2nd CCM Lawsuit Amended Complaint
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
MARGARET FIGIEL, JOHN FIGIEL, JANE THOMAS, RICHARD DAMASHEK, SUSAN GOLO, DUNCAN BOURNE, LESLIE LODGSON, NANCY KIMBLE, MARK KIMBLE, ERIC LENTING, GINA GUZMAN, LOBA EMAMI, VICTORIA CARTON, JOHN WIZGIRD, ANNA ANTHONY, GAYLY OPEM, ROBERT OPEM, ALLAN GOLD, JUDITH GOLDMAN, SUSAN PRICE, KIM LILLY, ARNOLD HIRSCH, ELAINE D. COTTEY, PAUL T. COTTEY, PEARL KREPES, NANCY HUNTER, CUTTIE BACON, JEFFERY J. QUACKENBUSH, GENE NOZICKA, MARK GREENBERG, HAYDEE PAMPEL, and JEFF BADDELEY,
Plaintiffs,v.THE CHICAGO PLAN COMMISSION, THE CHICAGO CHILDREN’S MUSEUM, THE CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, LINDA SEARL, CHAIRMAN, ALD. WILLIAM J.P. BANKS, ALD. EDWARD M. BURKE, MAYOR RICHARD M. DALEY, DAVID WEINSTEIN, LEON D. FINNEY, JR., DORIS B. HOLLEB, LYNEIR RICHARDSON, CAROLE BROWN, SMITA SHAH, TOM BYRNE, ARNOLD L. RANDALL, GEORGE W. MIGALA, ALD. PATRICK O'CONNOR, JOHN H. NELSON, NANCY A. PACHER, ALD. MARY ANN SMITH, ALD. BERNARD L. STONE, GRACIA M. SHIFRIN, ALD. REGNER "RAY" SUAREZ, and PATRICIA SCUDIERO,
Defendants.)No. 08 CH 32919
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DE NOVO JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHICAGO’S ADOPTION OF
AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 677
NOW COME the plaintiffs, MARGARET FIGIEL, JOHN FIGIEL, JANE THOMAS, RICHARD DAMASHEK, SUSAN GOLO, DUNCAN BOURNE, LESLIE LODGSON, NANCY KIMBLE, MARK KIMBLE, ERIC LENTING, GINA GUZMAN, LOBA EMAMI, VICTORIA CARTON, JOHN WIZGIRD, ANNA ANTHONY, GAYLY OPEM, ROBERT OPEM, ALLAN GOLD, JUDITH GOLDMAN, SUSAN PRICE, KIM LILLY, ARNOLD HIRSCH, ELAINE D. COTTEY, PAUL T. COTTEY, PEARL KREPES, NANCY HUNTER, CUTTIE BACON, JEFFERY J. QUACKENBUSH, GENE NOZICKA, MARK GREENBERG, HAYDEE PAMPEL, and JEFF BADDELEY, by their attorneys, Litchfield Cavo LLP, and complaining of the defendants, THE CHICAGO PLAN COMMISSION, THE CHICAGO CHILDREN’S MUSEUM, THE CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, LINDA SEARL, CHAIRMAN, ALD. WILLIAM J.P. BANKS, ALD. EDWARD M. BURKE, MAYOR RICHARD M. DALEY, DAVID WEINSTEIN, LEON D. FINNEY, JR., DORIS B. HOLLEB, LYNEIR RICHARDSON, CAROLE BROWN, SMITA SHAH, TOM BYRNE, ARNOLD L. RANDALL, GEORGE W. MIGALA, ALD. PATRICK O'CONNOR, JOHN H. NELSON, NANCY A. PACHER, ALD. MARY ANN SMITH, ALD. BERNARD L. STONE, GRACIA M. SHIFRIN, ALD. REGNER "RAY" SUAREZ, and PATRICIA SCUDIERO, state as follows:
Nature of the Action
1. This is a complaint for de novo judicial review of an amendment to Institutional Planned United Development No. 677 as recommended by the Chicago Plan Commission and adopted by the City Council of Chicago on June 11, 2008, and is brought pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-13-25.
This is a complaint for de novo judicial review of an amendment to Institutional Planned United Development No. 677 as recommended by the Chicago Plan Commission and adopted by the City Council of Chicago on June 11, 2008, and is brought pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-13-25. 2.In addition, plaintiffs allege they were unconstitutionally deprived of both substantive and procedural due process at each stage of the decision-making that occurred in connection with this matter.
In addition, plaintiffs allege they were unconstitutionally deprived of both substantive and procedural due process at each stage of the decision-making that occurred in connection with this matter. Parties
3. At all times herein, plaintiffs own property at 340 East Randolph and 360 East Randolph, Chicago, Illinois, within 250 feet of the property known as Grant Park, which is owned and/or controlled by defendants, Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago.
