HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Packet of Communications to Council as of October 9, 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: October 9, 2026
Subject: Packet of Communications to Council
Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of October 9,
2026:
1. Geoff Huff, Chief of Police – September 10, 2026
RE: Noise Permit Process
2. Justin Moore, Planner – September 22, 2026
RE: Request to Change the Lapse of Approval Timeframe for Special Use
Permits in Section 29.1503(6).
3. Keith Arneson, Ames Property Owner – September 28, 2026
RE: Homelessness Issue
4. Sara Van Meeteren, Building Official – September 30, 2026
RE: Radon Requirements for Rental Properties
5. James Benn, Ames Resident – October 2, 2026
RE: Request for Administrative and Policy Review of Chickens on Residential
Property
6. Allie Sankot, Ames Resident – October 8, 2026
RE: Request for Sidewalk and Pedestrian Crossing Signs on South 16 th Street
7. Renee Gilmore, Canyon Holdings, LLC – October 8, 2026
RE: Request for Resolution on Bus Continuously Parked in Public Right of
Way at the 300 Block of S 4th Street
8. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – October 13, 2026
RE: Resource Recovery and Recycling Campus Progress update
9. Justin Moore, Planner – October 13, 2026
RE: Kwik Star request to initiate Zoning Text changes to signage regulations in
the design standards of “CGS” Convenience General Service Zone
Staff 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: September 10, 2026
From: Geoff Huff, Chief of Police
Subject: Noise Permit Process
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the process used
by the Ames Police Department to review and issue noise permits under
Chapter 16 (Noise Control) of the Ames Municipal Code. Chapter 16
establishes community noise standards while providing a mechanism for
temporary relief (Noise Permits) when special events or activities may exceed
normal noise limitations.
Overview of Chapter 16
Chapter 16 establishes maximum permissible sound levels based on zoning
and land-use characteristics. In residential areas, the limit is 60 decibels
between 7:00 a.m. and midnight and 55 decibels between midnight and 7:00
a.m. Commercial areas are generally limited to 65 decibels, industrial areas to
80 decibels, and park or agriculturally zoned areas to 65 decibels. Activities that
exceed these limits require a permit unless otherwise exempted by the
ordinance.
Section 16.6 authorizes the City Manager or an authorized representative to
issue permits allowing temporary relief from the standard noise restrictions.
Current Police Department Noise Permit Process
The Ames Police Department administers the City's noise permit application
process as the City Manager's authorized representative. Applications are
submitted through the department's online system. The Police Department
reviews each request and determines whether the proposed event can be
accommodated while balancing neighborhood impacts and community interests.
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
Applicants are asked to provide:
A description of the event location.
The source and nature of the anticipated noise.
The date and hours of the event.
Contact information for the responsible party.
Information regarding attendance and event supervision.
Applications are generally required at least 24 hours before the event. There is
currently no fee associated with obtaining a noise permit.
Review Criteria
Current review practices include:
Reviewing police calls for service and enforcement history associated
with the applicant and event location.
Determining whether another permit has already been approved for the
same time period within the immediate area.
Evaluating the likelihood of significant impacts on surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
Assessing whether adequate supervision and responsible contacts have
been identified.
These considerations are intended to ensure that permitted events remain
compatible with surrounding land uses while allowing community activities to
occur.
Permit Conditions
Chapter 16 authorizes conditions to be placed on permits to minimize adverse
effects on the community or surrounding neighborhood. Permits issued by the
Police Department specify:
The approved date and location.
Authorized operating hours.
Responsible parties.
Any special limitations or conditions.
The maximum sound levels permitted.
Under Section 16.7, permit holders may be authorized to exceed normal
neighborhood sound limits, but only within the maximum sound-level and
duration limits established by ordinance. For example, sound levels up to 80
dBA may be permitted for up to 24 hours, with shorter durations allowed as
sound levels increase. However, it has been the practice of the Ames Police
Department to limit noise permits to 5 additional dBA and never past midnight.
In addition, permits are generally not issued for private parties absent some
larger interest, community events, neighborhood events, philanthropic events,
weddings, etc.
Enforcement
Noise permits provide authorization only for the specific conditions identified in
the permit. Events operating outside approved conditions remain subject to
enforcement under Chapter 16. Violations of the ordinance may be addressed
through municipal infraction citations or as a simple misdemeanor, as
authorized by Section 16.9.
Conclusion
The Ames Police Department's noise permit process is intended to balance
community events and temporary activities with the City's responsibility to
protect residents from excessive noise. The process provides a structured
review of proposed events, establishes accountability through identified
responsible parties, and allows conditions to be imposed that mitigate
neighborhood impacts while remaining consistent with Chapter 16 of the Ames
Municipal Code.
While the noise permit process has historically provided reasonable
accommodation for special events, it has become increasingly difficult in recent
years to balance requests for amplified sound that exceed Chapter 16 limits with
the interests of neighboring residents who are adversely affected by such noise.
An excellent example of this friction is the Roosevelt Summer Concerts that has
grown over the years from a relatively small event to a much larger one.
Given the increasing challenges associated with balancing competing
community interests, the Police Department would support a review of the noise
permit process, including consideration of whether certain permits should
receive City Council review and approval, consistent with other special event
processes.
