The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About~Master - Packet of Communication to Council dated April 10, 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: Renee Hall, City Clerk Date: April 10, 2026 Subject: Packet of Communications to Council Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of April 10, 2026: 1. Kwik Trip/Kwik Star, Business - March 13, 2026 RE: Fueling Points Request Letter 2. Aaron Rodriguez, Ames Resident - March 27, 2026 RE: Proposal to prohibit parking in Cul-de-Sac turnarounds 3. ACAT Energy Working Group - March 31, 2026, RE: Airport Property Solar Array 4. Kirk Youngberg – Ames Silversmithing – April 1, 2026 RE: Parking spot at 218 Main Street 5. Mark O. Lambert – City Attorney, - April 6, 2026 RE: Supervision of City Attorney 6. Rhonda Frerichs – Ames Resident - April 9, 2026 RE: Ontario & Scholl Road Development 7. Chuck Winkleblack – Hunziker Companies - April 9, 2026 RE: Mangels Farm 8. Luke Jensen - RES Group, Inc. - April 10, 2026 RE: Burnett Site Referral 9. Kelly Diekmann – Director of Planning & Housing - April 10, 2026 RE: Request to Amend Development Agreement Incentive for Ansley March 13th, 2026 City of Ames, IA 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010 RE: A portion of 3220 Cameron School Road and George Washington Carver Ave. Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, We respectfully submit this letter to request a revision and amendment to the current Convenience General Services (CGS) Zone Development Standards, regarding the maximum size of gasoline service. The current code states that fueling points are to service not more than ten (10) vehicles at once. Specifically, we ask that the City and Council consider modifying the standard to allow for twenty (20) fueling points to be served at once, rather than the current limitation of ten (10) fueling points. Fueling infrastructure and consumer demands have evolved significantly in recent years. Many modern service stations are designed to accommodate higher traffic volumes, improve vehicle circulation, better safety, and reduce congestion throughout the site. Allowing up to twenty fueling points would help better align the City’s standards with what Kwik Trip sees as a need for their customers and the community. Kwik Trip guests tend to stay longer due to the larger assortment of items offered in our stores. Customers are then parked longer at the fueling points as they are shopping for their daily needs in one trip. This is another reason we offer twenty fueling points. Enhancing the fueling points also helps reduce waiting times for customers. In conclusion, allowing twenty fueling points helps Kwik Trip better serve the community and customers while maintaining the City’s commitment to safe and well-planned infrastructure. We respectfully request that the Mayor and City Council review the current code provisions and consider amending the maximum size of gasoline service to permit twenty fueling points. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. We appreciate the City’s continued efforts to ensure that local regulations remain practical, forward-looking, and supportive of economic development. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposal further or provide additional information if helpful. Sincerely, Travis Small Real Estate Development Manager 1 Hall, Renee From:Aaron Rodriguez <aaron.rodriguez23@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 27, 2026 4:48 PM To:City Council and Mayor Cc:My Love Subject:Proposal to prohibit parking in cul-de-sac turnarounds to protect city infrastructure [External Email] Dear City of Ames Officials, As a resident of Ames, I am reaching out to propose a parking restriction within the circular turnaround areas of our local cul-de-sacs. Currently, when vehicles park in these rounded sections, they significantly narrow the available roadway. This creates a tight chokepoint that hinders the safe and efficient movement of large municipal and emergency vehicles. The primary issue is that snowplows, garbage trucks, and fire engines simply do not have the necessary turning radius to navigate the cul-de-sac when cars are parked in the circle. To avoid scraping or colliding with parked vehicles, city drivers are frequently forced to drive up onto the concrete curbs. Over time, this repeated heavy impact causes severe damage to our neighborhood infrastructure and generates unnecessary repair costs for the city. With fire trucks not being able to clear the circle I think poses a significant safety risk as well . Prohibiting parking specifically in the circular regions of cul-de-sacs would give large vehicles the clearance they need to operate safely and effectively. Residents and guests would still be able to park along the straight sections of the street, minimizing any daily inconvenience. I believe this minor adjustment to our parking policies would preserve our curbs, save taxpayer money on concrete repairs, and streamline our vital sanitation and snow removal services. Thank you for your time, consideration, and your ongoing work to maintain our city streets. