urbanMSP

As near as I can tell, when it was voted down, that was technically a committee meeting (even though it was a committee of all the council members), and when it went to the actual council meeting (which would be expected to just rubber stamp the previous decision) they instead granted an extension.

Extended. A. Gain.

http://current.mnsun.com/2015/03/7200-f ... extension/

Here's the explanation on the parliamentary technicality:

If the city council is to reconsider the 7200 France proposal, one of the two councilmembers who voted against the comprehensive plan amendments would have to reconsider and bring the vote back to the table. Staunton and Councilmember Bob Stewart voted against the amendments.

In the previous meeting, I believe they only voted on the Comp Plan Amendment. One that motion failed, they tabled the decision on the CUP and other land use approvals. Either of the two Councilmembers who voted against the Comp Plan amendment can make a motion to reconsider. It sounds like Staunton is the moving part here. He's getting a study of the west side of France like he wanted, and I think he'll move to support the project once that study is complete (though I could definitely see further downsizing, like a slight reduction in retail space or unit count)

Letter writer complaining about the process.

http://current.mnsun.com/2015/04/letter ... gone-awry/

I agree there has been some strange extensions. But I disagree that single family homeowners in the corridor should get to extend their fear of density onto one of the region's most important connecting corridors and concentrations of jobs and retail.

From the letter, this is an interesting perception:

"It is a rebuff of not only established code and guiding plans, but of an entire large neighborhood's desires to keep the single- family homes as the key to this whole area."

I don't need to tell anyone here that the property tax generation by single-family homes (even nice, expensive single-family homes) is negligible compared to other area uses, like multi-family housing, offices, retail.

But even if we're to just talk numbers of people, and not money, they don't have much of a case. Looking at the census tracts in the Southdale District (which I defined broadly as Crosstown-Xerxes-494-100), only 29% of the residents live in single family homes -- 3,291 people of 11,209. Of course, that's skewed by the census tracts near the Richfield border that are high-rise senior housing. But it's actually even less in the census tract where this developer wants to build: 23%. (West of France, south of 72nd. Most of the multi-family here is the older apartment buildings on Parklawn.)

So it's a bit absurd that this homeowner acts as though the great single-family majority of the Southdale District is being pushed aside for some bobo urbanist dream. Rather, it seems the single-family homeowners are greatly overrepresented in setting policy for the area's future.

Withdrawn with intent to resubmit.

https://twitter.com/edinacityman/status ... 9036006400

Interesting tweet. If those that opposed redevelopment thought they were going to win, they just got a case of reality check. Something will get build there, now it will probably be pitifully ugly and it will need no variances that can be brought up and they will have to live with an eyesore forever!! As they say," No good deed goes unpunished". Can't wait to see what the next proposal is!! CLIFFHANGER!!

After threatening to develop a medical office when the mixed use proposal wasn't accepted, (traffic, runoff) the site was sold to an Atlanta developer.
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... ml?ana=twt

Looks like the Atlanta developer has come back with a six story residential apartment building for this site. The western portion will be left unbuilt on, and underground storm water storage tanks will be installed under the western part of the parcel.

Looks uglier that the previous proposal to me.

7200 France dawing by Eric Anondson, on Flickr

7200 France overhead by Eric Anondson, on Flickr

I guess it's definitely safer by backing off from the homes.

A double-loaded Texas Doughnut, without the parking, coming right up.

Is that a bad thing? This doesn't strike me as bad, all things considered. Meh, but not OMGWTFBBQ

What's the unit count on this beast?

241 units, 10% affordable, 69 units/acre, FAR 1.58.

All traffic access off 72nd. 385 parking spaces.

They are also asking for TIF to pay for the oversized storm water storage.

Best I can tell, before the previous proposal ultimately met its fate, it had been scaled back from 195 units (6 floors) to 160 units (5 floors).

Let's just say I'm skeptical that this even larger proposal is going to make it through unscathed, regardless of distance from existing residents. I predict a downsizing to 5 floors and fewer units, shortly following their first "sketch plan review" with the City Council.

Yep, and also to remove the 10% affordable threshold, because poor people scare Edina.

It certainly lacks the street-level vibrance of the previous proposal. But it's not terrible. Per twincitizen's concerns, I do think the fact that this is only residential and less regional of an attraction will make it more acceptable to the neighborhood.

After threatening to develop a medical office when the mixed use proposal wasn't accepted, (traffic, runoff) the site was sold to an Atlanta developer.
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... ml?ana=twt

Following the sketch plan meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council, the Atlanta developer declined to pursue the site. Bosclair/NHH, who floated the original development proposal, have retained ownership of the site and will lease it out as office space for the time being. No word yet if they plan to put together another proposal.

In unrelated news, Bosclair bought the 44-unit Edina Seasons apartment building (6455 York) and will make some upgrades to the property, bringing the unit finishes and common areas more in line with the massive DLC proposal to the south.

http://finance-commerce.com/2016/11/pri ... in-1-year/ (locked, probably)