Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

[FISHMANPET]

The developer stated that it would cost more to rehab the building than it would be worth after renovations. He also claims to be an expert in rehabs, and while I have no reason to believe he doesn't know what he's talking about, I also see that he has a pretty strong incentive to convince people that it can't be rehabbed.

But I don't see anyone coming out and saying "yeah this can be done" other than the DIY network lady but I don't think she's going to know anything about the economics of the situation.

[David Greene]

As I recall, the developer was speaking about doing a complete historic restoration of the interior. It's not *that* expensive to rehab the interior of a house if you don't care about restoration. You can use off-the-shelf materials, for example.

[RailBaronYarr]

I can tell you an extra story isn't going to fly. The neighbors were up in arms about the height of the original proposal.

I think an extra story would be wonderful.

This is too bad considering the parcel is zoned for that height already (no variances required, something residents usually get frustrated with, understandably).

She was a latecomer and frankly, I'm pretty offended that she's garnered so much attention. She doesn't live anywhere near this house. We have plenty of home-grown preservationists who did the actual legwork.

Not diminishing any of the work done by local residents (even if I don't really agree with the premise given the number of Healy homes and the style of this home being transitional not exemplary of one or another). However, her celebrity status certainly kicked in a huge wave of local and out of state supporters of preservation. Christensen had been beating a drum for a long time with the CPED not making a recommendation in that view's favor. I'm not saying Nicole was a silver bullet or the hardest worker, but her presence and her followers probably helped tip the decision.

But I want to stress again that I don't think NIMBYism was at play here. Residents have said repeatedly they're happy to take density along the major corridors that surround the neighborhood. What they object to is more teardowns and apartments in the interior and I basically agree with that given the history of the neighborhood.

Without calling these people NIMBYs or denigrating them (not what I'm after here, just an ideological difference), I think by definition of the term NIMBY that is what they're doing. Residents are ok with density/height/etc in the Wedge and Minneapolis. Just not literally in their front or back yards. It's ok to tear down whatever is on Hennepin or Lyndale nodes/corridors, just as long as it doesn't remove a particular structure style and/or age they find to be upkeeping their vision of what gives the neighborhood character. And those structures happen to be in their front/back/side yards.

This is why I'm not sure the transect portion of form-based codes does much to allow market-responding development. Say you implement the form-based code, but the T4 is used in the middle of the Wedge, while Lyn/Lake and Hennepin get a T5-T6. Well, unless the transect is reviewed extremely often to look at developer activity, market prices/demand, etc, residents can invoke the transect zone as a reason to limit development because a larger structure (even if the form was acceptable) does not comply with the parcel's design. Again, just my take, I apologize in advance if any wording comes across harshly, I don't mean it that way.

[David Greene]

Without calling these people NIMBYs or denigrating them (not what I'm after here, just an ideological difference), I think by definition of the term NIMBY that is what they're doing. Residents are ok with density/height/etc in the Wedge and Minneapolis. Just not literally in their front or back yards. It's ok to tear down whatever is on Hennepin or Lyndale nodes/corridors, just as long as it doesn't remove a particular structure style and/or age they find to be upkeeping their vision of what gives the neighborhood character. And those structures happen to be in their front/back/side yards.

Yeah, I definitely see your point here. I think of NIMBY as those who are against development of any kind, no matter how good. I don't get that feeling from my neighbors. As I've said before, I have been quite impressed with the amount of thought and careful consideration I've witnessed at LHENA board meetings.

The Upton development in my mind is completely different. There are already high intensity uses in the area and I didn't think the building would be out of place. With the Colfax development, one could certainly argue that the building would seem a bit out of proportion compared to the house around it.

I guess I've always viewed NIMBY as an irrational opposition to development. In this case, I guess I can see some of the points the neighbors are making.

But yeah, these terms are fuzzy at best. That's why I'm pretty hesitant to use them.

[seanrichardryan]

The interior of this house is very intact. Original windows, dado, beams, doors, fireplaces, leaded glass etc. What changed is the original pocket doors were boxed in and steel doors added into a drywalled opening, retaining all of the woodwork. The kitchen was also taken out and replaced with what I would describe as an array of hotplates. And of course, ugly institutional grey carpeting throughout. The second floor was somewhat gutted and has modern steel doors but it also retains original woodwork and leaded windows.

[FISHMANPET]

I think a lot of opposition takes the form of "I'm in support of X, just not here." And sometimes that's a legitimate concern. But very often it's not. People opposing a development will use any tool they can find to block it, and I can't blame them for that.

I watched an episode of "The Planners" on BBC, and there was a proposal to build a subdivision in a field behind some homes. The neighbors were looking for any excuse to block it, to the point that they went hunting through puddles looking for some endangered lizard, because if it was the habitat for that animal it would block the development. And they came right out and said it, they were doing this to find a reason to block the development.