Department of Planning & Housing
Memo
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Moore, Planner
DATE: September 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Request to Change the Lapse of Approval Timeframe for Special Use Permits
in Section 29.1503(6).
Kwik Star has made a request to City Council to allow for a Text Amendment to change the lapse
of approval time limitation for Special Use Permits. In the attached letter Kwik Star requested
two text amendments. This memorandum only addresses one part of the request. A separate
memorandum will be forthcoming regarding the request for the other text amendment in the
attached letter.
The timelapse for Special Use Permits in Section 29.1503(6) is currently 12-months from the
date of approval by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The request is to change the timelapse to
24 months from the date of approval. The request is being made by Kwik Star to accommodate
their anticipated timeline for construction of a planned store at the corner of George Washington
carver Avenue and Cameron School Road.
Kwik Star anticipates finalizing their site plan with staff and going for consideration at Zoning
Board of Adjustment this fall. However, Kwik Star does not plan to start construction on a planned
new store at the corner of GW Carver Avenue and Cameron School Road within the projected
12-month timeframe should they receive approval from Zoning Board of Adjustment this fall.
They anticipate starting construction on the new store in approximately early 2028.
Currently, all regular Minor Site Development Plans approved by City staff and Major Site
Development Plans approved by City Council allow for 24-months before the timelapse deadline.
Special Use Permits with Site Development plans only allow for 12-months. In most cases, the
reason a Special Use Permit is required with a site plan in any given circumstance is due to a
certain use being required to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment as a Special Use
in a given zone.
In the zone that Kwik Star intends to construct the new store at GW Carver Avenue and Cameron
School Road, Convenience General Service (CGS), Convenience Stores were recently changed
to require a Special Use Permit for approval of a Site Plan to review for compatibility and
harmoniousness in surrounding neighborhoods.
Options
Based upon the request from Kwik Star staff believes the following options are most
appropriate in this case.
Option 1-
City Council can direct staff to have Kwik Star submit an application for a Text Amendment to
change the timelapse date for Special Use Permits with Site Plans from 12-months to 24-
months. Staff would draft a text amendment for consideration. This would allow Kwik Star to
have 24-months from the date of approval of a Special Use Permit by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment to construct a new store.
Option 2-
City Council could choose to take no action on this request. This would require Kwik Star to
start constructing a new store within 12-month of approval of a Site Plan by the Zoning Board
of Adjustment.
Sta Comments
Staff believes that the request is reasonable and does not present an issue that would
otherwise interfere with or be adverse to the impact on surrounding areas when Special Use
Permits are considered. Regular Minor Site Development and Major Site Development Plans
already have a 24-month window to start construction. Staff does not see a difference in a
Special Use Permit approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment if the plan is already found to
be compatible with a given location.
Staff believes that Option #1 can be supported, given the process of review already in place by
the Zoning Board of Adjustment which gives public scrutiny of a proposed Site Plan through a
longer process, a Special Use Permit with a Site Plan.
Council Request Letter
1
Hall, Renee
From:Keith Arneson <keithdarneson@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 28, 2026 4:43 PM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:Fwd: Help
[External Email]
Council, please see the attached email I sent to Steve, Kelly and Tim. I know this is sensitive but my
problem has existed in town for several years. I am feeling helpless in watching my family estate be
damaged at a time when estate planning is so important to me and my family.
Please reach out to me with questions. I would be happy to come in and speak personally. My
management staff with Unique Apartment Homes is urging me not to go down and talk to this group in
person. They fear for my safety.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Keith Arneson <keithdarneson@gmail.com>
Date: September 28, 2026 at 3:55:29 PM CDT
To: Steve Schainker <steve.schainker@cityofames.org>, Kelly Diekmann
<KDiekmann@city.ames.ia.us>, Tim Gartin <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org>
Subject: Help
Steve, Kelly and Tim,
Since last fall I have had a homeless person living in their car directly in front of the
entrance to my first large multi-family apartment building at 610 Stonehaven Drive.
I have called the Police Department and gotten the expected response to this issue.
This man showed up in front of my property after leasing had finalized last year. When
some of our clients, especially the young women came to check in August 1, they
complained very loudly and we let one unit of girls out of their lease. Now our existing
residents are complaining that the homeless situation is deteriorating. Not only does this
individual seem to have friends joining daily (with pets) but he is now frequenting with
people who we denied renewals to because of their wishing to add sex offenders to the
lease. Our residents tell us this denied tenant and her sex offender boyfriend is joining the
homeless man in front of our building.
I know we live in a liberal community. I know homeless people are indeed people and have
Some people who received this message don't often get email from keithdarneson@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
2
rights.
This is negatively impacting my livelihood. What rights do I have not to let this deteriorate
and create a stigma around my apartment and family asset which I hope to leave to my
children? I worked very very hard to earn enough to buy this building. I think we are good
neighbors and certainly are very accommodating to any and all renters.
Can you help me with this problem? Would you like this if they camped in front of your
office? Can we ask these people to live in front of residential homes instead of
businesses?
