The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the City of Eden Prairie did not act improperly when it rejected a plan for a service station/convenience store and auto-repair business in September 2021.
A three-judge panel made the ruling on March 18.
The court case focused on a proposal by EP Land, LLC and Auto Care World, LLC to build a 24-hour Holiday service station/convenience store/car wash and 10-bay Auto Care World auto-repair business on a four-acre, “L”-shaped lot near the intersection of County Road 1 (Pioneer Trail) and Hennepin Town Road in southeastern Eden Prairie.
Agreeing with neighbors opposed to the plan, the Eden Prairie City Council unanimously concluded that the project was oversized, given its close proximity to adjacent homes and reliance on neighborhood streets to handle traffic. It also said the plan did not warrant the requested waivers from city code. After voting against the plan, the city amended its zoning ordinance to remove gas stations from the zoning district called “neighborhood commercial.”
The developer filed a district-court lawsuit against the city a few months later.
On April 4, 2023, district court Judge Thomas J. Conley granted summary judgment in favor of the city, saying the council’s 2021 denial of the project was reasonable and did not constitute a “regulatory taking” because alternative development options remain.
Ten days later, the plaintiffs filed an appeal.
In their March 18 ruling, the Court of Appeal judges ruled in support of the lower court, stating that the city had “rational legal and factual bases” for denying the development application and that local officials’ denial of the project did not constitute a regulatory taking.
Bryan Huntington, the attorney for EP Land and Auto Care World, did not comment on the ruling.
On behalf of the city, attorneys Katherine Swenson and John Baker provided a statement saying, “The City of Eden Prairie is pleased with the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ unanimous decision affirming the district court’s ruling in the City’s favor, and with its reasoning. The decision reflects that the Court of Appeals, like the district court, reviewed the evidence and the law carefully.”
The property in question remains vacant.
Comments
We offer several ways for our readers to provide feedback. Your comments are welcome on our social media posts (Facebook, X, Instagram, Threads, and LinkedIn). We also encourage Letters to the Editor; submission guidelines can be found on our Contact Us page. If you believe this story has an error or you would like to get in touch with the author, please connect with us.