HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Updated Packet of Communications to Council dated January 26, 2026
City Manager’s Office 515.239.5105 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
515.239.5142 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jeramy Neefus, Principal Clerk
Date: January 26, 2026
Subject: Packet of Communications to Council
Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of January
26, 2026:
1. Steve and Anne Burgason, Ames Residents – January 9, 2026
RE: Ansley Development Request for Incentives
2. Brad McCartney, Story County Property Owner – January 12, 2026
RE: Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements
3. Todd Wilson, EzipNzoom Licensed Iowa Dealer – January 14, 2026
RE: Information about Differentiating Golf Carts and Low-Speed Vehicles
4. BOBJ, Ames Resident – January 19, 2026
RE: Request for Right-of-Way Maintenance on North Grand Avenue
5. Bhargava Malya, Ames Resident – January 19, 2026
RE: Concern Regarding Flock Cameras in Ames
6. Sara Van Meeteren, Building Official – January 21, 2026
RE: Rental Trash Receptacle Requirements
7. Geoff Huff, Chief of Police – January 23, 2026
RE: Device Delivery Seller Permit
8. Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning and Housing – January 23, 2026
RE: Request for Text Amendments to Chapter 31 from the Historic
Preservation Commission
9. Jerry Goldsmith, Ames Resident – January 21, 2026
RE: Ironwood Woodlot Renovation
1
Hall, Renee
From:Steve Burgason <sburgason@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, January 23, 2026 11:30 AM
To:Hall, Renee; Diekmann, Kelly; Campbell, Benjamin
Subject:Ansley "Developer Incentives" City Proposal
[External Email]
Renee,
Please include the following in the City Council Agenda for this coming Tuesday, January 27th.
Thank you,
Steve and Anne Burgason
The Developers of Ansley Land LLC would like to thank the City Council for considering the Developer Incentives for Development. We would
ask to be included in the considerations and we are submitting the following proposal. We would like to make note that the Council's vote two
years ago to pay for 1/2 of Cedar Lane along non-developement land was very much appreciated. As the developers, at that time we
communicated that in hindsight, we should have requested this initially in our Preliminary Plat because: 1) it is all non-development frontage
and 2) we had incurred the significant costs already with storm water management coming off of the Iowa State Farms on the west side of
Cedar Lane. We would ask that this agreement not be a reason to be left out of the current considerations. The City contributing to the Cedar
Lane completion is 3 or more years in the future and was not agreed to as a developement incentive. As it relates to the developer incentive
request, we would be able to add 38-42 buildable lots to the Ames market with a similar incentive to what is being offered Domani. Allowing
Ansley Land to participate is also imparitive in order for us to remain competive with other residential lot development in Ames and especially
south Ames.
The recommended incentive to the Domani development is $371,000 to complete Cottonwood and open up 25 lots, with the city completing the
Cottonwood connection and releasing Domani from that obligation as well as the obligation that Cottonwood be completed before Green Hills
Drive is put in.
Our request to the City Council would be comparable to the Domani request. We would ask that the City complete Aurora through the divided
median section which is about 700 feet. We would commit to providing all of the engineered plans for Aurora. We would complete Ansley
Avenue through the T intersection with Aurora and to the end of Townhome Lot 98 (on Ansley Ave.). As well, we would complete Aurora from
the T intersection with Ansley east to the point just before the divided section. Ansley Land would also do the roadside improvements and
water and storm sewer along Aurora and Ansley Ave. (sanitary is already installed except on Swan Lane and Ansley south of the T
intersection). These improvements would complete another connection from Cedar Lane to University Blvd. As well, we would complete Swan
Lane which already has City approved construction plans.
This would open up 38-42 Townhome and Residential Lots as well as the Commercial Lot 118
Lot 123: 8 Townhome Lots; 4 Single Residential Home Lots
Lot 117: 12-14 Townhome Lots
Lot 116: 4 Single Residential Home Lots
Lot 98: 4 Single Residential Home Lots or 6 Townhome Lots
Lots 99-104 (Cottage Court): 6 Single Residential Home Lots
Lot 118: Commercial Lot for Small Event Center
If approved, we would request that this road work would begin within 18 months (summer of 2027). This would allow us to: 1) proceed in our
timetable to Final Plat the Swan Lane section for constructioin 2) open up Ansley lots in a similar timeline to Domani opening up their 25
lots 3) this would keep developer financial incentives on a parity with Domani.