Desperate,
Keith
Sent from my iPad
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: Mayor and City Council
From:
Date:
Sara Van Meeteren, Building Official
September 30, 2026
Subject: Radon Requirements for Rental Properties
At the September 22, 2026 Council Meeting, the City Council reviewed a letter from
Jessica Baker (attached) regarding elevated radon levels in the rental property that her
daughter is living in. Direction from the City Council was to place the item on a future
agenda.
As the letter stated, the Ames Rental Code does not regulate the testing or mitigation of
radon in rental units. Additionally, there are no regulations for radon testing or mitigation
in non-rental units through the Ames Municipal Code. There are no federal or state level
requirements for radon testing.
Iowa City adopted an ordinance pertaining to radon mitigation in rental properties in
2021. This ordinance requires all single-family and duplex units to be tested for radon
by a radon measurement specialist certified by the State of Iowa. The test results
determine the next steps:
If the test is less than 4 picoCurries per liter (pCi/L), the unit shall be retested in 8
years. If there is a habitable room in the basement it must be tested every 4
years.
If the test is greater than 4 pCi/L, a radon mitigation system shall be installed and
the unit tested within 90 days after installation. The system then requires testing
every 8 years after installation.
If the unit has an existing radon mitigation system, the unit shall be tested within
8 years of the date of the last radon test.
Prior radon tests with a performance date in the last two years would be
accepted.
A review of other states shows that the testing intervals vary from every two to every ten
years. Additionally, most others do not exclude multi-family units from testing. Some
require all units to be tested and others require, for example, only 25% of the ground
floor units to be tested. Some states/jurisdictions not requiring testing require a
disclosure of the most recent test to tenants prior to lease signing.
1
Hall, Renee
From:Schainker, Steve
Sent:Friday, October 2, 2026 4:22 PM
To:Hall, Renee
Subject:Fw: Request for Administrative and Policy Review — Residential Chickens / 121
McDonald Dr.
Attached below is Mr. Benn's email for the next non-agenda packet.
From: James Benn <jdbenn@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 1:16 PM
To: Haila, John <john.haila@cityofames.org>; Schainker, Steve <steve.schainker@cityofames.org>
Cc: Edwards, Ron <ron.edwards@cityofames.org>; Rollins, Anita <anita.rollins@amescitycouncil.org>
Subject: Request for Administrative and Policy Review — Residential Chickens / 121 McDonald Dr.
[External Email]
Mayor Haila and City Manager Schainker,
I am requesting your review of both the City's handling of an ongoing animal-noise complaint involving
the chicken operation at 121 McDonald Dr. and a broader policy issue that this experience has exposed
concerning the keeping of chickens in residential neighborhoods.
On September 1, I submitted to Animal Services a completed nuisance log, fourteen sound recordings,
photographs, and supporting information documenting the continuing noise problem. In that original
communication, I specifically requested that, if the City declined to treat the situation as an actionable
public-noise nuisance, it identify the metrics used to reach that determination.
Animal Services subsequently requested additional information concerning the dates, times, and
locations of the recordings. I provided the information reasonably available to me, including explaining
that the recordings were made from our front-door stoop after the chickens were clearly audible from
inside our living room.
On September 11, Animal Services advised me that “the court system needs it narrowed down a bit
more than ‘in the mornings.’”
That statement raised what I believe is a very reasonable question:
What standard is the City actually applying to this complaint?
On September 13, I requested in writing that Animal Services identify the ordinance, policy, enforcement
guideline, prosecutorial standard, court rule, or other authority establishing the evidentiary requirements
being applied. I also requested the objective or consistently applied criteria used to determine when
animal noise becomes sufficiently “prolonged” and “unreasonable” to constitute a violation of §3.115.
I further asked Animal Services to identify precisely what is deficient in the evidence already submitted,
explain the enforcement process following a documented nuisance complaint, and provide any written
policies, checklists, training materials, complaint-evaluation standards, prosecutorial guidance, or
forms used in evaluating complaints under §3.115. If no written criteria exist, I asked the City to simply
state that and explain how complaints are evaluated consistently rather than through an ad hoc or
subjective process.
Those questions remain central to my concern.
You don't often get email from jdbenn@icloud.com. Learn why this is important
2
However, working through this complaint has also exposed what I believe deserves a broader policy
review by the Mayor and City Council.
The City's own published guidance states that Ames “does not prohibit” the keeping of chickens and
directs residents primarily to the general animal Standards of Care contained in §3.111. What I have
been unable to identify is a comprehensive City policy specifically governing the keeping of chickens in
residential neighborhoods.
There appears to be no clearly defined residential flock limit, no chicken-specific restriction on roosters
that I have been able to identify, and no comprehensive chicken-specific standards addressing such
matters as coop and run location, setbacks, construction, sanitation, or the potential impact upon
adjoining residential properties.
Most importantly, when a problem does occur, the principal remedy available to an affected
neighbor appears to be a general animal-noise provision prohibiting sounds occurring for
“prolonged periods” that “unreasonably disturb” the peace and quiet of the vicinity.
This is not merely a theoretical policy concern.
During a 2022 City Council discussion involving restrictive covenants for the Baker Subdivision, Council
specifically discussed whether allowing chickens should include a numerical limit. The existing nuisance
law was identified during that discussion as a mechanism that would remain applicable, and Council
also discussed the potential effect upon residents who might not want to live next to chickens.
