Laserfiche WebLink
application of a zoning regulation to deny a building permit for <br />which application was made prior to the effective date of the <br />new ordinance." 308 Minn. S2, 65, 24S N.W.2d 819, 826 <br />(1976). "In applying the rule, however, consideration is given <br />to whether or not the landowner has substantially changed his <br />position in reliance on the existing ordinance and to whether or <br />not the municipality has acted in food faith or has <br />discriminated against a particular property owner." <br />2. When a city properly adopts an ordinance with an application <br />pending, and there is a clearly expressed legislative intention <br />that the amendment should have retroactive application, the <br />pendency of the application does not give the applicant a right <br />to have the city ignore the amendment when making its <br />decision. <br />a. See Property Research & Dev. Co. v. City of Eagan, 289 <br />N.W.2d 157 (Minn. 1980) (amendment to zoning <br />ordinance made after a property owner sought approval <br />of a preliminary plat for the construction of single-family <br />dwellings which precluded the property owner's <br />proposed use, was not subject to a mandamus action <br />compelling approval of the application, even assuming <br />that the city improperly denied approval of the plat); <br />Rose Cliff Landscape Nu~sery~v. Rosemount, 467 N.W.2d <br />641 (Minn. Ct. App.1991) (landowner lost whatever right <br />it may have had to approval of its building permit <br />application and site plan when zoning ordinance was <br />amended to preclude the proposed use; landowner could <br />not obtain order to compel czty to approve application for <br />building permit and site plan when change in zoning <br />subsequent to the application precluded use contemplated <br />in the application, despite finding that refusal to issue the <br />permit was arbitrary and capricious). <br />b. In both Property Research and Rose Criff Landscape <br />Nu~se~y, the court determined that whatever rights the <br />property owners had were lost when the city council <br />amended the respective ordinances. The Minnesota <br />Supreme Court specifically concluded that "the property <br />2 <br />