Wrigley complaint

7/27/2019 Wrigley complaint

1/104

.- ,..

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOKCOUNTY, ILLINOISCOUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISIONTHOMAS A. ROMANO, Sr, Trustee ofthe Thomas A. Romano, Sr. Living TrustDated May 11, 2000,

Nf\,. . I

2013CH23837CALENDAR/ROOM 08TIME 00;;00O e c l ~ r ~ t o r Y 3d9mt

CASE NO.:Plaintiff,

Defendants.

v.

))))))))THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal )corporation, WRIGLEY FIELD )HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited )liability company; WRIGLEY FIELD )PARKING OPERATIONS LLC, a Delaware)

limited liability company, TRIANGLE )PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware)limited liability company, and NORTH )CLARK STREET LLC, a Delaware limited )liability company, )))

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,INJUNCTION ANDOTHERRELIEF; )

The Plaintiff, Thomas A. Romano, Sr., Trustee of the Thomas A. Romano, Sr;LivingTrust Dated May 11, 2000, by his attorneys, Saul R. Wexler and Grumley Kamin & Rosie,hereby files this Complaint against Defendants, City of Chicago, Wrigley Field Holdings LLC,Wrigley Field Parking Operations LLC, Triangle Property Holdings LLC, and North Clark StreetLLC, and states as follows:

PARTIES1. Plaintiff, Thomas A. Romano, Sr., Trustee of the Thomas A. Romano, Sr. Living

Trust Dated May 11, 2000, ("Plaintiff") is the owner of the property located at 1113-1115 WestPatterson, Chicago, Illinois (the "Romano Property").


2/104

2. The Romano Property is developed with three apartment buildings with a total often residential units and parking. The Romano Property is zoned RT-3.5 Residential Two-Flat,Townhome and Multi-Unit District under the City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance.

3. Defendant City ofChicago ("City") is an Illinois municipal corporation.4. Defendant Wrigley Field Holdings, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business being located at 1060 WestAddison Street, Chicago, Illinois60613.

5. Defendant Wrigley Field Parking Operations LLC, is a Delaware limited liability

company with its principal place of business being located at 1060 West Addison Street,Chicago, Illinois 60613.

6. Defendant Triangle Property Holdings LLC, is a Delaware limited liabilitycompany with its principal place of business being located at 1060 West Addison Street,Chicago, Illinois 60613.

7. Defendant North Clark Street LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company withits principal place of business being located at 1053 West Waveland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois60613.

8. Wrigley Field Holdings LLC, Wrigley Field Parking Operations LLC, TriangleProperty Holdings LLC and North Clark Street LLC are collectively referred to herein as"Applicants".

9. Applicants own and/or have an interest in properties located at 1060 WestAddison Street, 3639-3659 North Clark Street, 1101-1103 West Waveland Avenue, 3701-3709North Clifton Avenue and 3614-3640 North Clark Street in the City of Chicago, Illinois

2


3/104

(collectively the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property consists ofWrigley Field and certainadjacent parcels of land.

10. The Romano Property is directly adjacent to the Subject Property.THE ZONING OFTHE SUBJECT PROPERTY

11. On or about April 6,2005, the City approved Entertainment and Spectator SportsPlanned Development No. 958 ("PD 958") as to certain portions of the Subject Property.

12. Pursuant to the City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance, Section 17-13-0612-A:"Every planned development ordinance will lapse and be null and void unlessconstruction, as authorized by a building permit, has commenced within 6 yearsof the date of City Council approval of the planned development ordinance and isthereafter diligently pursued to completion."13. Applicants and/or prior owners of the Subject Property did not commence

construction within 6 years of the date of City Council approval and thereafter diligently pursuesuch construction to completion as required under PD 958 and the City Zoning Ordinance.

14. In 2013, Applicants applied to the City for certain zoning approvals, including anamendment to PD 958.

15. Plaintiff did not receive any written notice of the Applicants' application to theCity.

16. Upon information and belief, the Applicants did not send written notice of theapplication to surrounding property owners via registered mail, return receipt requested asrequired by 65 ILCS 5/11-13-7.