We have currently sold all of our Ansley Pond side lots that are available and feel that the demand for these new lots would be strong.
We thank you for your consideration of this request.
Steve and Anne Burgason
1
Hall, Renee
From:Brad McCartney <2bmccartney@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 12, 2026 1:06 PM
To:Moore, Justin; Hall, Renee
Subject:Request for waiver letter
Attachments:50184 180th St Request for Waiver.docx
[External Email]
Good morning, I have attached our letter requesting a waiver for our sketch plan/division of our
property on 18oth St. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else. Thank you
very much for your time, we look forward to hearing from you.
--
Brad McCartney
515-689-1123
Request for waiver of sub-division requirements
Property Address: 50184 18th Street, Ames IA
Parcel ID: 05-18-100-140
Date Written: 1/12/26
Dear Ames City Council Members,
I am writing this letter as a request for waiver of the subdivision requirements and fringe
area policies for a parcel division on the property listed above. My family greatly
appreciates your time in looking into this matter, and hope you will take our request into
consideration. We acquired this property several years ago prior to the urban fringe
expansion to this area, in hopes of someday building our family home. The area in the
property we are looking to build is zoned as A-1, but is not usable as high value farmland,
and is mostly a flat unused area of the property. As of recently we have had our 4th child
and decided to start the process of potentially designing and building a home nestled in
these trees to better suite the needs of our family. With your permission in this matter,
we would like to pursue this opportunity. Again, we greatly appreciate your time and
look forward to hearing from you.
Brad McCartney and Family
1
Hall, Renee
From:DSM E Zip-N-Zoom <dsmezip@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 14, 2026 6:06 PM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:LSV Golf Carts vs DNR Golf Carts
Attachments:Ames - LSV Golf Carts vs DNR Golf Carts.pdf
[External Email]
Please see our public brief to help inform members of the Ames city council on the the legal status and
benefits of LSV's in Iowa. We appreciate any feedback or questions.
EzipNzoom
5454 NE 14th Street
Des Moines, IA 50313
MODERNIZING MUNICIPAL CODE: DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN GOLF CARTS AND REGISTERED
MOTOR VEHICLES (LSVs)
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council of Ames, Iowa
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026
RE: Modernizing Municipal Code for Sustainable and Safe Neighborhood Transportation
To the City Council and City Administration,
I am writing to you as the owner of EzipNzoom, a legal, DOT-approved motor vehicle dealer
(#D-6180). Our mission is to provide efficient, low-impact transportation solutions to Central
Iowa residents. As your community considers or reviews its local ordinances regarding golf carts
and recreational vehicles, I would like to offer professional insight into a superior, state-
approved alternative: the Low-Speed Vehicle (LSV).
1. The Legal Status of LSVs in Iowa
Unlike standard golf carts, LSVs are federally recognized motor vehicles that must comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 C.F.R. § 571.500). Under Iowa Code §
321.381A, these vehicles are permitted on any public roadway with a posted speed limit of 35
mph or less.
Because the Iowa DOT titles and issues license plates for LSVs, they are legally distinct from
unregistered "recreational" vehicles. This distinction allows LSVs to be operated without the
restrictive "sunrise to sunset" or "no primary road" limitations often applied to traditional golf
carts.
2. A Safer Solution for Your Community
Standard golf carts were never engineered for public road use. However, the LSVs we provide
offer a "Golf Cart-style" experience while satisfying the highest safety and legal requirements:
Standard Safety Equipment: Every LSV is equipped with seat belts, headlamps, turn
signals, mirrors, a DOT windshield, and a 17-digit VIN.
Registration & Accountability: LSVs are registered and insured exactly like standard
automobiles, ensuring operator accountability.
Economic Benefit: LSVs allow residents to travel locally for errands, reducing traffic
congestion and parking strain without the legal ambiguity of traditional golf carts.
3. State Preemption and Municipal Safety
It is important to note that while Iowa Code § 321.247 grants municipalities the discretion to
"permit or prohibit" unregistered golf carts, the Iowa Code provides no such discretionary
authority for Low-Speed Vehicles (LSVs). Because LSVs are DOT-registered motor vehicles,
they are permitted by state law on all roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph or less.
