Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
garfield
Metrodome
Posts: 54
Joined: June 16th, 2012, 8:31 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby garfield » April 23rd, 2014, 9:33 pm

Really, Lander is willing to pay $600,000 for the land, since he is going to tear the house down. Add $350,000 for the property next door. Someone (Nicole) would have to come up with $950,000 for the two buildings. I hope that Mr. Crow would reject any offers that are less than this. They his properties. He made a smart investment many years ago, and with hard work (and probably a little luck) he has held onto these properties as the neighborhood has turned into one of the most desirable in all of Minneapolis. As the property owner, he has a right to sell it for the highest and best offer. Good for him!

degersblogg
Metrodome
Posts: 54
Joined: December 3rd, 2012, 2:08 pm
Location: East Isles, Minneapolis

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby degersblogg » April 23rd, 2014, 9:35 pm

FISHMANPET wrote:I'd rather have too much information than not enough :D

Thanks for joining the conversation Mike, it's really good to hear some of this stuff from the source.

Nicole said she put in an offer on the house last year, and another one yesterday, but Mike says she's made no offers. I'm inclined to believe Mike, if for no other reason than he's been completely open an honest throughout this entire process.
I heard, but maybe Mike can correct me, that Nicole's offer wan't final because she had to get the money from her investors first, and that she personally didn't have enough.

AccordGuy
Metrodome
Posts: 60
Joined: October 5th, 2013, 2:54 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby AccordGuy » April 23rd, 2014, 10:27 pm

This house needs to go. While I feel very passionately about trying to keep as much of our architectural history intact, we can't save absolutely everything. I feel this way because of all the great buildings we have lost in the mindless name of progress. Remember the Metropolitan building ?

Sometimes though, we have to make the tough decision to take a building/house down in order to use the location for a better purpose. This house has lost too much of it's original character to be worth saving, so take it down and build something new, but at least make sure it doesn't overwhelm, and that it fits in.

I agree that Uptown is getting more dense in ways that make it hard for people who have lived there for a long time. I remember the Uptown of the 1980's when a friend of mine worked at the Fannie Farmer candy shop on the corner of Lake and Hennepin where the salon is now. It seemed so quiet compared to now. Even though it's hard to see places like The Uptown Bar go away and get replaced by chains, it is nice to see more people moving into the city and creating a nice dense urban neighborhood.
Born in Minneapolis.

mcrow25115
Block E
Posts: 15
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 9:49 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mcrow25115 » April 23rd, 2014, 10:44 pm

Its not a sfh duplex or triplex or an apartment building but it is closer to an apartment than anything else and the one across the street sold this year for $80,000. a unit 24 of them, a reasonable price is what? That has always been hard to figure on this type of building. its like having an apartment building with maid service where all your utility are paid and you have weekly biweekly and monthly rent collection so the on hands management is almost a full time job, but if you base the value off the rents potential if its full, which it very seldom is, that could be $90,000. a year which the appraiser said as an apartment building would set the value well over $900,000. but with all the utilities paid and other expenses that you don't have with an apartment plus the same ones that you do have, weekly, biweekly and monthly rent collection and weekly does not mean every Saturday its whatever day you moved in, several times the turnover rate and all that involves kitchen and bathroom cleaning and supplies. What is the value, I think the $600,000. that the developer is willing to pay is not over priced and far below the appraised value but its what I can get. If you divide the approx.5700 sq ft of into $400.000 I think it would be theft

mcrow25115
Block E
Posts: 15
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 9:49 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mcrow25115 » April 23rd, 2014, 10:48 pm

Nicole never made any other offer, prior to the appeal in April of 2013 she aid she wanted to but she had to check with her investors, a few day later they won the appeal and she never contacted me again

mcrow25115
Block E
Posts: 15
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 9:49 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mcrow25115 » April 23rd, 2014, 10:55 pm

When I went to school at Jefferson and west high in the sixties it was like a small town.
Bridgeman, tip top café bowl alley where the uptown square is now and no liquor bars except liquor Lyle's

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby David Greene » April 23rd, 2014, 11:00 pm

degersblogg wrote:The section regarding demolition of an historic resource of the heritage preservation chapter of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances says that significance and integrity of the property must be considered as part of the reasonable alternatives. City historic preservation staff and the Z&P found that the integrity of the building is no longer intact and is not eligible for historic designation. That finding was enough for them to grant demolition, and trumps consideration of any offer Curtis may have made as a reasonable alternative.
I'm still trying to get my head around this, so please excuse me.

If the property was declared a historic resource by the city council, how does staff declaring it's not eligible for historic designation change anything? It was already given historic designation, wasn't it?