My present experience illustrates the practical difficulty with relying upon that approach.
I have submitted a nuisance log, fourteen sound recordings, photographs, and other documentation. Yet
after asking Animal Services to identify the objective criteria used to determine what constitutes
“prolonged” or “unreasonable” animal noise—and what evidentiary threshold must actually be
satisfied—I still do not have a clear understanding of the standard against which my complaint is being
evaluated.
That leaves everyone in an unnecessarily ambiguous position.
A resident choosing to keep chickens should be able to determine beforehand what is permitted and
what responsibilities accompany that activity.
A neighboring property owner should be able to determine what protections and remedies exist if that
activity becomes a continuing nuisance.
And Animal Services should have sufficiently clear standards to administer and enforce the ordinance
consistently.
I am therefore requesting review on two separate but related issues.
First, administratively: What objective and consistently applied standard does the City of Ames use to
determine whether animal noise constitutes a violation of §3.115, and where is that standard
documented?
Second, as a matter of City policy: Does Ames' existing regulatory framework for keeping chickens in
residential neighborhoods adequately define what is permitted, establish reasonable limitations and
housing requirements, protect adjoining property owners, and provide a clear and enforceable remedy
when problems occur?
I am not asking the Mayor, City Manager, or Council to prejudge whether a violation has occurred at 121
McDonald Dr.
I am asking the City administration to explain the standard being applied to my complaint, and I am
asking the City's elected policymakers to consider whether this experience demonstrates a gap in
existing municipal policy.
I have retained the complete correspondence with Animal Services, the nuisance log, recordings,
photographs, and other documentation associated with this complaint and will provide any or all of it
upon request.
3
I would appreciate a written response regarding the administrative questions above. I would also
respectfully request that the broader issue of the City's residential-chicken policy be referred to the
appropriate City Council process for review and discussion.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
James Benn
230 Hickory Drive
Ames, Iowa 50010
1
Hall, Renee
From:Alexandrea Sankot <alexkot1025@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 8, 2026 11:40 PM
To:Hall, Renee
Subject:Request for sidewalk and pedestrian crossing signs on South 16th Street
[External Email]
Hello,
I am a resident of the Old Orchard mobile home park along South 16th Street in Ames. The park's
management told me that a sidewalk along South 16th Street and any pedestrian crossing signs would
need to be handled by the City of Ames, so I am reaching out to you directly.
There is currently no sidewalk along this stretch, so residents, many of them students, have to walk along
the road or its edge to get to and from the park. I would like to ask:
1. Whether the city has plans to install a sidewalk along South 16th Street near Old Orchard.
2. Whether pedestrian crossing signs or a marked crosswalk can be added near the park entrance.
3. Who I should contact, or what process I should follow, to formally request these improvements or add
my name to an existing request.
Please let me know if you need more details, such as the exact location or photos of the area. I can be
reached by email or at [your phone number].
Thank you for your time and help.
Sincerely,
Allie Sankot
317 Mulberry Blvd
Ames, Iowa 50010
You don't often get email from alexkot1025@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
1
Hall, Renee
From:Renee @ Canyon Holdings <canyonholdings8@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 8, 2026 10:11 AM
To:Nelson, Sheri; City Council and Mayor
Cc:Bridget Cundiff
Subject:Request for Collaborative Resolution - Bus on 300 Block of S 4th Street
[External Email]
Dear Mayor, Members of the City Council and Parking Division Leadership,
I am writing to respectfully request the City's assistance in developing a practical and balanced
resolution regarding the vehicle (bus) that has been continuously parked in the public right-of-way at the
300 Block of S 4th Street in Ames.
We understand the City's administrative position regarding the individual's housing circumstances, and
we recognize the importance of approaching this situation with compassion and respect. At the same
time, the vehicle's continued presence in this particular location has created significant concerns for
neighboring property owners, residents, and the surrounding community.
Specifically, the conditions associated with the vehicle have resulted in severe animal waste odors and
sanitation concerns, including reports that animals are housed inside. The vehicle's condition and
erratic exterior visual displays have also generated ongoing widespread community concern. In
addition, its continued stationary presence significantly impacts the marketability and leasing of nearby
properties, creating an ongoing economic impact on surrounding property investments and local
businesses.
Rather than an adversarial enforcement battle, we would like to propose a collaborative approach that
addresses both the individual's needs and the City's responsibility to maintain a safe, sanitary, and
functional public right-of-way.
1. Facilitate Relocation to a Low-Impact Area : We respectfully request that the City work with the
vehicle owner to identify and facilitate relocation of the bus to a more appropriate, lower-impact location
in Ames, if one is available and permitted under City regulations. An area less sensitive to residential
properties, local businesses, and pedestrian and public activity - such as an appropriate designated
industrial or transitional area - could provide a more workable solution for everyone involved.
2. Coordinate Housing & Community Services Outreach: In conjunction with relocation effort, we
encourage the City to involve the appropriate housing outreach and community service
resources. Connecting the individual with available shelter, housing assistance, safe-parking
alternatives, or other support systems could provide a constructive path forward while also addressing
the sanitation and animal-welfare concerns associated with the current situation.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from canyonholdings8@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
2
3. Apply Applicable Parking & Right-of-Way Regulations: At a minimum, we respectfully request that
the City review and apply the City's standard regulations governing extended or continuous parking and
the use of public right-of-way. Regular movement or relocation requirements, where applicable, would
help prevent any single public location from becoming a permanent encampment or creating an ongoing
sanitation and public-health concern.