At all times herein, plaintiffs own property at 340 East Randolph and 360 East Randolph, Chicago, Illinois, within 250 feet of the property known as Grant Park, which is owned and/or controlled by defendants, Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago. 4.The Chicago Plan Commission (the “Commission”) is a commission created by an ordinance of the City of Chicago. Pursuant to 65. ILCS 5/11 – 122 – 4 et seq., the following defendants are members of the commission:
The Chicago Plan Commission (the “Commission”) is a commission created by an ordinance of the City of Chicago. Pursuant to 65. ILCS 5/11 – 122 – 4 et seq., the following defendants are members of the commission:•Linda Searl, Chairman;
Linda Searl, Chairman;•Ald. William J.P. Banks;
Ald. William J.P. Banks;•Ald. Edward M. Burke;
Ald. Edward M. Burke;•Mayor Richard M. Daley;
Mayor Richard M. Daley;•David Weinstein;
David Weinstein;•Leon D. Finney, Jr.;
Leon D. Finney, Jr.;•Doris B. Holleb;
Doris B. Holleb;•Lyneir Richardson;
Lyneir Richardson;•Carole Brown;
Carole Brown;•Smita Shah;
Smita Shah;•Tom Byrne;
Tom Byrne;•Arnold L. Randall;
Arnold L. Randall;•George W. Migala;
George W. Migala;•Ald. Patrick O'connor;
Ald. Patrick O'connor;•John H. Nelson;
John H. Nelson;•Nancy A. Pacher;
Nancy A. Pacher;•Ald. Mary Ann Smith;
Ald. Mary Ann Smith;•Ald. Bernard L. Stone;
Ald. Bernard L. Stone;•Gracia M. Shifrin;
Gracia M. Shifrin;•Ald. Regner "Ray" Suarez;
Ald. Regner "Ray" Suarez;•Patricia Scudiero;
Patricia Scudiero;5.Upon information and belief defendant, Chicago Children’s Museum (the “Museum”), was, and is, a non-profit corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.
Upon information and belief defendant, Chicago Children’s Museum (the “Museum”), was, and is, a non-profit corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. 6.Defendant Chicago Park District (the “District.”) is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to state statute and local ordinances. The District owns the property that is the subject of this lawsuit and is listed as a co-applicant on the Chicago Children’s Museum’s application.
Defendant Chicago Park District (the “District.”) is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to state statute and local ordinances. The District owns the property that is the subject of this lawsuit and is listed as a co-applicant on the Chicago Children’s Museum’s application. 7.Defendant, the City of Chicago, (the” City”) is a home rule municipal corporation and has been notified of this action by service of a copy of the summons and complaint on Richard M. Daley, its chief executive officer.
Defendant, the City of Chicago, (the” City”) is a home rule municipal corporation and has been notified of this action by service of a copy of the summons and complaint on Richard M. Daley, its chief executive officer. Statute and Ordinances Involved
8. 65 ILCS 5/11-13-25 provides as follows:
65 ILCS 5/11-13-25 provides as follows: Section 11-13-25 actions subject to de novo review; due process.
(a)Any special use, variance, rezoning, or other amendment to a zoning ordinance adopted by the corporate authorities of any municipality, home rule or non-home rule, shall be subject to de novo judicial review as a legislative decision, regardless of whether the process of its adoption is considered administrative for other purposes. Any action seeking the judicial review of such a decision shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the date of the decision.
Any special use, variance, rezoning, or other amendment to a zoning ordinance adopted by the corporate authorities of any municipality, home rule or non-home rule, shall be subject to de novo judicial review as a legislative decision, regardless of whether the process of its adoption is considered administrative for other purposes. Any action seeking the judicial review of such a decision shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the date of the decision. (b)The principles of substantive and procedural due process of law apply at all stages of the decision-making and review of all zoning decisions.
The principles of substantive and procedural due process of law apply at all stages of the decision-making and review of all zoning decisions.Planned Development Zoning Provisions
9.Article 17-8-0900 Of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides, in part, the following:
Article 17-8-0900 Of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides, in part, the following:17-8-0902 Other Regulations
Except as otherwise expressly stated, planned developments must comply with any special regulations that apply to the subject property, such as the Chicago Landmark Ordinance and The Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance.
10.Article 17-13-0100 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides, in part, the following:
Article 17-13-0100 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides, in part, the following:17-13-0106 Burden of Proof
Unless otherwise expressly stated, the burden of demonstrating that an application complies with applicable review and approval criteria is on the applicant. The burden is not on the city or other parties to show that the criteria have not been met.
11.Article 17 -- 13 -- 0600 of the Chicago zoning ordinance provides, in part, the following:
Article 17 -- 13 -- 0600 of the Chicago zoning ordinance provides, in part, the following: 17-13-0604-C
The Plan Commission must provide a reasonable opportunity for all interested parties to express their opinions under such rules and regulations as the Plan Commission may adopt.
17-13-0606 Hearing-City Council Committee on Zoning
The City Council Committee on Zoning must hold a public hearing on all planned development proposals for the purpose of reviewing the proposed project and taking testimony. Written, Published and Posted Notice of the Committee on Zoning’s public hearing must be provided in accordance with Section 17-13-0107-B and Section 17-13-0107-C.
