Peter Patau
Four redevelopment proposals for Garver Feed Mill have been submitted to the city.
If Madison wants to redevelop the dilapidated Garver Feed Mill near Olbrich Park, it will have to create a new park of an equivalent size somewhere else in the city.
It's the latest hurdle in a redevelopment effort that has dragged on for decades, and could bring more disagreement over what to do -- or not do -- with the building, which was constructed in 1905.
The five-acre parcel that houses the historic mill and the 17-acre area that surrounds it -- known as the North Plat -- are both under a deed restriction from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources that prohibits the land from being used for anything other than park space, says Dan Rolfs, a community development project manager with the city of Madison's Office of Real Estate Services.
"We can't sell the building or enter into a ground lease without DNR permission," he says.
But the city can work around this, by purchasing new parkland that is equal to the size of the proposed Garver development. The new parkland must also include some sort of water feature -- be it stream, river or lake -- to satisfy the provisions of the DNR's urban water grant.
The DNR's recreational grant program dates back to the 1960s, and conversion provisions are included by state statute, says Doug Haag, deputy director of the DNR's Bureau of Facility and Lands. Conversions are fairly common, with the DNR handling 20 to 30 each year -- usually for things like road development, highway expansion and urban development.
"Things change over time," Haag says. "In order to allow urban planning to occur, it's important to let local communities dictate their own urban growth plan."
While somewhat unusual in Madison, it's not unheard of. In 2011, the city sold three historic houses that were located within James Madison Park. To replace this property, the city bought the land for what is now Central Park.
To pay for the new parkland, the city will use impact fees collected from new developments. The money has already been collected and is earmarked for improvements to the city's park system, but the purchase would require a budget amendment since the expenditure was not included in the city's 2015 budget.
The development of the Garver property has been discussed and debated for decades, with people floating a wide variety of ideas for what the city should do.
"[The disagreement] has only gotten worse over time," says Ald. David Ahrens, who has lived near Garver for more than 30 years.
Ahrens says he has heard "every possible opinion" from his constituents about what should be done with Garver -- ranging from demolishing the building and forgetting it ever existed to fully developing the site for housing.
Last month, four companies submitted proposals to rehabilitate the crumbling brick "sugar castle," which was originally built as a processing factory for the U.S. Sugar Beet Co. and later converted into a feed mill.
Submissions include a $19.8 million "artisan food production facility," a $20.5 million "event center," a $39.3 million general housing complex and a $39.8 million senior housing facility.
"I think there are proponents for every one of those proposals," Ahrens says. "I've heard from local people who think that any one of them is a terrific idea."
The city will contribute $1.8 million to whichever plan is chosen. Three of the four plans treat the city's money as a grant; the event center proposal will treat it as a loan that will be paid back over 99 years.
The city's Garver Feed Mill Criteria and Selection committee will meet three more times in the coming months, with the four developers presenting their proposals on Jan. 22. The public will have the opportunity to comment at a third meeting sometime in February, and the committee hopes to make a decision at a fourth meeting in March. Its recommendation will then go to the Common Council for approval.
Meanwhile, Rolfs says the city's parks, planning and real estate divisions are working together to identify options for a new park. It will most likely be within the city of Madison, but it could come as an annexation from a nearby town.
But since a final decision on a developer is still several months away and since each of the four proposals require different amounts of land -- which could fluctuate as developers refine their designs -- the city must wait to see which one is selected before they make any decision on what replacement parkland to purchase.
"The best way to describe it is putting a jet together in midflight," Rolfs says. "If it doesn't work, we're going to crash into the mountains. But it's our job to make it work."
