Although a couple offered to pay for the privilege of jumping ahead in line to develop their property, the Brooklyn Park City Council on Nov. 24 voted 5-2 to deny approval of their concept plan.

The decision frustrated Don and Beverly Goerisch, who have long sought to develop their land and said city officials are preventing them from profiting from it. Their land, located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Highways 169 and 610 is located in planning phase 5, the last of five zones the city has scheduled for staged development.

Councilwoman Jeanette Meyer said she was "very torn on this. ... I understand [their] frustration." But the council, she said, must make decisions in "best interest of the entire city," not "just to benefit one individual."

By submitting a concept plan, the Goerischs were seeking approval to develop their land earlier than city planning allows.

"I just feel like we've been flat out cheated all along by every one of ya," said Beverly Goerisch, who reminded the council she's lived on the property for 52 years.

"This is valuable land, no one's kidding anybody," she said.

She told the council she remembers when the state "bought my dad's apple tree," which was located in a planned right-of-way for a road.

Another planned roadway amenity - an interchange at highways 169 and 610 - is likely behind the council's decision to deny the concept plan, the Goerischs believe. They said the council is postponing development near the intersection because MnDOT has plans to build an interchange there.

The Goerischs have long sought to develop their land.

"But the answer is always 'No, that's where our interchange is going," Beverly Goerisch said.

"You've been drawing that interchange through our living room for 20 years," Don Goerisch said. "Can any of you say you're going to build it in 20 years, 30 years, 40 years? ... It doesn't look like you're going to build it."

After no council members responded, Goerisch asked, "Cat got your tongues?"

Councilman Mark Mata - who along with Councilman Terry Gearin - voted against denying Goerisch's concept plan, said later in the meeting that, "In my heart, it has nothing to do with an interchange - that was never pushed to me." He acknowledged, however, that "I can't sit here and tell you that I don't remember a discussion about that intersection."

A 169/610 interchange of a "signature nature" is mentioned in the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval.

"The city is anticipating a senior housing component to any development on this corner," the comp plan says, but "development in area is dependant upon roadway and utility improvements not likely to occur until after 2010, therefore the city does not expect development to occur as early as suggested by the Metropolitan Council."

Councilman Jeff Lunde reminded Goerisch that MnDOT builds interchanges, not the city, and Mata noted that an interchange "can be done ... without [Goerisch's] property."

For city officials, the stakes are high for shepherding development along Highway 610.

Construction of the 610 corridor through the city is expected to produce new jobs and "millions of dollars in new investments, which will contribute millions of dollars to the local economies in the northern Twin Cities suburbs," according to the city's comp plan. The city is "in an enviable position to take advantage of the growth" 610 could generate.

"The City has over 200 acres of prime land ready for development adjacent to the Trunk Highway 610 corridor," the comp plan says.

Alan Kretman of Pro-Terra Design Associates briefed the council on the concept plan for a "high end," "upscale" development to be named Elm Creek Business Park. It would feature underground parking and "a very nice restaurant," he said.

He is not proposing an "Arbor Lakes-type development with a Lowes, a Dollar Store and an Arbys," Goerisch said.

The Goerischs do not have a specific tenant lined up. They need concept-plan approval, Kretman explained, to "move forward" with the ability to market to potential tenants "that the city of Brooklyn Park would be proud to have."

Said Goerisch:

"We're trying to put Brooklyn Park on the map for something other than crime. ..." Don Goerisch said. "Target's not done anything. MnDOT's not going to do anything ... and you're following in their footsteps."

Target owns much land in planning zone 3.

Brooklyn Park Planning Director Cindy Sherman reminded the council that more than 400 acres with sewer and water are already available to developers in the current development zone.

"Skipping forward," she said, "is not advisable. ... Other landowners have been waiting patiently too."

Although the Goerischs are willing to pay for sewer and water infrastructure - in exchange for future assessment credits - Sherman questioned the "fairness for people that have been waiting, but maybe don't have the means to foot the bill."

Approving a concept plan, Sherman said, sends a message that the city is willing to consider "going out of order."

Kretman said a water line is accessible about 1,700 feet to the west and that it makes sense to allow a developer to pay up front for infrastructure the city can use.

"We're not really stepping too far out of that pattern. ..." he said. "We need new blood coming into the city trying to do development."

Mata agreed:

"Just because someone cast [the staged development plan] on paper doesn't mean its set in stone. It can be changed."

If Medtronic wanted to build in zone 5, "would we bite?" He asked. "I think we would."

Target too would likely be allowed to develop out of order, were it ready, several city officials noted. But "with Target, we know what we're getting," Sherman said.

But Target "is not prepared to develop" now, Mata said, and might never be. "Maybe we need smaller developments ... to pick up the slack," he said.

"I applaud your efforts," Mata told the Goerischs. "When others are saying 'I'm a little bit scared to do anything,' someone has to come forward. ... So thank you very much."