17-13-0609 Review and Decision-Making Criteria
In reviewing and making decisions on proposed plan developments, reviewing bodies and decision-making bodies must consider at least the following factors:
(a)Whether the proposed development complies with the standards and guidelines of Section 17 –8-0900;
Whether the proposed development complies with the standards and guidelines of Section 17 –8-0900; (b)Whether the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of uses, density and building scale;
Whether the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of uses, density and building scale;17-13-0160 Effect of Planned Development Approval
After the adoption of a planned development ordinance, every application for permit or license within the planned development boundaries must be reviewed by the Commissioner of Planning and Development for a determination that the proposed use, building or structure complies with all provisions of the planned development ordinance. Zoning and occupancy certificates may be issued by the Zoning Administrator for uses, buildings or structures within the planned development only upon receipt of written approval by the Commissioner of Planning and Development. Any permit, license or certificate issued in conflict with the planned development ordinance is null and void.
17-13-0612 Lapse of Approval
17-13-0162-A Every planned development ordinance will lapse and be null and void unless construction, as authorized by a building permit, has commenced within six years of the day of city Council approval of the plan development ordinance and is there after diligently pursued to completion.
17-13-0612-D Thereafter, if construction does not begin within the time set forth, or the construction does not proceed with reasonable diligence, or if construction in a multi-phased development does not proceed according to the specific schedule set forth in the planned development ordinance, then the planned development ordinance will lapse and be null and void.
17-13-0612-E. Should a planned development ordinance lapse, as provided in this Section, the Commissioner of Planning and Development must initiate a zoning ordinance map amendment to rezone the subject property to the zoning classification that applied to the subject property before approval of the planned development in accordance with the procedures of Section 17-13-0300.
Rules and Procedures of Chicago Plan Commission
12. The Rules and Procedures of Chicago Plan Commission provide, in part, the following:
The Rules and Procedures of Chicago Plan Commission provide, in part, the following:Section 9. Staff Reports.
Department of Planning Staff Reports for Planned Development and Lakefront matters shall be submitted to each Commission member no fewer than five (5) working days prior to a Commission meeting. These reports shall be in a form acceptable to the Commission, and shall include indications of known community opposition to any matter.
Section 10. Background Review Materials.
Planned Development and Lakefront applications along with all supporting materials, studies, drawings, etc. submitted by the applicant shall be available for the public and the Commission to review in the Department of Planning 28 days prior to the Commission meeting at which the matter is scheduled to be heard or in the event of materials received within said 28 day period, upon receipt thereof by the Department of Planning.
Background Facts
13.On March 2, 1827, the Congress of the United States enacted legislation which granted to the State of Illinois certain lands for the purpose of financing the construction of a canal connecting the waters of the Illinois River with those of Lake Michigan. Pursuant to said enactment, the state was granted the authority to sell these lands and convey title in fee simple.
On March 2, 1827, the Congress of the United States enacted legislation which granted to the State of Illinois certain lands for the purpose of financing the construction of a canal connecting the waters of the Illinois River with those of Lake Michigan. Pursuant to said enactment, the state was granted the authority to sell these lands and convey title in fee simple.14.On January 22, 1829, the Legislature for the State of Illinois enacted a provision which allowed for the appointment of commissioners to sell the property in question.
On January 22, 1829, the Legislature for the State of Illinois enacted a provision which allowed for the appointment of commissioners to sell the property in question.15.Pursuant to the authority granted by the legislature, the canal commissioners selected certain lands to be sold, including the lands which compass that portion of Grant Park that lies between Madison Street and 12th Street.
Pursuant to the authority granted by the legislature, the canal commissioners selected certain lands to be sold, including the lands which compass that portion of Grant Park that lies between Madison Street and 12th Street.16.The canal commissioners subdivided into two tiers of 11 blocks each, bounded on the west by State Street, on the north by the center line of Madison, and on the east by Lake Michigan.
The canal commissioners subdivided into two tiers of 11 blocks each, bounded on the west by State Street, on the north by the center line of Madison, and on the east by Lake Michigan.17.Pursuant to the authority granted by the Legislature, the canal commissioners’ selected certain lands and their selection was approved by the President of the United States on May 21, 1830.
Pursuant to the authority granted by the Legislature, the canal commissioners’ selected certain lands and their selection was approved by the President of the United States on May 21, 1830.18.Among the lands selected for sale was a property identified as fractional section 15, which encompasses that part of Grant Park that lies south of the center of Madison Street extended east.
Among the lands selected for sale was a property identified as fractional section 15, which encompasses that part of Grant Park that lies south of the center of Madison Street extended east.19.By virtue of legislation approved January 9, 1836, the Board of Canal Commissioners was authorized to sell certain lots, including section 15.
By virtue of legislation approved January 9, 1836, the Board of Canal Commissioners was authorized to sell certain lots, including section 15.20.The Canal Commissioners created a subdivision, which contained two tiers of 11 blocks each, bounded on the west by State Street, on the north by the center line of Madison Street, and on the east by Lake Michigan.
The Canal Commissioners created a subdivision, which contained two tiers of 11 blocks each, bounded on the west by State Street, on the north by the center line of Madison Street, and on the east by Lake Michigan.21.To promote and facilitate the sale of the canal properties, the commissioners prepared plats or sketches. On these plats or sketches, land set aside for open space was marked “open grounds, no building,” or equivalent words, indicating that it was to be kept open and clear of buildings.
To promote and facilitate the sale of the canal properties, the commissioners prepared plats or sketches. On these plats or sketches, land set aside for open space was marked “open grounds, no building,” or equivalent words, indicating that it was to be kept open and clear of buildings.22.At the time that the canal subdivision was laid out and recorded, a property lying east of Michigan Avenue between Randolph and Madison streets and facing Lake Michigan was owned by the United States and was serving as the site of the Fort Dearborn military reservation.
