Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staff Findings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff finds property potentially eligible but recommends demolition due to economic infeasibility
Summary
City staff concluded the 122 Franklin Avenue West building retains historic significance under local criteria but recommended approval of demolition because staff considered rehabilitation economically unviable based on applicant-provided estimates.
Get email alerts on the Staff Findings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erin Kaye, senior city planner with the City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development, presented the staff analysis for the demolition-of-potential-historic-resource application for 122 Franklin Avenue West.
Kaye summarized the three statutory findings for demolition: (1) demolition necessary to correct a structurally unsafe condition based on a licensed-engineer report; (2) the property lacks criteria of significance or historic integrity; and (3) rehabilitation is not economically viable. Staff reported that finding 1 was not met because the applicant did not provide a licensed engineer's structural report. On criterion 2, staff noted the property had been surveyed in 2013 and was recommended potentially eligible for local designation; staff concluded the property retains integrity and has significance under criterion 1 (as a centralized center for Protestant organizations) and criterion 4 (an example of mid‑century modern office architecture).
On finding 3, staff concluded rehabilitation was not economically viable based on the applicant's cost estimates, which included a 2003 facility assessment identifying deferred maintenance and applicant-provided estimates that converting the building plus building on the lot would cost roughly $37.65 million, leaving an estimated tax-credit gap of about $4.3 million. Staff recommended that the HPC adopt staff findings and approve demolition.
Kaye also noted that if demolition were denied the designation-study process would be triggered. Several commissioners asked questions about the absence of a structural report and economic assumptions; staff answered the procedural question and pointed commissioners to the cost breakdowns in the staff report.