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this proposal. Sincerely, Aaron Rodriguez 3411 Buchanan Ct 515-710-7410 Aaron Rodriguez Product Application Engineer- Danfoss Power Solutions Cell: 515-710-7410 Email : aaron.rodriguez23@gmail.com Linkedin Date: March 31, 2026 To: Mayor and Council Subject: Follow-Up – Proposed Airport Property Solar Array Dear Ames City Council and Mayor Haila, The Ames Climate Action Team recently sent a letter to council strongly advocating for a commitment to a solar developer for a municipal airport solar array. Among early responses to our letter is a concern that, in the current political climate, financing new resources may be too risky. We believe that concern is greatly overstated and places a real risk on utility ratepayers. It is not unreasonable to worry about what the majority party in the current state legislature might do to property tax rates, spending limits, or where cities can invest, but tax-exempt revenue bonds are a different matter. Please consider the political map [1]. There are 136 municipal electric utilities in Iowa that depend on revenue-backed financing. A majority of them are in Republican-controlled districts. We see no evidence that legislators from those districts want to limit the use of revenue bonds, which save ratepayers money. [1] Here are several cities with municipal electric utilities that most Iowans can picture on a state map. They illustrate public power ’s geographic and political dispersion: Algona, Atlantic, Cedar Falls, Coon Rapids, Denison, Grundy Center, Hartley, Hawarden, Lake Park, Milford, Muscatine, New Hampton, Orange City, Pella, Rock Rapids, Sioux Center, Spencer, Sumner, and Webster City. Revenue bonds are essential in financing municipal utility infrastructure. They typically lower the cost of infrastructure because they bear a lower interest rate and avoid the return on equity that private investors and banks expect. Utility revenue bonds are not included in debt limits that may be applied to general obligation bonds. Even if revenue bonds were somehow to come into legislative crosshairs, what Ames does is relatively inconsequential. Municipal electric utilities across the state are working on a plan to invest in new high voltage transmission lines. The investments are important to ratepayers, since the revenue on the assets the utilities own offsets the cost of debt and the cost of transmission they use. The planned investment will be financed with jointly issued revenue bonds, likely to be many times larger than any issuance Ames would undertake. Other utilities, large and small, will also be issuing revenue bonds to pay for critical infrastructure. ACAT found these insights into the status of municipal utilities around the state to be very helpful in our consideration of the proposed municipal solar array, and hope they are useful for you. We’ve also taken a deep dive into comparing the cost of owning versus renting utility infrastructure, including renewable energy resources. Renting vs ownership is likely a future council decision, but whatever financing method is chosen, the council owes it to residents and, especially utility ratepayers, to disclose a fair comparison. Respectfully, ACAT Energy Working Group Jeri Neal, Caitlyn Lien, Mary Richards, Bob Haug, Lee Anne Willson, Vivian M. Cook, Jeff White Dear Council Members, My name is Kirk Youngberg, and I am wri ng on behalf of Ames Silversmithing to request your considera on regarding a ma er we have been unable to resolve with the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and the Planning Department. Background Ames Silversmithing is expanding east to incorporate 218 Main Street. The exis ng structure at 218 will be demolished and replaced with a new building integrated with our current space. For design con nuity and security considera ons speciﬁc to our business, the expansion must remain one story and match the depth of the exis ng building. The ZBA approved this request with condi ons, including the requirement that “the site plan be amended to remove the proposed, but not permi ed, parking space behind 218.” We have no objec on to removing the parking space from the site plan. However, the approval does not require physical barriers or prohibit con nued use of the area for parking. Subsequent interpreta ons by staﬀ appear to impose addi onal restric ons not stated in the ZBA’s decision. Request We respec ully request that the Council: 1. Conﬁrm that removal of the parking space from the site plan sa sﬁes the ZBA condi on; 2. Clarify that no addi onal requirements—such as installa on of physical barriers—apply unless explicitly stated in the approval; and 3. Aﬃrm that the exis ng, non-conforming use of the area for accessory parking may con nue. Basis for Request 1. Code and ZBA Interpreta on The ZBA condi on requires only removal of the parking space from the site plan. It does not prohibit use of the area for parking or require measures to prevent access. The area in ques on does not meet the municipal deﬁni on of a “parking space” under Chapter 28.1(5), which applies to designated spaces within public or municipally controlled areas. This area is privately owned and therefore falls outside that deﬁni on. Municipal code (29.201(7) and 29.201(164)) deﬁnes accessory use and accessory parking