Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Southdale Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves resolution and grants first reading for Southdale redevelopment; developer says project requires TIF
Summary
Council adopted Resolution 2024‑60 and granted first reading to Ordinance 2024‑07 for the Southdale redevelopment after reviewing revisions that reduced promenade access, redesigned the dog run, increased green setbacks and added sustainability measures. The developer told council the project does not work without tax‑increment financing (TIF). Vote: motion carried 4–1.
City staff and the applicant presented revised plans for the Southdale redevelopment on Sept. 17 and the council voted to adopt Resolution 2024‑60 and grant first reading to Ordinance 2024‑07, moving the project forward in the approval sequence.
Community Development Director Teague summarized the review history and explained the applicant had addressed council‑added preliminary conditions by saving additional trees (later revised), increasing EV charging capacity, revising north‑side parking, changing building exteriors and modifying the dog run and promenade connections.
Applicant Patrick Bridal outlined recent design changes: the dog run was moved, lowered and screened with a landscaping wall and a 4‑foot berm; pedestrian connections to the promenade were reduced from seven to three; green separation zones were increased to 12–38 feet and bermed; rooftop solar and increased EV conduit were added; and the southeast building’s stepbacks were revised to reduce massing near the promenade.
Council members pressed the applicant on packet posting of updated plans, dog‑park maintenance and enforcement, trash/dumpster staging and truck access, tree preservation, stormwater treatment and sustainability standards. On several points the applicant said the updated plans had been submitted (resubmitted Sept. 3), that maintenance of a publicly accessible dog run would be managed by the site owner (with the city able to set restrictions for public use), and that on‑site stormwater treatment and storage for 100‑year events would be added.
On financing, councilors asked whether the city recruited the developer and whether tax‑increment financing would be required. The applicant stated the initiative was developer‑initiated and told council plainly that the project would not be feasible without TIF: “For TIF, this project doesn't work...the plan...does not work without TIF,” he said.
Member Pierce moved (seconded by Member Agnew) to adopt the recommended resolution and grant first reading of the ordinance. The motion carried by a recorded voice announcement of a 4–1 result. With first reading complete, the project advances to subsequent steps required by city code.
Next steps include final contract drafting, assessment agreements to secure park dedication and any TIF/finance negotiations and feedback requested from council to staff and applicant.