I'm just trying to understand the rules and process here. Why doesn't the "reasonable alternative" criteria apply? How does the staff determination trump that? The staff made the same determination last year and the council declared it a historic resource anyway.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » April 23rd, 2014, 11:14 pm

Weather we like it or not, the house is designated as a historic resource ("notwithstanding staff recommendation" is the official langue I think, since staff reports recommended not granting status as a historic resource. This decision was upheld by the previous Z&P and City Council.

Now Lander & Co have applied for a permit for demolition of an historic resource, at which point the criteria don't have anything to do with how historic or not historic the property is, but if the house is unsafe (nobody thinks it is) of if there's a "reasonable" alternative to demolition, and the word "reasonable" is where all the hubbub comes in. People that want to save the house say that it is reasonable, Lander says that it isn't.

So I don't think the staff recommendation comes into play at all. Although reading the staff recommendation for the demolition permit, it basically said "we still don't think this is historic so tear it down if you want."

lordmoke
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1385
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 1:39 pm
Location: Nicollet Island

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby lordmoke » April 23rd, 2014, 11:21 pm

It's a historic resource, not a historic landmark. Landmarks are protected, resources just require more thorough approvals. The Star Tribune building is also a historic resource, and that's on its way down now. Resources can be upgraded to landmarks- this one wasn't.

degersblogg
Metrodome
Posts: 54
Joined: December 3rd, 2012, 2:08 pm
Location: East Isles, Minneapolis

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby degersblogg » April 24th, 2014, 6:41 am

David Greene wrote:
degersblogg wrote:The section regarding demolition of an historic resource of the heritage preservation chapter of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances says that significance and integrity of the property must be considered as part of the reasonable alternatives. City historic preservation staff and the Z&P found that the integrity of the building is no longer intact and is not eligible for historic designation. That finding was enough for them to grant demolition, and trumps consideration of any offer Curtis may have made as a reasonable alternative.
I'm still trying to get my head around this, so please excuse me.

If the property was declared a historic resource by the city council, how does staff declaring it's not eligible for historic designation change anything? It was already given historic designation, wasn't it?

I'm just trying to understand the rules and process here. Why doesn't the "reasonable alternative" criteria apply? How does the staff determination trump that? The staff made the same determination last year and the council declared it a historic resource anyway.
Historic resources are not historic landmarks. Historic resources are designed to protect buildings that are potentially historic from getting demolished before a designation study can be done. The planning director determines if properties meet the definition of historic resource. If the planning director determines that a property is not an historic resource, the demo permit is administratively issued. If the planning director determines that the property is an historic resource, they make you go before the HPC. However, anyone can appeal the determination from the planning director that a building is not an historic resource, which is what Anders Christensen did last year. The HPC and City Council, not withstanding staff recommendation, determined that it was an historic resource. When that determination was made, the property was put under interim protection until a designation study could be done. Now it is true that the designation study was never done. However, that fact and who's fault it is is irrelevant to what we're debating now. Mr. Crow is legally allowed to petition to allow demolition while it's still under interim protection.

What was debated last year was simply whether or not the building met the City's definition of an historic resource. Because it was determined to be an historic resource by the HPC and City Council, consequently demolition was blocked. What is being debated now is whether or not the building should be allowed to be demolished even though it is declared an historic resource. Legally it's a separate question. That's why people like CM Goodman who say that nothing has changed since last year except an election are being disingenuous. Legally it's a separate question that they are considering.

The question of demolition of an historic resource could have been considered last year if the planning director made the original determination that the building did meet the definition of historic resource. CPED would have then said "Because this meets the definition of historic resource, you need to prepare an application for demolition of an historic resource to bring before the HPC." However, the planning director determined that it wasn't an historic resource. That decision was appealed, and therefore the debate last year was solely on the question of whether or not it was an historic resource, staff claiming it wasn't.

Now the bar for having a building be considered an historic resource is much lower than that of being declared a historic landmark. That's why quite often CPED will say "well, this meets the definition of historic resource so you have to go before HPC, but we don't think it's eligible for historic designation so we are going to recommend demolition." That's what happened a couple of months ago with Dinkytown. And that's what allows CPED and the City Council to find that the determination that the building is not eligible for historic designation as grounds alone to grant demolition, despite whatever alternatives to demolition are presented. Even if the City Council focused solely on whether alternatives exist, and ignored the question of whether it's eligible for historic designation, and denied demolition because of that, it's still not over. The full designation study would still have to be conducted. And when that designation study comes back saying, again, that the building is not eligible for historic designation, the City has no grounds at that point to deny demolition.