as incidental to the primary use. Such use is not prohibited. Addi onally, the code recognizes non- conforming uses (29.201(153)) as lawful uses that do not meet current standards but may con nue. 2. Established Non-Conforming Use The area behind 218 Main Street has been used for parking by owners and employees for decades. Although labeled “proposed” on the site plan, it is not a new parking loca on. Its use is long-standing and consistent with other similar non-conforming parking areas throughout downtown. There are numerous comparable examples—par cularly along the south side of Main Street— where similar spaces con nue to be used without enforcement ac on. Trea ng this loca on diﬀerently creates inconsistency and uncertainty in applica on of the code. 3. Prac cal Considera ons Our intent is to improve the area by grading, paving, and integra ng it with the exis ng paved space behind 220 Main. These changes will enhance safety, appearance, and usability. Blocking access to this area, improved as outlined or le completely unimproved, represents an unfortunate waste of needed, useful space. Downtown parking supply is increasingly limited while demand remains high, and this area has long served a func onal role for employees and opera ons. Conclusion We are seeking a straigh orward resolu on consistent with the ZBA’s stated condi on and the municipal code:  Remove the designa on of “parking space” from the site plan;  Allow the area to be improved (graded and paved) as part of the project;  Remove any requirement for physical barriers not speciﬁed in the ZBA approval; and  Maintain the lawful, non-conforming use of the area for accessory parking. Thank you for your me and considera on. Sincerely, Kirk Youngberg Ames Silversmithing Caring People w Quality Programs w Exceptional Service 515.239.5146 main 515.239.5142 fax 515 Clark Ave. Ames, IA 50010 www.CityofAmes.org Legal Department MEMO Legal Department To: Mayor Haila, Ames City Council From: Mark O. Lambert, City Attorney Date: April 6, 2026 Subject: Supervision of City Attorney At the March 24 Ames City Council meeting, during the discussion about the recruitment plan for the next City Attorney, there was a statement made that the Ames Municipal Code grants to the Mayor supervisory authority over the City Attorney. This statement was an incorrect interpretation of the Ames Municipal Code. This statement was based upon an interpretation of Ames Municipal Code section 2.11(1): Sec. 2.11. OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM. (1) The mayor is the chief executive officer of the city and presiding officer of the council. Except for the supervisory duties which have been delegated by ordinance to the city manager, the mayor shall supervise all city officers and departments. It is important to note that this section does not contain a sentence directly stating that the Mayor supervises the City Attorney. Instead, it says that the Mayor shall supervise all city officers and departments, except those city officers and departments delegated by ordinance to supervision by the City Manager. Although it does not directly state that the mayoral supervisory authority includes the City Attorney, it could be read as logically implying such, as the City Attorney does not answer to the City Manager. The conversation on this topic at the Council meeting did not make reference to the City Attorney section of the municipal code which states the following: Sec. 2.47. COUNCIL TO APPOINT CITY ATTORNEY. City Attorney may be appointed by vote of a majority of the whole number of the city council and shall serve at the pleasure of the city council and be subject to removal by a vote the same as required for appointment. This is an explicit -- not implied -- granting of authority of the City Council to appoint, remove, and supervise the City Attorney. Under standard rules of statutory construction, a specific code section prevails over a general code section. Under this analysis, there is a general code section that can be read to imply that the Mayor has supervisory authority over the City Attorney, and a specific code section that explicitly grants that authority to the City Council, so the specific language prevails. The power to hire and fire inherently includes the power to supervise. Moreover, the inclusion of the phrasing that the City Attorney “serves at the pleasure of the City Council” further indicates that the Council supervises the City Attorney. Google AI gave me this result when I asked for a definition of “serves at the pleasure of”: “The phrase ‘serve at the pleasure of’ means that someone’s position or service is contingent upon the approval of another party, typically a higher authority. It implies that the individual must comply with the wishes of the person holding the power, and their role can be revoked at any time without formal reasons. This phrase is often used in formal contexts, such as in government or royal roles, to indicate a level of subordination and dependence on the discretion of the higher authority.” So the phrase “serves at the pleasure of the City Council” further indicates that the Council supervises the City Attorney. Analyzing the municipal code in a different way, section 