Our goal is not to create an adversarial situation or to displace someone without consideration for their
circumstances. Rather, we are asking the City to help find a reasonable solution that balances
compassion for the individual with the City's responsibility to protect public health, maintain the
functionality of public right-of-way, and preserve the viability of surrounding businesses, property
investments and local residents.
We would appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with the appropriate City departments - including
Parking, Police, and Community Services - to discuss a practical relocation and outreach plan and
determine what steps can be taken promptly.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and leadership. We sincerely appreciate the City's willingness to
work collaboratively toward a solution that is fair, constructive, and beneficial to the broader Ames
Community.
Sincerely,
Renee Gilmore
Canyon Holdings, LLC
515-644-8651
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
Caring People Quality Programs 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 7, 2023
Subject:
Bus/home parked on City streets
At the March 14, 2023, Ames City Council meeting, the Council discussed the
situation of the individual living in a revamped school bus, which is parked on
City streets.
Two motions were adopted by the Council:
1) Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to ask staff to come back to the
City Council with options on size of vehicles under Option 3A (of the
previous memo).
2) Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, that staff look at other issues of
safety with the woodburning stove and animal habitation, as well as
where motor vehicles fit into the current City Code and what options the
City Council has the means to regulate. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion
declared carried unanimously.
VEHICLES
Staff checked with the Iowa Department of Transportation, and the DOT
indicated that they didn’t have any authority over people living in their vehicles
or having alternative heating sources in their vehicles.
A question was raised about whether the City could require that anyone living in
a vehicle only live in a vehicle that was commercially made for such, and
Item No. 24
included a source of potable water, sanitary facilities, heat, etc. I believe this
would face the same constitutional concerns as outright prohibiting people from
living in their vehicles. It is something that the Council could try if it wished, but
I believe it might result in litigation and I am not confident that the courts would
rule in the City’s favor.
FIRE CODE
There is nothing in the Fire Code that prohibits wood-burning stoves in vehicles.
The Fire Code only applies to structures, not vehicles.
If this were a building instead of a bus, the Fire Code would require that the
chimney be longer and that a spark arrester be installed on the top of the
chimney.
PUBLIC HEALTH
Despite several attempts, I have not connected with staff at the Iowa
Department of Public Health or the Story County Health Department. I did
review the public health chapters of the Iowa Code, and I do not believe state or
county public health authorities have any jurisdiction over the matter of
someone living in their vehicle. Of course, human waste products must be
disposed of properly, but we do not know how the bus owner disposes of such.
ANIMALS
The bus reportedly contains has five or so ferrets as pets. The owner used to
also have two cats, but apparently doesn’t have cats now.
Our “Animals” ordinance, Chapter 3 of the Ames Municipal Code, provides for a
standard of care for animals, at Section 3.111. We have no evidence that the
animals in the bus are not being provided appropriate care.
The bus owner has turned over the ferrets twice to Animal Control for temporary
protective care, in June of 2021 and July of 2022, once because it was too hot
in the bus because of excessive heat from the heater (reportedly, she used a
gas heater at the time, not the current wood-burning stove); and once because
it was too hot because the bus air conditioning was not functioning. The fact
that she has turned over the animals for temporary protective care would
indicate that she is concerned for the welfare of the pets.
Animal Control staff have been in the bus to view the conditions and did not
determine that the animals were in bad conditions or lacking appropriate care.
Animal Control can only enter the bus with the owner’s permission, unless a
warrant is obtained, and there are no current grounds for such a warrant.
SIZE OF VEHICLES
The Council adopted a motion for the City Attorney to come back with options
on limiting the size of vehicles parked on City Streets.
After consulting with the Public Works traffic engineers, and Police Department
traffic enforcement staff, my recommendation would be that if the Council
desires to limit the size of vehicles parked on City streets. I discovered that the
largest “regular” vehicle appears to be the Ford F350 pick-up truck. The short-
bed version is 250 inches, which is just under 21 feet. The long-bed version is
266 inches, which is slightly more than 22 feet. Therefore, based upon
discussions with City traffic engineers and their recommendation on a
size limit, I would recommend a 25-feet limit if the Council chooses to
adopt such a limitation. A reminder that school buses range in size from 20
to 45 feet, with the average standard school bus being 35 feet long. Although a
25-feet limit would not prevent a 20-foot school bus from being parked on City
streets, if we went a 20-foot limit, it would prohibit some pick-up trucks from
parking on the street. City traffic engineering staff suggested a 25-feet limit, just
to be safe, but a 23-feet limit would still allow the largest pickup truck to park on
the streets.
The following exceptions should be considered: City public works vehicles,
construction vehicles during active construction, school buses transporting
children, and vehicles that are actively loading and unloading. (Perhaps others)
OPTIONS:
1. Prohibit vehicles 25 feet or more from parking on City streets in
residential areas, with exceptions for loading/unloading, etc.
2. Prohibit vehicles 23 feet or more from parking on City streets in
residential areas, with exceptions for loading/unloading, etc.