At the time that the canal subdivision was laid out and recorded, a property lying east of Michigan Avenue between Randolph and Madison streets and facing Lake Michigan was owned by the United States and was serving as the site of the Fort Dearborn military reservation.23.In 1839, pursuant to the authority and mandate of the Secretary of War, the property which comprised the Fort Dearborn military reservation was subdivided into blocks, lots, streets and public grounds and identified as the Fort Dearborn addition.
In 1839, pursuant to the authority and mandate of the Secretary of War, the property which comprised the Fort Dearborn military reservation was subdivided into blocks, lots, streets and public grounds and identified as the Fort Dearborn addition.24.The plat recorded in connection with the Fort Dearborn addition identifies the land site east of Michigan Avenue between Randolph and Madison Street and fronting on Lake Michigan as “Public ground forever to remain vacant of buildings.” The acknowledgment of the plat contains the following statement:
The plat recorded in connection with the Fort Dearborn addition identifies the land site east of Michigan Avenue between Randolph and Madison Street and fronting on Lake Michigan as “Public ground forever to remain vacant of buildings.” The acknowledgment of the plat contains the following statement:The public ground between Randolph and Madison streets and fronting upon Lake Michigan is not to be occupied with buildings of any description.
25.In 1852, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, pursuant to authority granted by the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, constructed a railroad trestle in Lake Michigan over submerged lands fronting the property now known as Grant Park.
In 1852, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, pursuant to authority granted by the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, constructed a railroad trestle in Lake Michigan over submerged lands fronting the property now known as Grant Park.26.On February 18, 1861, the Illinois Legislature amended the act incorporating the City of Chicago, and in so doing prohibited the Illinois Central from encroaching upon the land or water west of a line not less than 400 feet east of the west line of Michigan Avenue and prohibited the city from allowing any encroachment west of that line.
On February 18, 1861, the Illinois Legislature amended the act incorporating the City of Chicago, and in so doing prohibited the Illinois Central from encroaching upon the land or water west of a line not less than 400 feet east of the west line of Michigan Avenue and prohibited the city from allowing any encroachment west of that line.27.The 1861 amendment provided that any person being the owner or interested in any lot fronting Michigan Avenue should have the right to enjoin any person or corporation who violates the provisions of the Act.
The 1861 amendment provided that any person being the owner or interested in any lot fronting Michigan Avenue should have the right to enjoin any person or corporation who violates the provisions of the Act.28.The 1861 amendment to the city’s articles of incorporation contained the following language which confirmed and codified the representations of the canal commissioners:
The 1861 amendment to the city’s articles of incorporation contained the following language which confirmed and codified the representations of the canal commissioners:The State of Illinois, by its canal commissioners, having declared that the public ground east of said lots should forever remain open and vacant, neither the common council of the City of Chicago nor any other authority shall ever have the power to permit encroachments thereon without the assent of all persons owning lots or land on said street or avenue.
29.In 1890, A. Montgomery Ward filed the first of a series of lawsuits in the Superior Court of Cook County to enjoin the city from violating the terms of the dedications made in connection with the Fort Dearborn addition. In 1893, Ward filed an amended bill seeking a permanent injunction against the construction of buildings thereon and diverting the park from the purposes for which it was dedicated.
In 1890, A. Montgomery Ward filed the first of a series of lawsuits in the Superior Court of Cook County to enjoin the city from violating the terms of the dedications made in connection with the Fort Dearborn addition. In 1893, Ward filed an amended bill seeking a permanent injunction against the construction of buildings thereon and diverting the park from the purposes for which it was dedicated.30.In 1896, the Superior Court for Cook County issued an injunction/decree which restrained and enjoined the City of Chicago from erecting or causing to be erected any buildings or structures upon the premises described below:
In 1896, the Superior Court for Cook County issued an injunction/decree which restrained and enjoined the City of Chicago from erecting or causing to be erected any buildings or structures upon the premises described below:That tract of land lying between Randolph Street on the north, and Park Row on the south and between the west line of Michigan Avenue in the west line of the right of way and grounds of the Illinois Central railroad company excepting the Art Institute, a temporary post office until a permanent one should be completed and armory buildings, for a period of three months.
31.On November 8, 1897, the decree entered in favor Montgomery Ward and against the city was affirmed in its entirety by the Illinois Supreme Court. (See, City of Chicago v. Ward, 48 N.E. 927 (1897)).
On November 8, 1897, the decree entered in favor Montgomery Ward and against the city was affirmed in its entirety by the Illinois Supreme Court. (See, City of Chicago v. Ward, 48 N.E. 927 (1897)).32.On three subsequent occasions, the question of whether buildings, structures and other of those facilities could be constructed was adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and on each occasion the court held that there was no lawful authority for the erection of buildings in Grant Park and there could be no valid law authorizing a condemnation of property for that purpose. (See Bliss v. Ward, 64 N.E. 705 (1902), South Park Commissioners v. Ward, 94 N.E. 910 (1910), Ward v. Field Museum, 89 N.E. 731 (1909)).
