Other notable themes through the survey responses included 1) a desire for more safety
and education learning opportunities 2) continue investing in dedicated infrastructure.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed personal transportation device uses on
City parks and trails at its meetings, and conducted a "Parks Rules" survey to get input from
community members on a potential speed limit for these types of devices in City parks. The
Commission recommends a 10 mph speed limit for bicycles and personal transportation
devices in City parks. This new speed limit is included in the Parks Rule, which the
Commission is authorized to set. Other proposed ordinance modifications to the Chapter 19:
Parks and Recreation are before Council at this meeting as well to ensure any changes to
Municipal Code Chapter 4 and Municipal Code Chapter 19 are complimentary.
173
In addition to the public survey conducted, Staff outlined possible changes to Municipal Code
Chapters 4 and 19 and provided it directly to several local bicyclists and biking advocates who
also shared it with their connections. Their feedback has been considered and many of their
suggestions have been incorporated into the proposed changes attached.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 4; BICYCLES:
The primary changes to Municipal Code Chapter 4 consists of updating existing language to
be clearer on the intent of what was already there and adding "personal transportation device".
Significant changes include:
1. Adding Section 4.5 Definitions for bicycle and personal transportation devices;
2. Adding clarity on speeds not to exceed for roadways and non-roadway uses outside of
parks (Section 4.9);
3. Adding an exception for riding on sidewalks for person(s) with a disability who uses a
wheelchair or mobility device (Section 4.13);
4. Modification of lamps and reflectors required (Section 4.16);
5. Clarity on brakes required (Section 4.17); and,
6. New sections that address:
a. Sirens, whistles and horns prohibited (Section 4.18)
b. Parking (Section 4.19)
c. Impoundment (Section 4.20) and
d. Responsible Riding (Section 4.21)
The changes to Municipal Code Chapter 19 updates Section 19.9 creating an exemption
for mobility device use for individuals with disabilities and updates language to
address personal transportation device uses in parks.
The Parks and Recreation Department has already began designing the appropriate signs for
installation in the parks. Signs will encourage appropriate speeds for multi-modal use on
shared-use paths. See Attachment B and C for signs that will be installed at Ada Hayden
Heritage Park.
Additionally, once the ordinance is fully in effect after final ordinance adoption, staff will work
on educational opportunities to share the new rules with the community. This will include
social media posts, emails to notification subscribers, and other educational materials.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve on first reading of the attached ordinance regarding Ames Municipal Code
Chapters 4 and 19 to take effect immediately after final ordinance adoption.
2. Direct staff to modify the proposed ordinance and bring it back to a future City Council
meeting for City Council consideration.
174
3. Do not approve first reading of the ordinance.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Updating Municipal Code Chapters 4 and 19 will improve public safety and the use of
bicycles and personal transportation devices. Modifying the ordinances provides clarity
around requirements when operating such devices. Therefore, it is the recommendation of
the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
DRAFT Ordinance Amending Chapters 4 and 19.pdf
Attachment A - PTD Survey Analysis .docx
Attachment B: Share The Path 24x18.pdf
Attachment C: Speed Limit 24x18.pdf
175
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 4
AND 19 THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING USE OF BICYCLES AND PERSONAL
TRANSPORTATION DEVICES; REPEALING ANY AND
ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT;
PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the
same is hereby amended by amending Chapters 4 and 19 as follows:
“CHAPTER 4
BICYCLES AND PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVICES
* * *
Sec. 4.5 DEFINITIONS
(1) Bicycle. Bicycle means either:
(a) a device having up to four (4) wheels and having at least one saddle or seat
for the use of a rider which is propelled by human power, or
(b) a device having up to four (4) wheels with fully operable pedals and the
assistance of an electric motor of less than 750 watts.
(2) Personal Transportation Device. Personal Transportation Device means a
mobility device which may be equipped with an electric motor for assistance or sole
propulsion, designed for conveying the operator, with speeds of less than 20 miles per
hour, but excluding a bicycle or low-speed electric bicycle.
Sec. 4.6. APPLICABILITY OF TRAFFIC LAWS.
Every person riding a bicycle, tricycle or unicycle upon a roadway is granted all
rights and is subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by the laws of
this state declaring rules of the road applicable to vehicles or by the traffic ordinances of
this city applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except as to special regulations in this
chapter and except as to those provisions of laws and ordinances which by their nature
can have no application.
Every person riding or operating a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, skateboard,
longboard, inline or quad skates, or other personal transportation device upon a
roadway is granted all rights and subject to all duties applicable to the driver of a
vehicle, except as otherwise provided by this chapter or where the nature of the device
renders specific provisions inapplicable.
176
Sec. 4.7. NUMBER OF PASSENGERS.
No bicycle, tricycle, or unicycle or personal transportation device shall be used to
carry more than one person unless equipped with a seat for each person carried.
Sec. 4.8. RIDING ON ROADWAYS, SIDEWALKS, BICYCLE PATHS.
(1) Every person operating a bicycle, tricycle, or unicycle or personal
transportation devices upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right-hand side of the
roadway as practicable and safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle
or one proceeding in the same direction.
(2) Persons riding bicycles, tricycles, or unicycles or personal transportation
devices upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on paths or
parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Single file when traffic is
heavy.
(3) Persons riding bicycles, tricycles, or unicycles or personal transportation device
upon a bicycle path not affixed to a roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicular
traffic traveling on the public roadways which intersect with the bicycle path. Persons
riding bicycles or personal transportation devices upon a bicycle path which is a
designated lane or part of a roadway shall obey the instructions of official traffic-control
signals, signs, and other control devices applicable to vehicles.
(4) No person shall operate any motor vehicle, including a motorcycle, motor
scooter, 'mo-ped' or motorized bicycle, when under power, upon any sidewalk or bike
path separated from the roadway, except that golf carts may be operated on the
following described portions of bike paths:
(a) The bike path along South Sixteenth Street commencing at the South
Riverside Drive intersection and going north to University Boulevard, across University
Boulevard Elwood Drive and continuing north along the east side of Jack Trice Stadium
to South Fourth Street, across South Fourth Street, and then north to Center Drive;
(b) The bike path along Beach Avenue from South Fourth Street north to
Lincoln Way, across Lincoln Way then north along Wallace Road to its intersection with
Union Drive, then south on Union Drive to Welch Avenue, then along Welch Avenue to
Lincoln Way;
(c) The bike path along Center Drive from University Boulevard Elwood Drive
to Beach Avenue; and
(d) The bike path along University Boulevard Elwood Drive from Center Drive
to South Fourth Street.
This exception to Sec. 4.8(4) shall be in effect from July 23, 1999 through July 29,
1999.
(e) Exception in cases of parades or special events authorized by the City.
See also Section 19.14.
Sec. 4.9. SPEED, OPERATION TO BE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT.
No person shall operate a bicycle, tricycle or unicycle at a speed greater than, or in
a manner other than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.
If a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal transportation device is being used on
177
the roadway, it must adhere to the speed of the roadway and be operated in a manner
that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.
If a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle or personal transportation device is being used
anywhere other than a roadway, it must not be operated at a speed greater than 20
miles per hour if no other speed limit is posted or applicable, and it must be operated in
a manner that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.
Sec. 4.10. EMERGING FROM ALLEY, DRIVEWAY, BUILDING.
The operator of a bicycle, tricycle or unicycle or personal transportation device
emerging from an alley, driveway or building shall, upon approaching a sidewalk or the
sidewalk area extending across any alleyway, yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians
approaching on said sidewalk or sidewalk area, and upon entering the roadway shall
yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on said roadway.
Sec. 4.11. CLINGING TO VEHICLES.
No person riding upon any bicycle, tricycle, or unicycle or personal transportation
device shall attach the same or themself to any vehicle or be in any manner towed upon
a roadway, sidewalk, or trail.
Sec. 4.12. CARRYING ARTICLES.
No person operating a bicycle, tricycle, or unicycle or personal transportation
device shall carry any package, bundle, or article which prevents the rider from keeping
at least one hand upon the handlebars, when handlebars are provided.
Sec. 4.13. RIDING ON SIDEWALKS.
It is unlawful for any person to operate a bicycle, tricycle, or unicycles or personal
transportation device upon any sidewalk on the following streets:
Main Street from Duff Avenue to Clark Avenue.
Lincoln Way on the south side thereof from Stanton Avenue to Hayward Avenue.
Hayward Avenue on the east side thereof from Lincoln Way to Hunt Street.
Welch Avenue from Lincoln Way to Knapp Street.
Exception: A person with a disability who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device is
permitted to use such a device on the sidewalks and areas listed above.
See also Section 19.14.
Sec. 4.14. RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PEDESTRIANS ON SIDEWALKS AND SHARED-
USE PATH; SIGNAL REQUIRED.
Whenever any person is riding a bicycle, tricycle, or unicycle or personal
transportation device upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any
pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing any such
pedestrian operate in a careful and prudent manner that is safe, respectful, and
responsive to conditions and others using the sidewalk and shared-use path.
Every person operating a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle or personal transportation
device upon a sidewalk and share-use path, shall yield the right-of-way when
178
approaching a pedestrian and shall give an audible signal, such as a voice call and bell,
before overtaking and passing.
Sec. 4.15. BICYCLES, TRICYCLES, UNICYCLES AND PERSONAL
TRANSPORTATION DEVICES PROHIBITED ON GRAND AVENUE.
The riding of bicycles, tricycles, or unicycles or personal transportation devices on
the roadway of Grand Avenue in the City of Ames, Iowa, is prohibited. Any person who
shall rides a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal transportation device on the traveled
portion of the roadway of Grand Avenue between Lincoln Way and 30th Street in the
City of Ames will be in violation of this section.
See also Section 19.14.
Sec. 4.16. LAMPS, REFLECTORS REQUIRED.
Every bicycle, tricycle or unicycle when in use during the hours from sunset to
sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible
from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the front and with a red reflector or
lamp on the rear which shall be visible three hundred (300) feet to the rear when directly
in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle.
Every bicycle, tricycle, unicycle or personal transportation device ridden at any time
from sunset to sunrise and at such other times when conditions such as fog, snow,
sleet, or rain provide insufficient lighting to render clearly discernible persons and
vehicles on the highway at a distance of three hundred feet ahead must be equipped
with a lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from a distance of at least three
hundred feet to the front.
Every bicycle, tricycle, unicycle or personal transportation device ridden at any time
from sunset to sunrise and at such other times when conditions such as fog, snow,
sleet, or rain provide insufficient lighting to render clearly discernible persons and
vehicles on the highway at a distance of three hundred feet ahead must be equipped
with a lamp on the rear exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of three hundred
feet to the rear; except that a red reflector may be used in lieu of a rear light.
Equivalent equipment such as headlamps and red-light attachments to the head,
back, are, or leg may be used in lieu of a lamp on the front and a red light on the rear of
the bicycle.
A peace officer riding a police bicycle is not required to use either front or rear lamps if
duty so requires.
Sec. 4.17. BRAKE REQUIRED.
Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make
the braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
Every bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal transportation device operated within
the City boundaries must be able to come to a complete stop within a safe distance.
Sec. 4.18. SIRENS, WHISTLES AND HORNS PROHIBITED.
A bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal transportation device shall not be equipped
179
with, and a person shall not use upon a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal
transportation device any siren, whistle, and horn. This section does not apply to
bicycles, tricycles, unicycles, or personal transportation devices ridden by peace officers
in the line of duty.
Sec. 4.19. PARKING.
No person shall park a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle or personal transportation device
upon a sidewalk, street, or alley in such a manner that provides no adequate path for
pedestrian or motor vehicle travel, or a curb ramp, building entrance, or fire hydrant.
Sec. 4.20. IMPOUNDMENT.
The Police Department may impound the bicycle, tricycle, unicycle or personal
transportation device that is used by any person who creates a hazardous condition
while violating this chapter. If impounded, the bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal
transportation device will be released by the Police Department to the owner if proof of
ownership is shown and any associated fees and charges are paid.
Sec. 4.21. RESPONSIBLE RIDING.
(1) A person must operate a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal
transportation device in a manner that is safe, respectful, and responsive to conditions
of roadways, shared-use paths, sidewalks, and city parks.
(2) A person operating a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal transportation
device must keep it under control at all times.
(3) A person must not operate a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal
transportation device while using a phone or another device which prevents the rider
from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebars, when handlebars are provided.
(4) A person must not operate a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or personal
transportation device in a manner so as to disregard the safety of the operator, others,
or property.
Sec. 4.22 4.18. PENALTIES FOR OFFENSES PERTAINING TO BICYCLES.
(1) A violation of any provision of Chapter 4, Bicycles and Personal Transportation
Devices, shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a penalty of $50.00 for a person’s
first violation thereof, and a penalty of $100.00 for each repeat violation.
(2) Alternatively, a violation of Chapter 4 can be charged by a peace officer of the
City as a simple misdemeanor.
* * *
180
CHAPTER 19
PARKS AND RECREATION
* * *
Sec. 19.9. UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN CITY PARK;
EXCEPTIONS.
It is unlawful for any person, other than authorized personnel, to operate a motor
vehicle as defined in the laws of the state in any public park or pleasure ground
greenway of the city, except upon the streets and parking lots therein which are
specifically designated for motor vehicle travel.
Exception: This section does not apply to manual or powered mobility devices
used by individuals with a disability. Use of Other Power-Drive Mobility Devices
(OPDMDs) by individuals with mobility disabilities are subject to a case-by-case
assessment based on official factors (i.e., device characteristics, park characteristics,
safety requirements, environmental factors, and/or land management).
* * *
Sec. 19.12. BIKE RIDING PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN PARKS.
Bike riding is Riding of bicycles, tricycles, unicycles, and personal transportation
devices, (i.e., manual, electric, etc.) are prohibited in Munn Woods; East River Valley
Park; and in Brookside Park on the Audubon Trail.
See also 19.14.
* * *
Sec. 19.14. PROHIBITED USE OF GEORGIE TSUSHIMA MEMORIAL SKATE
PARK.
(1) No person shall use or have in or on the City Skate Park Georgie Tsushima
Memorial Skate Park any type of bicycle, scooter, coaster, unicycle, sled, vehicle or
other device scooter, coaster, sled, bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, personal transportation
device or vehicle, except for skateboards and in-line roller skates.
(2) Violation of this section shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a penalty
of $50.00 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $200 for each subsequent
offense.
* * * ”
Section Two. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a
municipal infraction punishable as set out by law.
Section Three. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any.
181
Section Four. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
______________________________ _____________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
Passed on:
I, Renee Hall, City Clerk of the City of Ames, Iowa, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No. ______________, passed by the
City Council of said City at the meeting held on ______________________and signed
by the Mayor on ___________________________, and published in the Ames Tribune
on ___________________________.
________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
182
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 1
City of Ames Personal Transportation Survey Results
May 1 – May 16, 2025 | 257 responses
The City of Ames Personal Transportation Survey was open from May 1 – May 16, 2025. The
purpose of this survey was to gather public feedback around bicycles and personal transportation
uses and to use the input to inform any updates to City ordinances around the use of these devices.
Below is a summary of the results from the survey. It is important to note, that ChatGPT was used to
help summarize the results, however, staff has verified that the results of ChatGPT are aligned with
the survey results. There were a few questions with comment boxes where survey respondents could
provide input. The raw results for those are included in Appendix A at the end of this report.
Summary of Key Findings:
1. "Do you live, work or play in Ames? (Check all that apply)"
o The vast majority of respondents (96.34%) live in Ames, indicating the survey captured
opinions primarily from the local community. A high percentage also play (82.93%) and
work (71.14%) in Ames, suggesting a strong connection to the city.
2. "Please select your top three forms of transportation:"
o Traditional transportation methods like Car/vehicle (93.09%) and Walking (84.55%) are
overwhelmingly the most selected.
o Bicycle (52.03%) is also a significant mode of transportation.
o Electric bikes (E-bike: 10.16%) and scooters (E-scooter: 0.81%) were selected as top
forms of transportation by a smaller, but notable, percentage of respondents.
3. "Which of the following do you own and use, or do you see most often used by others?
(Check all that apply)"
o Bicycles, unicycles, or tricycles are widely owned/used or seen by others (69.11%
personally own/use, 26.42% see others use).
o Electric-bikes, electric-unicycles, or electric-tricycles are frequently observed
(64.23% see others use), with a smaller percentage owning/using them (10.98%).
o Electric Scooters are also commonly observed (59.35% see others use), but rarely
personally owned/used (1.63%).
This suggests that while traditional bicycles are very popular, electric -assisted
devices, particularly e-bikes and e-scooters, are a noticeable presence in the
community, often seen rather than owned by respondents.
4. "If applicable, how often do you use the following transportation methods?"
o Cars/vehicles (75.20% Daily) and Walking (62.20% Daily) are used most frequently.
183
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 2
o While bicycles are selected as a top transportation method by many, their daily use
(13.41% for Bicycle, unicycle or tricycle) is lower than cars/walking.
o Electric-assisted devices like electric scooters and other electric-assisted personal
transportation devices are "Never" used or "Do not own/use" by a significant majority,
reinforcing the observation that they are mostly seen rather than personally used by
survey respondents.
5. How safe do you feel about bicycle or personal transportation devices (e-bikes, e-
scooters, electric skateboard, etc.) in your community?
Below is summary of the survey responses about safety perceptions regarding bicycles or
personal transport devices:
o Using these devices
Somewhat safe: 126 (51.6%) | Very safe: 54 (22.1%) | Unsafe: 22 (9%)
Very unsafe: 15 (6.1%) | Do not use / no opinion: 27 (11%)
o Being around these devices on the sidewalk
Somewhat safe: 116 (47.5%) | Very safe: 50 (20.4%) | Unsafe: 51 (20.9%)
Very unsafe: 23 (9%) | Do not use / no opinion: 4 (1.6%)
o Being around these devices on a park path or trail
Somewhat safe: 109 (44.6%) | Very safe: 82 (33.6%) | Unsafe: 27 (11%)
Very unsafe: 18 (7.3%) | Do not use / no opinion: 8 (3.2%)
Overall, people generally feel “somewhat safe” both using and being around these devices,
with more confidence on park paths/trails than sidewalks.
There was a comment box available for this question where respondents could provide
additional comments on comfortability of riding personal transportation devices. Here’s a short
summary of the comments analyzed by ChatGPT. The raw data is included in Appendix A.
Main Concerns
Speed & Silence: E-bikes/scooters move too fast and quietly, startling pedestrians.
Unsafe Sidewalk Use: Many want motorized devices banned from sidewalks —too
narrow and dangerous.
Reckless Behavior: Riders often ignore traffic rules, don’t announce themselves, and
show little courtesy.
Poor Infrastructure: Roads feel unsafe; there’s a strong need for more and better bike
lanes and trail connections.
Driver Danger: Cars are still the biggest threat to cyclists and micromobility users.
Support & Suggestions
Many support micromobility for affordability and sustainability.
Safety depends more on operator behavior and infrastructure than the device.
184
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 3
Suggestions include: speed limits, banning high-powered devices from sidewalks, better
signage, and rider education.
6. "What would your level of comfort be with riding a personal transportation device (ex. e -
scooter, e-bike) on each of the following types of bike facilities?"
o Parks and trails (53.66% Very comfortable, 26.02% Somewhat comfortable) are the
most comfortable places to ride.
o City bike lanes show mixed comfort (28.05% Somewhat comfortable, 23.17% Very
comfortable, but also 20.73% Very uncomfortable, 22.36% Somewhat uncomfortable).
