Council approves plat resolution with continued negotiations over roadway easement
Summary
After a contested public exchange, the council approved a resolution to proceed with a plat while allowing continued negotiation on the exact roadway-easement terms; the applicant objected that the easement could impair future property utility and value.
Corcoran — The City Council voted to approve a plat-related resolution while acknowledging ongoing disagreement between the city and the property owners over a requested roadway easement that staff says is needed for long-term internal road connectivity.
Melissa Solberg, a Corcoran landowner and applicant in the matter, told the council her agreement remained "heavily disputed" and warned that the version in the packet reduced the applicant's leverage. She said the resolution language circulated to neighbors incorrectly suggested the parties had reached full agreement.
Applicant counsel Steven Lang said the proposed easement as drafted would be exclusive and would bar construction of improvements inside the easement area; he argued that the provision left no legal right for the applicants to access an outlot and could "destroy value" by making an unusable parcel.
City staff and the city attorney described the easement as a planning tool to preserve future road alignment options across the block and said Hennepin County and prior practice encourage internal road connections where feasible. Staff noted the easement could preserve a future right-of-way without requiring immediate road construction and said the language included a provision for attorney review: "the roadway easement agreement is subject to review and approval by the city attorney prior to final plat recording," which staff said allows legal review without blocking council action.
Council ultimately approved the resolution (referenced in the packet as Resolution 2025-38) and the related plat motions after a motion that recorded the council's intent to continue negotiations on the easement location. The vote carried by voice vote. Staff said technical edits to the easement agreement could continue as long as core roadway interests were preserved.
The exchange highlighted differing views: the applicant considered the easement unnecessary for the current proposal and legally overbroad; staff said the easement is part of planning for a future internal road network and is consistent with city practice on other plats. The council approved the resolution but left the parties to finalize easement language and small edits through the city attorney and continued negotiation.
