Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to study 3rd Street North options after parks board and residents raise concerns
Summary
City staff presented options for a 1.07-acre city-owned parcel on 3rd Street North, including park improvements estimated at about $1 million and potential use as a site for student-built housing; the council directed more study and asked staff to engage the Parks & Recreation board before pursuing rezoning.
City staff asked the North St. Paul City Council for direction on the future use of a 1.07-acre parcel on 3rd Street North, presenting concept plans and a study that showed options ranging from nature-focused park amenities to residential uses that could host future student-built homes.
Ken Roberts, the city’s community development director, said the parcel has roughly 429 feet of frontage and is fairly heavily treed, noting an HGA feasibility report from February 2024 that estimated total construction costs for the park concept at about $1,000,000 in 2024 dollars. Roberts said the site was not dedicated parkland when the feasibility study was prepared and that a change to residential use would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan and rezoning.
Rachel Lucas, a member of the Parks & Recreation board, told the council she supports the student-built program but that the program should not “supersede public land,” urging the council to preserve land identified for park use and suggesting the council refund Parks & Rec for planning costs if the land were repurposed.
Multiple council members raised safety and feasibility concerns tied to the site’s grades and proximity to industrial zoning. One member noted a prior developer had declined to build on the site because of slope conditions, and others said any new park would have to be ADA-compliant and designed to allow safe access for people with disabilities.
Roberts said staff has identified that a comprehensive-plan amendment would require the support of four council members. Given those technical and procedural constraints and concerns from Parks & Rec, council members asked staff to return with more detailed site analysis, cost estimates and outreach to the Parks & Recreation board rather than move immediately toward rezoning or a formal land-use decision.
The council did not take formal action to rezone or sell the property; instead it directed staff to pursue a workshop and bring the issue back for further discussion after Parks & Rec input.