2.47 of the Ames Municipal Code establishes that the authority to hire, fire, and supervise the City Attorney has been delegated by ordinance to the City Council. That is, to the extent that the mayor may, arguably, have any supervisory authority over the City Attorney and the Legal Department per section 2.11(1), that authority has been delegated (transferred) from the mayor to the Council by section 2.47. Because of that delegation, the power resides in the Council, not the mayor. By delegating that authority, which was by ordinance passed by the Council and agreed to by a former mayor who signed the ordinance into law, the mayor no longer has any supervisory authority that may have existed; the Council has all of the supervisory authority over the City Attorney. Bottom line: the City Attorney is supervised by the City Council. # 1 Hall, Renee From:Rhonda Frerichs <randrfrerichs@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2026 10:03 AM To:City Council and Mayor Subject:Ontario & Scholl Rd Proposed Development [External Email] Hello, I live at 3309 Kingman Rd and have concerns on the proposed development at Ontario and Scholl Road. I understand the need for more housing, but believe this proposal should be based on single family homes. The proposed development at Ontario and Scholl Road should be changed to RL - residential low density. The surrounding neighborhoods are zoned RL and need to be protected and maintained. According to the requirements for RL, the proposal's lot size is not within the standard (proposed 4,700 sq ft vs 6,000 sq ft minimum standard) and the density (dwelling units per net acre) is above the maximum 7.26 per net acre standard. Traffic congestion on Ontario has significantly increased over the past few years, due to Lincoln Way's congestion. This proposed development will increase the volume of traffic on Ontario, making the current traffic congestion worse. A traffic study should be conducted to identify the impact of this development for pedestrian and vehicle safety. Several within the surrounding neighborhoods support the belief the community would best be served by maintaining the RL - residential low density and following the minimum and maximum standards set out by the Iowa code. We encourage more single family dwellings for this development. Thanks, Rhonda Frerichs 3309 Kingman Rd Ames, IA 50014 To: Honorable Mayor and Ames City Council From: Chuck Winkleblack & Justin Dodge, Hunziker Companies RE: Mangels farm Date: April 9, 2026 Hunziker Development Group owns 35 acres of land just West of the Ames Country Club and North of the Bella Woods development. Story County planning and zoning commission recommended the change, and the Story County Supervisors amended the C2C plan and passed the rezoning from agricultural to rural residential on 1st reading on April 7th. The 2nd reading is already scheduled for Tuesday, April 14th. Our request is to amend the City of Ames 2040 plan to allow housing on this tract of land. We intend for this to be a rural subdivision and not be annexed into the city of Ames. Our intention is to preserve the wetland areas and to develop the parcel into 16 to 18 single family homes. The parcel has adjacent single-family development on the South and West and Prairie Moon Winery to the North. We have attached an aerial photo from Beacon identifying the parcel. 1 Hall, Renee From:Diekmann, Kelly Sent:Friday, April 10, 2026 2:11 PM To:Hall, Renee Subject:Non-Agenda Luke Jensen Burnett Site Referral Renee, please include in the Non-Agenda Packet this week. On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 2:49 PM Luke Jensen <luke@resgi.com> wrote: Mayor and Council, I’m reaching out regarding the Downtown Ames vision plan presented and CC (maybe) adopted last year. I’m interested in bringing forward a high-density, urban multifamily project that supports the goal of creating a true “18-hour downtown.” Increasing downtown residents to support retail, restaurants, and activity makes total sense. We need more people living downtown to build on the current energy. I have identified a development site at 608 Burnett which is currently a .5 acre parking lot. My plan includes roughly 38 modern rental units comprising studios, 1 beds and 2 bed units. There would be some amenity space for residents along with both structured and surface parking. The property would be geared towards urban dwellers who appreciate and value the location and proximity to the urban core area along with employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. Additionally, the draw is strong towards cultural and civic opportunities in the area. The property is located in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. This zoning needs some modernization to meet the goals of the Downtown Ames vision plan. Specifically, we need to look at the following ( I think can be achieved in a text amendment):  Building height/stories-I need to go taller to create some density given the scarcity of the available land. I am proposing a 4 story building with a flat roof. Roughly 42’- 45’ tall.  