185
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 4
o Roadway (on the street) is largely uncomfortable (41.06% Very uncomfortable,
20.73% Somewhat uncomfortable).
o Sidewalks are also a concern, with a nearly even split between comfortable (31.71%
Somewhat, 21.54% Very) and uncomfortable (19.51% Somewhat, 21.54% Very). This
indicates strong conflicting views on sidewalk usage.
There was a comment box available for this question where respondents could provide
additional comments on comfortability of riding personal transportation devices. Here’s a short
summary of the comments analyzed by ChatGPT. The raw data is included in Appendix A.
Safety concerns: Many riders feel unsafe on busy streets with heavy traffic, especially
where bike lanes are narrow, unprotected, or poorly maintained. Intersect ions and
crossings increase risk. Distracted or aggressive drivers and debris in bike lanes add to
discomfort.
Bike lane design: Numerous comments call for physically separated bike lanes with
barriers to protect riders from cars, rather than just painted lines. Current bike lanes are
often seen as inadequate, unsafe, or wasted resources.
Sidewalk use: Most agree sidewalks are primarily for pedestrians and feel uncomfortable
or unsafe biking on them. Shared use of sidewalks or multi-use paths can cause conflicts
due to speed differences and unpredictability of pedestrians and pets.
Rider skill and etiquette: Comfort varies with rider ability, courtesy, and adherence to
laws. Poor etiquette and inconsistent behavior among riders and drivers contribute to
conflicts and discomfort.
Infrastructure needs: There is a desire for more and better bike lanes and multi-use trails
that are wide, well-maintained, and separated from traffic. Some users prefer multi-use
paths with fewer pedestrians over busy streets.
Vehicle interaction: Many express distrust of drivers’ awareness of bikers and lack of
consistent rules on how to share the road or trails safely.
E-bikes and personal devices: Concerns about the safety and appropriateness of e-bikes
and e-scooters on sidewalks and trails, both for riders and pedestrians.
Variability in comfort: Comfort levels depend heavily on location, infrastructure quality,
and traffic conditions. Some roads and trails are considered much safer or more enjoyable
than others.
Desire for education and clarity: Some users want clearer guidelines on how to navigate
bike lanes, multi-use paths, and shared spaces safely.
General sentiment: Riders want safer, more separated, and better-maintained facilities to
feel comfortable biking or using PTDs in the city.
7. "Should there be a size restriction (dimensions and/or weight) on the size of the
personal transportation devices allowed to operate in the city?"
o A majority (58.37%) responded "No" to size restrictions, while 41.63% supported them.
186
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 5
There was a comment box available for this question where respondents could provide
additional comments on size restrictions. Here’s a short summary of the comments analyzed
by ChatGPT. The raw data is included in Appendix A.
General Sentiment
Mixed opinions: Some support size restrictions, others are against them or unsure;
however, the majority of respondents who provided comments agree that size and
weight restrictions on personal electric transportation devices (PTDs) should be
considered to ensure pedestrian safety and comfort, especially on sidewalks and
shared-use trails.
Many think speed and behavior are more important safety factors than size alone.
Support for Restrictions
Devices should not be too wide or heavy to safely share sidewalks or trails.
Large, vehicle-like devices (e.g. golf carts, four-wheelers, electric motorcycles)
should not be allowed on multi-use paths or sidewalks.
Suggestions include setting limits based on width, weight, or speed.
Concerns About Restrictions
Could limit access for people with disabilities or lower-income users.
Hard to enforce fairly, especially with custom or ADA mobility devices.
Risk of overregulation discouraging non-car transportation.
Key Suggestions
Restrict by speed and function, not just size.
Make exceptions for ADA devices and special needs.
Create guidance based on where devices are used (e.g., streets vs. trails).
8. "Should there be a speed limit to how fast users (human-powered and/or electric-
assisted personal transportation users) can ride on:"
o City bike lanes: Opinions are split, with a significant portion suggesting "No speed limit"
(39.84%), but also suggestions for 15 mph (17.48%), 20 mph (11.38%), and 10 mph
(8.13%).
o Sidewalk: There is strong support for "Less than 10 mph" (41.46%) and "10 mph"
(19.92%), indicating a clear preference for lower speeds or restrictions on sidewalks.
"No speed limit" on sidewalks has very low support (8.13%).
o Specific area(s) of the City: "No speed limit" (24.39%) and "Less than 10 mph"
(12.60%) or "10 mph" (11.79%) are common suggestions.
187
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 6
There was a comment box available for this question where respondents could provide
additional comments on speed. Here’s a short summary of the comments analyzed by
ChatGPT. The raw data is included in Appendix A.
Most respondents support speed limits for e-bikes and other personal transport devices
(PTDs), particularly in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic like downtown, campus, parks, and
shared-use trails. Many emphasize:
Context-based limits: Speed should depend on area type (e.g., lower in busy pedestrian
zones, higher on open trails or protected bike lanes).
Safety concerns: High speeds on sidewalks and trails can endanger pedestrians.
Enforcement challenges: Many devices lack speedometers, making enforcement difficult.
Common sense and etiquette: Some feel formal limits aren't needed if users act
responsibly and courteously.
Separate infrastructure: Some suggest designated lanes or signage to separate fast -
moving PTDs from pedestrians.
A few believe speed isn’t the main issue—rule-following and behavior are more important.
9. Have you experienced or witnessed any issues with the personal transportation use?
Most common concerns
Unsafe riding: 130
Collisions or close calls with vehicles: 126
Collisions or close calls with pedestrians: 103
Underaged or inexperienced riders: 80
Devices lacking safety measures (lighting, braking, etc.): 79
Sidewalk cluttering: 76
Collisions or close calls with other bikes/devices: 60
Less common concerns
Riders carrying too many things: 33
Miscellaneous/other issues (reported once each):
o Cell phone use, ignoring rules, running stop signs/lights
o Poor infrastructure (cracked sidewalks/roads)
o Riding in prohibited areas (e.g., trails in East River Valley Park)
o Reference to homelessness
Overall, the top concerns are unsafe riding and conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians,
followed by inexperienced riders and inadequate device safety features.
10. Are there other safety concerns that you have about these use of personal
transportation devices?
188
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 7
This was an open-ended question with a comment box. Here’s are some summary results
analyzed by ChatGPT. The raw data is included in Appendix A.
Here is a short summary of responses:
Top Safety Concerns with E-bikes, Scooters, etc.
Speed & Recklessness: Going too fast, especially on sidewalks/trails.
Pedestrian Conflicts: Quiet, sudden approaches; lack of warnings when passing.
Cars & Roads: Drivers not yielding, unsafe intersections, poor bike lanes.
Rules & Etiquette: Riders ignoring traffic laws; little knowledge of etiquette.
Gear & Visibility: Few helmets, poor lighting, distracted riders.
Infrastructure Issues: Sidewalk clutter, need for protected lanes/crossings.
Overall: Main worries are speed, lack of etiquette, and unsafe interactions with both
pedestrians and cars, worsened by weak infrastructure.
Here is a longer summary of the feedback:
Key Themes
1. Speed & Recklessness
o Going too fast on sidewalks, trails, and bike paths.
o Riders weaving unpredictably, passing too close, or riding side by side.
o Inexperienced or young riders operating devices unsafely.
2. Pedestrian Safety
o Conflicts on sidewalks and crowded areas, especially near campus.
o Riders startling pedestrians because devices are quiet and approach
suddenly.
o Lack of warning (bells, verbal signals) when passing.
3. Car & Road Interactions
o Drivers not yielding to bikes/scooters at crossings or stop signs.
o Right turns on red creating hazards.
o Bike lanes too narrow, inconsistent, or nonexistent.
o Overall street design prioritizing cars over bikes/scooters.
4. Rules, Etiquette & Enforcement
o Riders ignoring traffic signals, stop signs, or right-of-way rules.
o Lack of knowledge of trail etiquette and city laws.
o Calls for education, licensing, or training.
o Difficulty enforcing speed limits.
5. Protective Gear & Visibility
189
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 8
o Lack of helmets.
o Poor lighting or no reflectors at night.
o Riders distracted by phones or headphones.
6. Infrastructure & Policy
o Concern about scooter rental programs causing sidewalk clutter.
o Desire for separated bike lanes, protected crossings, and better trail design.
o Some suggesting “no turn on red” rules or traffic calming measures.
o Calls for overpasses/underpasses at busy crossings.
7. Mixed Views
o Some feel personal transportation devices are not a major concern compared
to cars.
o Others believe they should not be on sidewalks at all (except ADA devices).
o A few said they’ve had no problems personally.
In short: The top concerns are speed, lack of rider etiquette, and unsafe interactions with both
pedestrians and cars—made worse by limited bike infrastructure.
11. "What other things should the City consider as it relates to regulating bicycle and
personal transportation device use in the City of Ames?"
This was an open-ended question with a comment box. Here’s are some summary results
analyzed by ChatGPT. The raw data is included in Appendix A.
1. Consistent and clear regulations:
Same rules for bikes, e-bikes, personal devices, LSVs
Licensing and fines for violations
Age restrictions and supervision for young users
2. Safety equipment requirements:
Helmets, lights, reflectors, braking gear
3. Speed limits and enforcement:
Reasonable speed limits for devices (e.g., 10–25 mph)
Enforcement of traffic laws for all users (bikers, motorists, scooter riders)
Ticketing motorists and riders who break rules
4. Infrastructure improvements:
More and better-connected bike lanes and trails
Protected/separated bike lanes with physical barriers
Safer, clearer intersections and crossings
Maintenance of trails and sidewalks (repair, debris removal)
Designated bike/pedestrian lanes with clear markings and wayfinding
190
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 9
5. Encouragement of alternative transportation:
Promote use of bikes and personal devices over cars
Avoid over-regulation that discourages ridership
Provide education and maintenance workshops
Consider commuter trails to workplaces and ISU
6. Separation of transportation modes:
Avoid mixing fast and slow users on same paths or roads
Encourage secondary routes for bikes and devices instead of busy streets
7. User behavior and education:
Training or safety courses, especially for e-bike users
Promote etiquette like slower traffic keep right, signaling, yielding
Address distracted riding and driving
8. Focus on motor vehicle regulation:
Greater enforcement and awareness of motorists ’ responsibilities toward cyclists and
pedestrians
Emphasize that cars pose the biggest danger
9. Accessibility and inclusivity:
Consider ADA issues and safety for disabled users
Ensure regulations do not disproportionately limit alternative transportation
10. Community involvement and enforcement:
Citizen patrols or involvement in problem areas
Coordination with ISU and enforcement across jurisdictions
11. Additional concerns:
Address clutter from rental bikes/scooters
Improve safety at specific problematic intersections
Consider noise and pollution from gas-powered bikes
Recommendations for Ordinances:
Based on these findings, here are recommendations for ordinances to enhance the safety of riders
and pedestrians:
1. Designated Usage Areas & Restrictions:
o Prioritize Parks and Trails for Personal Transportation Devices: Given the high
comfort levels, encourage the use of personal transportation devices on parks and
trails.
191
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 10
o Restrict or Prohibit Personal Transportation Devices on Sidewalks, Especially for
Faster Devices: The data strongly suggests discomfort and calls for low speed limits on
sidewalks. Ordinances should explicitly define where devices are allowed. Consider
prohibiting e-scooters and e-bikes on sidewalks, or limiting their speed to walking pace
(e.g., 5-8 mph) where allowed. This directly addresses p edestrian safety concerns.
o Clarify Rules for City Bike Lanes: While there's mixed comfort, city bike lanes are a
primary intended space. Ordinances could clearly state speed limits and etiquette for
sharing these lanes between different types of users (e.g., traditional bikes and faster e-
devices).
o Discourage Roadway (on the street) Use for Less Visible/Slower Devices: Due to
high discomfort with riding on roadways, ordinances should emphasize proper visibility
and road rules for devices permitted on streets.
2. Speed Limits:
o Implement Low Speed Limits on Sidewalks: This is the most crucial speed-related
ordinance for pedestrian safety. A limit of 10 mph or less (e.g., 5-8 mph) is strongly
supported and aligns with pedestrian comfort.
o Consider Differentiated Speed Limits for Bike Lanes: While "No speed limit" was
popular, a significant portion suggested limits. The city could consider a reasonable
speed limit for bike lanes (e.g., 15-20 mph) that balances efficiency for riders with safety
for all users.
o Define Speed Limits for Specific Areas (e.g., Downtown, High-Traffic Zones):
Based on the "Specific area(s)" responses, identifying areas where lower speeds are
necessary could enhance safety.
3. Education and Enforcement:
o Safety Education: Consider implementing mandatory online safety courses or
information dissemination for riders, especially for those operating higher -speed or
rental devices, aligning with community suggestions.
o Rules of the Road and Pedestrian Etiquette: Ordinances should clearly outline rules
for passing, yielding, and respecting pedestrian space, particularly on shared paths.
o Enhanced Enforcement: Address concerns about reckless behavior and non-
compliance with existing traffic laws. Clear signage and consistent enforcement of new
ordinances will be vital.
4. Infrastructure Improvements (Beyond Ordinances but Related):
o Continue Investing in Dedicated Infrastructure: The high comfort levels on parks and
trails suggest that dedicated paths are effective. Continued investment in separated
bike lanes and multi-use trails can encourage safer usage patterns and reduce conflicts.
192
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 11
o Improve Intersections: Address concerns about car interactions at stop signs and
intersections through infrastructure design and public a wareness campaigns.
By implementing ordinances that are informed by these community perspectives, Ames can create a
safer environment for both personal transportation device riders and pedestrians.
193
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 12
Demographics of Survey Respondents
What is your age group?
Count % of Total
No response 8 3.25%
0-18 1 0.41%
19-30 52 21.14%
31-40 32 13.01%
41-50 29 11.79%
50-65 61 24.80%
65+ 63 25.61%
Total 246 100.00%
What Zip Code do you live in?
Count % of Total
No response 8 3.25%
50010 160 65.04%
50012 1 0.41%
50014 72 29.27%
Other: 50023 1 0.41%
Other: 50105 1 0.41%
Other: 50223 1 0.41%
Other: 50278 1 0.41%
Other: 55020 1 0.41%
Total 246 100.00%
Do you identify as someone with a disability?
Count % of Total
No response 10 4.07%
No 221 89.84%
Yes 15 6.10%
Total 246 100.00%
What is your annual household income?
Row Labels Count % of Total
No response 8 3.25%
$100,000–$149,999 45 18.29%
$150,000+ 45 18.29%
$25,000–$49,999 20 8.13%
$50,000–$74,999 31 12.60%
$75,000–$99,999 39 15.85%
Prefer not to say 40 16.26%
Under $25,000 18 7.32%
Grand Total 246 100.00%
194
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 13
Appendix A: Raw Data from Survey Fields where an
Open Comment Box was Available
Question 5: Comments on Device Safety
1 When walking on a large street with marked bike lanes, occasionally a biker comes up behind
me on the sidewalk without any notice to me to be aware.
2 Just as with cars, safety depends on the operator.
3 Ban these on sidewalks and streets
4 I notice a lack of communication and safety from people who bike occasionally.
5 I don’t always hear other bicyclists coming behind me. Electric bikes especially come up
quickly
6 Transportation such as E-bikes, e-scooters are an excellent form of transportation. They are
economical and much more efficient than using a car. Many people can't afford cars.
7
Although I always watch out and yield to pedestrians, many students on campus will zoom by
and it scares me that they might run into me on my bike. I feel comfortable around these
devices until someone decides that they don't care about anyone else zooms by. Most of the
time they seem to not watch out for others, look around the corner, or look before crossing a
pedestrian intersection. I feel comfortable when there is plenty of space on the path but it gets
concerning when they're trying to do this during a passing period. Throughout Ames, I feel very
comfortable biking, I have very few issues with the exception of intersections on Lincoln Way.
Bikes are not thought about in any way or form and makes it difficult as a bicyclist when
intersections aren't designed for you. Pedestrians don't want you on the sidewalk and cars
aren't looking for you. Cars don't want you on the road and I don't want to be there when most
are going 40 in a 35, or 30 in a 25. Lincoln is designed for cars. I have had several issues with
Lincoln and South Dakota, crossing west from the south east side. I've been hit once and
almost hit on several other occasions. As someone who takes this route on a daily basis, cars
aren't looking out for bikes or pedestrians. I've gotten to the point that even when I have the
right of way, I wait there for a minute to ensure that the cars there will look at me,
acknowledging that I'm there. I also have to watch for cars turning left from the east and cars
turning right from the west. The answer may be that I go slower, but cars still manage to start
turning, stop in the intersection, and slam on there breaks. It's also not a visibility issue
because I have several reflectors and keep a bike light on both front and back of my bike. I
would love a no turn on red here because throughout this entire year, it has been consistent.
8 Problem is car not yielding at pedestrian crossings
9 More congestion ==> less safe
10 The speed of electric PTDs is incompatible with pedestrians and with vehicles.
11 Concerned with distracted drivers at intersections
12 Many people do not use trail etiquette or follow traffic laws
13 Speed and operator behavior (just like autos) are the driving issues re safety
14 My walking on trails in Brookside Park and Ada Hayden stopped because of bikes whizzing by
me, causing fear and distress. Bikers do not properly announce themselves, nor take any care
for how they ride on roadways; they weave in and out of traffic, which is scary.
15 Many users of these devices do not know or do not care to follow laws or safety practices.
16 Depends on the operator
17 Given sufficient warning and awareness, I feel very safe around these devices. I also feel that
requiring users to carry a bell/alerting device is problematic, and would like to see more
outreach and education instead.
18 I want better bike lanes. Ones with a disconnection to the road.
195
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 14
19 Hard to say as I don’t feel I encounter that many
20 Never know if they should be in the road like a car or on the sidewalk or trail.
21 Not any more or less safe then regular bikes
22 Car drivers don’t care, see, or know about pedestrians/bicyclists rights/traffic laws in Ames.
People should use more reflectors and bicycles lights when dark.
23 Ok at Hayden where the path is wide enough to pass and there are no intersections to cross.
Most bike paths around town are very unsafe
24 excessive speeds create safety concerns
25 I do NOT feel safe in the roads or on bike lanes, no matter what I use. Drivers are not safe,
caring, or provide enough distance to feel safe.
26 Great on trails that are wide enough to accommodate, otherwise, they don't mix well with
walking.
27 Overall I don’t have a problem with people using them.
28 Most of my safety issues are due to the operator of these devices. Some do not show
courtsey to others of the sidewalks or paths.
29 Cars are always the greatest danger. Physical barriers between cars and pedestrians/cyclists
is the best solution. Bollards and curbs. Bikes that have throttles should not be considered
bicycles and should not be on sidewalks. If the bike does not have pedals and cranks as the
main source of propulsion, it is a motorcycle and should be banned from sidewalks and paths.
30 Condition and upkeep of mix-used paths and trails is a concern
31 It all depends on everyone following the same courtesy in sharing and using spaces.
32 Lack of safety is due to poor infrastructure, not the devices themselves. Safety varies widely at
different locations.
33 Not all users of these devices stay on the road. and they are reckless on the sidewalks. And
many users run the STOP SIGNS not everyone has safety in mind
34 Can't always hear when such a device is approaching from the rear.
35 As long as used with respect for others
36 Crash force is determined by speed, regardless of whether the device has propulsion
assistance. There is no reason to exclude a certain e -bicycle category.
37 We need a bike trail that connects to the High Trestle Trail. This would reduce bike traffic at
Ada Hayden.
38 Mixing speeds creates risk. Adding power to devices adds risk. Mixing power/no power and
speeds is tricky to navigate.
