Agenda - Council - 02/09/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

! ! Subsequent approvals of Reilleys' Second and Third Additions were likewise given, with the last occurring in 1978. None of the Reilley's plats was ever resubmitted for public scrutiny through the public hearing process; hence, the public was never given the requi.red notices, and the 75-acre tract remained unplatted, and remained unaddressed. In 1976, the City of Ramsey made a decision to request extension of the MUSA into the City. As a result of negotiations with the Metropolitan Council, a condition of the extension of the MUSA was that the City impose a "4-in-40" density policy on the unplatted areas lying outside the MUSA. As a courtesy to large landholders, the City provided a six-month window of opportunity, ending on November 24, 1976, for developers to propose platting of unsewered lots at one-acre densities. A memo in the City's file dated January 10, 1983, from the City Engineer, confirms that the developer of Reilley's was so informed, and that the unplatted 75-acre tract was and had been subject to the "4-in~40" policy since 1976. Despite this information, real estate files of several purchasers of lots in the Reilley's plats reveal that even into the '90's, agents of the developer represented to prospective lot buyers that the 75oacre tract would be developed at a one-acre density. A. Implied Contract, Quasi-Contract, and Equitable Estoppel A City, like a developer or individual lot owner, is entitled to change its mind. It is a fundamental tenet of municipal law that the decisions of one City Council are not binding on subsequent councils. However, a major exception to this rule exists where a City Council binds itself by contract. An Implied Contract may be found to exist where the intentions of the City, the Developer, and the relying lot purchasers were to create an overall development at one-acre densities. A Quasi-Contract may also be found to exist in these circumstances, even where the intentions of the parties are not the same. Where parties or beneficiaries to such contracts have acted to their detriment, in reliance on the provisions of the Implied or Quasi-Contract, the legal doctrine of Equitable Estoppel entitles the aggrieved party to enforce the terms of the contract. Is is my opinion that the actions of the developer in proposing and marketing a 143 acre, 113 lot plat at one acre density, the actions of the City and the developer in ignoring the proper platting process and withholding a significant alteration in this plan fi:om public scrutiny, and the actions of the lot purchasers in buying, improving and occupying parcels in reliance on the expectation of an overall one-acre density do in fact create a binding contractual relationship among the parties entitling the property purchasers to specifically enforce the terms of that contract. B. Substantial Reliance Minnesota Statutes Chapter 358.462 (subd. 3(c)) confers upon a land developer the right to implement an approved plat for a specified time period after subdivision approval, free of any ordinance provisions to the contrary which might be enacted subsequent to the