We find that many communities struggle with the safety and liability concerns of traditional golf
carts. We recommend that your community's code clearly distinguish between these two classes
of vehicles. By acknowledging the legal status of LSVs, the City can:
Maintain Strict Safety Standards: Ensure that "neighborhood vehicles" on your streets
meet federal crash-safety standards (seat belts, lights, VINs) rather than unregulated golf
carts.
Ensure Legal Compliance: Avoid potential "Home Rule" conflicts by ensuring local
ordinances do not inadvertently attempt to prohibit state-titled motor vehicles.
Satisfy Resident Demand: Provide a clear, legal path for residents to use efficient, eco-
friendly transportation that is already fully compliant with the Iowa DOT.
We would be honored to provide a demonstra on of these vehicles for your Public Safety
commi ee or City Council to show how they can be a seamless and safe addi on to your city’s
streets.
Sincerely,
Todd Wilson
Todd Wilson – Owner, EzipNzoom Licensed Iowa Dealer #D-6180
Phone: 515-567-1930 | Email: dsmezip@gmail.com
1
Hall, Renee
From:rjbuilders@abbnebraska.com
Sent:Monday, January 19, 2026 8:01 AM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:No man's land along North Grand Ave
[External Email]
During the recent warm weather, my wife and I restarted our afternoon walks around town.
Along North Grand Ave. both sides of the right of way (east and west) between the UP railroad bridge and
Northwestern Ave., it is a total eyesore. Overgrown scrub trees/shrubs and litter cover the hillsides.
This area needs a complete cleanup.
Thanks, BOBJ
1
Hall, Renee
From:Malya, Bhargava R <bmalya@iastate.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 19, 2026 7:18 PM
To:Haila, John; Beatty-Hansen, Bronwyn; Gartin, Tim; Betcher, Gloria; Junck, Rachel; Rollins,
Anita; Corrieri, Amber; Boland, Emily
Cc:City Council and Mayor
Subject:concerns of government overreach
[External Email]
Dear Mayor John Haila, Ames City Council, and City Clerk Renee Hall,
I am writing about the concerning rise of AI-enabled surveillance cameras in Ames. When I first
began studying at Iowa State, these cameras appeared benign. However, after seeing headlines such as
the Columbine Valley Police Department using Flock data to aggressively pursue the wrong suspect, the
use of Flock data to enforce laws outside of its jurisdiction, and the relative ease with which a person’s
digital life can be linked to their physical presence through AI-powered facial and retinal biometric
software, I feel creeped out.
As a young person, I feel unsafe thinking about how this data could be used in the future. Under an
authoritarian regime, Flock data could be used to track travel patterns and restrict personal freedoms, or
to indiscriminately profile people. It's like we are living in China or Russia of all places, and not the
United States.
With this technology, Flock is capable of surveilling people and build advertising profiles based on
how they dress, how they behave, which shops they enter, how much merchandise they purchase, what
car they drive, and even what they talk about (Flock cameras reportedly have microphones as well). By
default, Flock cameras are exposed to the internet, meaning that anyone could access the camera feeds
and engage in people-watching.
When this is combined with the vast amount of data already collected online, I feel deeply unsettled
whenever I go out in public. I do not trust Flock or companies like it. Could you consider regulating
surveillance companies like Flock?
Thank you for your consideration and I hope to hear back from you soon,
Bhargava Malya
Iowa State Electrical Engineering
MEMO
515.239.5153 main
515.232.5261 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Fire Department
Inspections
To: Steve Schainker
From:
Date:
Sara Van Meeteren, Building Official
January 21, 2026
Subject: Rental Trash Receptacle Requirements
At the City Council meeting on January 13, 2026, Council referred a letter from Erik
Charter, Property Manager at Jensen Property Management, regarding trash service
requirements for rental properties (Attachment A). Jensen Property Management
believes that tenants from the rental properties along Marigold, which they share an
alley with, are placing their garbage in dumpsters located on Jensen’s property instead
of purchasing their own trash service. For this reason, they are asking if the code could
be amended to “Require the landlords on Marigold to provide proof of garbage service,
either paid for by them or paid for by their tenant, prior to renewing their rental permits.”