On three subsequent occasions, the question of whether buildings, structures and other of those facilities could be constructed was adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and on each occasion the court held that there was no lawful authority for the erection of buildings in Grant Park and there could be no valid law authorizing a condemnation of property for that purpose. (See Bliss v. Ward, 64 N.E. 705 (1902), South Park Commissioners v. Ward, 94 N.E. 910 (1910), Ward v. Field Museum, 89 N.E. 731 (1909)).33.That Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 is situated in the area bounded by:
That Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 is situated in the area bounded by:East Randolph Street; a line 725.3 feet east of Columbus Drive (as measured along the south line of East Randolph Street and perpendicular thereto); East Monroe Street; South Lake Shore Drive; the center line of East Van Buren Street as extended east where no street exists; South Michigan Avenue; East Jackson Drive; South Columbus Drive; East Monroe Drive; and South/North Michigan Avenue. (R70).
34.That Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 comprises four (4) sub-areas, including sub-area D, which was created by virtue of an amendment adopted by the City Council on June 11, 2008. (R71-R77). Included in the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677, are certain regulations and data that can be found in the Bulk Regulations and Data Table (R77).
That Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 comprises four (4) sub-areas, including sub-area D, which was created by virtue of an amendment adopted by the City Council on June 11, 2008. (R71-R77). Included in the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677, are certain regulations and data that can be found in the Bulk Regulations and Data Table (R77). 35.That Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 permits the Chicago Children’s Museum and the Chicago Park District to erect and construct an above-ground building in sub-area D of the Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677.
That Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 permits the Chicago Children’s Museum and the Chicago Park District to erect and construct an above-ground building in sub-area D of the Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677. 36.Pursuant to the terms, data and conditions set forth in the Bulk Regulations and Data Table, the Chicago Children’s Museum will be able to construct and erect an above-ground building plus 80 feet C.C.D., or approximately 6 to 7 stories (R77).
Pursuant to the terms, data and conditions set forth in the Bulk Regulations and Data Table, the Chicago Children’s Museum will be able to construct and erect an above-ground building plus 80 feet C.C.D., or approximately 6 to 7 stories (R77). 37.On April 2, 2008, an application to the Plan Commission under the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance was filed by the Chicago Children's Museum and the Chicago Park District and is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
On April 2, 2008, an application to the Plan Commission under the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance was filed by the Chicago Children's Museum and the Chicago Park District and is attached hereto as Exhibit A.38.On May 2, 2008, the Chicago Children’s Museum and the Chicago Park District filed an amended application with the Chicago Plan Commission in which it sought the commission’s approval for construction of a museum in Grant Park and in the Chicago Lakefront Park District.
On May 2, 2008, the Chicago Children’s Museum and the Chicago Park District filed an amended application with the Chicago Plan Commission in which it sought the commission’s approval for construction of a museum in Grant Park and in the Chicago Lakefront Park District.39.On April 11, 2008, an application for an amendment to the Chicago Zoning Ordinance to rezone 337 E. Randolph St., southeast corner of Randolph St. and Columbus Drive, was filed by the Chicago Children's Museum and the Chicago Park District, and is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
On April 11, 2008, an application for an amendment to the Chicago Zoning Ordinance to rezone 337 E. Randolph St., southeast corner of Randolph St. and Columbus Drive, was filed by the Chicago Children's Museum and the Chicago Park District, and is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 40.On May 2, 2008, an application for amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 and application to the Chicago Plan Commission under Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront protection ordinance was filed by the Chicago Children's Museum and the Chicago Park District, and is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
On May 2, 2008, an application for amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 and application to the Chicago Plan Commission under Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront protection ordinance was filed by the Chicago Children's Museum and the Chicago Park District, and is attached hereto as Exhibit C.41.On May 15, 2008, the Museum and Chicago Park District filed an application for an amendment to the Chicago Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a new Chicago Children’s Museum and Chicago Park District field house. (See Exhibit B). In their application, the Children’s Museum and Chicago Park District requested that the property described below, which is located in Grant Park, be rezoned so as to allow construction of a new Chicago Children’s Museum and a new field house in Grant Park:
On May 15, 2008, the Museum and Chicago Park District filed an application for an amendment to the Chicago Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a new Chicago Children’s Museum and Chicago Park District field house. (See Exhibit B). In their application, the Children’s Museum and Chicago Park District requested that the property described below, which is located in Grant Park, be rezoned so as to allow construction of a new Chicago Children’s Museum and a new field house in Grant Park:East Randolph Street; a line 725.3 feet east of Columbus Drive (as measured along the south line of East Randolph St, and perpendicular thereto); East Monroe Drive; South Lake Shore Drive; a centerline of East Van Buren St., as extended east, where no street exists; South Michigan Ave.; East Jackson Drive; South Columbus Drive; East Monroe Drive; and South/N. Michigan Ave.
42.On May 15, 2008, the Department of Planning and Development filed a Report (attached as Exhibit D) with the Commission recommending that the IPD application be approved and recommended to the City Council Committee on Zoning (the "Zoning Committee"), and recommending that the Commission approve the application under the Lakefront Protection Ordinance.