3. Prohibit vehicles 20 feet or more from parking on City streets in
residential areas, with exceptions for loading/unloading, etc.
I note that I am presuming the Council would intend to prohibit these large
vehicles in residential areas only. The Council could choose to make this
prohibition apply to commercial and/or industrial areas of the City as well.
AN ALTERNATIVE TO LENGTH LIMITATION
As an alternative to a length limitation, both traffic and parking staff
suggested that a limit on the type of vehicle might be an easier limitation
to enforce. That would be a prohibition on “commercial vehicles” being
parked on City streets. We would define commercial vehicles as commercial
trucks (not pick-ups), boxed vehicles, tow trucks, buses, any vehicles that are
designed to seat 16 or more people, recreational vehicles (RVs), and exclude
such vehicles while loading/unloading merchandise or passengers, public works
vehicles, etc.
Minutes Excerpt from the April 11, 2023 City Council Meeting
PERSONS LIVING IN THEIR VEHICLES ON CITY STREETS UPDATE: City Attorney
Mark Lambert went over the memo provided to the City Council and detailed that the City has no
jurisdiction from the perspectives of fire code, public health, or the animals living in the vehicle as
there is no evidence the animals are not receiving adequate care. The Iowa Department of
Transportation (IDOT) had responded that they had no authority over those living in their vehicles.
City Attorney Lambert provided the City Council with potential restrictions on the size of vehicles on
City streets, and potential ramifications for each option.
Mayor Haila opened and closed Public Input when no one came forward to speak.
After thorough discussion between Council Members, Mayor Haila indicated that he would like the
City Council to take a position on the record for this issue as there had been several complaints and
letters from concerned citizens. Each member of the City Council shared their stance on this issue
and engaged in discussion of the implications of any further action.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Rollins, to take no further action on this item.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Junck, and Rollins. Voting Nay: Corrieri
and Gartin. Motion declared carried.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to request a memo from staff on current City
ordinance that prohibits people from living in a vehicle on private or public property, in commercial
or industrial zoning only, and following options to modify it.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5160 main
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works
Date: October 13, 2026
Subject: Resource Recovery & Recycling Campus Progress Update
The Resource Recovery & Recycling Campus (R3C) project is now approaching the
halfway mark of construction. This memo provides an update regarding progress on
the project. No Council action is necessary.
WORK PROGRESS:
Site work began in May 2026. The City staff project team has met onsite with the
Construction Manager (Story Construction) and the design team (HDR, Inc.) on a
weekly basis to review progress, address unanticipated issues, and make decisions
about discretionary project details (colors, materials, etc.). HDR primarily participates
virtually, and project engineers visit the construction site approximately once per
month. Now that vertical construction has begun, engineer site visits will occur more
often to coincide with the work.
Site grading and utility work were completed in the spring and early summer.
Approximately 50% of the site paving work is complete, with the remainder to be
completed after the building construction has finished. The electrical transformer has
been installed, along with bases and conduit for the site lighting.
The month of September was exceptionally wet, which slowed progress. However,
contractors continued to work when possible, including making concrete wall pours
between rain showers. Fortunately, the site dries rather quickly, allowing work to
continue when rain slows or stops. As a result, although work was proceeding slightly
ahead of schedule early in the summer, it is now back on its original schedule for
completion.
Foundation work is now occurring for the installation of the scalehouse and scales. The
pre-fabricated scalehouse and the scales are anticipated to arrive and be installed by
the end of November. Once this work is complete, the equipment contractor will move
to the installation of the indoor processing equipment (shredder, magnet, eddy current
separator, and conveyors) and to the installation of the fueling tanks and pumps.
Cast-in-place walls in the office building have also been constructed. These include
the wall dividing the office area from the tipping floor, the elevator shaft, and walls
enclosing the electrical room, sprinkler room, and locker room areas. Wall pours are
now 100% complete.
The transfer tunnel has been excavated and the cast-in-place walls have been installed
and backfilled. Although the project did not originally call for it, the project team
approved the use of quartz aggregate in the concrete for the transfer tunnel floor. This
aggregate will be used on the tipping floor to improve the floor’s abrasion resistance.
The quartz aggregate absorbs water in a manner that can make it difficult to work, so
the transfer tunnel floor pour offered an opportunity for the contractor to gain familiarity
with the material before the critical tipping floor pours take place during the week of
October 12.
In September, the pre-engineered metal building (PEMB) was delivered to the site.
Once the tipping floor concrete has been poured, work will commence on erecting the
building. The erection will closely follow the tipping floor slab pours to expedite the
erection process. It is expected that structural steel can be erected and the roof
installed by approximately Thanksgiving, with wall enclosure completed by the end of
December.
FREEL DRIVE PAVING:
Freel Drive paving is underway adjacent to the R3C campus. A significant challenge
with this project is that the flat terrain limits the ability to convey stormwater. The
approach being used to address this is a combination of piping and percolation. The
stormwater intakes collect water in vaults that have several dozen holes in them. These
are then surrounded by rock, creating chambers where stormwater can percolate into
the soil. The excess stormwater then flows out through pipes to the south.