So there are people like that, and it can be really hard to tell the two apart. I take the term NIMBY to mean OK with development somewhere else, just "Not In My Backyard." In fact that's the Wikipedia definition, so I think it's at least somewhat accepted.

[twincitizen]

I think of NIMBY as those who are against development of any kind, no matter how good. I guess I've always viewed NIMBY as an irrational opposition to development. But yeah, these terms are fuzzy at best. That's why I'm pretty hesitant to use them.

The attitudes/acronyms you are describing is BANANAs: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone, or CAVE mentality: Citizens Against Virtually Everything. Both are definitely a few shades higher than NIMBY. But everyone knows NIMBY, and abuses the crap out of the term to the point where it has lost meaning. Hence why Nick felt compelled to write this Streets.MN piece.

Some of the people opposed to this development probably are NIMBYs. Others just don't want to see another house torn down and thrown in the garbage.

[woofner]

As someone who is obsessed with local zoning history at the expensive of my personal life and emotional health, I have to nitpick a bit with the zoning history provided above. The Wedge was largely zoned R5-6 not as part of any urban renewal project but rather at the time of the comprehensive zoning code revision of 1962. This was the project that brought a "modern" zoning code to Minneapolis, replacing what you might call a "first wave" code that was adopted in the 20s. I haven't been able to locate citywide maps for the first code (there were three maps: one each for height, use, and intensity of use I think) but I'd guess the Wedge had been zoned pretty high because at least a number of the walkups date to that era.

The reason the Wedge, Whittier, CARAG and Lyndale all historically had high-density residential zoning in their neighborhood interiors, and why the City wants to maintain them if possible, is that these neighborhoods are all very convenient to the CBD and the Uptown shopping area. CPED, unlike Public Works, has been consistently supportive of pedestrian transportation and the land use regulation needed to support it. Lowry Hill, incidentally, did and does have some higher-density residential zoning off of commercial corridors (between Lincoln and Franklin to Fremont), although I agree that it would probably have more if not for political/class reasons (as would ECCO and East Isles).

As you can imagine, I agree with CPED that high-density zoning is highly appropriate for the entirety of the Wedge, although I would also agree that the typical historic house in the neighborhood has an aesthetic value that would be worth preserving by means of a historic district.

[mcrow25115]

My name is Michael Crow, I have been a property owner and resident of the wedge for most of the last 45 years I have owned the property at 2320 Colfax ave so since 1991 I purchased it after it had been in a major fire . The damage was so extensive that once we cleared all the debris you could stand in the 2nd floor hallway and see through the 3rd floor all the way up to the exposed roof rafters. The fire and water damage destroyed all 14 7- foot 8-paneldoors, base boards, casings, fire place, hardwood floors and all the old fixture in the 4- upstairs bathrooms. On the 1st floor the water damage dropped ceilings, walls and buckled most of the hardwood floors that had to be removed and patch with plywood and carpeted. Out of the 24 spaces or rooms, halls, baths and living areas in the building there are only 3 rooms that have some of the old appearance but none of them are completely intact the room with the fire place does not have the beamed or grid ceiling because of water damage and was replaced with a flat surface, the foyer is the most intact room in the house but missing all but 4 of the railing balusters, some trim and hardwood floors there are 2- of the large barrel shaped window left 1 in the foyer is mostly intact but the one in front of the house is missing rounded top section. The building was remodeled into a nice rooming house but nothing was done to try and put it back to it’s original state due to cost and current building codes.
The exterior of the building has had many improvement to make it look better, but none for the purpose of increasing the historical value. The slate siding and all damaged wood lap siding was removed and vinyl siding installed. all of the corbels and crown molding around the eves was removed so we could trim the soffit and facia easier the original rounded window on the 2 gable end dormers were removed and replaced with squared windows , the round window on the front was covered to save cost and 41 of the 48 windows were replaced with vinyl replacement window. The picture that they showed at the last appeal and on kare 11 news of the front porch foundation that they said was wonderful,is not the original porch. It was completely wood frame the foundation that is there now was installed sometime in the past when the open porch was enclosed and made in to a 4-season living area. There have been so many other changes room and dormer additions interior layout but not worth wasting your time.
In 2008 I had an agreement to sell the building to alliance housing a part of st. stevens church the only contingence was that they were able to get historical grants to restore the building like they did to the rooming house that they purchased on pilsbury and franklin. After 4-month of architect, contractors and many other inspectors they called me and said that they were unable to get the funding because of the condition of the building and cost of restoration. There is none of the original exterior decor to distinguish it as a healy house
I have been trying to sell the property for over 5- years because of on going medical conditions that in the last 10 years have caused me to have 2-open heart surgeries an aortic artery aneurism repair and a back surgery and was scheduled for another more serious back surgery last month that has up to a year recover time but had to cancel it because of the appeal. I always hear the same thing that nobody wants the problems with running a rooming house and there is not enough of the original building left to restore.
I have communicated with everybody involved about my situation Anders Christensen, Trilby Busch, Kathy kulberg, Meg Tuthill and Nicole Curtis and others an ask them to please look past their ideals and consider the condition of the building and help me, I don’t want to leave a mess for my family if something does happen to me, and the only thing I got was a meeting with one of them that said if I would sell the properties to an investor that they know for less money so they could do something with the buildings that they would prefer or they would fight me to the bitter end.
The last appeal I was unprepared because I have never been in this situation before but I thought going in that there would have to be something significant for them to over turn something that the city inspected and found not to be a historical resource over a decade ago.
You can see pictures of the fire on my face book page