39 Add ordinances to Keep all of these PTDs off sidewalks!
40 I don't feel safe sharing a road with a car when on a bicycle. (bicycle lane). Due to cell phones
and car entertainment.
41 Primary bike paths should NEVER be adjacent to a high traffic street. Offset bikes to side
streets to increase the level of safety for both bikers and autos.
42 I see students in/around ISU zooming on those stand up electric scooters. way too fast and
shooting thru lights and crosswalks all the time
43 Many cyclists do not understand the “shared” aspect of shared use paths. I’ve never seen an
e-scooter rider slow or yield right of way. They are too fast and too small to be visible on a city
street.
44 My biggest concern for safety is related to vehicular traffic (speed, distracted drivers, rude and
reckless, etc.)
45 Don’t trust drivers to pay attention to road (many are distracted drivers), so feel have to ride
defensively
46 No one follows any rules as no one knows rules of the road
196
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 15
47 Questions unclear about the perspective of safety. Is it personal safety or the safety of the
individuals on these devices. Disappointed in the lack of precision in this survey. Questions
poorly worded and unclear.
48 Didn't ask me about safety when they're on the roadway. The unpredictability of these
operators makes them very unsafe on the roadway.
49 More bike lanes would be great and safer!
50 i feel safer when the “rules” are clearly communicated to car drivers. any unsafe conditions i’ve
met are the result of angry cars.
51 Sometimes they can get in the way on the sidewalks or seemingly come out of no where
52 I feel like the people using them don't pay attention and i almost always get ran over by them
or they almost always seem to cause accidents or traffic issues
53 Many EBike riders are inexperienced riding at the speed these devices travel.
54 I generally feel safe when I ride my bike on trails and multi-use paths, but feel more unsafe on
the road and feel that there is a lot of uncertainty around expectations of use.
55 I would rather see more dedicated multimodal lanes (bike lanes) and keep t hese vehicles off
the sidewalk, especially if they are motorized.
56 I feel safe using them. I wish sidewalks were wider. During peak busy times it gets quite
crowed and I'm afriad I'm going to get hit.
57 Wearing a helmet is important.
58 A truck ran into me on my bike while I was on the bike path on S. 4th St. The alleyway opened
on on the bike path. As I began rolling away after falling off the bike, luckily the pickup driver
stopped after hearing the bike drag under his truck with less than 2 feet from his passenger
side front tire rolling over my chest. Clutered alleyways should nor open up onto a bike path!
59 Wheels and walking don’t mix
60 Speed and refusal of some to announce their presence (on your left) are my pet peeves
61 Ames needs more bike trails and they need to connect to each other. I don’t feel safe riding on
streets, even with bike lanes as drivers are too distracted.
62 The paths at Ada Hayden do not feel as safe now for walking.
63 It would be nice if they would obey the traffic laws and stop at stop lights signs.
64 It’s not sp much the presence of these devices but the speed at which they operate and the
silent running of the electric one. This is dangerous to all walkers at all times when the speeds
are too high.
65 These types of electric personal transportation are too fast on sidewalks and park paths.
66 Cars don’t know how to drive around bikes. The problem is not bikes….
67 I am/was expert bicyclist, I have been on e-cycle, have never tried others, but respect those
who can use them. I might be a safety hazard if I was on some of them, but the young folks I
see using them are good at it, though I have seen a cut corners, etc.They are much better than
everyone trying to use automobile for short trips.
68 Biggest concerns are electric scooters used on sidewalks and cars that are not attentive to
bicycles.
69 Some of the mixed use paths can feel a bit unsafe if there is high traffic and mixed of regular
and electric bike/scooter.. Some of the roads that are bike routes do not feel as safe as they
could.
70 Around Ames, most people on bikes are courteous enough to navigate around me as I'm
walking on the sidewalk. On campus, people are never courteous about anything.
71 electric powered devices are fast and quiet and are dangours to those walking with small
children or anyone with difficult walking. They should be banned from all sidewalks and paths,
unless speed restricted and automated bells installed to alert others.
72 definitely safer than the silly enormous trucks people drive
197
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 16
73 bicycles should not be on the roads unless there is a designated bike lane, especially roads
without a shoulder.
74 In my experience, individuals on e-bikes and e-scooters fall into two categories: those who
have mobility impairment and those who are looking for fast and novel transportation. I love
seeing e-vehicles improve the lives of individuals who otherwise may not be able to get out and
enjoy cycling or scooting. On the other hand, I have personally witnessed, young, capable
riders behaving recklessly on e-vehicles. They do not respect pedestrians, perform dangerous
maneuvers, do not wear helmets or other protective gear, do not follow bike/scooter rules, and
are all together a dangerous nuisance. I know it's a challenge to police this, but e-vehicles
require some level of basic intelligence to ride in public.
75 If I didn't have a commute to get to Ames I would consider using one of these devices.
76 Ebike riders go way to fast and drive like idiots on the walking / biking trails. Cost me $100 for
a new bike wheel.
77 Users of these devices can be reckless on sidewalks and trails when passing pedestrians.
78 With regards to using: there are some locations, mostly busy streets with high vehicle traffic
where I do not feel completely safe. I have no issue being around these devices on a path/trail
that is wide enough, provided the users are being responsible, but a standard sidewalk is
generally to narrow to allow these modes and walking to mix comfortably.
79 E-assist only. No fully electric should be on sidewalks or paths
80 our car got hit by a scooter on the road that was performing tricks and lost control
81 I think there is nuance here. Someone using an electric assist bike to take a ride on trails is
different than someone using a fully powered electric bike or scooter on trails at higher speeds.
I don't believe fully motorized vehicles that travel at high speeds belong on s idewalks and bike
paths.
82 To many residentially challenged people/homeless. They are unpredictable and can be
dangerous at times. They don’t move off of sidewalks; are in the way loitering.
83 Sidewalks are for walkers, strollers , dog walkers, and small young children learning to play on
wheeled toys
84 Walkers need to listen more for when a cyclist says "On Your Left". Most times they have
earbuds in and never hear me.
Question XXXXX: Comments on Comfortability
1 Some bike lanes are placed on heavily used streets with heavy traffic ... buses, trucks.
2 Auto drivers don’t always respect bike lanes or riders.
3 I don't want to bike on sidewalks
4
Cars are extremely dangerous. Bike lanes should have physical barriers to protect against
cars.
5 Sidewalks for walking
6 Being focused and aware to conditions and surroundings.
7 I do not own an electric bike
8 Most bikers get hurt or worse when they are on a road or street.
9 intersections ==> greater risk
10
PTDs on sidewalks and trails make pedestrians uncomfortable. I also can’t picture a PTD user
feeling comfortable in a bike lane or on the street.
11
Riders vary in ability and their willingness to follow protocol, I.e. “Hi, I’m on your left”. Makes a
huge difference when walking on paved trails and sidewalks.
198
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 17
12
I own a bicycle and could commute with it from my home to my job, but feel uncomfortable
being around vehicle traffic in Ames (due to lack of bike lanes, my own lack of knowledge
about how to bike with vehicle traffic around, and bicyclists/drivers not being on the same
page)
13 Many use conflicts due to varying speeds and lack of etiquette or following lawd
14
Proximity to traffic (incl other PTD/peds) and speed differentials are fundamental issues, Re
sidewalk use, driveway cuts are an additional problem
15
Honestly, the street provides more space to be SEEN and to maneuver while riding a bike. The
bike trails are too narrow and compete with walkers, that can suddenly fling their arms out or
move to the other side suddenly as you are coming up fast behind them bc they can't hear you.
16
Car drivers are often distracted and either drift into bike lanes or turn across them without
looking. Device users still need to follow laws and safety practices.
17
The more separate and spacious the route, the more comfortable. If the route has to be
shared, I’d much rather with pedestrians than motor vehicles.
18 Please give us better bike lanes with a disconnection from the road.
19 It’s more comfortable to bike on the sidewalk, but ultimately not a good idea for a city to allow
20 do people understand the city bike lanes?
21 Entirely depends on the operator's skill and courtesy
22
Sidewalks are for pedestrians and too narrow to accommodate faster devices meeting or
passing. Bikes and cars don't mix safely! Ames streets are too congested and drivers don't
always see bikes (or walkers or motorcycles for that matter)
23 excessive speeds and cellphone distractions
24
Bike lanes are narrow and cars passing can be tenuous and dangerous. Better to be in the
road instead, or some other wider trail (preferred).
25
Sidewalks are the safest. Hearing that certain sidewalk areas are not for riding makes me drive
more often.
26
The sidewalks and paths can be dangerous when the operators do not follow common sense
and traffic laws
27 Availability and suitability of designated bike lanes is a concern
28
WHen on my e-bike, I do not trust car drives to see me, especially car drivers who are
distracted drivers with cellphones.
29 Comfort varies widely depending on location.
30
on North Duff, I have had cars pass me on the right, using the bike lane north of the Miracle
Park. any bike or Parked car could be hit.
31 Need more bike trails and lanes. Bikes don’t belong on sidewalks.
32
Paint stripes for street PDT lanes are FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY. Add curbs to separate
cars and busses.
33
Bikes and autos (including trucks and semis) should never occupy the same piece of roadway
or share lanes.
34
bike lanes are a waste of money. and I am a regular bike rider. people do not ride their bikes
on roads because there is a bike lane there
35 Crossing busy streets is scary
36 Sidewalks are for pedestrians, so feel awkward riding bike on sidewalks
37 Don' t trust others on the road
38
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, the very young, and the very old. Wheeled vehicles should be
on the street with the slowest to the farthest right..
39
I don’t feel safe riding my bike on roads in Ames. I live on South Duff and it is impossible to get
anywhere without biking on the road. Sidewalks on duff are in bad condition, too narrow, or just
nonexistent.
199
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 18
40 More bike lanes would mean less sidewalk congestion without hindering vehicle traffic.
41
more comfortable/safe with wide multi use paved sidewalks than narrower residential
sidewalks
42
Not comfortable at all riding on busy streets which have a bike lane. Southbound Duff is better
because there is a mostly unoccupied parking lane. Northbound Duff is dangerous in my
opinion and the multi-use trail ends at Inis Grove. Then, you either have to cross Duff and get
on the sidewalk or get in a bike lane which is uneven and full of weeds and debris. 24th Street
is nice and wide, with parking allowed, it is good.
43 I have noticed bike lanes occasionally have debris in them most commonly broken glass
44
Ames bike lanes are unusable and unsafe. I do not and will not ride them on a bike and
wouldn't on an EBike either. Poor design and waste of space.
45
I wish wide sidewalk so that pedestrian and bike can share comfortably. I don't like to ride the
bike on the bile lanes that is part of the street.
46
I feel most comfortable on multi-use paths that don't have many pedestrians. However, it
becomes unclear at intersections who has the right of way, and regardless of being on the road
or a trail, drivers are unsure whether to treat bikers as pedestrians or vehicles. Generally, any
kind of riding on roads where vehicles are at a much faster speed can feel unsafe and I prefer
multi-use paths for that reason. Similarly, I'm unsure of etiquette on paths that have
pedestrians, but are clearly wide enough to have a cyclist pass without any change from
walkers.
47
I really don't like riding on the sidewalks, I always fear a walker will move unexpectedly, I'll be
attacked by a startled dog, etc.
48
I only worry about spaces when it gets very busy. I don't want to hit any pedrestrains and I
don't want to get hit by a car.
49 Keep Ada Hayden walking only; let the other bike trails in city have bikes etc
50 Some of the bike paths are really narrow.
51 I don't feel e-scooters & e-bikes are safe on sidewalks or walking trails.
52
I would be uncomfortable on the trails or sidewalks because I think I could be a danger to
pedestrians.
53 I do not have experience on these, but think, with some quick training, I could handle most
54
On street bike lanes are uneven and unsafe to ride on both from a surface and traffic proximity
standpoint.
55
bikes are not supposed to be used on sidewalks, right? I am very comfortable with bike or e -
bike on less busy streets.
56 I try not to bike on the sidewalk since I know you're not supposed to.
57 bikes lanes are useless without physical barriers to stop motor vehicles from enter them
58 devices with electric motors that go faster than a walk should be used in the street.
59
I don't expect drivers to know how to treat bikes on the roadway. Also lots of debris that is bad
for tires.
60
bicycles should not be on the roads unless there is a designated bike lane, especially roads
without a shoulder.
61
Not knowing always what is ahead on narrow and curving sidewalks and trails, I would feel
unsafe moving on an e-vehicle in these areas. Especially considering areas where families
walk with young children and unpredictable pets on and off leash.
62 I don't ride them but if I did I would ride responsibly.
63
City bike lanes are mostly unprotected, are sparse, and some people drive their cars in them.
Bus stops also cross them and I don't think that's safe. I don't feel comfortable biking in the
street with cars behind me. Sidewalks are ok, but can be a bit too narrow for comfort.
200
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 19
64
Bike lanes are out of control in this community. We 16th & Duff northbound just backs up
traffic. Waste of taxpayer funds to make a bike land there.
65
Bike lanes: depends on the level and speed of the traffic; sidewalks: uncomfortable if there is
any pedestrian traffic.
66 Some of the paths could use some TLC.
67
I do not feel comfortable on a bike lane that is on an HMA street with curb and gutter. The joint
down the middle of the lane is dangerous
68 Sidewalks are for walkers, strollers, dog walkers, small children
69 Depends on the road, some roads are uncomfortable to ride on
70
Absolutely love the paved and singletrack bike trails. Would love a long paved bike trail on the
outskirts of Ames you could ride without having to stop for roads so often like in the heart of
Ames.
Question 7: Comments on size restrictions:
1 I would own a low speed EV if the city allowed them.
2 Not sure about this
3 E-bikes and E-scooters are the perfect size for personal transportation.
4
Size and weight should be resticted such that it would not be an increased danger or
inconvenience to pedestrians compared to normal bikes.
5
I don’t know exactly what devices this question refers to, however, it makes sense on shared
use trails to have enough room for safety and comfort.
6
Size doesn't matter, they say, but larger PTDs (beyond a bike with a child carrier trailer) should
use the streets
7 I am unaware of oversized/overpowered devices of this kind being an issue in Ames.
8 But not totally sure about larger golf cart type vehicles for safety
9
something like a bike is fine, but something like an electric four wheeler is way to big. Two
people passing on the pathway should be the thing considered.
10 Are you talking about on streets (no) or on bike paths, trails? (then yes)
11
Too many shapes and sizes of personal electric vehicle for size to be restricted, More weight
usually just means more battery/distance for a PEV.
12
I do not see this being a problem. Instead, it would be more beneficial to have size restrictions
on vehicles for parking in places like Downtown / Main Street, as big trucks and hitches often
jut into the roadway.
13
Not so much physical size, but there should be a limit to total weight. Speed is a bigger
concern for me, however.
14
This couldn't be enforced without adding more to the budget for manpower and equipment.
Even then it probably wouldn't be enforced and turn into another waste of taxpayer money.
15
I feel that if the electric scooter/bike/etc. is allowed on bike path/ sidewalks there should be
restrictions to avoid problems with others using the path.
16
It's difficult to share the sidewalks and paths when coming upon groups who do not show
courtsey to others of the same path. Without a size restriction this will only make it more
difficult.
17 Bicycles should not weight more that 100 lbs.
18
Not sure there needs to be a size restriction, but guidance as to where various sizes of
personal transportation devices can be allowed to operate. Certainly want a person's needs to
be accommodated; but also being mindful of the safety in mixed traffic.
201
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 20
19
Where do you begin to draw the line on this? (My e-bike weighs 60-lbs, and it cannot exceed
19.9 mph because it is equipped with a governor.)
20
I can imagine inappropriately sized devices, but the question is too broad to agree with
outright.
21
Large people who are trying to lose weight should not be ostracized by pedestrians. Larger
people required larger equipment
22
When considering size restrictions, keep in mind that there are people who use four -wheeled
mobility scooters. These scooters can weigh up to 300 pounds.
23
I think there should be power and power sharing restrictions. Fully or mostly fully power "bikes"
are electric motorcycles, like electric cars and should not be on multi use. 4 wheeled electric
vehicles (Gator type or gold cart type) are vehicles and shouldn't be in multi use paths or lanes
paths
24
I don't see these devices as being a major issue to safety or comfort unless they travel too fast,
reckless, or are in the way. But that's no different than other foot or bike traffic.
25 It makes sense or who know what people will drive
26 We should be encouraging non-gasoline travel.
27
Absolutely not, restrictions would limit access for people. And those who need these devices
most are of low socioeconomic status. So if their bike is restricted, they can’t afford a new one.
28 Not sure, if they’re necessary for mobility I think they should always be allowed
29 But how do you regulate/monitor this?
30 Suron bikes are cool.
31
I think limiting e-bikes that reach into the range of being more like motorcycles or mopeds in
terms of weight is smart. Some e-bikes are over 75 pounds.
32
I don't know exact details but there should be regulation so that mopeds and motorcycles
aren't on sidewalks.
33
Nothing allowed that is wider than a person; with the exception of a tricycle for kiddos, those
with special needs, and the elderly.
34 Shouldn't be large enough that another (non-car) user can't use the facility at the same time
35 If not allowed on roadway should be a limit on size and speed for trails and sidewalks
36 No heavier than a small child can lift.
37 unsure
38
Any restrictions need to accommodate devices required for ADA access which will likely be
larger than most other ptds
39 Really don’t know
40 I don't see this as a problem but I suppose it could be if devices get larger.
41
I trust the city decisionmakers to make this decision, with all the facts and information they
have. I'm not personally aware of what the potential dangers are with electric -assisted devices.
42 No electric on sidewalks and designated trails but no restrict ions from the city
43
Should not be unreasonably large as to make navigation on the sidewalk with pedestrians
difficult.
44
the restrictions should be based on speed and safety devices installed to alert others - faster
than walking means ride in the street. No bells or similar that alert others to their presece that
ring/sound during operation - not allowed on sidewalks or other shared paths.
45
There should be both a size restriction and a speed restriction. I have seen e -bikes going no
less than 20 mph on city trails and sidewalks. As a cyclist myself, and often a pedestrian, I feel
it is reckless to not limit speed as well as access to narrow and winding trails.
46 maybe restricting certain sizes to roads and off sidewalks
47
it will be difficult to cap, especially with devices like electric wheelchairs being custom made for
each person
202
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 21
48 I don't have enough knowledge in this area to give a valid opinion.
49
In general, no. Especially where these devices are using streets they will be much smaller than
cars. On anything narrower than a shared use path, some sort of width restriction could make
sense, but would be difficult to enforce. Plus I have not encountered and operators of wider
devices (i.e. recumbent tricycle bikes) who wanted to use these narrower paths anyway. The
only consideration is, again, proper separation from slower moving pedestrians, which is a
matter of capability, not physical size.
50 Yes if size is related to fully electric
51
Large motorized vehicles should be prohibited. I imagine they already are, but large electric
bikes may not be.
52
If there is a size restriction, it should err on the larger size, taking into consideration not just the
average size of common devices, but the maximum size of them.
Question # 8: Comments on speed limits:
1 I'm really not sure how fast e-bikes can go!
2 Down town
3 Common sense and being aware of changing conditions.
4 I agree that there should be a few limits on sidewalk use for bikes. For example in the
downtown shopping area. The bike lanes should have the same speed limits as any car or
motorcycle that uses the road. I think bikers should be polite when people are walking on
them. Mostly, I notice kids on our city sidewalks and few adults.
5 Specific area: Campus sidewalks If you place a speed limit on sidewalks, does this include
trails?