Current Code:
The Rental Code currently requires occupants to dispose of garbage in a sanitary
manner, by placing it in disposal facilities or storage containers. It does not specify
whether the occupant or owner are required to furnish such containers. It also does not
prohibit an occupant or owner from disposing of garbage off-site. There are no
standards in the code that would require proof of trash service prior to obtaining a Letter
of Compliance (LOC).
Chapter 10 of the Ames Municipal Code requires the occupant or owner to provide a
proper receptacle for the receiving and holding of garbage. It does not prohibit the
owner or occupant from disposing of the trash off-site. Therefore, a trash hauling
service is not required.
Additionally, Chapter 10 prohibits the placement of garbage onto the private property of
another for the purpose of being hauled away, which seems to be the primary concern
of Jensen Property Management. The penalty for this violation is punishable by a fine of
$500 for a first offense.
Other Jurisdictions:
Most of the neighboring communities that staff surveyed have similar standards that
require waste to be kept in a sanitary manner. Staff was unable to find other
communities that require proof of trash service prior to the issuance of an LOC.
Staff Comments:
Staff inspected the Marigold properties and reached out to the property
owners/managers to gauge the scope of the concern. Upon inspection, staff confirmed
the presence of 14 containers among the 21 properties within the area of concern. It is
possible the remaining properties have receptacles but keep them inside their garage
and were not visible. The 21 properties are under three different management services.
Representatives from those companies stated that they have reached out to their
tenants and reminded them that trash service is their responsibility and that disposing of
their trash on neighboring property is not acceptable.
Mr. Charter did state to staff that the situation has been better since reaching out to
Council and the property managers. One property manager requested Jensen Property
Management have lids placed on their dumpsters to help with litter, which they have
complied with.
Staff observed that the dumpster enclosures on Jensen’s property no longer have gates
on the South side. The gate is a requirement so staff will work with them to ensure the
enclosures are compliant. This should also deter those from placing garbage in the
dumpster as they will not be so easily accessible.
It is staff’s conclusion that the problem has primarily resolved itself and will continue to
monitor the issue. Staff does not believe a text amendment is needed at this time due to
the small scope of concern. However, if the Council is interested in an amendment, they
should place the item on a future agenda.
City of Ames
COUNCIL ACTION SUMMARY
January 13, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Dispositions
SUBJECT: Request regarding garbage issues at apartments on Tripp Street
from Erik Charter
ACTION TAKEN: Moved to refer to staff for a memo regarding No. 1 of the included
suggestions, which relates to a letter of compliance for rental
properties
MOTION BY: Betcher
SECOND BY: Corrieri
VOTING AYE: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Junck, Rollins
VOTING NAY: None
ABSENT: None
SENT FROM: Taylor Swanson, Deputy City Clerk
SENT TO: Rich Higgins, Fire Chief
Sara VanMeeteren, Building Official
1
Hall, Renee
From:Erik Charter <erik.charter@jensengroup.net>
Sent:Thursday, January 1, 2026 3:06 PM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:Re: Tripp Street Apartments Garbage
Attachments:processed-6B64A2C0-76DE-44AB-86B7-F2E229AA39E4.jpeg; processed-
F7F7F3EF-17BD-4C07-B310-7C8888DA4749.jpeg; processed-2054DBD7-0920-4FBB-
A6A2-322C084F2F62.jpeg; processed-B9B2E8BB-91CB-4483-ADDC-C34901534063.jpeg
[External Email]
Order can be maintained in the Ames rental community. I just need a little help from my friends in city
government.
Erik
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Erik Charter
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2025 7:56:31 AM
To: MayorCouncil@cityofames.org <mayorcouncil@cityofames.org>
Cc: Dickson Jensen (ddjensen2010@gmail.com) <ddjensen2010@gmail.com>
Subject: Tripp Street Apartments Garbage
To the Ames City Council,
I recently have become the property manager for the Tripp Street Apartments at 3726, 3732, 3812, 3824,
& 3910 Tripp Street. Tripp Street is one of the most challenging areas of town for rental property and I am
energized and fully committed to running this property in a responsible manner. One challenge I face is
the fact that there are 3 dumpsters at the property and all of them sit on the alley that backs up to
Marigold Drive. On Marigold there are 21 rental units (in duplexes or triplexes) owned by essentially 9
different owners (some world famous,) many of whom reside outside of Iowa. I don’t mean to impugn all
of these owners, but it has been reported to me by my predecessor that many of these Marigold residents
are using our dumpsters for their trash. Normally with a single family rental the landlord puts the burden
of trash service on the tenant and it is a temptation for that tenant to make that expense $0 a month by
just using someone else’s dumpster, if they can get away with it.