Now I believe the fact that we have historic resources is a problem. The definition is too broad and catches too many buildings that would never be eligible for historic designation. This throws a wrench in the process and allows for politics to take over what is really a quasi-judicial process. At the least, I think the our definition of historic resource needs to be narrowed, so we don't always find ourselves in this situation.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » April 24th, 2014, 6:58 am

At the very least, if we're going to declare buildings historic resources at the drop of a hat, we should be able to do these designation studies in a reasonable fashion, so building owners aren't held in limbo for years.

mcrow25115
Block E
Posts: 15
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 9:49 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mcrow25115 » April 24th, 2014, 9:21 am

One thing I would like to clear up, is that its not David against Goliath, Meg Tuthill, Nicole Curtis and followers being David and Landers being Goliath, the only thing that Landers can do is promote what he wants to build, he is not the owner, I Mike Crow as the owner have to be able to convey the property to them with the demo permit so they can get approval for the building they want to build. Not that they have not tried to help, but their hands are tide. Its Meg Tuthill and a tv celebrity and followers against an owner that has had the property for 23 years with the R-6 zoning and two inspection from the city of MPLS in the last 10 years for historical value and was told because of all the changes does not qualify and the sad thing about it is that it was 8 months into the approval before anything was said about historical value and only after Meg could not stop the apartments from being built any other way, because the developer changed the plan so they did not need any variances. From the beginning I was very surprised with the opposition, I felt that I had done a good job of running a difficult type of rental, but over the years I had been told many times that they wish the rooming house was not there and had heard this block of Colfax referred to as rooming house row. I have sever personal reason for selling, an at this point if they want the property all they have to do is match the price, the $400,000. that was offered by Nicole Curtis is less than $80. a square ft there is nothing in this neighborhood in any condition that you could buy for that price and the $600,000. I did except is not a premium price. Thank you

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6206
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby twincitizen » April 24th, 2014, 10:16 am


User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » April 24th, 2014, 10:26 am

It's nice to hear from an outside perspective that this whole vigil thing is exactly as stupid as it looks to me. Helps let me know that I haven't fallen too far into an echo chamber, like they seem to have.

lordmoke
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1385
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 1:39 pm
Location: Nicollet Island

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby lordmoke » April 24th, 2014, 10:36 am

Yeah, I guess the thing that probably bothers me the most about all of this is that these people have the time, resources, and will to organize these demonstrations, and they're using their energy on a house. A HOUSE.

Police accountability? Income inequality? Government corruption? Fixing the education gap? Nope, this is more important.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » April 24th, 2014, 10:38 am

It's the worst kind of... whatever it is that isn't the word NIMBYism. It's the equivalent of closing the door and locking it behind you. "We're here, but anybody else here would be bad."

Nicole's also said some pretty offensive stuff about renters, calling them transients etc etc. It makes me want to start a letter writing campaign to HGTV/DIY to get her taken off the air.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mattaudio » April 24th, 2014, 10:40 am

I was also trying to figure out where she'll cross the fine line between getting ratings and popularity versus creating a liability that cuts her little empire down. I don't wish that upon her. If only she'd stick to renovating houses she owns.
Last edited by mattaudio on April 24th, 2014, 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TommyT
Target Field
Posts: 572
Joined: August 13th, 2013, 9:21 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby TommyT » April 24th, 2014, 10:43 am

It's almost like, "leave Minneapolis alone and concentrate on your hometown... DETROIT. That place actually needs your work!"

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mattaudio » April 24th, 2014, 10:48 am

Meh, I don't mind that much... if she's renovating our housing stock and meanwhile letting viewers know how awesome our city is (I don't have cable, but I assume that happens) then it's fine by me. It's like me thinking Boston is cooler because they have This Old House (TOH: no offense intended in the comparison). But I'm surprised none of this has backfired from her network or producers. Granted, it seems like she builds a lot of loyalty that way, but she also doesn't control how public perception could turn out for her involvement in these larger issues.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » April 24th, 2014, 11:00 am

I'll admit, I've watched like one episode of her show, and wasn't paying a whole bunch of attention either. She had her drive a couple doors from her storage unit in Detroit. From Detroit. For a couple of doors. I don't remember if this house had any particular history or character (though I think it had been used as a rooming house, as there holes from tons of locks on all the doors) but I didn't find the renovation particularly impressive. She certainly made it a liveable house, but if this house had any grandeur, she didn't really restore that. Maybe she'd do better with a house that was grander to begin with (and maybe she actually has, I don't know), but the theme seamed to be that she was cheaping out on the renovation (not in a bad way, just a "look how much you can do without a ton of money" sort of way).


Return to “Minneapolis - South, Southwest, and Uptown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests