The opinion of the court was delivered by: Amy J. St. Eve, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In their eight-count Complaint, Plaintiffs LaSalle Bank, National Association, as Successor Trustee to First State Bank and Trust Company of Franklin Park, as Trustee Under Trust Agreements dated July 30, 1982, and known as Trust Nos. 866 and 867 ("LaSalle Bank"), Donna J. Krilich, and Robert R. Krilich, Sr. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") sued Defendant City of Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois ("Defendant" or the "City") alleging: (1) a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights (Count I); (2) a violation of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count II); (3) a violation of their First Amendment right to seek judicial relief without retaliation (Count III); and (4) a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to just compensation (Count IV) based on the Court's original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs also alleged common law claims based on the Court's supplemental jurisdiction, including claims for: (1) declaratory judgment based on Illinois' vested-rights doctrine (Count V); (2) declaratory judgment based on equitable estoppel (Count VI); (3) breach of contract (Count VII); and (4) unjust enrichment (Count VIII). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Earlier in this litigation, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Counts I and IV of the Complaint and for the Court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction as to Counts II and III. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim as alleged in Count IV, but denied Defendant's motion as to Counts I, II, and III. Before the Court is Defendant's summary judgment motion concerning Counts I, II, and III and Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion regarding Count V-- both pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's summary judgment motion and denies Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion. Because the Court dismisses the constitutional claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in Counts V, VI, VII, and VIII and dismisses them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c).
I. Annexation Agreement & Amendment
Plaintiffs are the owners of approximately 100 acres of real property (the "Property") located within the City of Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois. (R. 72-1, Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 1; R. 75-1, Pls.' Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 1, 6.) Plaintiff Robert Krilich is the beneficial owner of the Property. (Pls.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 2.) Defendant is the City of Oakbrook Terrace, a municipal corporation located in DuPage County, Illinois. (Id. ¶ 3; Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 3.) The Property has generally been developed with utilities, roads, and stormwater detention facilities. (Pls.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 9.) Also, a portion of the Property has been developed with office, restaurant, and townhouse buildings. (Id.) In addition, approximately 20 acres of the original 120-acre Krilich parcel were sold to Lincoln Properties on which two high-rise office buildings, a building housing the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation, a restaurant, and the Staybridge Suites were constructed. (Id. ¶ 8; Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 10.)
The City and Plaintiffs entered into an Annexation Agreement in June 1972, pursuant to which the Property was annexed to the City. (Pls.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 11; Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 6.) Upon annexation, the Property, by ordinance, was zoned "B-4 service district," with a special use for a planned unit development ("PUD") which, at the time, permitted both commercial and residential developments, including the construction of 2,731 multi-family residential dwelling units. (Pls.' Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 14, 21; Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 8.)
On June 29, 1976, the City and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement entitled "Amendment to Annexation Agreement," which deleted paragraph 7 of the Annexation Agreement and inserted, in its place, the requirement that "the owner agrees to comply with all building and zoning ordinances of the City of Oakbrook Terrace in force at the time owner makes any application to the City . . . .", and which contained a recitation that the amendment was to be binding "for a full term of ten (10) years commencing as of the date this agreement is executed [June 29, 1976] as provided by statute." (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 9.)
On November 28, 1986, Lincoln Properties, the City, and Plaintiffs -- or their predecessors in interest -- entered into an agreement which recites:
The term of the Annexation Agreement has expired, and the parties are not seeking to amend or extend it. However, development of and construction on the land which is the subject of the Annexation Agreement and PUD ordinance has progressed to a substantial extent; and, thus, although the term of the Annexation Agreement has expired, the owners from time to time of the various parcels of the land described in the Annexation Agreement will be entitled to complete the development of and construction on their respective parcels, as provided in the Annexation Agreement, the PUD ordinance and this agreement. (Id. ¶ 11.) In ratifying the applicability and enforceability of the Annexation Agreement, Amendments, and the 1986 Agreement, the City issued multiple building permits and certificates of occupancy for various developments within the Annexation Property, including One Lincoln Centre, the Redstone Restaurant, and the Staybridge Suites, among others. (Pls.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 28.)
III. Comprehensive Plan & Re-Zoning of Krilich Property
In 2001, the City adopted an official Comprehensive Plan, which stated that the Plan [h]as as its foundation an overall set of goals and objectives for the character, accessibility, public services and finances of the City. The Comprehensive Plan is a declaration of intent. It is advisory and does not by itself constitute a regulation nor should it be construed to supercede the City's Zoning Code or individual special use permits and ordinances previously granted. When this plan is adopted by the City Council, all goals and objectives herein become City policy, but not law. (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 25, 26.) The Comprehensive Plan provided for nine planning units and specifically stated that:
Planning Unit 5, therefore, can be characterized as the area where the greatest change can be anticipated in the City. This area is recognized as an unique urban environment, and as such, offers an opportunity for creative planning concepts and techniques. Such an opportunity is unique in the history and future of the City and requires extraordinary efforts to guarantee high quality development in harmony with the surrounding area. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 28.) According to the ...