Councilman Mike Trepanier, who made the motion to deny the concept plan, said, "It does sound nice," but "it is in conflict with our comp plan - it's out of phase. I'm concerned not everything will fit."

Said Councilman Rich Gates:

"I'm not in favor of this at all. ..." he said. "The buildings should be facing 169 in a way that says 'Hey, here I am ... if its going to be a signature piece."

Councilman Terry Gearin said "I'm not ready to vote for development, but I'm not ready to vote for denial. ...

"I would love for you to put a multi-million dollar property there and tell the DNR 'To hell with you - go around me," Gearin said. "I buy your argument."

Despite voting against the concept plan, Mayor Steve Lampi said city officials must study "if we're preventing landowners from getting their full market value of their property." .... Lately development has been a little hard to come by."

Councilman Mark Mata - who along with Councilman Terry Gearin - voted against denying Goerisch's concept plan, said later in the meeting that, "In my heart, it has nothing to do with an interchange - that was never pushed to me." He acknowledged, however, that "I can't sit here and tell you that I don't remember a discussion about that intersection."

A 169/610 interchange of a "signature nature" is mentioned in the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval.

"The city is anticipating a senior housing component to any development on this corner," the comp plan says, but "development in area is dependant upon roadway and utility improvements not likely to occur until after 2010, therefore the city does not expect development to occur as early as suggested by the Metropolitan Council."

Councilman Jeff Lunde reminded Goerisch that MnDOT builds interchanges, not the city, and Mata noted that an interchange "can be done ... without [Goerisch's] property."

For city officials, the stakes are high for shepherding development along Highway 610.

Construction of the 610 corridor through the city is expected to produce new jobs and "millions of dollars in new investments, which will contribute millions of dollars to the local economies in the northern Twin Cities suburbs," according to the city's comp plan. The city is "in an enviable position to take advantage of the growth" 610 could generate.

"The City has over 200 acres of prime land ready for development adjacent to the Trunk Highway 610 corridor," the comp plan says.

Alan Kretman of Pro-Terra Design Associates briefed the council on the concept plan for a "high end," "upscale" development to be named Elm Creek Business Park. It would feature underground parking and "a very nice restaurant," he said.

He is not proposing an "Arbor Lakes-type development with a Lowes, a Dollar Store and an Arbys," Goerisch said.

The Goerischs do not have a specific tenant lined up. They need concept-plan approval, Kretman explained, to "move forward" with the ability to market to potential tenants "that the city of Brooklyn Park would be proud to have."

Said Goerisch:

"We're trying to put Brooklyn Park on the map for something other than crime. ..." Don Goerisch said. "Target's not done anything. MnDOT's not going to do anything ... and you're following in their footsteps."

Target owns much land in planning zone 3.

Brooklyn Park Planning Director Cindy Sherman reminded the council that more than 400 acres with sewer and water are already available to developers in the current development zone.

"Skipping forward," she said, "is not advisable. ... Other landowners have been waiting patiently too."

Although the Goerischs are willing to pay for sewer and water infrastructure - in exchange for future assessment credits - Sherman questioned the "fairness for people that have been waiting, but maybe don't have the means to foot the bill."

Approving a concept plan, Sherman said, sends a message that the city is willing to consider "going out of order."

Kretman said a water line is accessible about 1,700 feet to the west and that it makes sense to allow a developer to pay up front for infrastructure the city can use.

"We're not really stepping too far out of that pattern. ..." he said. "We need new blood coming into the city trying to do development."

Mata agreed:

"Just because someone cast [the staged development plan] on paper doesn't mean its set in stone. It can be changed."

If Medtronic wanted to build in zone 5, "would we bite?" He asked. "I think we would."

Target too would likely be allowed to develop out of order, were it ready, several city officials noted. But "with Target, we know what we're getting," Sherman said.

But Target "is not prepared to develop" now, Mata said, and might never be. "Maybe we need smaller developments ... to pick up the slack," he said.

"I applaud your efforts," Mata told the Goerischs. "When others are saying 'I'm a little bit scared to do anything,' someone has to come forward. ... So thank you very much."

Councilman Mike Trepanier, who made the motion to deny the concept plan, said, "It does sound nice," but "it is in conflict with our comp plan - it's out of phase. I'm concerned not everything will fit."

Said Councilman Rich Gates:

"I'm not in favor of this at all. ..." he said. "The buildings should be facing 169 in a way that says 'Hey, here I am ... if its going to be a signature piece."

Councilman Terry Gearin said "I'm not ready to vote for development, but I'm not ready to vote for denial. ...

"I would love for you to put a multi-million dollar property there and tell the DNR 'To hell with you - go around me," Gearin said. "I buy your argument."

Despite voting against the concept plan, Mayor Steve Lampi said city officials must study "if we're preventing landowners from getting their full market value of their property." .... Lately development has been a little hard to come by."