On May 15, 2008, the Department of Planning and Development filed a Report (attached as Exhibit D) with the Commission recommending that the IPD application be approved and recommended to the City Council Committee on Zoning (the "Zoning Committee"), and recommending that the Commission approve the application under the Lakefront Protection Ordinance.43.On May 15, 2008, the Commission held a public hearing and by resolution (attached as Exhibit E), approved the application under the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, and recommended to the City Council’s Zoning Committee that the Application to Amend Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 be approved.
On May 15, 2008, the Commission held a public hearing and by resolution (attached as Exhibit E), approved the application under the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, and recommended to the City Council’s Zoning Committee that the Application to Amend Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 be approved. 44.Effective June 11, 2008, and by vote of the City Council of Chicago (the "City Council"), an ordinance was published amending the Chicago Zoning Ordinance and amending Institutional Transportation Planned Development No. 677 so as to allow construction of a Chicago Children’s Museum in Grant Park. (See Exhibit F).
Effective June 11, 2008, and by vote of the City Council of Chicago (the "City Council"), an ordinance was published amending the Chicago Zoning Ordinance and amending Institutional Transportation Planned Development No. 677 so as to allow construction of a Chicago Children’s Museum in Grant Park. (See Exhibit F).45.The amendment to Planned Development No. 677 was approved even though defendants did not obtain consent from abutting landowners, and in contravention of the February 18, 1861 amendment to the Act incorporating the City of Chicago.
The amendment to Planned Development No. 677 was approved even though defendants did not obtain consent from abutting landowners, and in contravention of the February 18, 1861 amendment to the Act incorporating the City of Chicago. The Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677
is Arbitrary, Capricious, Unreasonable and Unlawful and Bears No
Rational Relationship to Public Health, Safety or Welfare
46.Plaintiffs seek de novo judicial review of the City Council’s decision amending Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 on the grounds that the ordinance adopting the amendment is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and in contravention of existing laws, decrees and injunctions without justification in law or in fact.
Plaintiffs seek de novo judicial review of the City Council’s decision amending Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 on the grounds that the ordinance adopting the amendment is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and in contravention of existing laws, decrees and injunctions without justification in law or in fact.47.The amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 will diminish the property values of neighboring property owners, including plaintiffs, who relied on the protections established by the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, as well as pre-existing covenants, dedications, decrees, injunctions and state law (see paragraphs 26-32) which provide, among other things, that the public ground between Randolph and Madison streets and fronting upon Lake Michigan is not to be occupied with buildings of any description.
The amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 will diminish the property values of neighboring property owners, including plaintiffs, who relied on the protections established by the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, as well as pre-existing covenants, dedications, decrees, injunctions and state law (see paragraphs 26-32) which provide, among other things, that the public ground between Randolph and Madison streets and fronting upon Lake Michigan is not to be occupied with buildings of any description.48.That the adoption of the amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 is arbitrary, capricious, unlawful and bears no rational relationship to the public health, safety or welfare in that:
That the adoption of the amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 is arbitrary, capricious, unlawful and bears no rational relationship to the public health, safety or welfare in that:a.The amendment allows for the construction of above-ground buildings in Grant Park, notwithstanding the prohibition against said construction as established in a series of Supreme Court decisions (See paragraphs 13 through 41 set forth above);
The amendment allows for the construction of above-ground buildings in Grant Park, notwithstanding the prohibition against said construction as established in a series of Supreme Court decisions (See paragraphs 13 through 41 set forth above);b.The amendment permits all manner of non-public, non-park-related uses, including retail uses such as liquor licensed bars, restaurants, dry-cleaning facilities, as well as other retail uses;
The amendment permits all manner of non-public, non-park-related uses, including retail uses such as liquor licensed bars, restaurants, dry-cleaning facilities, as well as other retail uses;c.The amendment permits a private entity to have exclusive control over 1.73 acres of public land and also permits a private entity to charge admission for access to public land;
The amendment permits a private entity to have exclusive control over 1.73 acres of public land and also permits a private entity to charge admission for access to public land; d.Violates the February 18, 1861 Amendment to the Act Incorporating the City of Chicago. (See paragraphs 27-28).
Violates the February 18, 1861 Amendment to the Act Incorporating the City of Chicago. (See paragraphs 27-28).49.The adoption of the amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 violates Section 17-8-0902 of the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance in that the amendment specifically permits erection and construction of above-ground buildings, even though Policy No. 5 as set forth in the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance, specifically and unequivocally prohibits the construction of new above-ground buildings in Grant Park.
The adoption of the amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 violates Section 17-8-0902 of the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance in that the amendment specifically permits erection and construction of above-ground buildings, even though Policy No. 5 as set forth in the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance, specifically and unequivocally prohibits the construction of new above-ground buildings in Grant Park. 50.The adoption of the amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 does not bear a rational relationship to the public interest or welfare in that: (a) publically owned land will be conveyed and transferred to a private entity pursuant to a $1.00 per year 99 year lease; (b) the museum will be permitted to introduce all manner of private uses on public land, including, but not limited to, liquor licensed restaurants, bars, nightclubs and other establishments that sell alcohol.