The attached photos are from AFTER our trash was just picked up. Clearly the dumpster was overflowing
and this was a period of time in which our mostly student renters were gone from the property. Here is
what I am asking from the City:
1. Require the landlords on Marigold to provide proof of garbage service, either paid for by them or
paid for by their tenant, prior to renewing their rental permits
2. Require trash for those Marigold addresses to be picked up on Marigold, not in the alley. At that
point there should not be anyone from the Marigold units anywhere near our dumpsters with trash
2
3. Encourage the Ames Police Department to investigate any reports of trespassing by Marigold
tenants that we turn into them.
Thank you for your consideration,
Erik Charter
JPM, Inc.
Jensen Five L.C.
4611 Mortensen, Suite 106
Ames, IA 50014
(515)291-1239
erik.charter@jensengroup.net
cc: Marigold unit owners via USPS
Smart Choice Memo
Police Department 515.239.5133
Non
emergency 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
515.239.5130 Administration Ames, IA 50010
515.239.5429 fax www.CityofAmes.org
To: Mayor and City Council
Date: January 23, 2026
From: Geoff Huff, Chief of Police
Subject: Device Delivery Seller Permits
This memo provides an overview of Iowa’s newly established “Device Delivery
Seller Permit”, effective January 1, 2025, and requests City Council direction
regarding whether the City should adopt a local policy regarding approval or
denial of these permits.
During the 2024 legislative session, the State of Iowa enacted Senate File 345,
which regulates and taxes certain glass- or metal-based smoking devices.
These devices are defined as equipment or products made wholly or partly of
glass or metal that are designed for inhaling—through combustion—tobacco,
hemp, other plant materials, or controlled substances. Vapor products and
certain traditional smoking products (e.g., briar or corn-cob pipes) are excluded
from this definition.
As of January 2025, any retailer who intends to sell these devices to Iowa
consumers via delivery must obtain a Device Delivery Seller Permit from
the Iowa Department of Revenue. To obtain a Device Delivery Seller Permit, a
retailer must already hold the following permits or licenses:
Sales Tax Permit
Tobacco Retailer License
Device Retailer Permit (allows for the sale of devices in-store)
Delivery Seller Permit (allows for the delivery of nicotine or vapor
products, but not the devices themselves)
The application must include business information, permit type, business
location, and identification of principal officers or partners, as outlined in Iowa
Administrative Code 701—235.3.
Retailers selling these devices are also subject to a 40% excise tax on the sales
price, in addition to standard sales and use tax.
While the Device Delivery Seller Permit is issued by the Iowa Department of
Revenue, cities may choose to:
Adopt a local review or approval process,
Establish zoning or land-use restrictions,
Decline to take action, allowing state permitting to proceed without local
involvement.
The municipality has the authority to deny each application for a permit.
However, once a Device Delivery Seller Permit is applied for, the permit
fee is not refundable should the permit be denied or revoked or cancelled
at a later time. The permit fee is currently $1,500. To date, the City has not
received any applications for the delivery permit. However, there are seven
permitted device retailers in Ames who could potentially apply.
Some jurisdictions are choosing to deny all applications for this delivery permit.
If it is the City Council’s intention to deny Device Delivery Seller Permits
altogether, staff would prefer to communicate this to current device
retailers so they do not apply for the new permit only to be denied by the
City Council and forfeit the $1,500 non-refundable application fee.
In order to receive the necessary feedback we are requesting, the staff
would recommend that this issue be placed on a future agenda.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515 Clark Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Planning & Housing Department
MEMO
515.239.5400
main
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director
Date: January 23, 2026
Subject: The Historic Preservation Commission Requests Text
Amendments to Chapter 31 of the Ames Municipal Code
Background:
On December 16, 2025, the City Council referred to staff zoning text
amendment requests from the Ames Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
(see Attachment). The first requested change includes explicitly stating
that double pane windows are allowed as an acceptable window type to
increase energy efficiency on historic structures as well as including
definitions for Double Pane Windows, Multi-Pane Windows, and Muntin
Bar. Currently, Chapter 31 does not explicitly allow or disallow double pane
windows, nor are there added definitions for clarity when referencing window
details. The current regulations applied by staff focus on use of historic materials
for windows and do not address multi-pane window types.