Paving was completed last week on the southernmost portion of street. The paving will
progress to the north as fall continues and will coordinate closely with work on the R3C
site. The R3C has three driveways, which will allow for continuous access during
construction regardless of which phase of the Freel Drive paving is underway.
R3C COMPLETION STRATEGY:
The City Council has awarded contracts to procure the necessary semi-trucks and
most of the trailers needed for the transfer operations. Delivery is anticipated this
winter. Due to the higher than anticipated cost for the trailers, the City Council approved
the purchase of seven of the ten desired trailers. An RFP is currently out, soliciting
proposals for the purchase of up to three used trailers to round out the fleet.
As the construction project progresses, staff is focusing on completion of the
components that are essential to commence solid waste transfer operations. Other
project components, such as finishes in the office area or commissioning of the
processing equipment, may be timed to complete after the transfer operations have
begun. It is anticipated that transfer operations will be able to begin in May 2027.
Staff has met with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to ensure
permitting and operational requirements are met so the facility can begin transfer of
solid waste once the construction is complete. Additionally, staff has been in close
coordination with the Carroll County Sanitary Landfill as they prepare to receive waste
from the R3C in 2027. Resource Recovery staff will be utilizing the fall Power Plant
outage (currently underway) to tour and collaborate with the Carroll County Landfill,
including performing test runs at the landfill site to ensure staff is familiar with the
operations at the landfill.
PROJECT BUDGET:
The R3C project utilizes 11 separate prime contractors. The original contract total was
$19,619,767. A substantial value engineering process at the time of bid award, plus a
variety of change orders during the construction process result in a revised contract
total of $18,261,657.88 (following the Council’s October 13 meeting). A few of the
change orders to date include modification of the siding on the scale house to match
the transfer station, the addition of an ADA accessible bench, and minor field
modifications to the paving to allow for better thermal expansion and contraction across
larger areas.
There remains a construction contingency of $337,557. While this represents a small
value as compared to the overall construction expense, staff is regularly engaged in
the day-to-day construction activities and is keeping a close eye on the project budget.
Recent project photos are attached.
Images of stormwater intake structures and rock infiltration chambers along Freel
Drive.
Aerial photo of the R3C site looking east, taken the week of September 30, 2026. The paved area at left is the truck and
trailer parking area. At center, where a job trailer is parked, is the future customer convenience area. To the right is the
office area of the building. At the rear is the transfer tunnel. Freel Drive is running diagonally near the bottom of the photo.
Photo courtesy of Kevin Buck.
Aerial photo of the R3C site looking east, taken the week of September 30, 2026. Centered is the office parking lot, with
the office behind. At the rear is the transfer tunnel. Freel Drive is running along the bottom of the photo. Photo courtesy of
Kevin Buck.
Cast-in-place walls for the locker room and elevator shaft. The locker room will serve as a hardened shelter area in the
event of severe weather. Looking east.
Aerial photo of the R3C site looking west, taken the week of September 30, 2026. The transfer tunnel is at the bottom of
the photo. Trucks will enter from the left, be loaded in the center, and will exit up the ramp at right. The office area is at the
back of the photo. In between is the future tipping floor space. Openings at the right will allow commercial haulers to enter
and exit the tipping floor. Freel Drive is along the top of the photo. Photo courtesy of Kevin Buck.
Transfer tunnel wall being backfilled. This area will be paved with concrete containing quartz aggregate to improve abrasion
resistance. Looking south-east.
Aerial photo of the R3C site, taken the week of September 30, 2026. An overhead view of the transfer tunnel. Photo
courtesy of Kevin Buck.
Looking south through the transfer tunnel.
Aerial photo of the R3C site, taken the week of September 30, 2026. At left is a City vehicle entrance driveway. At center
is the office area. Equipment and roll-off box pits are to the left of the future tipping floor. The primary shredder will be
situated in one pit; the others will contain boxes to collect ferrous and non-ferrous metals that are removed from the solid
waste. The customer convenience area is art right, near the detention basin. To its right is the Z-wall, where self-hauled
solid waste will be dumped into large rolloffs located below. Freel Drive is along the top of the photo. Photo courtesy of
Kevin Buck.
Structural steel for the pre-engineered metal building. Building erection begins this month.
Aerial photo of the R3C site looking north-east, taken the week of September 30, 2026. Freel Drive is running diagonally
along the left side of the photo. Photo courtesy of Kevin Buck.
Department of Planning & Housing
Memo
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Moore, Planner
DATE: October 13, 2026
SUBJECT: Kwik Star request to initiate Zoning Text changes to signage regulations in
the design standards of “CGS” Convenience General Service Zone
City Council recently forwarded the request from Kwik Star to modify the sign regulations in the
“CGS” Convenience General Service Zone design standards. In the attached letter, Kwik Star
requested two text amendments, one for extension of special use permits and one for
sign changes. This memorandum addresses the second part of the request. A separate
memorandum is included in this packet regarding the request for the other text amendment in
the attached letter dealing with the timelapse period for a Special use Permit.