The adoption of the amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 does not bear a rational relationship to the public interest or welfare in that: (a) publically owned land will be conveyed and transferred to a private entity pursuant to a $1.00 per year 99 year lease; (b) the museum will be permitted to introduce all manner of private uses on public land, including, but not limited to, liquor licensed restaurants, bars, nightclubs and other establishments that sell alcohol. 51.Contrary to Section 17-13-0106 of the Municipal Code, the proponents of the amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Unit Development No. 677 did not meet their burden of proof, inasmuch as the amendment as adopted will allow the construction of above-ground buildings in Grant Park and thereby violate not only a longstanding series of Supreme Court decisions, but also the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance and the February 18, 1861 Act amending the Articles incorporating the City of Chicago.
Contrary to Section 17-13-0106 of the Municipal Code, the proponents of the amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Unit Development No. 677 did not meet their burden of proof, inasmuch as the amendment as adopted will allow the construction of above-ground buildings in Grant Park and thereby violate not only a longstanding series of Supreme Court decisions, but also the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance and the February 18, 1861 Act amending the Articles incorporating the City of Chicago. 52.The Plan Commission’s approval of the Museum’s application and the City Council’s adoption of the Amendment to Transportation/Institutional Planned Unit Development No. 677 is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and violates the Illinois Constitution’s guarantee of procedural due process and was adopted notwithstanding the Applicants’ (the Museum and Park District) provide statutory notice pursuant to Section 16-4-100(c) and 17-13-0107 of the Municipal Code to individuals or entities who own property at 340 E. Randolph (hereinafter referred to as “the 340 East plaintiffs”).
The Plan Commission’s approval of the Museum’s application and the City Council’s adoption of the Amendment to Transportation/Institutional Planned Unit Development No. 677 is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and violates the Illinois Constitution’s guarantee of procedural due process and was adopted notwithstanding the Applicants’ (the Museum and Park District) provide statutory notice pursuant to Section 16-4-100(c) and 17-13-0107 of the Municipal Code to individuals or entities who own property at 340 E. Randolph (hereinafter referred to as “the 340 East plaintiffs”). 53.Adoption of the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Unit Development No. 677 was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and violated procedural and substantive due process guarantees because it permits construction of above-ground buildings in Grant Park and thereby violated the February 18, 1861 amendment to the articles incorporating the City of Chicago.
Adoption of the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Unit Development No. 677 was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and violated procedural and substantive due process guarantees because it permits construction of above-ground buildings in Grant Park and thereby violated the February 18, 1861 amendment to the articles incorporating the City of Chicago.54.The adoption of the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Unit Development No. 677 not only bears no rational relationship to the public health, safety or welfare, it also diminishes plaintiffs’ property values by allowing businesses which have no rational or legitimate connection to public parks or any recognized public purpose, including the following:
The adoption of the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Unit Development No. 677 not only bears no rational relationship to the public health, safety or welfare, it also diminishes plaintiffs’ property values by allowing businesses which have no rational or legitimate connection to public parks or any recognized public purpose, including the following:a.Allowing private retail establishments such as bars, clubs and nightclubs to operate on what was formerly public property;
Allowing private retail establishments such as bars, clubs and nightclubs to operate on what was formerly public property;b.Permits retail uses such as liquor restaurant establishments to operate with the attendant noise, disruption;
Permits retail uses such as liquor restaurant establishments to operate with the attendant noise, disruption;c.Permits applicants to open and operate various retail uses which will increase traffic, congestion, noise, pollution, and otherwise undermine and diminish plaintiffs’ property values;
Permits applicants to open and operate various retail uses which will increase traffic, congestion, noise, pollution, and otherwise undermine and diminish plaintiffs’ property values;d.Allows construction of above-ground buildings.
Allows construction of above-ground buildings.55.The adoption of the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 does not constitute a legitimate public purpose, as the property in question is subject to restrictions and covenants which expressly, specifically and unequivocally prohibit the construction or erection of above-ground buildings in Grant Park. (See paragraphs 13-32).
The adoption of the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 does not constitute a legitimate public purpose, as the property in question is subject to restrictions and covenants which expressly, specifically and unequivocally prohibit the construction or erection of above-ground buildings in Grant Park. (See paragraphs 13-32). 56.The Plan Commission considered and approved the Museum’s application as well as the proposed amendment to Planned Unit Development No. 677, even though the museum and the Park District violated Section 16-4-100(c) and 17-13-0107 of the Chicago Municipal Code by failing to provide or send notice, written, actual or otherwise, of the April 2, 2008 application and May 15, 2008 hearing to individuals who owned property at 340 East Randolph, Chicago, Illinois, including, but not limited to, plaintiffs Jane Thomas, Richard Damashek, Eric Lenting, Gina Guzman, and Jeffery J. Quackenbush.
The Plan Commission considered and approved the Museum’s application as well as the proposed amendment to Planned Unit Development No. 677, even though the museum and the Park District violated Section 16-4-100(c) and 17-13-0107 of the Chicago Municipal Code by failing to provide or send notice, written, actual or otherwise, of the April 2, 2008 application and May 15, 2008 hearing to individuals who owned property at 340 East Randolph, Chicago, Illinois, including, but not limited to, plaintiffs Jane Thomas, Richard Damashek, Eric Lenting, Gina Guzman, and Jeffery J. Quackenbush. 57.Upon being apprised of the obvious and blatant deficiencies in applicants’ notice and applicants’ failure to comply with the notice provisions contained in Section 17-13-0107 and Section 16-4-100(c) of the Chicago Municipal Code, the Commission erroneously, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally determined that the 340 East Randolph property-owners, including several named plaintiffs, were not entitled to receive notice of either the April 2, 2008 application or the May 15, 2008 hearing.