The second request is to amend Chapter 31 to provide clear guidance related
to when or if to allow for the infill of window openings. An example of this issue
would be someone wanting to fill in a window as part of remodeling project of a
room.
The request follows the Commission’s review of a Certificate of Appropriateness
where the Commission found that Chapter 31 does not provide standards or
guidance on window removal or infill to make an adequate decision and then
approved the infill. There was a mixed history of whether to approve or deny
such requests as precedence for the decision.
Before making this request, the HPC considered language from other cities, and
believes that addressing the issue directly would be appropriate to assist
homeowners with understanding what alterations would be permissible. The
Commission is also requesting to add specific window infill language
stating when window removal or infill is appropriate, as well as specifying
that any window infill must be architecturally consistent with the historical
structure.
Staff researched the requested changes and provided the initial findings to the
HPC in October before the Commission formulated their recommendations. The
communities that staff reached out to, Iowa City and Dubuque, did not have
historic preservation guideline language regarding double pane windows;
instead, they prioritized the retention and repair of original windows, as well as
non-invasive weatherization techniques to increase energy efficiency versus
replacement.
It is staff’s understanding that the HPC requests are not intended to alter the
existing historic requirements, but to allow increased energy efficiency when
they otherwise meet the historic material and profile requirements of an
appropriate window. The structure, form, and materials should be sensitively
treated to preserve the building’s character. Depending on how the double pane
window language is written, the priority of historic character vs. modern window
design will be defined.
Options:
City Council could respond to the request by selecting to pursue a text
amendment for one or both of the requests.
1. Text Amendment to Chapter 31, Historic Preservation Districts, to allow
double pane windows in historic districts, add and revise definitions to add
clarity on Double Pane Windows, Multi Pane Windows, and Muntin Bar.
Council could amend Chapter 31 to explicitly allow double pane
windows, and improve or add definitions. During the review process final
language and guidance on how to apply it would be developed.
2. Text Amendment to Chapter 31, Historic Preservation Districts to add code
language regarding the removal and infill of windows.
This option would provide clear guidelines to Chapter 31 regarding the
removal or infill of windows. The HPC has reviewed several applications
for window infill over the years and has a mixed history of approving or
denying applications. The request looks to provide language that would
provide a consistent approach and determination.
The intent is to apply it to side and rear facades, but not front facades. Infill
could be approved on an historic side or rear façade if it met the guidelines.
3. No Changes at This Time
If the Council is generally satisfied with City standards within Chapter 31,
Historic Preservation Districts, or finds the requests to allow alterations that
would negatively impact the historic district, no change is required.
The Historic Preservation Commission will continue to review applications
on a case-by-case basis and only allow changes that will not be harmful to
the historic character of the district. Window changeouts would be subject to
the current standards and if they are met could still allow for new double
pane windows. Infill of opening is less clear on if it is permitted, but based
on past practice it could be considered by the HPC without well defined
standards.
Staff Comments:
Enhanced energy efficiency and reviewing Chapter 31 are designated Historic
Preservation commission goals from their 2025 Work Plan. Through
Commission research and applying the existing guidelines when reviewing
Certificate of Appropriateness applications, the HPC ha s identified areas of
desired improvement. The existing guidelines do not explicitly disallow or allow
double pane windows, nor do they provide the Commission, or staff, with clear
direction regarding window removal and infill. If double pane w indows were
allowed, the added definitions would provide increased clarity on the differing
window features to ensure there is no confusion by the new term within the
code.
While increasing energy efficiency and identifying areas of improvement within
the Code are important goals of the Commission, however, traditionally all
historic structure alterations have maintained the existing historic character
whenever possible. Staff has not found in their initial research that allowing
double-pane windows is a recommended alteration to a historic structure as it
modifies the original character, and this issue will be subject to more review of
language if the text amendment is initiated.