[David Greene]

The interior of this house is very intact. Original windows, dado, beams, doors, fireplaces, leaded glass etc. What changed is the original pocket doors were boxed in and steel doors added into a drywalled opening, retaining all of the woodwork. The kitchen was also taken out and replaced with what I would describe as an array of hotplates. And of course, ugly institutional grey carpeting throughout. The second floor was somewhat gutted and has modern steel doors but it also retains original woodwork and leaded windows.

This is news to me. All reports I've heard, including from the current owner, indicate the second floor burned and there is little left original. I have heard the lower fireplace is intact along with some woodwork.

I wish I had known when the house was open for people to look at. I definitely would have had a peek.

[FISHMANPET]

...

Thanks for this, could you post a link to your Facebook page?

[David Greene]

As someone who is obsessed with local zoning history at the expensive of my personal life and emotional health, I have to nitpick a bit with the zoning history provided above. The Wedge was largely zoned R5-6 not as part of any urban renewal project but rather at the time of the comprehensive zoning code revision of 1962.

Just a nit. I didn't claim it was part of urban renewal, but that it happened around the same time. I simply repeated what I know from various conversations. I haven't researched it extensively.

The reason the Wedge, Whittier, CARAG and Lyndale all historically had high-density residential zoning in their neighborhood interiors, and why the City wants to maintain them if possible, is that these neighborhoods are all very convenient to the CBD and the Uptown shopping area.

Here is where there seems to be a disconnect. I don't see any fundamental conflict between retaining R2/R2B in the interior (however we define "interior") while keeping a higher density zoning (maybe even higher than R6) on the periphery. We have lots of land to develop south of 28th. Some of that is happening now but there is more to be done.

We could tear down some of those three-story walkups and put something with five stories in. Sure, some neighbors would object but I don't really have a problem increasing the density of parcels where houses have already been lost. I wouldn't want to see a 10 story tower, but 5-6 stories seems perfectly reasonable.

I think it is important to preserve a good amount of our housing stock near the CBD and Uptown/LynLake. It is certainly a unique living environment, which is why I bought here. I like the fact that we have a decent mix of houses, duplexes, triplexes, quads, apartments and condos. I think it would be an enormous loss to forego that balance and convert the neighborhood to one type of housing. As it is, those who want apartment living can have that and those who wish to own and fix up a lovely old house can do that too. I think that's absolutely wonderful!

[min-chi-cbus]

mccrow25115: thanks for the in-depth information! I don't understand about half of what you said but I think I got the gist of it, and it sounds like this building is a total money pit and NEEDS to be torn down, and the fact that we have a developer who is willing to not only pay for the demo but also put up something nice in its place is a GIFT, IMO! I hope all is well with you and your health, and also hope that this battle comes to an end soon and in a way that works out well for you and your family. My understanding is that the City of Minneapolis encourages infill development like this and then also takes a large part in blocking said infill from being developed. It's a slow and inefficient process and it MUST turn off property managers and developers alike -- I don't know how you put up with it!!!

[RailBaronYarr]

...
As it is, those who want apartment living can have that and those who wish to own and fix up a lovely old house can do that too. I think that's absolutely wonderful!

This is just a circular discussion between us. But the fact that people want to continue building more apartments is proof that the number of people who want apartment living outpaces the number of apartments available in the area (and/or allowable by code since, as you state, 5-6 stories is totally acceptable but anything higher is not). I don't doubt some of the 60s walk-ups are low enough value to be bought/demolished and constructed on. But I'm guessing the economics of purchasing one of those vs 2-3 lots with houses proves why Lander was proposing this site (and why others will continue). The net present value of an apartment building is higher than 2 SF homes, which is why they pay more in taxes.