6 Speeds should be limited where there are more likely to be pedestrian conflicts.
7 Do not allow electric PTDs on same path as pedestrians.
8 I’m not qualified to answer.
9 Iowa code section 321 clearly gives bicycles the legal right to the use of city streets (unless
otherwise signed). As such, when cycling on the street, the traffic speed limits should apply.
10 I don’t know
11 Walking paths should not have bicycles or electric trans potato
12 Shared use paths and trails.
13 Speed limit should accommodate the slowest, least protected user using a route.
14 Heavy use trails, downtown area or campus
15 Specific areas = Crowded areas. Bike lanes should follow the vehicle speed limit. Sidewalk
should probably be 25 or something.
16 Park Trails
17 Yes, there should be limits.
18 Bikes on city bike lanes should have same speed limit as vehicles on same street.
19 excessive speeds are prevalent all over Ames, all vehicles
20 I think speed limits on sidewalks that are low would drive riders into the road. Also, there are
city sidewalks that are small and residential and larger, wider sidewalks that may be part of a
trail or bike system, so speed limits should be higher on those. Also, I personally ride carefully
to the conditions: if there is nobody around, one should be able to go faster. If pedestrians are
present, slow down.
21 I could see places with more pedestrian traffic having speed limits, like downtown sidewalks, or
on campus. But if the sidewalks are not pedestrian heavy, I do not see speed being as much of
an issue.
203
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 22
22 Speeds should be limited on sidewalks, but not specifically restricted on design ated shared
use paths.
23 Common sense??? This couldn't be enforced without adding more to the budget for manpower
and equipment. Even then it probably wouldn't be enforced and turn into another waste of
taxpayer money.
24 No speed limit on the last one because I have no option on specific areas of the city.
25 I'm not sure exactly what this refers to, but I would hope the operator of the vehicle would take
the area into consideration and adjust their speed or find another area to be in.
26 that vast majority of e-bikes are limited to 20 or 28mph. Build laws around those numbers and
it will be far easier for people to know where their bikes can go.
27 Electric-assisted devices should take priority on the need for speed re strictions
28 I do not trust car drivers on city bike lanes. As for speed limits, how many bikes of any kind are
equipped with speedometers? I do think that under 20 mph on bike paths is safe, but sidewalk
travel should be much slower in business/downtown areas, but not necessarily on wide-open
sidewalks where pedestrians are easily seen from a distance.
29 I agree with speed limits but don’t feel knowledge enough to give exact mph recommendations.
30 Park trails
31 E-bikes are too fast for sidewalks and mixed trails.
32 Downtown sidewalks
33 The phrase City bike lanes is vague. Are you referring to on -street lanes that have no physical
protection?
34 Human powered is already limited by power source. Others need speed limits and/or power
limits.
35 Nothing should be on sidewalks!
36 I think most people are conscientious about their use of ptd’s.
37 Shared use paths should have a speed limit of no more than 10 mph, especially in parks. Bikes
should not be on sidewalks at all.
38 I would be most concerned about time of day. If someone wants to speed like a bat out of hell
at 5am around Ada Hayden (a common time I run), I don't see a major issue if they are
considerate, but I don't think anyone needs to be weaving around traffic around school times.
39 In residential areas
40 Hmmmm for city bike lanes, the limit should be the same as for cars/trucks
41 Congested areas need low speed to reduce potential accidents
42 Specific area of pedestrian zones like Main Street and Welch Ave.
43 Trails in parks (e.g. Ada Hayden)
44 On street bike lanes should follow the posted speed limits. Heavy pedestrian use areas
(Downtown, Campustown, ISU Campus, Brookside Park, Ada Hayden Park) should have a
10mph speed limit
45 Rec paths
46 Most of these devices do not have speedometers. Unless the city plans to provide
speedometers to people, a speed limit does not make sense.
47 it’s complicated. i think in heavily used parks (ada hayden, some parts of brookside) the
speeds should be lower- there’s more people&animals walking. other parks/trail systems
(north/east river valley) are less utilized & can be faster.
48 It's very difficult for me to tell how fast my human -powered bike is going. Also, I cannot go that
fast, lol!
49 if not in bike lane I feel that 20 mph is a good cap
204
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 23
50 I don't think they should be on sidewalks where people are walking because its a danger when
a person is driving as fast as a car can on the sidewalk where p eople are walking. if it has
wheels it should be on the street or a bike path.
51 Cyclists speed needs to be dictated by the congestion of the trail, not the trail itself. This
leaves it to human nature and trail etiquette. Limits won't be as effective as a trail etiquette
campaign.
52 I think speed limits should depend on size of sidewalks. Wide, multi-use paths can have higher
speeds, but a sidewalk that is only 3 feet wide probably shouldn't have a bike on it at all (at
least not a heavy e-bike).
53 Near schools it should be lower and also have lower speed limits when it narrow and very busy
areas.
54 Speeds on roads/streets like Mortensen and University could accommodate speeds 20 mph +.
55 Limits should be applied where other (non-car) traffic is sharing the facility
56 Doesn't need to be a speed limit they just need to take like a driving class to be out in the
streets or trails. Bikes often do whatever they want in the city streets and dont know how to
properly communicate with driving traffic
57 Speed limits should be "reasonable and prudent" with liability restrictions
58 Campus
59 No personal transportation device should be allowed on sidewalks that operate at more than 5
mph. On narrow sidewalks, they should not be ridden at all. The speeds limits for cars in
residential areas are already pedestrian unfriendly.
60 when there are also pedestrians, I think it's most safe to keep bicycles at 15 mph tops. I've
been on my bike and had pedestrians not looking for bicycles at all
61 I don't think speed is so much an issue, but when mixing with pedestrians, there is need for
basic procedural courtesies, keep to right except when passing, warn people when over-taking
from behind, etc.
62 I really don't think its necessary
63 Bikes should not be on sidewalk. It is actually safer for a bike to go faster on streets. You did
not ask about bike paths and multi-use paths - I think max 20 but of course if pedestrians or
other devices are around you have to go more like 10 mph.
64 I trust the city decisionmakers to make this decision, with all the facts and information they
have. I'm not personally aware of what the potential dangers are with electric -assisted devices.
65 no speed limit on streets - proper lighting (front white light and rear red lights) should be
required.
66 Shared Use Paths and Trails
67 There should be a minimum speed requirement for bicycles to be on the road, even with a bike
lane. But especially on county roads with no shoulder.
68 I have been to college campuses that have e-bike/e-scooter designated pathways and
wayfinding. These paths are marked with clear signage throughout the area and limit many
sidewalks to pedestrians only. I think Ames could benefit from this type of wayfinding. Not only
would it help e-vehicles move more efficiently---because the paths have been prioritized for
them---but it will keep pedestrians and pets safe as well.
69 respecting the speed limits other forms of traffic have to follow as well as other traffic devices
i.e. stop signs
70 Just drive reasonably and don't ride side by side and take up the whole trail without visibility
ahead.
71 bike trails
72 Cyclists should follow vehicle speed limits.
73 Speed limits should be based upon conditions and the rider's skills.
205
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 24
74 People self regulate
75 speed limits are not the issue, the issue is bike riders do not stop for stop signs & do not follow
the rules of the road. If they cannot follow rules of the road, they need to be on a separate
sidewalk. Not narrowing the streets to accomodate them.
76 City bike lanes: No separate limit for devices, the existing speed limit of the street shall apply.
Since a bike lane is part of the street I believe riding a bike there already triggers the
requirement that the user obey all applicable vehicle laws - the same should apply to other
devices. Given how narrow a standard sidewalk is I would support a rule that says these
devices must maintain a slow speed there - ESPICALLY when near pedestrians. On shared
use paths I believe 15 mph is a good limit generally, and would support a reduction to 10 in
parks or other areas of high pedestrian traffic either generally or when actually near
pedestrians. On separated/protected bike lanes - which are separate from pedestrian facilities -
I would support a higher limit of at least 20.
77 Not lower than 15mph in general.
78 on streets
79 Depends on area. On public trails such as Ada Hayden, I think there should be limits
80 Electric devices don’t belong on sidewalks
81 Parks, multi user trails, 10 - 12 mph
82 Parks and multiuser trails 10-12 mph
83 If sidewalks are wide enough to safely have pedestrians and bikers on them I think having
higher speed limits would be okay
84 In more busy areas of Ames on the bike trails e-bikers need to not ride so fast especially when
passing other cyclists and walkers and need to say 'on your left'
Are there other safety concerns that you have about the use of personal transportation
devices (e-bikes, e-scooters, electric skateboards, etc.)?
1 Everyone needs to abide by the same rules of the road.
2 I do think scooter clutter with the rental programs can be overwhelming in other cities. Worried
a bit about this in proximity to campus.
3 The lack of attention for those around them.
4 speed on sidewalks and bike lanes
5 Personal transportation devices aren't the problem... if you force people off the sidewalks and
on to the streets you will have more accidents. Just think about how hard it is to see
motorcycles.
6 Although I always watch out and yield to pedestrians, many students on campus will zoom by
and it scares me that they might run into me on my bike. I feel comfortable around these
devices until someone decides that they don't care about anyone else zooms by. Most of the
time they seem to not watch out for others, look around the corner, or look before crossing a
pedestrian intersection. I feel comfortable when there is plenty of space on the path but it gets
concerning when they're trying to do this during a passing period. Throughout Ames, I feel very
comfortable biking, I have very few issues with the exception of intersections on Lincoln Way.
Bikes are not thought about in any way or form and makes it difficult as a bicyclist when
intersections aren't designed for you. Pedestrians don't want you on the sidewalk and cars
aren't looking for you. Cars don't want you on the road and I don't want to be there when most
are going 40 in a 35, or 30 in a 25. Lincoln is designed for cars. I have had several issues with
Lincoln and South Dakota, crossing west from the south east side. I've been hit once and
almost hit on several other occasions. As someone who takes this route on a daily basis, cars
206
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 25
aren't looking out for bikes or pedestrians. I've gotten to the point that even when I have the
right of way, I wait there for a minute to ensure that the cars there will look at me,
acknowledging that I'm there. I also have to watch for cars turning left from the east and cars
turning right from the west. The answer may be that I go slower, but cars still manage to start
turning, stop in the intersection, and slam on there breaks. It's also not a visibility issue
because I have several reflectors and keep a bike light on both front and back of my bike. I
would love a no turn on red here because throughout this entire year, it has been consistent.
7 Cars not yielding at pedestrian crossing
8 Been around a long time on bike -- experience just about everything including bike-vehicle
collision (I was on the bike).
9 My main concern would be inattentive car operators.
10 Monitoring of each is important.
11 They do not observe right of way for pedestrians or motorists
12 Lack of knowledge and practice of trail etiquette and city laws
13 Lack of helmets on road and high speeds
14 CyRide should be used more often
15 Hate to know what the riders/users are going to do, hard to anticipate
16 People on e devices that don’t use common sense risk their own safety and the safety of
others. Speed limits would be difficult to enforce.
17 I am not concerned with the use of personal transportation devices.
18 Please give us disconnect from road.
19 My safety concerns are usually related to car drivers. Because of that I never ride on a busier
road, like Lincoln Way or Duff. I only ride on side streets.
20 they are so quiet that they sometimes surprise me on the road.
21 People looking at their phones while riding or walking. Can't anyone ever put their phone away
and just enjoy the journey?!!
22 excessive speeds
23 I have seen hazardous driving of bikes and PEVs, mostly from t eenage or younger riders. I
would be in favor of safety measures for younger riders. I am over 50, and take appropriate
care when riding.
24 Use on sidewalks creates more opportunities for unsafe encounters, particularly conflicts with
vehicles and pedestrians.
25 Only concern would be someone being too reckless and hitting a pedestrian causing injury. Or
not being observant/ noticed in a bike lane and getting hit by a motor vehicle. I have not
witnessed these things personally , but they are concern that I have in terms of safety for
pedestrians, electric bike/scooter operators, and motorists alike.
26 Not at this time, but I may have some later.
27 Only cars/trucks should be used on roads. Bikes should be on sidewalks or bike lanes unless
crossing an intersection.
28 The greatest safety concern/hazard that we have encountered is (mostly) pedestrians who are
wearing headphones or ear pods; they cannot hear our warning bells or cries of "Passing on
your left! Two bikes!"
29 I have experienced or witnessed more issues with motor vehicle drivers not respecting
personal transportation devices than issues with the riders of the devices. Underaged
(including unsupervised children) riders have been the main sources of safety concerns in my
experience.
30 car drivers running stop signs constantly
31 Skateboards shouldn’t be on streets or sidewalks.
207
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 26
32 Paint stripes for street PDT lanes are FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY. Add curbs to separate
cars and busses.
33 Regardless of type, should be required to have a bike license equivalent for road use..
34 stand up scooters that go 15-20 mph are just too fast for the area they are used in
35 Risk with any form of transportation is unavoidable. We're doing fine with bike/scooter facilities
in /Ames as they are.
36 SLOW DOWN ON PATHS!!!
37 I see them no different than bikes but vehicles are way more of a conce rn to safety than e stuff.
38 I have seen these in other communities so concern if these become more popular in Ames
39 I would like to see police ticket car drivers who don't yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
40 Bike lanes are not wide enough or consistent. There is not a through bike route in town.
41 At Ada Hayden many bikers go WAY too fast and do not announce their presence. They use it
like a race track, or for training, and I really don’t like that.
42 Right turn on red is hazardous to pedestrians and cyclists. Automobile drivers are looking to
their left, getting ready to go as soon as traffic clears and they aren't looking at the pedestrian
crossing. Lower the speed limit and install a traffic control device on 13th near Stagecoach,
where the bike path goes north from River Valley Park. That street carries a high volume of
traffic which goes at high speed and visibility can be obstructed by the bridge. Ankeny has
done a great job of making High Trestle Trail crossings more cyclist friendly in town, there are
either stop lights or flashing yellow lights which help cyclists to cross in a manner that is more
safe. I see too many cyclists wearing headphones and no helmet--better education about the
effects of TBI. Etiquette training for folks on ebikes. Very few bother to give an alert when they
pass.
43 Right turn on red is not usually good for pedestrians and bikers as drivers tend to pay attention
to the left and just go when they have an opening not payin g attention to the right where a
pedestrian/cyclist may be.
44 Just in terms of being safe around other people on sidewalks.
45 Most are able to travel faster than the supposed limit of the device. Ames should NEVER
allow a scooter rental program, unless guarantees are put in place that they won't be cluttering
our sidewalks and trails.
46 Many drivers do not yield to bies on the street even wh en the bikes have the right of way, such
as bike crossing stree with green lights on for pedestrian etc.
47 We live near Ada Hayden so see a number of devices go up and down our hill.
48 I live near a lot of student housing on west Lincoln Way and the si dewalks are quite scary to
walk on. e-bikes and e-scooters absolutely FLY by. I actively avoid the sidewalks in this area
for that reason. I really wish they had a dedicated bike lane or similar.
49 I think helmets should be worn for all bikes.
50 Require HELMETS, SHOES, AND SHIRTS! ;-}
51 Density is a potential issue. Single or groups of 2 -3 are not concerning
52 They need to better understand how to communicate with vehicles and walkers! Having a
standard of a class they could take to learn the ways to communicate with other forms of
transportation would be Amazing. And that's for e -transportation and bikes
53 Coming up on pedestrian too fast on bicycles with no warning
54 People need to make sure their lights are on!
55 Definitely.
56 Accept in the case of. ADA needed devices these e-bikes, e-scooters, electric skate boards
DO NOT belong on public sidewalks.
57 That drivers can be real dicks to bicyclists.
208
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 27
58 visibility is a major issue, for many of the ptds; non -users need to be educated on what to
expect;
59 Riders in the middle of the road.
60 Scooter riders want to be vehicles and abide by those rules when it suits them. However, they
also want to be co didered as pedestrians when THAT suits them. Can’t have it both ways!
61 the riders have no sense how 'out of nowhere' they can appear to those walking. The speed of
these devices and their 'stealth' make them at best startaling and at worse a terrible accedent
waiting to happen. Ask the City Concil who would like to be hit by a e-scooter at 30 miles an
hour as they take a walk in thier neighborhood.
62 The idiots go too fast riding side by side taking up the whole trail going around blind curves and
low visibility areas.
63 Ignoring traffic signs such as stop signs, stop lights, etc.
64 no training for users, people learn as they go and might not familiarize themselves with City
rules
65 They pass pedestrians too quickly and suddenly without alerting them.
66 My bike broke down and I haven't replaced it, as much as I love riding and keeping one less
car on the road, because I feel very unsafe riding my bike in this town. Vehicles do a terrible
job of sharing the road in Ames, and there are no protected bike paths in town! There also
aren't bike paths on the major town arteries that I would use to get from A to B, in lieu of
driving. The only type of biking that feels like it's encouraged in Ames is purely recreational,
which is a shame. There also aren't always places to park a bike when you're going to, for
example, the grocery store. Furthermore, with the incessant gutting of city streets that goes on
for literally seasons on end, it makes it really difficult for cyclists to feel safe/like they have a
place to ride (unless they are sharing the sidewalks with pedestrians).
67 It would be nice if bike riders would follow the rules of the road. Too many blowing through stop
signs or not following general road procedures.
68 It’s safest when traffic on same roadway goes same speed
69 Most of the above issues I have only encountered on ISU's campus (a very person, device,
and vehicle dense environment) at times of high traffic. Obviously, this is outside the
jurisdiction of the city, but it underscores to me that most of the issues will occur when we have
high volumes of multiple modes in close proximity. I would also say that the unsafe
operation/near misses I have observerd are more a human problem than a bike/device
problem - I have observed the exact same behaviors from the drivers of cars, which is an order
of magnitude worse given the greater potential of damage and injury from a heavier/faster
vehicle.
70 Yes. Too fast - e-skateboards can go over 25mph! No fully electric on paths / sidewalks. Pedal
assist or disability devices ok.
71 On trails such as Ada Hayden, e-bike users go too fast.
72 The biggest issue with the electric devices is the speed. Honestly if these things were driven
with care it would be less of an issue on bike paths.
73 Moving too fast by inexperienced operators
74 Nearly all of the e-users that I see lack the knowledge and skill to be using their device
anywhere but in a very controlled, low traffic space
75 I haven't personally had issues with any of these
76 I know it's expensive but I would love to have road crossings go over or under the road so to
avoid car crossings.
77 Lights
209
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 28
What other things should the City consider as it relates to regulating bicycle and
personal transportation device use in the City of Ames?
1 Required licensing and if not properly license have a $1,000 fine
2
Would be good to have same rules for all users of bikes, devices, LSVs, etc. Age restriction
or supervision of young kids should be considered with devices and LSVs, considering the
crazy way kids ride bikes on sidewalks!
3
Bicycle, personal transportation device, and really anything else should be encouraged over
car usage.
4
Don't mix vehicles, bikes, or other modes of transportation on the busiest streets.
Encourage the use of secondary routes for alternative modes of transportation.
5 Helmets
6 bicycles and PTD are different - don't lump them together for regulations
7
We should be encouraging people to use smaller, cheaper and more efficient forms of
transportation. What statistics does Ames have to suggest this should even be addressed?
We should be more concerned about the ISU students crossing the streets without looking up
from their phones.
8 Write some tickets to motorists
9 Statistical safety data (urban environments) -- What are the safest practices.
10 If anything needs more regulation to improve transportation safety its cars not bikes.
11
I was told in my bicycle collision with a truck that bicycles should not be ridden accross an
intersection. I had stopped on my bicycle and waited for left hand turning auto traffic to finish
turning in front of me and then proceeded to ride my bike across the intersection with plenty
time left on the timer. The truck making a right hand turn on red saw me stopped and waiting
and proceeded to do the right hand turn without rechecking me. I had started to ride across
since the left turners were cleared out and the truck hit me. The officer never asked me what
happened but came into the emergency room and told me since I was riding my bike across
the intersection it was my fault as I should have walked it. If I had walked it I am quite sure by
the way my bike was hit..I would have been killed. When I am driving, I see bikes almost
always ridden across intersections. Is that really the law that bikers must walk bikes across
intersections?
12 Width of trails and sidewalks, enforcement of laws, rules, etiquette
13
These devices are going to continue to be used, to evolve in sophistication and, presumably,
capacity both in terms of power/speed and hauling. The City should be encouraging non-auto
traffic with infrastructure and significantly increased enforcement of existing laws on auto as
well as non-auto operators.
14 Required safety gear and required light reflective materials
15
Bikers don't even use the bike lanes, like on North Duff. The lanes are too narrow and they
still ride in the street. Also, those bike lanes are confusing, it seems, especially for elderly
drivers. They drive in the bike lane as though it were the right -most lane for traffic and right
turns.
16 Leaving rental bikes or e-scooters in inappropriate places.
17 The ADA ramps with bumps are hazardous to people on some of these devices
210
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 29
18
Regulating personal transportation use would discourage the use multimodal transportation.
It also would show a lack of understanding of what is most dangerous form of transportation
to all Ames residents and guests, which is clearly motor vehicles.
19
Barriers between the roads and bike lanes would make me feel safer riding my bike in the
bike lane.
20
If adding bike lanes on roads, consider putting a small barrier between the bike lane and road
(like a median).
21 Encourage (don’t require) registration and safety/ maintenance workshops
22 The more you restrict e-bikes, the more people will go back to cars
23
I don't think that they need to be regulated. The only regulation I would be okay with would be
a speed limit. Something like 25 mph would regulate against someone blasting down the bike
path on a modified e-bike at 40 mph, but allow a biker to train at a reasonable speed.
24
Traffic light cycles that protects people crossing streets. Sometimes waiting times are long.
People use South Duff bridge narrow side sidewalk also by bicycles, it is very na rrow, low
safety rails, and unsafe bumpy edges when entering.
25
Some paths are SO rough (i.e. along airport road), gaps in bike trails where one must go in
street (i.e. skunk river path to connect to Hayden trails) and others have to cross so many
intersections. It's very difficult to find a nice long safe path to ride around Ames. We mostly
ride for exercise and the enjoyment of bike riding, and can't do so without driving our bikes to
a safe bike path, in Ames we usually just ride around Hayden.
26 excessive speeding should be policed better
27
I think personal electric vehicle travel is one of the modes of transportation that will get safer
and more used in the future. It is convenient, less polluting and less costly than many other
modes of transportation. In my view, Ames should plan for commuter bicycle, PEV trails to all
major employers in Ames, especially the university.
28
If we truly want to work towards using vehicles less, and finding alternate transportation, I
think it is important to consider that every regulation added will likely lessen how much people
are willing to try alternate forms of transportation. If it gets too complicated, it is often easier to
use a car.
29
The crossing at 13th and Clark is very confusing to drivers wh o get stopped on 13th. I find
that intersection safer to cross by waiting for a gap in traffic, rather than using the light and
making traffic stop.
30
The amount of distracted driving anywhere in the city (both drivers as well as riders) should
dictate that bikes and other personal transportation devices should not share the same space
with motor vehicles.
31
If the electric scooter/bikeis capable of going 20mph or higher, I would suggest a safety
course for the operators to avoid potential injury to themselves or others if they want to use
bike paths.
32
Has there been complaints about large groups taking up too much space on the roadways,
paths and sidewalks?
33
If you make new rules, how/who will enforce new rules? Will there be fines for violations? Will
ISU follow the same rules?
34
Bikes should have to follow road rules, stop signs, ect. They should NOT be on roads. Only to
cross intersections and they should follow rules, lights ect. Police should be ticketing bikers.
35
Expand the network of available paths and trails throughout the city, and work to upkeep /
maintain them in good condition
36
I hope the city will endeavor to actively promote and encourage bicycle and personal
transportation devices while considering aspects of safety. We should be striving to be as
bicycle friendly as possible. I sorely miss the bicycle culture I have experienced in some
211
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 30
European and Asian cities. Electronic assisted bicycles and devices have added
complications, but please strive to find solutions that do not inhibit the growth of non -motor
vehicle transportation overall.
37
If all users are educated in the use of the equipment and the use. ex: If on the sidewalk, I
assume they are treated like a pedestrian ( look both ways when crossing the street, and if on
the road, they should follow the RULES of the road. follow the signage etc. I've been "flipped
off" because they run the stop sign or redlight when I had the right of way.
38 More bike trails and lanes needed.
39 Possible citizen patrols on trouble areas
40
While it is prudent to consider the safety risks that personal transportation devices pose to
pedestrians, the greater threat to pedestrians is from drivers of vehicles. The injury risk for a
pedestrian walking on a sidewalk on Duff at the hospital (zero horizontal separation) is
greater than walking on a trail. Focus your safety efforts there.
41
More trails - Ames city streets are generally not safe due to narrow, poorly maintained bike
lanes. Note: some are very good - such as north Duff. The road by north wal mart has
cracks and other conditions.
42 Short leach laws for pets
43
Have the University give money so students have a dedicated bicycle path to Trestle Trail.
This could be a selling point to students and parents. Safe activity to relieve school stress.
44 Start ticketing bikers that do not follow the rules of the road.
45 More dedicated lanes so people don’t have to ride on side walk or feel unsafe riding in traffic
46
I anticipate that the City is about to clamp down with a bunch of restrictions and regulations
which will increase enforcement issues, take the freedom and joy out of a healthy
transportation system already in place when, to my knowledge, there is almost no problem at
present. That will be too bad.
47 Must have lighting and braking equipment at all times.
48
It’s on road bike lanes are haphazard and do not connect. Painting lines on a road isn’t a very
good bike lane. Please study successfully carried out separated bike lanes. The city has
touted complete streets but has never implemented it. 24th street was just redone and it still
lacks a side walk on the North side of the road by Somerset. Also why hasn’t George
Washington Carver ever had its sidewalk infrastructure put in. The list could go on and on.
This survey was pretty poorly put together. Pretty disappointed in the questions, especially
asking about specific speeds. Come on. The only reference that most people have to
calibrate to those speeds are cars and it is very difficult to compare driving a car at those
speeds to going those speeds on a bike or other device. Asking about overall s afety and then
changing to comfort level of use is also an odd choice. The data you receive from this will be
suspect because of your poor survey design.
49
Motorists need to be aware at traffic lights where the cyclist has the walk light. I was blocked
once by someone so eager to turn right on red that I couldn't cross with the walk light!
50
It is frustrating when there are expensive facilities (paid for by taxes of one form or another)
provided for bikes and other devices, and yet the operators still ride in the middle of the
roadway, causing both delays and safety risks.
51
Regulating car drivers so they know they don't own the roads. Actually policing the rights of
way. I've had the right of way while riding my bicycle and had cars cut me off or run stop
signs in front of me.
52
Sidewalks and trails are preferable for biking because vehicle drivers do not pay attention to
bikers on the road. There is not a good trail/sidewalk system in this town. There are also not
many bike repair stations (ie bike pumps, wrenches, etc.)- I only know of one at Wheatsfield.
So maybe they just aren’t advertised.
212
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 31
53
Many of the city’s moves regarding bike lanes have made the roads less safe for cyclists,
rather than their intended goal to promote safety. N Duff before it turns to 30th St. comes to
mind, as well as 24th St, 3rd Ave near Target and Clark Ave @ Lincoln W ay…simply adding
bike lanes doesn’t always make things better.
54
Idk what to do about it, but when I’m out running I’m concerned about the number of cars that
don’t completely stop at stop signs and/or simply do not notice me. I’ve almost been hit a
couple times that way.
55
Please organize the bike trails into some sort of coherency which does not involve riding on
streets with automobile traffic. Bike paths seem to start/end randomly and merge with streets.
It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong if a cyclist is hit by a car--the cyclist loses. If
there are bike lanes and parking, some communities arrange parking so that the parking lane
is closest to traffic and cyclists are buffered from automobile traffic. Why do some of the
pedestrian lights take so loooooong to give the go -ahead to the pedestrian? (Thinking
specifically of Grand.) Thank you for providing this survey! We love to bike and would
appreciate more safe opportunities within/near Ames. Currently, we drive 20+ miles for that
sort of cycling opportunity. Ada Hayden is nice, but gets a lot of use and it's difficult to see
what is coming around curves when the grass is tall.
56
Crossing at Carr park and 13th needs a pedestrian/bike crossing flashing yellow light. 13th
and grand need a left turn arrow as well as the sidewalks a mess when it comes to getting
across on a bike timer for crossing also takes a very, very long time.
57 Being more strict about where they're allowed and not allowed.
58 More road bike lanes or signs stating a speed limit on sidewalks
59
Trails or side streets designated as trails, that are one block over from major thoroughfares
are far better than bike trails on the side of the thoroughfare. No one wants to ride right next
to Grand, Duff, or Lincoln Way, but if you move these lanes a bl ock over, bike and ebike use
will see significant increases.
60
Give more space and make road more bicycle friendly. Widen the sidewalk to allow bike to
share with pedestrian more comfortably.
61
I think it's important to promote the use of these devices while keeping everybody safe. I
consider the way that I use my e-bike to be relatively safe (commuting on low-pedestrian wide
paths and sometimes on roads), but I'm unsure how others feel.
62
keeping paths clear of debris if people are going to go so fast. The rock that runs onto the
path near us (Dawes & Adams) from traffic and rain is a hazard to many on wheeled devices
and makes it more difficult for the blind to use the guides in the walkway.
63
I think regulation here is a losing battle (especially in a college town), the best ways to focus
are on education and infrastructure.
64
I think it would be beneficial for people to take a class if they have violations. It doesn't have
to be long but just something like kids have to take when they get a moped.
65 Carve out some, "No Car" areas/days in town to resemble the 4th of July Parade route.
66
I prefer off road facilities for non car and small electric transportation. Current Bike lanes are
not well designed and/or maintained.
67
It would be Amazing if more cyclists would move to the side of the street when a car is behind
them on a side street like clark ave. I drive that rode every day and often bikes dont move to
the side so I can pass them and we can both get on with our day and mode of transportation.
I shouldn't have to go 5mph for a block until they turn on a different street. It's all about
understanding how to be courteous to others on the road regardless of your mode of
transportation.
68 Repair trails. Especially utility cuts.
69 Safety of the rider and those around them.
213
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 32
70
Consider better connections to city trails so that riders can avoid traffic and have a separate
space to ride.
71
Ames lacks well managed sidewalks, especially in winter, making it difficult for disabled
people in assisted devices or citizens trying to use a public street to be able to go where they
need to, and the streets are unsafe for pedestrians and bikers alike, given the utterly
atrocious driving displayed by Ames residents.
72
Actually, quit using so many surveys and have the city council do their job, as well as city
staff. Present evidence to the council and have them vote.
73 The times I've felt unsafe on my bike are in south ames during a football game day
74
Maybe put better infrastructure in place for bicyclists. Better bike paths that don’t just drop
into a street. I’m more concerned with cars than bikes…
75
training on procedural aspects: keep to right when not passing, verbal warning when over -
taking from behind, etc. As a former skilled bicyclist, I would totally oppose treating all ptd -
users as if they were unskilled beginners.
76
On street riding, or bike line riding is incredibly unsafe both from accidental and deliberate
vehicle traffic. Vehicle users frequently attempt to assault cyclists in the streets. MUPs are
safer by far for all involved but they don't go everywhere that users need to go. If th e MUPs
were guided to have cyclists use the left side so they meet pedestrians head on it would be
less reactionary for all involved since they would see each other well in advance rather than
needing to be within audible distance. Especially given the amount of pedestrians that use
headphones that block out external alerts of approaching wheeled traffic.
77
Extend multi-use path along Skunk River from Lincoln Way to Soccer/Softball complex, and
extend the newer path along Ioway Creek that ends in a cornfield to connect with the (new)
path along the river!
78
Regulate cars and other vehicles more first. Bikes are not the enemy, cars are way more
dangerous for pedestrians than bicycles are.
79 I don’t see bicycles as a problem. scooters disobey most traffic regulations.
80
Many of the painted bike route/lane signs on roads are barely visible (6th street and
University avenue near the railroad track, for instance.) I have had some encounters wi th
vehicles where they honked or yelled at me to get out of the way, not realizing that the road is
a shared route.
81
focus on building protected bike-only lanes that actually go places that folks might ride to -
home to work, home to a park, work to store. they don't have to be straight lines, if they
provide greater safely.
82 apply the principle of slower traffic to the right on trails/sidewalks
83
Bicycles should not be on the roads unless there is a designated bike lane, especially roads
without a shoulder.
84
Please consider investing in signage and wayfinding for regulating bicycle and e -vehicles.
Hire experts who design safe pathways, don't rely on City officials to know what is best.
Consider dual lane design, where bikes have a dedicated sidewalk and pedestrians have a
dedicated walkway. Place symbols on these paths to clearly mark mode of travel (bi ke
symbol and pedestrian symbol) as well as direction of travel marked by arrows. These
dedicated pathways have been proven effective in cities across the country. Look for
examples, talk with those city departments and learn how to do most effectively emp loy this
design! This has the opportunity to enrich Ames beyond measure.
85 Don't ride like you are the only one on the trail or everyone should get out of your way.
86 enforce no bicycles allowed on trails in East River Valley Park
214
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 33
87
No matter what the City does when it comes to regulating bicycle and personal transportation
device use, it should always be done in a way that encourages their use. It's awkward to do
because they're typically too fast for sidewalk use and too slow for road use, but the y're so
beneficial in reducing vehicular traffic, emissions, and road wear that we need to encourage
their use as much as we can.
88 offering education session
89 Loud gas-powered bicycles are annoying on trails.
90
Just as bicycles are asked to obey traffic laws, much the same as vehicles do, there needs to
be more emphasis on the other modes of transportation to also follow traffic laws.
91 Do not over regulate!
92 Night visibility, but only promote and educate.
93
We've already gone way too far for the small biking community. I used to bike or ride CyRide
to work for over a decade, so I watch when riders don't follow the rules of the road. Very
disappointed that my tax $$ are paying for road narrowing for vehicles and adding bike lanes
that are empty or those few on the lanes don't follow rules.
94
Don’t mix different transportation modes on same paths/roadways as varying speeds and
conventions makes it unsafe
95
Most of the issues that we are seeking to address through these regulations concern ensuring
the safety of all road users when multiple modes (a.k.a. users of different speeds) are mixing
together. To that end, speed restrictions for bikes and other devices make sense when they
are mixing with more vulnerable/slower moving pedestrians. However, it is in the city's best
interest to encourage people to shift their mode of travel to bikes and devices and away from
cars whenever possible: fewer cars on the road leads to lower emissions, less traffic
congestion, and fewer collisions, just to name a few benefits. These are in keeping with
Ames' existing climate action and pedestrian safety goals, among others. To THAT end it
would behoove us to not *overly* burden bikes/devises with regulations that might discourage
their use - such as too slow city-wide speed limits that apply even in places that don't warrant
it or too many "slow zones" along primary cycle routes. Slow zones are fine in parks and
other recreational areas which few people are using to actually get from A to B, but along
major arterial roads, not so much. In the latter areas when there are high amounts of
pedestrian and/or cycle/device traffic, the city should strongly consider that the best option
may be to provide separate facilities for cycles (medium speed users) and pedestrians (slow
speed users).
96
All future roads should have bike lanes or right of ways. Bike trails need to be connected.
Dead ends on a few in weird places (Skunk River and the Ioway under Duff. Also no way to
safely access certain areas on a bicycle. South Duff. Lincoln Way, Ada Hayd en (path by mall
is dangerous with cars turning and not giving cyclists right of way).. Not enough bike racks
anywhere in town.
97 safety sessions
98 Not enough bike trails to popular areas such as downtown.
99
Placing speed restrictions on fully electric personal transportation devices. You may need to
evaluate what kind of electric bikes and scooters you really want on the bike paths and
sidewalks.
100 Address the hopeless/mental health population issue
101
Automobile operators need to be more aware of bikers, walkers, runners, & others using an
alternative form of transportation
102
I think the speed limit question is interesting and important, And we should be very
conservative in our selection of a speed limit. E devices are bringing a lot of users onto the
sidewalks roads and paths which is good, however, nearly without exception they don't have
215
Personal Transportation Device Survey Responses – 257 total responses 34
the skills or knowledge for the devices they are using. So they are a hazard for other users
and themselves and they don't even know it. 10 -12 mph Is a completely reasonable limit to
be encouraging for e-device users.
103
I think Ames is pretty good for biking, but I am all for more development (bike lanes, widening
sidewalks, etc...) to make biking easier/safer in town.
104
Ames is fairly big and there are plenty of neighborhoods that don't have services in walkable
distance. It's about a mile, up/down a very steep hill to the nearest store for me to buy
anything at. Encouraging safe use of transportation like ebikes can help bridge the gap
between needing a car and wanting a more eco-friendly way to het around.
Key Takeaways from Public Comments on Bicycles & Personal Transportation Devices (PTDs)
1. Support for Alternative Transportation
o Strong public support for biking, e-bikes, and scooters as eco-friendly, affordable
alternatives to cars.
o Many warn against over-regulation, which could discourage use.
2. Infrastructure Improvements Needed
o High demand for more and better-connected bike lanes and trails.
o Calls for safer, separated paths away from traffic and better road maintenance.
3. Safety & Regulation
o Mixed views: some want minimal regulation, others suggest speed limits, helmet
requirements, and rules for sidewalks vs. roads.
o Emphasis on education and etiquette over heavy enforcement.
4. Motor Vehicles are the Bigger Concern
o Many feel cars are the greatest safety threat.
o Requests for more driver enforcement and education on sharing the road.
5. Shared Path Conflicts
o Frustration with fast-moving PTDs on pedestrian paths.
o Suggestions for clearer signage, dual-use lanes, and speed separation.
6. Other Issues
o Complaints about poorly designed or confusing intersections.
o Desire for better trail signage, bike repair stations, and lighting.
216
SHARE THE PATH
WALK/RUN
Stay to the lake side of path
RIDE/ROLL
Stay to the non-lake side of path
Speed Limit 10 mph
www.AmesParkRec.org
217
SHARE THE PATH
RIDE/ROLL
Stay to the non-lake side of path
WALK/RUN
Stay to the lake side of path
www.AmesParkRec.org
Speed Limit 10 mph
218
www.AmesParkRec.org
but we can still be friends
WALK/RUN
Stay to the lake side of path
RIDE/ROLL
Stay to the non-lake side of path
STAY ON YOUR SIDE
Speed Limit 10 mph
219
www.AmesParkRec.org
but we can still be friends
RIDE/ROLL
Stay to the non-lake side of path
WALK/RUN
Stay to the lake side of path
STAY ON YOUR SIDE
Speed Limit 10 mph
220
www.AmesParkRec.org
Be respectful of others Please announce your presence!
ADA HAYDENHERITAGE PARK PATH
SPEED LIMIT10
221
ITEM #:29
DATE:12-09-25
DEPT:P&R
SUBJECT:AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 19 OF MUNICIPAL CODE (PARKS AND
RECREATION)
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
At the March 11, 2025 City Council meeting, City staff made a presentation regarding the topic
of micromobility uses in the City of Ames. As part of that presentation, City Council referred
the micromobility uses in parks to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Shortly afterwards,
at the March 27, 2025 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, City staff presented the
topic of micromobility. A lengthy discussion occurred and the Commission proceeded to
review Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code (Parks and Recreation) to see how the code might
address micromobility use in the parks.
Upon reviewing Chapter 19, the Commission realized there were other sections of Chapter 19
and the Park Rules that could use some updates to reflect current practices and/or to provide
clarity on expectations of park use.
It should be noted that the responsibility of updating the Park Rules is a function of the
Parks and Recreation Commission and Council need not take any action regarding Park
Rules.
As such, the Commission engaged the public and sought feedback regarding Municipal Code
Chapter 19 and the Park Rules. An in-person public input session was held on April 2, 2025
and a public survey (1,200 responses) was made available. There were also additional email
correspondences with community members on these topics.
Having received public feedback, the Commission has proposed updates to its Park Rules,
which will be considered at its December 18 meeting. The Commission also proposed
changes to Municipal Code Chapter 19, which were discussed with City Council at its
November 18 meeting. Notably, as it relates to micromobility and personal transportation
device uses, the Parks Commission is recommending a park rule to implement a 10
mph speed limit on park trails and paths.
The main concerns heard involved multi-modal uses on park trails and paths, and the need to
institute a speed limit for safety purposes. This will be discussed more in depth at this same
meeting when formal ordinance updates to Municipal Code Chapter 4: Bicycles are being
considered by Council.
At its November 18 meeting, City Council directed staff to draft updates to Municipal Code
Chapter 19. The ordinance has been drafted and is attached for the City Council's review.
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 19 UPDATES:
Changes consist of updating existing language to be clearer on the intent of what was already
222
there as well as:
Sec. 19.2 - Appointment of Member, Term of Office
Remove the last sentence (The one year special term shall be applied to a position first
becoming vacant after the date of this ordinance.). This is no longer needed since the
ordinance has been in effect for many years.
Sec. 19.7 (7)(b) Leasing to Organizations
The language was very specific to "amateur or professional baseball or other athletic games"
and is being changed to "activities" to provide the Commission greater flexibility if the
opportunity arises.
Sec. 19.8 Damaging Plants, Property in Parks and Recreational Facilities
(1) Removed very specific examples.
(2) Added that foraging edible plants, fruits and nuts is allowed within the park system.
(3) Added a more generic statement regarding what is prohibited (this replaces what was
removed in Sec. 19.8 (1)).
Sec. 19.10 Weapons Prohibited
Removes the prohibition on firearms in the parks so it is in accordance with Iowa State Law.
Sec. 19.13 Dogs at Homewood Golf Course
This change puts in writing that officially documented service animals are allowed at
Homewood.
Sec. 19.15 Swimming Prohibited
A park rule prohibiting swimming in Ada Hayden Heritage Park Lake has been in place. The
Commission is proposing this to be an ordinance and to include any body of water on City
owned property.
Sec. 19.15 Bait Dumping Prohibited
The prohibition is being expanded to include any lake, pond, river, or stream on City-owned
property.
Sec. 19.19 Boat Motors
Adding an exception for emergency watercraft as approved in advance by the Parks and
Recreation Commission. This would allow this use for events such as the Ames Triathlon.
Sec. 19.20 Fishing from Bridges Prohibited
Expands this prohibition to any bridge within the park system.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve on first reading of the attached ordinance regarding Ames Municipal Code Chapter
19 to take effect immediately after final ordinance adoption.
2. Direct staff to modify the proposed ordinance and bring it back to a future City Council
meeting for City Council consideration
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
223
Updating Municipal Code Chapter 19 will improve public safety and clarify what is acceptable
behavior within the park system. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that
the City Council approve Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ATTACHMENT(S):
DRAFT Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 to clarify expectations of park use.pdf
224
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 19.2, 19.7, 19.8, 19.10,
19.13, 19.15, 19.18, 19.19, AND 19.20, THEREOF,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING CHAPTER 19
PARKS AND RECREATION TO CLARIFY
EXPECTIONS OF PARK USE, REPEALING ANY
AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF
SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and
the same is hereby amended by amending Sections 19.2, 19.7, 19.8, 19.10,
19.13, 19.15, 19.18, 19.19, and 19.20, as follows:
CHAPTER 19
PARKS AND RECREATION
* * *
Sec. 19.2. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, TERM OF OFFICE.
The Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of seven (7) persons
people appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council. The term of
office shall be three (3) years for six of the members, and one (1) of the members
shall serve a special 1 one-year term. All terms shall run from April 1 of the year
in which the appointment is made. The one year special term shall be applied to
a position first becoming vacant after the date of this ordinance.
* * *
Sec. 19.7. SPECIFIC POWERS AND DUTIES.
The parks and recreation commission shall have the following powers and
duties:
(1) Rulemaking. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter,
the commission shall have rulemaking authority, and shall prescribe and
promulgate all needed rules and regulations for use of or participation in the city
parks, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities, programs, and activities.
(2) Planning. Prepare, and revise at least once every five (5) years, a plan
for the development and continuation of a system of city parks, pleasure grounds
greenways, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities.
(3) Gifts. May solicit, on behalf of the City of Ames, gifts of money or
property for parks and recreation purposes.
225
(4) Rates Fees and charges. Whenever, and only so long as there are no
revenue bonds or pledge orders outstanding which are payable therefrom, the
commission shall have the power and authority to establish fees, rates and
charges for the use of a city park, pleasure ground, swimming pool, or other
recreational facility, or for participation in a recreational program or activity.
However, the city council shall at all times retain and have power and authority to
establish, impose, adjust and provide for the collection of rates fees and charges
when such action is necessary to produce gross revenues at least sufficient to
pay the expenses of operation and maintenance of a certain park, pleasure
ground greenway, swimming pool, or other recreational facility, or to pay the
principal and interest of any revenue bonds and pledge orders as they come due.
(5) Joint projects. Subject to the approval of the city council, the
commission may take action jointly with other public or private agencies as
provided in Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa, 1977.
(6) Contracts. The commission shall have power to authorize and execute
on behalf of the City of Ames, without action of the city council, contracts with
public or private entities for services relative related to recreational programs and
activities. Such contracts shall be evidenced by a written document approved as
to form by the city attorney and certified consistent with the current budget by the
director of finance.
(7) Leasing to organizations. The commission shall have authority to lease,
under reasonable rules and requirements, a particular park or portion thereof, as
follows:
(a) For a period not in excess of ten (10) days to charitable, fraternal,
and patriotic organizations, for the purpose of permitting such organizations to
conduct celebrations, anniversaries, and entertainments.
(b) For a period not to exceed six (6) months, for activities as the
commission shall deem proper, for the purpose of permitting the playing of
amateur or professional baseball or other athletic games.
Sec. 19.8. DAMAGING PLANTS, PROPERTY IN PARKS AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to willfully cut, rake, damage,
destroy or interfere with any trees, shrubs, flowers, bush or other planting, or
building, structure or other facility amenity in any public park or recreational
facility. Interfering with park structures or facilities is specifically defined to include
persons being on top of park shelters; placing picnic tables in water, using them
as sleds, or placing them on top of shelters; and jumping or diving off pedestrian
bridges.
(2) Foraging edible plants, fruits and nuts is allowed within the
park system.
(3) Utilizing any structure, equipment, or facility for any purpose
or in any manner other than for its intended use is prohibited.
226
Sec. 19.10. FIREARMS WEAPONS PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS.
Except for police officers, while in the performance of duty, and as
otherwise specifically authorized by the commission, it It is unlawful for any
person to carry or have in their possession or under their control in any public
park, pleasure ground greenway or recreational facility and/or space of the city
any firearm of any kind whatsoever, BB gun, pellet gun, bow and arrow, sling
shot, or any other device for shooting or throwing a projectile of any kind.
Sec. 19.11. PARK HOURS.
All city parks are open to the public from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Only
Parks & Recreation department employees or emergency personnel, including
fire, police and utility workers, are authorized to be in the parks between the
hours of 10:30 p.m. until 6:00 a.m., unless advance written permission approval
has been obtained from the Parks and Recreation Commission.
* * *
Sec. 19.13. DOGS AT HOMEWOOD GOLF COURSE.
No person shall walk a dog or dogs or in any way bring a dog onto the
Homewood Golf Course while the course is open to play. The Course shall be
deemed open to play when the flag poles are in the cups on the greens. This
section shall not prohibit a blind person officially documented service animals
from coming onto Homewood Golf Course with the aid of the blind persons’s
seeing-eye dog.
* * *
Sec. 19.15. Reserved. SWIMMING PROHIBITED.
No person shall swim in any body of water on City owned property.
* * *
Sec. 19.18. BAIT DUMPING PROHIBITED.
No person shall dump live fish bait into the water of the any lake, pond,
river, or stream on City owned property at Ada Hayden Heritage Park.
Sec. 19.19. BOAT MOTORS.
Use of any boat motor, other than an electric motor, is prohibited at Ada
Hayden Heritage Park. No person shall have any boat motor fueled by gasoline
on the premises of that park. Exception for emergency watercraft as approved in
advance by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Sec. 19.20. FISHING FROM THE BRIDGES PROHIBITED.
No person shall engage in fishing from the any bridge within the park
system at Ada Hayden Heritage Park.
* * *
Section Two. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a
municipal infraction punishable as set out by law.
227
Section Three. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Four. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
___________________________ _______________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
Passed on:
I, Renee Hall, City Clerk of the City of Ames, Iowa, hereby certify
that the above and foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No. ______________,
passed by the City Council of said City at the meeting held on
______________________and signed by the Mayor on
___________________________, and published in the Ames Tribune on
___________________________.
________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
228
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Benjamin Campbell, Planner
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Zoning Text Amendment
Item No. 30
MEMO
The ordinance regarding a Zoning Text Amendment for the South Lincoln Sub
Area Mixed Use District (S-SMD) Single Family Design Standards is attached for
the City Council's review and consideration for second reading.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Ordinance-ZTA__S-SMD__Design_Standards.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
229
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE
OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING
SECTION 29.402(4), AND TABLE 29.1003(3) FOR
THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING SETBACKS AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE SOUTH
LINCOLN SUB AREA MIXED-USE (“S-SMD”)
DISTRICT, REPEALING ANY AND ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and
the same is hereby amended by amending Section 29.402(4) and Table
29.1003(3) as follows:
“Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS.
* * *
(4)Through Lots and Corner Lots. On through lots, and corner lots
with two or more abutting streets, except lots within the RL, RM, and UCRM
Zoning Districts, and in S-SMD for single- and two-family dwellings, the required
front setback shall be provided on all streets.
* * *
Sec. 29.1003 “S-SMD” SOUTH LINCOLN SUB AREA MIXED-USE DISTRICT.
* * *
(3)Zone Development Standards. The zone development standards
for the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed Use District are set forth in Table
29.1003(3) below.
Table 29.1003(3)
South Lincoln Sub Area (S-SMD) Mixed-Use District
Zone Development Standards
Development Standards S-SMD Zone
***
Side Lot Lines for Corner Lots for Single-
and Two-Family Dwellings
15 ft. for side lot line abutting public right-
of-way on a corner lot.
230
Development Standards S-SMD Zone
***
Width (Excepting Single- and Two-Family
Dwellings)
Width of a primary façade shall be no
greater than 40 ft. Width of the
secondary façade(s) closest to the street
shall be no greater than 40 ft. Recessed
façades must be set back at least 8 feet
from the primary or secondary façade. A
second primary façade or secondary
façade is permitted but must be
separated from other primary or
secondary façades along that building
face by a recessed facade of at least 24
ft. in length.
Width for Single- and Two-Family
Dwellings
Width of a primary façade shall be no
greater than 48 ft. Width of a secondary
façade(s) closest to the street shall be no
greater than 48 ft. Recessed facades
must be set back at least 4 feet from the
primary or secondary façade. A second
primary façade or secondary façade is
permitted but must be separated from
other primary or secondary facades along
that building face by a recessed façade of
at least 24 ft. in length.
***
Roofs (Excepting Single- and Two-Family
Dwellings)
All buildings shall have gable roofs, with
a minimum roof pitch of 6:12 rise to run.
All buildings shall have roofs with at least
one or more gable end sections, or at
least two or more dormers, facing a
street.
231
Development Standards S-SMD Zone
Roofs for Single- and Two-Family
Dwellings)
All buildings shall have gable roofs, with
a minimum roof pitch of 6:12 rise to run.
All buildings shall have roofs with at least
one or more gable end sections, or at
least two or more dormers, for the
primary façade facing a street.
Secondary facades are not required to
meet this standard.
***
Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
_____________________________ ________________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
Passed on:
I, Renee Hall, City Clerk of the City of Ames, Iowa, hereby certify
that the above and foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No. ______________,
passed by the City Council of said City at the meeting held on
______________________and signed by the Mayor on
___________________________, and published in the Ames Tribune on
___________________________.
_______________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
232
To:Mayor & City Council
From:Parker Walsh, Assistant Planner
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Rezoning Ordinance - 220-400 Freel Drive
Item No. 31
MEMO
The ordinance rezoning property at 220-400 Freel Drive from General Industrial
(GI) to Government/Airport District (S-GA) is attached for the City Council's
review and consideration for third reading and adoption.
ATTACHMENT(S):
220-400 Freel Drive - Rezoning.docx
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
233
DO NOT WRITE IN THE SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE, RESERVED FOR RECORDER
Prepared by: City Clerk’s Office, 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, IA 50010 Phone: 515-239-5105
Return to: Ames City Clerk, P.O. Box 811, Ames, IA 50010
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF AMES, IOWA, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 29.301 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY CHANGING THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED AND SHOWN ON
SAID MAP AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 29.1507 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES
AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa;
Section 1: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ames, Iowa, as provided for in Section
29.301 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa, is amended by changing the boundaries
of the districts established and shown on said Map in the manner authorized by Section 29.1507
of the Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa, as follows: That the real estate, generally located
at 220-400 Freel Drive is rezoned from General Industrial (GI) to Government/Airport District (S-
GA)
Real Estate Description:
306, 312, 318 Freel, legal description as follows: Lot Twelve (12), Thirteen (13) and
Fourteen (14) in Woodland Acres, Plat 2, Ames, Iowa, Story County, Iowa
220 Freel, legal description as follows: Lot Three (3), Pete Cooper Subdivision, Ames,
Iowa, Story County, Iowa
400 Freel, legal description as follows: Lot Nine (9), Ten (10), and Eleven (11), Woodland
Acres, Plat 2, Ames, Iowa, Story County, Iowa
Section 2: All other ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
234
Section 3: This ordinance is in full force and effect from and after its adoption and
publication as provided by law.
ADOPTED THIS day of , .
Renee Hall, City Clerk John A Haila, Mayor
235
To:Mayor and City Council
From:City Clerk's Office
Date:December 9, 2025
Subject:Developer Incentive Requests
Item No. 32
MEMO
Please see attached staff report and supplemental materials regarding the
Developer Incentive Requests.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Incentives Staff Report Dec 9th.pdf
Development Project Overviews.pdf
Development Project Options.pdf
Other Pioneer Projects.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
236
Staff Report
DEVELOPER HOUSING INCENTIVE REQUESTS
December 9, 2025
BACKGROUND:
City Council reviewed a staff report at its May 27 meeting that described the original
developer requests totaling approximately $10 million dollars and policy questions
pertaining to priority types of development, priority for near term development, and
maximum amounts of financial assistance. Council requested staff provide more
information and took no specific action related to the requests.
Staff met with development representatives during the summer to address City Council’s
My 27th comments and questions about the projects. Staff provided an updated report on
September 9th that provided more details about the project and financial estimates for the
incentives.
At the September 9th meeting, staff addressed information pertaining to:
• Developer responses to Council questions,
• categorization of pioneer and oversizing infrastructure,
• cost projections for three years and in total
• projected housing production over the next 3 years, by project,
• cost implications to City funds in the context of the original developer requests,
• a comparison of approaches from Waukee and Ankeny, and
• policy questions to guide the prioritization of incentives and options regarding total
amount of incentives.
City Council reviewed staff’s information and heard from Justin Dodge about the need for
incentives and about the limitations on housing production in Ames, even with incentives.
Ultimately, City Council directed staff to formulate a package of options to help
address the total cost of incentives and the timing of financial impacts to the City.
City Council indicated that any combination of funding sources, including TIF could be
considered.
PROJECT SUMMARIES:
Attached to the report is a project location map and identification of the specific original
requests for each project. The following is a summary of each project and their total
financial request. The descriptions have been updated, as appropriate since the
September meeting.
237
Hayden's Preserve
This development is a 170-acre site with Master Plan approval for up to 620 units. The
developer intends to propose increasing the total units of this site to approximately 660
units with a split of approximately 550 single family and 110 multi -family, along with 5.5
acres of commercial. The single family is a combination of townhomes and detached
single family. The developer was focused on a large first phase development concept
that could include 50 detached lots, 176 townhomes, and 110 apartment dwellin gs.
The developer had put the site up for auction in September. The property did not sell at
auction and is under control of same developer. They have indicated an interest to staff
to continue with their incentive request and an updated master plan for the site.
The developer's total ask is estimated at $3.5 million to $4.7 million, depending on
rural water territory buyout calculations. The developer indicates that this level of
financial support is needed to make development of the site competitive with sites
they are developing in other communities.
Auburn Trail
This development is 70 acres on the west side of Hyde with a master plan approval for
181 single family dwellings. The developer intends to increase density to approximately
200 units. Details regarding the first phase of development are unknown at this ti me.
The developer's total direct ask was estimated in September at $486,000, depending on
rural water territory buyout calculations.
Since May, Staff has reviewed a revised layout for the site the developer believes
improves the financial viability of the site. The developer noted in their recent response
to staff that based upon their recent subdivision layout updates, with a reduced
Xenia buyout cost to at least $4,000 per acre, that the assistance represented in
Option 2 of approximately $365,000 would be sufficient to proceed with the project.
Greenbriar
This development is a 150-acre site that was recently annexed into the city. The City
Council has directed staff to address infrastructure improvements related to sewer, roads,
and open space with a development agreement at the time of rezoning. The applicant
has not yet applied for rezoning with a master plan for this site.
Based upon the Ames Plan 2040 designations, the development will include commercial,
multi-family, and single family attached and detached homes. Staff estimates the plan
may include 450+ dwelling units, split between 250 multi-family units and 200 single family
units, plus 5-8 acres of commercial land. The developer has recently submitted a
request for City Council to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment to modify
the location of commercial development from the middle of the site to the corner
of Cameron and GW Carver.
238
Development of the site requires extension of an east/west sewer from Hyde Avenue that
is related to the Hayden's Preserve project timing. The overall timing of Greenbriar and
the sewer extension is unknown.
The developers have indicated that a first phase of single-family homes could be
started next year without the Hyde trunk line extension if a "slip lining" project for
an existing sewer segment in Moore Memorial Park is completed independent of
the Hyde sewer extension. Staff estimates the slip line project would cost $250,000 and
could increase the capacity of this existing line to serve the southwest quadrant of the
site, which may yield capacity for 100+ single family housing units.
The developer's total direct ask is estimated at $4.1 million, plus additional park
development costs that are not yet estimated. Additionally, the developer believes
that even with the requested infrastructure assistance that the project is not
financially feasible without an opportunity to generate a 20% return on investment
of the land development. Therefore, they claim that a TIF rebate may also be
required to develop the project with a reasonable return on investment.
Bluffs at Dankbar Farms Corner Outlot
This site is 20 acres in size and has been recently approved for rezoning of 6 acres of
commercial and 14 acres for a Senior/Assisted Living facility.
The current development agreement for this site requires turn lane improvements on
Cameron School Road and G.W. Carver Avenue at the developer’s cost.
The developer's direct ask is estimated at $1.2 million to complete turn lanes along
Cameron School Road and GW Carver Avenue. Because of the existing
development agreements, the developer is required to make these improvements
with the next Bluffs plat and development of the corner site, which is anticipated
to be within the upcoming year. The developer indicates that the City assistance
would facilitate a quicker rate of development for their corner project and
potentially the Bluffs townhomes to the west. It should be noted that the $1.2
million request is not directly related to the construction of housing of townhomes
to the west of the corner commercial site.
Domani I
The project has an approved Planned Residence District (PRD) plan that is partially built
out. The extension of Cottonwood is triggered with the next phase of development. The
current development agreement requires the extension at the expense of the
developer. The remaining two phases include 11 additional Domani lots and 12 custom
home lots for a total of 23 lots.
The developer's initial ask is estimated at $371,000 for the full cost of the
Cottonwood extension as a 31-foot residential collector street. After discussing
timing and options with the developer, he has indicated that if the City committed
to funding at least 50% of the road improvement that he would consider committing
resources to completing other infrastructure and street improvements for Green
239
Hills to final plat all the remaining lots. If there is not an incentive to invest in this
area now, there are other projects that he would prioritize first.
Ansley
Ansley is an approved Planned Unit Development with 170 residential lots. The approved
development is a mix of attached and detached single family dwellings with one site
intended for a commercial building. As part of the original subdivision approval, City
Council agreed to waive the developer’s responsibility to pave ½ of Cedar Lane
with the other half to be paid for by ISU. ISU had inherited the partial paving obligation
from buying land on the west side of Cedar Lane that was subject to development
agreement with the City.
A development agreement memorializing the improvement requirements is on the
agenda as a separate item. The estimated cost to the City for half of the roadway
was $250,000, but it would not occur in the next three years
Incentive Options:
The September 2025 report described a staff generated development phasing with
projected incentives and housing production for the next three years (est. 110 units per
year) and the totals for each project. The September report also utilized the developers
original categories of incentive requests, which differed by project.
For this report, staff created a generalized approach for categorizing the incentive values
to make them more easily comparable. Staff also utilized the same three-year horizon to
create Options. Attached to the report are worksheets of incentive options for each of the
five development projects seeking incentives at this time. The worksheets describe types
of incentives and sources of funding for the incentives. Additionally, summary sheets are
provided by Option to describe the collective funding source s and projected timing of the
cost to the City. Table 1 below summarizes the incentive value by source for each option
and Table 2 describes the incentive value per project for each option.
The Options are focused how the incentives can facilitate first phase construction
of a project within the next three years and the costs to the City over three years .
There have been no updates or other adjustment to costs estimates that were first
described in May 2025. The estimates provided in this report are high level and, in
many cases, projects will likely be more expensive for the City than represented
here, especially in future years.
The Option 1 category for each development project generally represents the pioneer and
oversizing projects described in September. Option 1 primarily utilizes the available ARPA
funding with some additional local funds.
Option 2 expands the incentive range by adding additional pioneer type projects or
expanding the financial assistance related to pioneer infrastructure projects. The financial
240
assistance substantially exceeds the ARPA funding and utilizes a variety of other local
funding sources to increase the amount of incentive s.
Option 3 adds additional incentives approaching the estimated “need” described by the
developers, but not necessarily fully funding each request. The incentives do not solely
utilize the pioneer and oversizing categories to guide the incentive type. Funding sources
also include use of commercial and residential TIF in limited situations described in the
summary sheets.
Table 1: Summary of Options by Source
Table 2: Summary of Options by Project
Council should be aware that none of the incentive costs included in this report are
currently part of the City’s 5-year CIP. Staff did not attempt to reprioritize already
planned CIP projects to accommodate any incentive projects. Additionally, these
incentives do not include any other potential requests for City participation in other types
of pioneer infrastructure or oversizing that may be consistent with Plan 2040. Staff have
included a list of other such potential projects as an attachment to this r eport as
background for future consideration.’
RURAL WATER BUYOUT:
There is an underlying assumption referenced for the Auburn Trail and Hayden’s Preserve
project that the City can renegotiate the buyout costs for development sites along Hyde
Sources Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Road Use 250,000$ 541,000$ 541,000$
GO Bonds 162,750$ 455,500$ 641,000$
ARPA 2,700,000$ 2,700,000$ 2,700,000$
Local Option Fund Balance 620,000$ 620,000$
Sewer Utility 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$
Water Utility -$
Connection Fees Water/Sewer Partial Waiver 370,000$
TIF Commercial (Dev. Rebate)600,000$ 1,900,000$
TIF Residential Dev. Rebate 375,000$
TIF Residential LMI Setaside 406,000$
Total 3,362,750$ 5,166,500$ 7,803,000$
Direct City Non-Federal Cost 662,750$ 1,866,500$ 2,052,000$
ARPA Funding 2,700,000$ 2,700,000$ 2,700,000$
Indirect Cost (Fee Waivers/TIF)-$ 600,000$ 3,051,000$
Project Requested (3yr/Total)Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Est. Houses First 3 Years Total Dwellings
Domani I 371,000$ 92,750$ 185,500$ 371,000$ 25 25
Greenbriar $1,700,000/ 4,100,000 +1,020,000$ 1,840,000$ 2,740,000$ 75 450
Hayden's Preserve $ 2,800,000/$3,600,000 +2,000,000$ 2,185,000$ 2,800,000$ 125 660
Dankbar 1,200,000$ -$ 600,000$ 1,000,000$ 0 0
Auburn Trail 486,000$ 250,000$ 356,000$ 486,000$ 75 180
Ansley Total $250,000 -$ -$ -$ 25 160
Residential TIF LMI Setaside 52%-$ -$ 406,000$ -
Total $6,557,000/$10,007,000 +3,362,750$ 5,166,500$ 7,803,000$ 325 1475
241
Avenue. This would benefit developers by having them pay a reduced cost of $4,000 per
acre compared to the current per unit cost of at least $2,800. This results in substantial
savings of $371,000 for Auburn Trail and $1,200,000 for Hayden’s Preserve. The
renegotiated buyout costs would be part of an updated water purchase agreement with
Xenia that would be reviewed with City Council in the first quarter of 2026.
STAFF COMMENTS:
As the Council reviews the 15 different options to incentivize the housing
developments, staff would highlight the following points:
• If all of the five developers are supported with the Option 3, the total subsidy would
be approximately $7,400,000 out of the estimated total $10,000,000 requests.
• It is not required that you select Option 1,2, or 3 uniformly for all projects. Council
can select different options level for each project or modify the options themselves.
• Staff has not verified developer suggested costs for projects, nor has staff been
provided an opportunity to review any formal pro forma related to the financial
feasibility of the projects to justify the incentive requests from the developers.
• The support to finance the five developers focuses only on creation of the
subdivisions. There is no guarantee how quickly housing will be built, how many
dwelling units will be built, and what will be the sales price or rent levels for the
residential units in the subdivisions. The Council will have to decide if you want to
establish certain conditions related to the granting of these incentive packages.
• Council should recall that the local development community indicated that current
available construction resources would limit the number of homes produced to
approximately 80 homes a year. This information would indicate that incentives
alone would not substantially increase housing production and outside
development resources are needed to increase production beyond 80 homes.
• The GW Carver/Cameron School Road Corridor improvements could be
completed as independent developer led projects as shown in the project sheets
or as a combined City corridor project. If Council elects to pursue a City led corridor
project, staff will evaluate a traditional improvement versus a roundabout
improvement and report back to Council in 2026. Staff would evaluate if a
roundabout is feasible and could be completed at the same cost with partner
funding as the original assumptions.
• The incentive options will support overall development of 1475 dwelling units, and
it is hoped that these extraordinary incentives will yield near term increases in
housing production.
• These incentive requests do not address other potential future pioneer and
oversizing projects that may be needed for the other growth areas.
242
• There are some consistent pioneer projects that could be prioritized sooner rather
than later while considering other incentives, such as the sewer slip lining and east
west sewer projects.
• Staff realizes this is a complicated report and, therefore, no action must be taken
at this meeting allowing time for the Council to adequately review the material. The
issue should then be placed on a upcoming agenda for direction.
243
Development Overviews
•Hayden’s Preserve
•Auburn Trail
•Greenbriar (former Borgmeyer farm property)
•Commercial Area of Bluffs at Dankbar Farms
•Domani I (south)
244
North Development Area
245
South Development Area
246
Hayden’s Preserve
•City complete east west sewer trunk line
•City pay for road creek crossing
•City complete turn lane improvements
•City reduce collection of water/sewer connection fees related to undeveloped open spaces (aprox. 21%)
•City reimburse developer for park land
•City waive traffic signal fair share payment
•City purchase Xenia Territory Buyout in lieu of developer
•City construct off-site trail along Hyde (Sturges/INHF property)
•Potential for TIF as developer rebate, exempt site from property tax abatement program
Existing Master Plan and Development Agreement- maximum of 620 units total for 170 acres
Proposed to change Master Plan, allow for more, townhomes, single family, reduce MF, keep commercial
Phase 1-Proposed 176 townhomes, 50 SF lots, 84 Multi Family Units, 24 MF units 5ac commercial
247
Auburn Trail
•City purchase Xenia Territory Buyout in lieu
of developer
•City waive traffic signal fair share payment
•City reimburse developer for park land
•Developer did not identify other specific
costs reductions noting there may still be
a potential gap
•Proposed TIF as developer rebate for other
reimbursements, exempt site from
property tax abatement program
Approved Master Plan Zoning and
Development Agreement
Allows for single family dwellings
180-200 units projected
248
Greenbriar
•City complete east west sewer trunk line to west side of Railroad
•City assist in extension of trunk line west through the property
•City complete off-site Moore Park sewer slip lining for first phase development
•City purchase Xenia Territory Buyout in lieu of developer
•City construct Stange Road Extension
•City construct all GW Carver improvements for turn lanes, shared use path, traffic signal
•City acquire parkland from developer
•Potential for TIF as developer rebate, exempt site from property tax abatement program
•NOTE-City may have an interest in acquiring site for temporary Station 4 facility, developer is willing to sell a property for a station house
Initiated Annexation, to include development agreement for sewer, road improvements, parkland, etc.
Plan 2040 designates as RN-4 for walkable mixed use and density neighborhood
Development Concept- 5-8 acres commercial//200 Multi Family Units//250 single family attached/detached dwelling types
Phase 1- May include SF units and/or Commercial
249
Bluffs at Dankbar Farms
•City complete Cameron School and GW Carver improvements for Turns Lanes and any needed widening
•Traffic study indicated a need for an additional lane to create left turn lanes at Cameron School Rd and for turning access to the site.
•Previously evaluated roundabout option that was preferred improvement but deemed to not be feasible for a single developer. City accepted a traffic signal plan as future improvement. Developer has contributed to traffic signal already.
20 Acre Outlot corner of GW Carver/Cameron School
Approved Development Agreement for Developer paid Road and Sewer costs
Development Concept- 6 acres commercial and Change zoning to FS-RM for Senior Assisted Living (Staff evaluating impacts of proposed change to City resources)
250
Domani I
Request-City construct extension of
Cottonwood as 31-Foot Street
Approved PRD Plan-
Final two phases include Domani Lots and
larger custom lots
Total of 23 Single Family lots to be platted
251
Ansley
Cedar Lane is unpaved south of Middleton
Road. Council agreed to waive developer
requirement with future phase to pave south
of Middleton. Half of the paving cost is an
obligation of ISU. Estimated City cost for ½ of
project was $250,000.
Development Agreement for paving is
pending. Developer to provide engineered
drawings for City to bid and construct road at
a time determined by City Council
Approved PUD and Plat
Previous approval by Council of Cedar Lane paving
May request sidewalk waivers or deferrals in the future
252
Financial Estimates -Hayden’s Preserve
Hayden's Preserve 170 ac
Preliminary City Cost
Estimates
Source Of Funds Options,
If a share is the City
15 Inch Sewer INHF Segment 1320 ft $ 792,000 ARPA/Sewer Fund
12 Inch Sewer Developer Use 900 ft $ 360,000 ARPA/Sewer Fund
Shared Use Path INHF/ Sturges 1320 ft (offsite gap)$ 250,000 ARPA, GO Bonds/Road Use
Greenway trail bridge already city cost future, previously agreed Park Development Fund/Grant
Water Connection Fees July 1 $1,689.00 /ac Reduce 21% for Open Space $ 60,297 Water Fund/no collection
Water buyout (Xenia) renegotiated per acre 4k assumption ($1.2 million
savings for developer if not City)$ 680,000 Water Fund
Sewer Connection Fee July 1 $2,554.00 /ac Reduce 21% for Open Space $ 91,178 Sewer Fund/no collection
Trafic Signal Bloomington (does not escalate)$ 85,000 ARPA, GO Bonds/Road Use
Turn Lane Hyde Into Site $ 200,000 GO Bond/Road Use
Park value of land 30k for 5.5 acres $ 165,000 Park Develoment Fund
East West Road Crossing Culvert $ 750,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 3,534,748
Also requesting 10 years TIF up agreed upon limit for each Phase of
development
May propose redesign that also increases density of units to a total of 650
253
Financial Estimates -Auburn Trail
Auburn Trail (70 acres west of Hyde)
Preliminary City
Cost Estimates
Source Of Funds Options, If
a share is the City
Traffic Signal-Off Site Bloomington/Hyde (escalates per year)$ 106,000 ARPA, GO Bonds Streets
Water buyout (Xenia) renegotiated per acre assumption ($250k
savings for developer if not City)$ 280,000 Water Fund
Park land purchase and improvements $ 100,000 Park Develoment Fund
Other unspecified requests
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 486,000
Other requests or savings estimated at $400,000 depending on final
site design and unit counts//May request TIF
254
Financial Estimates -Greenbriar
Greenbriar 155 acres
Preliminary City Cost
Estimates
Source Of Funds Options, If
a share is the City
Stange Collector Street Extension 3300 ft $ 1,800,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
Off site 12 inch sewer - ARPA/Sewer Fund
Off site 15 inch sewer - ARPA/Sewer Fund
12 Inch sewer extension under RR 500 ft to this site $ 250,000 ARPA/Sewer Fund
Sewer Connection Fees $4,419.00 /ac $ 662,850 Sewer Fund/no collection
Water Connection Fee (none required)none NA
On site sewer size 12 inch 500 feet oversized $ 150,000 Sewer Fund/GO Bond
Construct Slip Line of Sewer in Moore Memorial for 1st Phase $ 250,000 ARPA/Sewer Funds
Offsite Traffic Improvements(e.g. turn lanes, signal costs)$ 820,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
City acquisition of parkland and improvements no estimate available Park Develoment Fund
Xenia water buyout at $3000 per acre, previously negotiated $ 450,000 Water Fund
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 4,382,850
Request for TIF rebate for remaining infrastructure costs, developer
estimate of $4,000,000 of potential need
255
Financial Estimates -Bluffs at Dankbar
Bluffs at Dankbar -20 Acres (6 ac commercial and 14 ac senior living)
Preliminary City
Cost Estimates
Source Of Funds Options,
If a share is the City
Cameron School Road and GW Carver Turn Lanes $ 1,200,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 1,200,000
256
Financial Estimates -Domani I
Domani I-(23 single family units remaining)
Preliminary
City Cost
Estimates
Source Of Funds Options, If a
share is the City
Constructed Cottonwood Road as 31 foot Residential Collector Street $ 371,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 371,000
257
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Domani Option 1
Cottonwood Oversizing 25% 92,750$ 92,750$
Staff categorized Cottonwood as a Residential Collector Street assuming
25% of overall cost for street improvements.
-$
-$
Total -$ 92,750$ -$ -$ 92,750$
Developer requested aproximately
$371,000 for the full cost of
Cottonwood
The Developer has indicated that he would not prioritize the remaining
phases within the next three years.
Sources Option 1
Road Use -$ -$
GO Bonds -$
ARPA 92,750$ -$ 92,750$
Sewer Utility -$
Totals -$ 92,750$ -$ -$ 92,750$
258
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Domani Option 2
Cottonwood Pioneer at 50% 185,500$ 185,500$
If classified as Pioneer for closing a gap In the street system, additional
incentives could be justified.
Total -$ 185,500$ -$ -$ 185,500$
Developer requested aproximately
$371,000 for the full cost of
Cottonwood
The Developer has indicated with a 50% cost share, he would consider
proceeding with the remaining phases of his subdivision.
Sources Option 2
Road Use -$ -$
GO Bonds 185,500$ -$ 185,500$
ARPA -$ -$
Sewer Utility -$ -$ -$
Totals -$ 185,500$ -$ -$ 185,500$
259
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Domani Option 3
Cottonwood as Pioneer at 100% 371,000$ 371,000$
Pioneer if viewed as closing a street system gap and a 100% incentive
for paving. However, since the street does include frontage with homes
along 1/3 of its frontage it would not be typically characterized as 100%
Pioneer. The Developer has indicate he would agree with a 100%
incentive to final plat lots for all remaining phases.
Total -$ -$ 371,000$ -$ 371,000$
Developer requested aproximately
$371,000 for the full cost of
Cottonwood
Sources Option3
Road Use -$ -$
GO Bonds 371,000$ 371,000$
ARPA -$ -$
Sewer Utility -$ -$ -$
Totals -$ -$ 371,000$ -$ 371,000$
260
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Auburn Trail Option 1
Hyde Shared Use Path Pioneer 250,000$ 250,000$
Overall path is 1 mile in
length, the remaining
$750,000 cost associated
with Hayden's Preserve.
-$
-$
Total -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ 250,000$
Developer request for 3 year total aproximately
$486,000 with reconfigured subdivision layout and
reduced water buyout fee // Developer recently
commented that Options 2 would make the project
viable with a modified layout and reduced wate
rbuyout fees. Developer saves approximately
$371,000 with reduced buyout.
Sources Option 1
Road Use -$
GO Bonds -$
ARPA 250,000$ 250,000$
Sewer Utility -$
Totals -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ 250,000$
261
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Auburn Trail Option 2
Hyde Shared Use Path Pioneer 250,000$ 250,000$
Overall path is 1 mile in
length, remaining $750,000
cost associated with
Hayden's Preserve.
Traffic Signal Payment for Bloomington/Hyde 106,000$ 106,000$
Fee due with first plat,
remaining fees to be
collected from Hayden's
Preserve
Total -$ -$ 250,000$ 106,000$ 356,000$
Developer request for 3 year total aproximately
$486,000 with reconfigured subdivision layout and
reduced water buyout fee // Developer recently
commented that Options 2 would make the project
viable with a modified layout and reduced wate
rbuyout fees. Developer saves approximately
$371,000 with reduced buyout.
Developer recently
commented that Option 2
would make the project viable
with a modified layout and
reduced water buyout fees
Sources Option 2
Road Use 106,000$ 106,000$
GO Bonds -$ -$
Local Option Fund Balance -$
ARPA 250,000$ 250,000$
Sewer Utility -$ -$ -$
Totals -$ -$ 250,000$ 106,000$ 356,000$
262
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Auburn Trail Option 3
Hyde Shared Use Path Pioneer 250,000$ 250,000$
Overall path is 1 mile in
length, remaining $750,000
cost associated with
Hayden's Preserve.