The removal or infill of windows was allowed by other communities when
specific criteria had been met relating to the location of the window. The HPC
informed staff that their intent is not to provide guidelines or language that would
directly conflict with their goal to preserve, but to allow alterations that may help
improve a structure when it is appropriate to do so.
Staff believes the issues should be placed on a future Council agenda for
discussion. A representative of the HPC would be available to review the
requests and answer questions from the Council. Tentatively, staff believes this
could occur on February 24th at the same meeting when the City Council is
scheduled to review the proposed HPC workplan for the upcoming year.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ames City Council
FROM: Historic Preservation Commission
SUBJECT: Chapter 31 Revision Support
DATE: December 4, 2025
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) respectfully requests the City Council to authorize
the Planning and Housing Department staff to draft proposed revisions to Chapter 31 of the
Municipal Code relating to energy efficiency and window infill.
Energy Efficiency
As part of HPC’s 2025 Work Plan, we sought to review Chapter 31 and consider changes to
“allow exterior materials on historic structures that would meet the standards and be energy
efficient,” in accordance with Goal #3 of the Ames Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan
(ACHPP). We created a subcommittee and identified potential revisions pertaining to energy
efficiency, outlined below.
Our proposed changes concern the explicit allowance of double-layer insulated glass (also
known as double-pane glass) for windows. While the code doesn't explicitly prohibit these items,
we believe the code should explicitly allow these items to eliminate any ambiguity. We propose
the following additions be made to Section 31.13(13):
● That double-layer insulated glazing is explicitly permitted in windows. An item (k) can
be added that reads as follows (or similar):
○ (k) Windows containing double-layer insulated glazing (also known as
double-pane glass) shall be permitted.
We note that the inclusion of "double-pane glass" in the suggestion above may create confusion
with the meaning of the word "pane," which is used throughout Section 31.14 to refer to the
glass in a window sash (see Section 31.14(1)(c)(vii) for a description of Colonial Revival
windows having a "multi-pane sash"). Because "multi-pane” and “double-pane” mean different
things, we want to provide clarity and consistency between the Design Guidelines and the
Design Criteria. We therefore propose the following changes:
● Revise the definition of “muntin bar” in Section 31.2(22) to be as follows (or similar):
○ Muntin Bar: a strip dividing a single window sash or casement into a grid system
of smaller panes of glass, called “lights” or “lites.”
● Add items (33) and (34) to Section 31.2 to provide definitions for “double-pane” and
“multi-pane” windows as follows (or similar):
○ (33) Double-Pane Windows: Windows containing two layers of glass, separated
by a space to reduce heat transfer and provide insulation (also known as
double-layer insulated glazing)
○ (34) Multi-Pane Windows: Windows wherein a sash or casement is divided by
muntin bars into multiple panes or “lights,” creating a grid system of smaller
panes of glass
● Revise the description for windows under the Queen Anne Design Criteria in Section
31.14(1)(b)(vii) to be as follows (revision italicized):
○ (vii) Windows Vertical emphasis. Double hung. Window sash with single
undivided pane. Trim 4" to 6".
Window Infill
One of the duties of the HPC is to review Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) for new
construction, alteration, demolition, or relocation of contributing structures in the Old Town
Historic Preservation District. In the past year, we encountered a COA application for which
Chapter 31 provided inadequate direction. This COA concerned the removal and infill of a
window on a contributing structure, and we found that the code lacked any provisions to help
guide our decision.
It is for this reason that we are seeking Planning staff support to draft language pertaining to
window removal and infill. In our research, we found that the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Handbook provides guidelines for when a window is to be relocated or removed/infilled, and we
wish to establish similar language in the Ames Municipal Code.
It is possible that the revision could be a single line provision under “windows” in Section
31.13(13), but it is paramount that the infill of a removed window be consistent with the
architectural style, and we want to ensure that the language that is added is done thoughtfully
and thoroughly. The assistance we are requesting from staff may warrant a review of other
cities’ Historic Preservation code sections or discussions with their planning staff and HPCs to
understand how they handle such alterations.
With this in mind, we request that the City Council authorize adding the following to the Planning
and Housing Department’s work plan for 2026:
● Research Assistance: Review other cities’ historic preservation ordinances and
information available from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (or other
preservation organizations) that pertain to window removal and infill.