I'm not arguing that the leafy streets with SF houses (or ones looking like them rented out) aren't pretty and don't have character. It's ONE type of character. There could easily be rowhouses with basement apartments doubling the density and the neighborhood would have character. Or apartments like Landers quadrupling the density, with character. No one would argue that Paris, San Francisco, etc don't have character and they have different styles of structures than ours. And saying that a mix of structure types so close to the CBD is a positive is only so because we idolize the SF style surrounded by yard. The fact that we'd have to purposely zone an area in the 'core' of the Wedge R2/R2B (or whatever) is proof that we'd be limiting the potential of the space.

Michael, I'd be super interested to see the Facebook page, as others have stated, can you link us there?

[David Greene]

This is just a circular argument. But the fact that people want to continue building more apartments is proof that the number of people who want apartment living outpaces the number of apartments available in the area (and/or allowable by code since, as you state, 5-6 stories is totally acceptable but anything higher is not).

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said I wouldn't want to see tall apartment towers in the interior. I'm perfectly fine with 13, 20, 30 stories on the periphery. Is that so difficult to accept? Wouldn't it meet market demand?

And the demand can't be as high as you've suggested. Otherwise we'd see all of the Bennet property developed, for example.

And saying that a mix of structure types so close to the CBD is a positive is only so because we idolize the SF style surrounded by yard.

That's rather condescending. I don't "idolize" any particular living situation. A SFH near Uptown and transit is what works for me. Shouldn't people have that option? How is this in any way incompatible with growing density? The Wedge has accepted *tons* of density. I'll even accept more if it is placed appropriately.

[RailBaronYarr]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said I wouldn't want to see tall apartment towers in the interior. I'm perfectly fine with 13, 20, 30 stories on the periphery. Is that so difficult to accept? Wouldn't it meet market demand?

And the demand can't be as high as you've suggested. Otherwise we'd see all of the Bennet property developed, for example.

I was being facetious given your comment that the neighbors (not you) wouldn't allow the 5 stories that Lander proposed, 1.5 blocks from Hennepin and in the back yard of a 4 story building. Just because you would be ok with 5 stories in the interior doesn't mean everyone else would be. Most of the walk-ups are 2.5 to 3.5 stories, and I would wager that a 5-6 story replacement would not bode well with at least some neighbors.

I don't know what Bennet property you're referring to, but all I will cit is apartment vacancy rates in Minneapolis at large being extremely low. I would bet that these low aggregate rates are held down by 2 places: Uptown and the U. If there are undeveloped properties (ex Bennet) then I'm sure there would be a market response and the neighborhood should applaud it (and perhaps they are since they correctly realize it means not losing existing structures). But that and allowing other development are not mutually exclusive.

That's rather condescending. I don't "idolize" any particular living situation. A SFH near Uptown and transit is what works for me. Shouldn't people have that option? How is this in any way incompatible with growing density? The Wedge has accepted *tons* of density. I'll even accept more if it is placed appropriately.

I used "we" as in America, I covered that view of mine earlier in this thread. I've never argued that the demand for SFH living 1 mile from the CBD isn't desirable (if I could have a 5,000 sqft mansion with 0.5 acres right next to Loring Park that would be great!). Or that people shouldn't have that option if the market continued to present it as an option. I'm saying we shouldn't purposely regulate it at the expense of aggregate market prices, and even more importantly the environment (I will not stop beating this as my major reason for supporting market-based development: if we have any hope of reducing our climate impact we will NEED to live closer, smaller, walkable lives). The fact that SFH houses are in the neighborhood are not what supports the transit and commercial amenities nearby, it's the higher density stuff. If a 20 story tower was economically feasible on Hennepin, could you imagine what the property values of a SFH 3 blocks in would have to be for a developer to actively choose not to build a 5-6 story building in place of 3 SF houses? That is a problem. And it would only happen if we choose to limit exactly what can go where in the interest of nostalgia and at the expense of aggregate housing prices in our region (bad for our economy) and the environment.

I'm not attacking you or your lifestyle choice or preference for your house, please believe me.

[FISHMANPET]

Not everybody can have a SFH house in that neighborhood, I'd bet the market price of those houses far exceeds what it would cost to build a new house, which means there's way more people that want to live in SFHs there than are able to. Or maybe there's just more people that want to live in that neighborhood period. Every single family home displaces 5-10 or more housing units that could be built in multi-family.

[mcrow25115]

Hopefully this will get you to the pictures. Not a computer wiz https://www.facebook.com/mike.crow.547?ref=tn_tnmn

[FISHMANPET]

Worked for me, thanks!

[mplsjaromir]

What a crock. I hope everyone who opposed this project feels good that they a miring an individual with a huge financial burden so they can gloat about how they have "saved" an unloved building. The elites of this country feel so entitled to tell others how their property should look. My guess is nothing is going to happen here for quite a while. Why haven't the "rescuers" of this building put a bid into Mr. Crow for the property they love so much? All talk no action. Pathetic.