Parking: parking ratios are outdated and far too automobile dependent. As the parking requirements stand today I am ~20 spaces short of meeting the standard. I’m trying to supply adequate parking of 1 space per unit. Many of the residents will choose this area as there are far more multimodal transportation opportunities being in the urban core. 2  Updated and competitive Development Toolkit o Urban Revitalization Tax Abatement  At today’s land and construction costs and market rents, a project that meets the City’s urban design expectations does not financially pencil without meaningful economic tools in place.  I am proposing a 10 year 75% tax abatement program. This would get some immediate revenue to the city and not wait 7-10 years like some of the other communities programs. I believe Ames is ready to see downtown momentum and I believe we need one project to "go" to give courage and confidence in market support and viability. I’m ready to move a high quality project forward. I request the council and staff support on zoning modifications as well as tax incentives and support for the Iowa Workforce Housing Tax Credit Application. Lastly, timing-I have a 120 day due diligence timeline from March 1st. I need to move quickly and decisively to get confidence in the project's viability. The Workforce Housing Tax Credit application due date is June 10, 2026. Thanks, Luke Kelly Diekmann Planning and Housing Director 515.239.5400- main| 515.239.5181 direct| kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org | City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue | Ames, IA 50010 www.CityofAmes.org | ~ Caring People ~ Quality Programs ~ ExcepƟonal Service ~ Department of Planning & Housing Memo TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director DATE: April 9, 2026 SUBJECT: Request to Amend Development Agreement Incentive for Ansley Development City Council received the attached letter from the Burgasons as the developer of the Ansley Development requesting Council amend their previous related to the paving of Cedar Lane. The Cedar Lane agreement calls for the City to be responsible for the future paving of approximately 700 feet of Cedar Lane as an off-site improvement. Note that the Cedar Lane paving is only 50% City responsibility with the remaining 50% as an ISU obligation per a prior development agreement for the Ringenberg Subdivision west of Cedar Lane. Staff anticipated the Cedar Lane paving would not be needed for at least three years based upon the timing and phasing of the development, but ultimately its timing is at the discretion of the City Council. The developer now requests that the Cedar Lane agreement be cancelled and replaced with an agreement that the City would pave approximately 650 feet of Aurora Avenue located at the northeast corner of the site. This street project would facilitate near term development in FY 2027 with townhomes and detached housing lots within the project. The developer would commit to extending two other street segments in conjunction with the City extension of Aurora to plat additional lots for development. The Aurora paving would be contingent on the developer platting these additional areas for development. The developer believes this request is in line with other development incentive requests reviewed by City Council in December 2025. Staff agree that the paving of Aurora is more beneficial for near-term development benefits, but there are new financial aspects that must be considered. The Public Works Department estimates that 650 feet of Aurora paving, sidewalks, and storm sewer would be approximately $371,000 of cost to the City compared to approximately $250,000 for the Cedar Lane obligation. Secondly, the developer requests a commitment that the improvements occur in FY 2027-28 rather than defer to a later undefined date as is the case with Cedar Lane. Because of the deferred and contingent timing of the Cedar Lane extension, there is no paving project in the 5- year CIP for it. Adding a project in FY2027 could displace another project in order to prioritize the paving or increase the total financial commitments for paving projects. The third issue is the funding source of the project in conjunction with its timing. The City assumed the future Cedar Lane project would likely utilize General Obligation (GO) Bonds and it would be coordinated with other planned expenses in the year of the project to minimize financial impacts. If Aurora is added to the CIP, the source of funding would need to be identified. GO Bonds would likely be the source of funds, which could cause reprioritization in FY 2027 or a higher request of funding and associated tax levy. An alternative to City financing of a paving project, use of a Residential TIF rebate for the developer to get reimbursed for this cost is possible. A Residential TIF is a potentially complicating option for the developer and the City based upon pending budget legislation. The Developer has indicated to staff they do not desire to rely on TIF rebates for the work. StaƯ Comments If Council has an interest in this request and considering the financial issues described above, it should direct staff to put this item on a future agenda to provide direction to staff. If the Council does not want to prioritize this project for FY 2027 as requested, then no action is required.