Under the alternative outlined by city staff, developer New Year Investments would transfer a wooded property known as the Midthun parcel to the city. In return, the city would hand over a public parking lot west of the parcel to the developer, which could then build on the lot instead.

Anjie Harris-Ostrem, president of the Friends of Quarry Hill Conservancy, said her group does not see the arrangement as the compromise the city describes.

“We understand that the city feels that this alternate concept is a compromise. We do not feel that way,” she said. “This concept of building here still butts up against this conservancy.”

Planning Director Abby Attoun stressed in a written statement that the existing conservancy is not part of any development proposal.

“No part of the City’s Quarry Hill Conservancy has ever been considered for development under any of the proposals. That land is protected as conservancy under all options being considered,” Attoun said. “Under the proposed land exchange, the City would be able to expand the Quarry Hill Conservancy.”

Attoun said the exchange would keep housing off the Midthun parcel.

The alternative emerged after New Year Investments proposed roughly 70 apartments in 2024 on the former Vern’s Auto Body site and two neighboring parcels. The Plan Commission endorsed the concept and recommended rezoning two properties, but the Common Council rejected a requested change to the city’s future land-use map.

According to a city staff memo, residents at a public hearing raised concerns about tree loss, construction impacts, traffic and the building’s scale.

Anne Neujahr Morrison, a principal with New Year Investments, said neighbor feedback helped shape the alternative.

“This idea of this alternate or land swap is something that was really suggested by neighbors in many of the public hearings,” she said.

The staff memo says the alternative was revisited in conversations with the developer, and staff recommends exploring it as a way to support downtown redevelopment while addressing some resident concerns.

Harris-Ostrem said she struggles to picture the original 70-unit proposal at the location.

“Conceptually, we find it difficult to imagine a 70-unit apartment building going in here,” she said.

Neujahr Morrison pointed to a similar building across the street when asked whether a development would fit the neighborhood.

“Hard to say something doesn’t fit when there’s something literally across the street that is similar to what would be proposed here,” she said. “That said, we’re always looking for ways to kind of soften the edges of some of these developments and make sure that they are welcomed into the neighborhood.”

She also noted the former auto body site’s history of commercial and industrial use and said she sees a chance to revitalize the area. Residents have expressed interest in a walkable downtown, local retail, housing options and access to green space, she said.

The city says the parking lot is already zoned to allow multifamily housing of up to five stories. Attoun emphasized that no new building design exists and that the height, number of apartments and construction impacts of an alternative development have not been determined.

Residents previously raised concerns about potential excavation and blasting.

“There is no building design. None of these items can be evaluated at this concept level stage of the process,” Attoun said.

“If the Council supports the land exchange, we would work with the applicant on a building design that would comply with State and City Code requirements,” she added.

The staff outline recommends requiring the developer to provide at least 17 dedicated public parking spaces for at least 30 years, with final terms set in an agreement. It also recommends ground-floor commercial space and compliance with downtown zoning requirements.

In her statement ahead of the Nov. 10 meeting, Attoun stressed that the land swap is a first draft from city staff, not an approved agreement.

“First I want to be sure that it’s clear that no City Committees have taken any action on this proposal. This is a first draft from staff, but these decisions will ultimately be made by the Common Council (with input from the Plan Commission and perhaps other City Committees as well),” she said.

The Plan Commission was scheduled to discuss the concept on Nov. 10. Attoun said that if commissioners support it, the Common Council could review it as early as Nov. 17. A formal agreement would require future council review, and residents may speak during public comment at council meetings.