Traffic Signal Payment for Bloomington/Hyde 106,000$ 106,000$
Fee due with first plat,
remaining fes to be
collected from Hayden's
Preserve
Waiver of Connection Fees for 56 homes 130,000$ 130,000$
Total -$ -$ 250,000$ 236,000$ 486,000$
Developer request for 3 year total aproximately
$486,000 with reconfigured subdivision layout and
reduced water buyout fee // Developer recently
commented that Options 2 would make the project
viable with a modified layout and reduced wate
rbuyout fees. Developer saves approximately
$371,000 with reduced buyout.
Developer indicated Option
2 would allow the project to
proceed, additional funding
is not warranted with a
reduced Xenia buyout. Staff
does not recommend
Option 3 incentives.
Sources Option 3
Road Use 106,000$ 106,000$
GO Bonds -$
ARPA -$ 250,000$ 250,000$
Waive Water Sewer Connection Fees 130,000$ 130,000$
Sewer Utility -$ -$ -$
Totals -$ -$ 250,000$ 236,000$ 486,000$
263
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Dankbar Option 1 Cameron and GW Carver Widening
Cameron and GW Widening Developer Cost per Agreement -$
No incentive with Option 1 since the site
was not identified for oversizing or pioneer
infrastructure, no direct housing
construction associated with the
infrastructure project.
Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Developer is currently obligated by a development agreement
to make lane widening along GW Carver and Cameron School
Road at his cost. The Developer is now requesting $1.2
million incentive related to road. improvements.
Sources Option 1
Road Use -$ -$
GO Bonds -$ -$
ARPA -$ -$
Sewer Utility -$ -$
TIF-Commercial -$ -$
Totals -$ -$
264
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Dankbar Option 2 Cameron and GW Carver Widening
Cameron and GW Widening -Partial Pioneer 600,000$ 600,000$
Council could classify part of the corridor
improvements as pioneer and provide for
50% assistance. This option could include
the City coordinating a corridor project
along with Greenbriar improvements, or for
incremental improvements by the
Developer. The City would reduce the
developer obligation by $600,000 utilizing
TIF generated from the commercial area
and the developer would provide payment
to the City for remaining related costs if the
project is coordinated by the City.
Total -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ 600,000$
Developer is currently obligated by a development agreement
to make lane widening along GW Carver and Cameron School
Road at his cost. The Developer is now requesting $1.2
million incentive related to road. improvements.
Sources Option 2
Road Use
GO Bonds
ARPA
TIF-Commercial (Min. Assessment 3 Million Valuation for 10 Years 600,000$ 600,000$
Developer plans for a convenience store at
the corner that could have a minimum
assessment agreement to ensure that
$600,000 could be generated over a
maximum of ten years to reimburse the City
for costs related with a corridor
improvement or as a develoepr rebate.
Sewer Utility -$
Totals -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ 600,000$
265
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Dankbar Option 3 Lane Widening Developer TIF $1million
Lane Widening by Developer with TIF Rebate 10 year up to $1million 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
The Council could classify the corridor
improvements as pioneer warranting a
greater amount of incentive. The Developer
would make the lane widenings at his cost
and receive acommercial TIF rebate of up
to $1 million dollars over 10 years. To
receive $1million dollars in 10 years,
additional commercial development would
be needed.
-$
-$
-$
-$
Total -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Developer is currently obligated by a development agreement
to make lane widening along GW Carver and Cameron School
Road at his cost. The Developer is now requesting $1.2
million incentive related to road. improvements.
Sources Option 3
Road Use
GO Bonds
ARPA
TIF-Commercial 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Staff estimates additional development
beyond the convenience store valuation is
necessary to generate a $1,000,000 of TIF
in ten years. However, the Developer has
two additional vacant commercial lots that
could generate additional TIF revenue.
Sewer Utility
Totals -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
266
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Hayden's Option 1
Hyde Shared Use Path Pioneer 750,000$ 750,000$
Overall Hyde Path is 1 mile long.
Remaining $250,000 cost associated
with Auburn Trail.
East West Sewer to Railroad Tracks Pioneer 1,250,000$ 1,250,000$
The cost of extension under the
railroad tracks is associated with
Greenbriar
Total -$ 1,250,000$ 750,000$ -$ 2,000,000$
Developer request for 3 years estimated at
$2.8million total with $3.6 million total plus
potential TIF. Assumes Developer benefts from
reduced water buyout at $4k per acre. Total
Developer savings from reduced water buyout
aprox. $1.2 million.
Sources Option 1
Road Use -$ -$
GO Bonds -$
ARPA 1,250,000$ 750,000$ 2,000,000$
Sewer Utility -$
Local Option Fund Balance -$
Totals -$ 1,250,000$ 750,000$ -$ 2,000,000$
267
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Hayden's Option 2
Hyde Shared Use Path Pioneer 750,000$ 750,000$
Overall Hyde Path is 1 mile long.
Remaining $250,000 cost associated
with Auburn Trail.
East West Sewer to Railroad Tracks Pioneer 1,250,000$ 1,250,000$
The cost of extension under the
railroad tracks is associated with
Greenbriar
Traffic Signal Payment for Bloomington/Hyde 185,000$ 185,000$ The fee due with first plat remaining
fees to be collected from Auburn Trail
Total -$ 1,250,000$ 750,000$ 185,000$ 2,185,000$
Developer request for 3 years estimated at
$2.8million total with $3.6 million total plus
potential TIF. Assumes Developer benefts from
reduced water buyout at $4k per acre. Total
Developer savings from reduced water buyout
aprox. $1.2 million.
Sources Option 2
Road Use 185,000$ 185,000$
GO Bonds -$ -$
ARPA 1,250,000$ 130,000$ 1,380,000$
Local Option Fund Balance 620,000$ 620,000$
Sewer Utility -$ -$
Totals -$ 1,250,000$ 750,000$ 185,000$ 2,185,000$
268
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Hayden's Trail Option 3
Hyde Shared Use Path Pioneer 750,000$ 750,000$
Overall Hyde Path is 1 mile long.
Remaining $250,000 cost associated
with Auburn Trail.
East West Sewer to Railroad Tracks Pioneer 1,250,000$ 1,250,000$
The cost of extension under the
railroad tracks is associated with
Greenbriar
Traffic Signal Payment for Bloomington/Hyde 185,000$ 185,000$ Fee due with first plat, remaining fees
to be collected from Auburn Trail
Box Culvert-50% of $750,000 375,000$ 375,000$
The creek crossng would be a
beneficial element for the project
simliar to oversizing or pioneer that is
internal to the site between Phase 1
and 2. Such an improvement could
not easily be planned and
accomplished by the City. Use of
Residential TIF assists in timing and
benefit based upon actual
develpoment rates.
Waive connection fees pro rata first 215 dwellings 240,000$ 240,000$
Waiving fees is a commensurate
incentive to actual construction. It is
not a direct cost to the City since the
utilty funds have already been spent
for the water and sewer lines.
Total -$ 1,250,000$ 1,125,000$ 425,000$ 2,800,000$
Developer request for 3 years estimated at
$2.8million total with $3.6 million total plus
potential TIF. Assumes Developer benefts from
reduced water buyout at $4k per acre. Total
Developer savings from reduced water buyout
aprox. $1.2 million.
269
Sources Option 3
Road Use 185,000$ 185,000$
GO Bonds -$
ARPA -$ 1,250,000$ 130,000$ 1,380,000$
Waive Water Sewer Connection Fees -$
TIF Residential Rebate 375,000$ 375,000$
Total Residetial TIF obligation with LMI
is $781,000. Maximum length of TIF is
10 years.
Local Option Fund Balance 620,000$ 620,000$
Waive connection fees pro rata first 215 dwellings 240,000$ 240,000$
Sewer Utility -$ -$
Totals -$ 1,250,000$ 1,125,000$ 425,000$ 2,800,000$
270
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Greenbriar Option 1
Stange Oversizing 30% 270,000$ 270,000$ Total estimate is $540,000, half would
occur after first 3 years, includes use
of roundabouts within the project
Cameron Traffic Signal Oversizing 50% 250,000$ 250,000$
Assumes 50% of signal costs for City,
25% for Greenbriar
East West Sewer Pioneer Under Tracks 250,000$ 250,000$
Assumes first segment at $1.25
million occurs with Hayden's Perserve
Slip Line Sewer Pioneer 250,000$ 250,000$
Total 250,000$ 250,000$ 270,000$ 250,000$ 1,020,000$
Developer request 3 years estimated at $1.7 million with a total request
of $4.1 million plus Developer TIF rebates. Assumes first phase starting
at the south.
Sources Option 1
Road Use 250,000$ 250,000$
GO Bonds 270,000$ 270,000$
ARPA 250,000$ 250,000$
Sewer Utility 250,000$ 250,000$
Totals 250,000$ 250,000$ 270,000$ 250,000$ 1,020,000$
271
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Greenbriar Option 2 GW Lane Widening and Signal
Stange Oversizing 270,000$ 270,000$ Total estimate is $540,000, half would
occur after first 3 years, includes use
of roundabouts within the project
Cameron Traffic Signal Oversizing 50% 250,000$ 250,000$
Assumes 50% of signal costs for City,
25% for Greenbriar
East West Sewer Pioneer Under Tracks 250,000$ 250,000$
Assumes first segment at $1.25
million occurs with Hayden's Perserve
Slip Line Sewer Pioneer 250,000$ 250,000$
GW Carver Turn Lanes and Shared Use Path 410,000$ 410,000$ 820,000$
Originally not classified as pioneer, if
part of corridor improvement it would
be focused on Columbus and
Cameron Segment. Barcellos
intersection by Developer.
Total 250,000$ 250,000$ 680,000$ 660,000$ 1,840,000$
Developer request 3 years estimated at $1.7 million with a total request
of $4.1 million plus Developer TIF rebates. Assumes first phase starting
at the south.
Sources Option 2
Road Use 250,000$ 250,000$
GO Bonds 270,000$ 270,000$
ARPA 250,000$ 410,000$ 410,000$ 1,070,000$
Sewer Utility 250,000$ 250,000$
Totals 250,000$ 250,000$ 680,000$ 660,000$ 1,840,000$
272
Project Option FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Totals Notes
Greenbriar Option 3 Lane Widening +Signal+ Commercial
TIF
Stange Oversizing Non-Commercial area 270,000$ 270,000$
Total estimate is $540,000, half would
occur after first 3 years, includes use
of roundabouts within the project
Stange Extension Pioneer Commercial Frontage Signal Share 1200 FT 900,000$ 900,000$
TIF Rebate for Commercial
Development
Cameron Traffic Signal Oversizing 250,000$ 250,000$
East West Sewer Pioneer Under Tracks 250,000$ 250,000$
Slip Line Sewer Pioneer 250,000$ 250,000$
GW Carver Turn Lanes and Shared Use Path 820,000$ 820,000$
Focused on Columbus and Cameron
Segment, Barcellos by Developer
Total 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,090,000$ 1,150,000$ 2,740,000$
Developer request 3 years estimated at $1.7 million with a total request
of $4.1 million plus Developer TIF rebates. Assumes first phase includes
residential at south and commercial at north.
Sources Option 3
Road Use 250,000$ 250,000$
GO Bonds 270,000$ -$ 270,000$
ARPA 250,000$ 820,000$ 1,070,000$
Sewer Utility 250,000$ 250,000$
Commercial TIF Rebate up to 10 Years 900,000$ 900,000$
Up to $900,000 or 10 years, whichever
occcurs first
Totals 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,090,000$ 1,150,000$ 2,740,000$
273
Project benefits year 1 with reduced costs, city incurrs cost as shown in table
Option 1 Incentive Total Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 NOTES
Project FY25/26 FY 26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29
Domani I 92,750$ 92,750$
Greenbriar 1,020,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 270,000$ 250,000$
Hayden's Preserve 2,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 750,000$
Dankbar -$
Auburn Trail 250,000$ 250,000$
Total 3,362,750$ 250,000$ 1,592,750$ 1,270,000$ 250,000$
Sources
Road Use 250,000$ 250,000$
GO Bonds 162,750$ 162,750$
ARPA 2,700,000$ 1,592,750$ 1,107,250$
Local Option Fund Balance -$
Sewer Utility 250,000$ 250,000$
Water Utility -$
Connection Fees Water/Sewer Partial Waiver -$
TIF Commercial -$
TIF Residential Rebate -$
TIF Residential LMI 52% Setaside -$
Total 3,362,750$ 250,000$ 1,592,750$ 1,270,000$ 250,000$
Direct City Non-Federal Cost 662,750$ 250,000$ -$ 162,750$ 250,000$
ARPA Funding 2,700,000$ -$ 1,592,750$ 1,107,250$ -$
Indirect Cost (Fee Waivers/TIF)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Developer completes lanes at
their cost per existing
agreement
274
Project benefits year 1 with reduced costs, city incurrs cost as shown in table
Option 2 Incentive Total Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 NOTES
Project FY25/26 FY 26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29
Domani I 185,500$ 185,500$
Greenbriar*
1,840,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 680,000$ 660,000$
Hayden's Preserve 2,185,000$ 1,250,000$ 750,000$ 185,000$
Dankbar*
600,000$ 600,000$
Auburn Trail 356,000$ 250,000$ 106,000$
Total 5,166,500$ 250,000$ 1,685,500$ 2,280,000$ 951,000$
Sources
Road Use 541,000$ 541,000$
GO Bonds 455,500$ 185,500$ 270,000$
ARPA 2,700,000$ 1,500,000$ 790,000$ 410,000$
Local Option Fund Balance 620,000$ 620,000$
Sewer Utility 250,000$ 250,000$
Water Utility -$
Connection Fees Water/Sewer Partial Waiver -$
TIF Commercial to City 600,000$ 600,000$
TIF Residential Rebate -$
TIF Residential LMI Setaside -$
Total 5,166,500$ 250,000$ 1,685,500$ 2,280,000$ 951,000$
Direct City Non-Federal Cost 1,866,500$ 250,000$ 185,500$ 890,000$ 541,000$
ARPA Funding 2,700,000$ -$ 1,500,000$ 790,000$ 410,000$
Indirect Cost (Fee Waivers/TIF)600,000$ -$ -$ 600,000$ -$
Residential TIF requires a Low and Moderate Income setaside of aprox. 52% of the
TIF used for infrastructure, whether a rebate or city project
Commercial TIF rebate to a developer for economic development of commercial
uses does not require LMI setaside.
Dankbar developer makes
financial contribution for
remaing costs
ARPA dispersed differently than Option 1, prioritizing ARPA for sewer and road
projects and utilizing traditional Local Option for trail improvements
Residential TIF must be based upon identified infrastructure costs and have a
maximum life of 10 years.
275
Project benefits year 1 with reduced costs, city incurrs cost as shown in table
Option 3 Incentive Total Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 NOTES
Project FY25/26 FY 26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29
Domani I 371,000$ 371,000$
Greenbriar 2,740,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,090,000$ 1,150,000$
Hayden's Preserve 2,800,000$ 1,250,000$ 1,125,000$ 425,000$
Dankbar 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Auburn Trail 486,000$ 250,000$ 236,000$
Residential TIF LMI Setaside 52%406,000$ 406,000$
Total 7,803,000$ 250,000$ 1,500,000$ 3,242,000$ 2,811,000$
Sources
Road Use 541,000$ 541,000$
GO Bonds 641,000$ 641,000$
ARPA 2,700,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,200,000$
Local Option Fund Balance 620,000$ 620,000$
Sewer Utility 250,000$ 250,000$
Water Utility -$
Connection Fees Water/Sewer Partial Waiver 370,000$ 370,000$
TIF Commercial Dev. Rebate 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$
TIF Residential Dev. Rebate 375,000$ 375,000$
TIF Residential LMI Setaside 406,000$ 406,000$
Total 7,803,000$ 250,000$ 1,500,000$ 3,242,000$ 2,811,000$
Direct City Non-Federal Cost 2,052,000$ 250,000$ -$ 1,667,000$ 541,000$
ARPA Funding 2,700,000$ -$ 1,500,000$ 1,200,000$ -$
Indirect Cost (Fee Waivers/TIF)3,051,000$ -$ -$ 375,000$ 2,270,000$
Residential TIF must be based upon identified infrastructure costs and have a maximum life
of 10 years.
Residential TIF requires a Low and Moderate Income setaside of aprox. 52% of the TIF used
for infrastructure, whether a rebate or city project
Commercial TIF rebate to a developer for economic development of commercial uses does
not require LMI setaside.
276
Sources Option 1
Road Use 250,000$
GO Bonds 162,750$
ARPA 2,700,000$
Local Option Fund Balance
Sewer Utility 250,000$
Water Utility -$
Connection Fees Water/Sewer Partial Waiver
TIF Commercial (Dev. Rebate)
TIF Residential Dev. Rebate
TIF Residential LMI Setaside
Total 3,362,750$
Direct City Non-Federal Cost 662,750$
ARPA Funding 2,700,000$
Indirect Cost (Fee Waivers/TIF)-$
277
Option 2 Option 3
541,000$ 541,000$
455,500$ 641,000$
2,700,000$ 2,700,000$
620,000$ 620,000$
250,000$ 250,000$
370,000$
600,000$ 1,900,000$
375,000$
406,000$
5,166,500$ 7,803,000$
1,866,500$ 2,052,000$
2,700,000$ 2,700,000$
600,000$ 3,051,000$
278
Project Requested (3yr/Total)Option 1
Domani I 371,000$ 92,750$
Greenbriar $1,700,000/ 4,100,000 +1,020,000$
Hayden's Preserve $ 2,800,000/$3,600,000 +2,000,000$
Dankbar 1,200,000$ -$
Auburn Trail 486,000$ 250,000$
Ansley Total $250,000 -$
Residential TIF LMI Setaside 52%-$
Total $6,557,000/$10,007,000 +3,362,750$
Funding Source Option 1 Option 2
Road Use 250,000$ 541,000$
GO Bonds 162,750$ 455,500$
ARPA 2,700,000$ 2,700,000$
Local Option Fund Balance -$ 620,000$
Sewer Utility 250,000$ 250,000$
Connection Fees Water/Sewer Partial Waiver -$ -$
TIF Commercial Dev. Rebate -$ -$
TIF Residential Dev. Rebate -$ -$
TIF Residential LMI Setaside -$ -$
TIF Commercial to City -$ 600,000$
Total 3,362,750$ 5,166,500$
279
Option 2 Option 3 Est. Houses First 3 Years Total Dwellings
185,500$ 371,000$ 25 25
1,840,000$ 2,740,000$ 75 450
2,185,000$ 2,800,000$ 125 660
600,000$ 1,000,000$ 0 0
356,000$ 486,000$ 75 180
-$ -$ 25 160
-$ 406,000$ -
5,166,500$ 7,803,000$ 325 1475
Option 3
541,000$
641,000$
2,700,000$
620,000$
250,000$
370,000$
1,900,000$
375,000$
406,000$
-$
7,803,000$
280
Ames Plan 2040 Other Pioneer Projects
The current development incentive requests are driven by specific development
projects. In addition to these specific requests, there can be other pioneer projects that
require funding assistance, full or partial. Pioneer projects are those that are needed to
realize development interests for the growth areas identified within Plan 2040.
Example Projects:
1. East Growth
• E13th Street Traffic Signals and Lane Widening with commercial
development
• Paving of 570th Avenue north of E 13th Street with Commercial or
Residential Development
2. West Growth
• Lincoln Way and County Line Road Intersection Roundabout. Proposed
as a 2030-31 project in the CIP.
• Paving of County Line Road south of Lincoln Way
3. South Growth
• Paving of 265th Street
• Paving of 550th Avenue
281