● Draft Sample Provision(s): Research and propose sample language from these
resources to use in drafting revisions to Section 31.13(13)
In summary, we believe that revising provisions in Chapter 31 to include energy efficient
materials and to address window removal and infill will improve the regulatory efficiency of the
historic preservation ordinance and provide residents with more clarity with respect to alterations
to their historic structures. With the help of City Planning staff, we hope to complete this project
by the end of calendar year 2026.
Thank you for your consideration and support.
1
Hall, Renee
From:jjmmk@netins.net
Sent:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 4:50 PM
To:Smyth, Allison; Imhoff, Mark
Cc:City Council and Mayor; Cory Bertelsen; Vbohlen; Luke Gran
Subject:Ironwood Woodlot Renovation
[External Email]
Mark and Allison:
I appreciate the time that both of you have taken to visit with me about the removal of the woodlot between
Ironwood Lane and highway 30. The Ironwood Homeowners Association has met several times and has
appointed me chairman of the committee to work with the city and DOT to make the best of the opportunity we
have been given to restore this woodlot.
Before we waste any more time on this I would like to promote a meeting with each of you, along with
leadership from the Ironwood HOA, Luke Gran a local forester and Jo Herring our district forester to explore
ideas.
Of course, reaching the culmination of this project does not come easily. It requires cooperation from everyone
involved. It appears there are limits as to what the DOT can do. Yet, this is the DOT woodlot and the DOT
plants a lot of trees on their right of way. It has been represented to us as an unmanaged woodlot so any
damage to that woodlot is excusable because it's unmanaged. Let's work together to begin to manage this
woodlot for everyone's benefit.
Wendy and I have lived at our 2113 Ironwood Lane property since 2012.
In 2018 the Association recognized the wood lot was deteriorating and
was becoming unsightly. A contact was made to the DOT resulting in a
visit by then District Engineer Scott Dockstader. The request at that time was for the DOT to plant some
conifers on the south side of this woodlot. The premise was that in time these conifers would grow and provide
to the neighboring homeowners both visual and audible protection from Highway 30. Then the continual
decline of the woodlot would be inconsequential. It was reported at that time that Scott had authorized funding
for the project. The project was put in the hands of a DOT staff member however, nothing happened. Hence,
we are here with the problem still continuing.
The city in the process of replacing their power line has presented us both a disaster and an opportunity. The
disaster being that they cleared a path 20 or more feet wide right near the DOT/homeowner property line of all
vegetation. This has completely removed most of the barrier that this woodlot has provided from the noise and
visibility of highway 30.
The opportunity is that now we have a cleared path which will enable the establishment of beneficial trees and
shrubs.
The Ironwood Homeowners Association has met and are totally behind anything that can be done to fix it. We
are an elderly bunch and we have several folks ready to go out and plant trees. But let's be realistic at an
average age of 79 we aren't going to get it done.
Who has responsibility. Clearly to fix this it should not be on the back of 79 year old homeowners. It is time for
the city of Ames to partner with the DOT to restore this woodlot and not let it deteriorate into junk.
2
What's the best solution? The HOA has engaged the services of Luke Gran a Forester from Nevada that
specializes in the restoration of forest land. He has been on the site and has identified the presence of
numerous invasive tree and shrub species that if nothing is done will take over the woodlot and render it
undesirable for the city and the homeowners alike. He has outlined a strategy that would remove invasive
plants, and plant desirable trees and shrubs that would provide protection to the homeowners and would not
grow so tall as to interfere with the power line. This turns out to be good use of government funds because it
eliminate long term pruning of the interfering vegetation.
Finally, I plead with you to take this seriously. We need to fix this woodlot problem once and for all. The city has
given us a once in an eternity opportunity to fix a problem that will only get worse since the woodlot has now
been opened up. If we don't do anything it will be taken over by invasive species.
For the DOT and City, it is easy for you to walk away from this problem.
Maybe a little discomfort as you say no to this plea but for the most part out of site out of mind. For the
Ironwood folks this mess will be there forever. The Association is willing to do anything within their power to
make this happen. I hope you will do the same. Please don't let this opportunity slip away.
Reminder. Let's get together and work this out.
A final PLEA, we will never have another opportunity to fix this problem. Let's work together and make it
happen.
Thank You,
Jerry Goldsmith
563-357-1800