Settlement Negotiations Started

At the end of last nights council meeting a noteworthy action was taken in relation to the direction of growth in Ames.

In the matter of Story County Land LC v. City of Ames, I moved and voted for a motion to direct city staff to engage in negotiations that may lead to a settlement.

For as long as I have been following Ames local government, which is about 20 years, developers have expressed interest in northerly growth and growth adjacent to Ada Hayden. For that time period the city has also maintained a policy of targeted growth to the south/southwest and west/northwest. This policy was based on sound economic reasoning that, by targeting growth in particular areas, the city's infrastructure investments would be most efficiently used, thus saving the city and tax payers' money. The main infrastructure components are roads, sewer, and public safety costs.

State law gives cities significant control over the subdivision of land within two miles of the city limits. For example, the city could prevent the division of an 80 acre parcel into 40 lots, two acres in size, within two miles of the city limits. This law is the main tool the city has used to manage development within two miles of the city.

Over the past year or so developers again made the case for annexing the northern area, specifically annexing areas adjacent to Ada Hayden on the west. I have long been concerned about the cost of development to the city of Ames in this area and the environmental impact to Ada Hayden. I and the council rejected the proposal to change the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) to allow development adjacent to Ada Hayden (in a 3 to 3 vote). It was asserted that development around Ada Hayden would be environmentally better for Ada Hayden than the current land use of farming. I am very skeptical of this assertion. I do believe, in the case of Ada Hayden, that the style of development called “conservation development” is better for the environment than tradition subdivision development. However, I believe no development around Ada Hayden to be better for the environment. After the rejection of the LUPP change, Story County Land LC requested the city allow development of the project in the county (but still within 2 miles of the city). The city council rejected the request (in a 6 to 0 vote). Story County Land LC then sued the city because of that rejection.

It is my understanding that Story County Land LC recently indicated to the county that they intend to develop the land they own west of Ada Hayden as a "Horizontal Property Regime". This is a novel approach. In short, this means the developer's plan is to declare the development (i.e. several hundred acres of land) a condominium and that every home in that development would be a unit of that condominium. This form of development would not require the subdivision of land to make residential lots. Without subdivision of land, city approvals are not needed. This way the development of the land west of Ada Hayden could go forward without city approval for subdivision. The developer is still at risk proceeding in this fashion. There are still several steps needed for approval by the county and approvals from the DNR for sewage treatment, etc. Marketing what looks like a lot with a home on it as a condo unit has never occurred in Ames, so it is an open question if these condo units can be sold.

However, given the increased likelihood that the land west of Ada Hayden could be developed outside of city control, I moved to have city staff engage in negotiations for a possible settlement. These talks may lead to annexation and development of the land in question. I hope this situation can be settled for the benefit of the people of Ames. The concerns I have about annexation continue to be the cost to the city and the environmental impact on Ada Hayden. If these issues cannot be adequately addressed in a settlement agreement, I would not support settlement and would expect the suit to continue. I continue to hope for the best.

Jim Popken

Ames City Council at Large