The request specifically asks for a modification of the sign standards in Section
29.810(12) to generally allow for:
To allow one additional wall sign,
To allow one additional monument sign,
To allow for additional sign area for incidental signs,
To allow to an electronic message sign as part of a monument sign
Kwik Star requests specific modifications to the following standards:
Wall Signs- The current code states a limit of a wall sign area for each building, including 16
square feet for a sign and up to 70 square feet for a sign facing an arterial street. The request
specifically asks for the number of allowed walls signs on a building to be increased from the
current two (2) signs per tenant space to three (3) wall signs. Kwik Star asks for the cumulative
total of 86 feet to then be divided by 3 signs.
The maximum number of wall signs is to control the appearance of building/wall signage to avoid
buildings displaying large excessive amounts of signage in residential areas and to avoid the
appearance of a large scale commercial area. In the case of fuel canopy’s, signage on the side
of a fuel canopy would be categorized as a wall sign as a canopy is classified as a structure.
Kwik Star believes the three street frontages are unique and warrant an addition sign . Staff
believes signs on the canopies versus the buildings is not desirable, but could be
allowable on a principal building.
Number of monument signs per lot- The request asks for an increase in the number of allowed
monument signs per lot from the current one sign per lot to allow two signs per lot for sites with
frontage on two or more arterial or major collector streets.
The current standards aims to control the number of monument signs to one sign per site to
avoid the appearance of multiple monument signs on a single site with multiple sign faces that
could face or appear in or near a residential neighborhood and replicate the appearance of larger
scale commercial areas.
This change would apply to other corner sites in the CGS located along Stange Road. It would
permit three properties to have an additional monument sign.
Kwik Star asks that if two monument signs are allowed, that one would be the arterial
standard allowance of 12 feet in height and 64 square feet. The second monument would
be the standard size of 8 feet in height and 32 square feet.
Cumulative Area of Incidental Signs- Unique to CGS there is a separate category of incidental
signs compared to wall and monument signs. Incidental signs are non-illuminated. The current
standards restrict to a total cumulative area of 32 square feet of incidental signage per building
for wall signs and eight (8) Square feet for ground signs. Kwik Star is requesting the cumulative
area of all incidental ground signs not exceed 30 square feet so as to accommodate adequate
numbers of ‘No Parking’ signs and other directional signs.
The restriction on cumulative area of incidental signs is meant to control the number of scattered
small signs such as parking and directional signage on a site to avoid the appearance of multiple
scattered smaller signs causing a greater commercialized appearance in a residential
neighborhood.
Typically these signs are not accounted for separately, staff has no concerns about these
types of incidental and directional signage since they are nonilluminated.
Electronic Message Signs - Kwik Star is requesting that the standards governing Electronic
Message Signs in CGS be modified.
Currently, “Computerized Digital Scrolling signs” are permitted if the lot on which it is located
abuts an arterial street and the digital scrolling sign faces the arterial street. However, this
description also conflicts with the sign lighting standards that prohibit internal illumination and
requires a dark background. Staff believes the scrolling types of digital signs are meant to be
traditional “letter only” style signs that display only letters or numbers that were common in the
early 2000’s, i.e. “time and temp signs”.
Kwik Star requests to allow for contemporary electronic signs for digital display of
wording and images in a modern format. Kwik Star has this type of sign in place at their other
locations for comparison.
The request specifically proposes to allow Electronic Message Center (EMC) Signs and for the
brightness to be allowed at 8,000 nits during the day and 320 nits at night. Nits are a unit of
measurement for light output on electronic message boards. The higher the nits the more intense
the light output, especially in concentrated spaces. Digital Lighting elements present a major
sensitivity issue in areas that are intended to be residential and can often be incompatible with
residential neighborhoods. This request is the most sensitive of the requested changes.
CGS intends for no internally lit signs, but has confusing language compared to modern sign
terms. Electronic Message Signs are allowed in other zoning districts and only controlled by the
Sign Code for message display time without lighting or brightness controls. Staff recently
highlighted this same issue in regards to the HOPE Church request for signs in residential areas.
Staff has concerns that an entire monument sign could be an EMC. The level of
brightness proposed is at the upper end of an allowance that may not be compatible in
some settings with residential from staff’s limited experience with the issue.
Options
Option 1-Initiate changes to CGS zoning standards (Kwik Star request). This would allow Kwik
Star to apply for text amendment as requested. Staff would draft amendments addressing the
application and proceed to P&Z for review and then Council. This project process would likely
occur over the next 2-3 months.
Option 2- Initiate a limited number of changes to the CGS standards with the exception of
allowing for an electronic message sign. Kwik Star would apply for text amendment and the
staff then would draft changes and remove any reference to scrolling signs.
Option 3 -Take No Action. This option would elect to keep the existing standards as they are
and not proceed with any action to amend the CGS sign standards.
Option 4 – Take No Action, but direct staff to address the electronic message sign standards
and eliminate the scrolling sign allowance in CGS, regardless of the requests by Kwik Star.
Sta Comments
Staff believes that some of the requests for changes to the Sign standards in CGS can be found
to be reasonable, while others are not consistent with the original intent of the standards. The
CGS zone and associated design standards were developed to create compatibility within or
very near residential areas in a neighborhood setting.
This item should be placed on a future agenda for future discussion if there is any interest
in proceeding with any, or all, of the requests. If the project is initiated as a text
amendment, staff would require 2-3 months to address the changes and fit it into current
workloads.
Council Request Letter