Upon being apprised of the obvious and blatant deficiencies in applicants’ notice and applicants’ failure to comply with the notice provisions contained in Section 17-13-0107 and Section 16-4-100(c) of the Chicago Municipal Code, the Commission erroneously, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally determined that the 340 East Randolph property-owners, including several named plaintiffs, were not entitled to receive notice of either the April 2, 2008 application or the May 15, 2008 hearing.58.The plaintiffs listed in caption, including but not limited to Jane Thomas, Richard Damashek, Eric Lenting, Gina Guzman, and Jeffery J. Quackenbush, were denied due process by virtue of the applicants’ failure to provide notice, written, actual or otherwise, to the condominium association that governs and administers the property located at 340 East Randolph.
The plaintiffs listed in caption, including but not limited to Jane Thomas, Richard Damashek, Eric Lenting, Gina Guzman, and Jeffery J. Quackenbush, were denied due process by virtue of the applicants’ failure to provide notice, written, actual or otherwise, to the condominium association that governs and administers the property located at 340 East Randolph.59.The Commission arbitrarily and unconstitutionally allowed the museum to increase and/or change the boundary of the planned development notwithstanding applicants’ failure to revise its notice so that it reflected a new radius and a new boundary.
The Commission arbitrarily and unconstitutionally allowed the museum to increase and/or change the boundary of the planned development notwithstanding applicants’ failure to revise its notice so that it reflected a new radius and a new boundary. 60.In presenting its (a) request for an amendment to Planned Development No. 677 and (b) its Lakefront Protection Ordinance application to the Commission and the Zoning Committee, the Museum and the District failed to carry the burden of demonstrating, and did not prove, that its applications complied with applicable approval criteria as required by Article 17-13-0106 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, in that the Amendment:
In presenting its (a) request for an amendment to Planned Development No. 677 and (b) its Lakefront Protection Ordinance application to the Commission and the Zoning Committee, the Museum and the District failed to carry the burden of demonstrating, and did not prove, that its applications complied with applicable approval criteria as required by Article 17-13-0106 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, in that the Amendment:(a)Does not substantially comply with the underlying zoning (Section 17-8-0901), as it allows private retail uses on public land;
Does not substantially comply with the underlying zoning (Section 17-8-0901), as it allows private retail uses on public land; (b)Does not comply with the regulations of the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, as it permits construction of an above-ground building in Grant Park;
Does not comply with the regulations of the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, as it permits construction of an above-ground building in Grant Park; (c)Does not provide any valid or reasonable justification for the adoption of the amendment allowing construction of a structure within the public property known as Grant Park;
Does not provide any valid or reasonable justification for the adoption of the amendment allowing construction of a structure within the public property known as Grant Park; (d)Falsely and unreasonably, and without evidentiary support, recites that the amendment to Institutional Transportation Planned Development No. 677 conforms to the intent and purpose of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, and all requirements thereof, and satisfies the established criteria for approval;
Falsely and unreasonably, and without evidentiary support, recites that the amendment to Institutional Transportation Planned Development No. 677 conforms to the intent and purpose of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, and all requirements thereof, and satisfies the established criteria for approval;(e)Violates a series of long-standing Supreme Court decrees which prohibit the placement or erection of buildings and structures in or on the property commonly known as Grant Park. (See paragraphs 13-32).
Violates a series of long-standing Supreme Court decrees which prohibit the placement or erection of buildings and structures in or on the property commonly known as Grant Park. (See paragraphs 13-32).(f)Falsely represented to both the Commission and the City Council that the building would be built underground.
Falsely represented to both the Commission and the City Council that the building would be built underground.61.By reason of the above, in addition to other proofs plaintiffs will present at trial, adoption of the amendment to Institutional Transportation Planned Development No. 677 deprived plaintiff's of their constitutional rights to due process pursuant to both United States and Illinois Constitutions, as arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and without justification in law or in fact and violates a series of long-standing Supreme Court decrees which prohibit the placement or erection of buildings and structures in or on the property commonly known as Grant Park.
By reason of the above, in addition to other proofs plaintiffs will present at trial, adoption of the amendment to Institutional Transportation Planned Development No. 677 deprived plaintiff's of their constitutional rights to due process pursuant to both United States and Illinois Constitutions, as arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and without justification in law or in fact and violates a series of long-standing Supreme Court decrees which prohibit the placement or erection of buildings and structures in or on the property commonly known as Grant Park.WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request that, pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-13-25, the Court enter a finding that the June 11, 2008 adoption of the Amendment to Institutional/Transportation Planned Development No. 677 was arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, unreasonable and without justification in law or in fact.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick J. Ruberry, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP
303 West Madison Street , Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60606-3300
(312) 781-6677
(312) 781-6630 fax
Firm I.D. No. 36351
James E. Fabbrini, Esq.
Law Offices of James E. Fabbrini
415 North LaSalle Street, Suite 603
Chicago, IL 60610
Phone (312) 494-3131
Fax (312) 494-3133
Firm I.D. No. 43161 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