17. On or about July 24, 2013, the City Council of the City enacted ordinance no.S02013-3335, which granted zoning changes for the Subject Property, including an amendmentto PD 958. A copy of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3


4/104

..

18. Pursuant to Ordinance No. S02013-3335, the Subject Property may be developedwith various uses, including a ten (l0) story hotel with 182 rooms and other uses ("Hotel") to belocated on the portion of the Subject Property located on the west side of Clark Street directlyacross fromWrigley field (the "Hotel Site").

19. Pursuant to Ordinance No. S02013-3335, the Hotel may be constructed with zero(0) feet rear setback.

20. Pursuant to Ordinance No. S02013-3335, the underlying zoning classification ofthe Subject Property was changed to C2-5 Motor-Vehicle Related Commercial District, morethan doubling the allowable density and buildable floor area of the Hotel Site.

21. Section 17-8-0901 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides that: "Planneddevelopments are subject to strict compliance with the floor area ratio standards of the zoningdistrict applicable to the subject property immediately before approval of the planneddevelopment. Planned developments must be in substantial compliance with density, use,setback, building height, and open space and other (non-fAR-related) development standards ofthe zoning district applicable to the subject property immediately before approval of the planneddevelopment."

22. In contravention of Section 17-8-0901 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance,Ordinance No. S02013-3335 improperly amended the standards and definitions for thefollowing development standards, including but not limited to, floor area calculations, onpremise signage, accessory parking, planned development ordinance expiration, and sustainableelements.

23. The loading docks, service entrance and refuse area for the Hotel are planned tobe located off ofthe public alley on the west side of the Hotel Site.

4


5/104

24. The loading docks and service entrance for the Hotel are accessible only throughthe public alley on the west side of the Hotel Site.

THE HARMTO THE ROMANO PROPERTY

25. The Romano Property is located directly west of the Hotel Site, and is separatedfrom the Hotel Site by the public alley. The public alley is 16 feet wide.

26. The public alley is the only means of vehicular access to the parking area for theRomano Property.

27. The development, construction, and operation of the Hotel pursuant to OrdinanceNo. S02013-3335 will cause the value of the Romano Property to decrease significantly.

28. The development, construction, and operation of the Hotel pursuant to OrdinanceNo. S02013-3335 is incompatible with the surrounding uses and with the use of the RomanoProperty.

29. The development, construction, and operation of the Hotel pursuant to OrdinanceNo. S02013-3335 will negatively affect use and enjoyment of the Romano Property and otheradjacent residential properties, by causing the following:

a. creating incessant and annoying noise;b. creating visual disturbances from flood lights and flashing lights;c. creating excessive traffic and noise from service trucks and deliveries;d. blocking alley access to the Romano Property;

e. causing unpleasant odors from truck exhaust and refuse;30. The width of the public alley is insufficient to serve the Hotel use, and delivery

trucks will block alley access while attempting to deliver to the Hotel.

5


6/104

31. The action of the City in approving Ordinance No. S02013-3335 was arbitraryand capricious.

32. Ordinance No. S02013-3335 is inconsistent with Plaintiff's existing residentialuses and the residential uses of nearby property because of the location and size of the Hotel, andthe nature and intensity of the Hotel, including the traffic and noise involved in and conducted inconnection with the Hotel.

33. Ordinance No. S02013-3335 has had and will continue to have a significantnegative impact on the value of the Romano Property, because the location and size of the Hotel,and the nature and intensity of the Hotel, is incompatible with the residential use of the RomanoProperty and will discourage tenants from renting the apartment units of the Romano Property.

34. The loss of value of the Romano Property values is not outweighed by the health,safety, morals, or general welfare of the public because the Romano Property will be harmed asset forth above without any benefit to the public, since the Hotel is a private use.

35. The relative gain to the public is non-existent as compared to the hardshipimposed upon the Plaintiff because the Hotel will cater to out-of-town guests while providing nobenefit to the nearby residents and property owners.

36. The Hotel Site is not suitable for the proposed Hotel because it is located adjacentto residential uses, the Hotel Site is too small for a 10 story hotel with 182 rooms, the Hotel Sitecannot accommodate the traffic and loading requirements for the Hotel use, and the Hotel Siteonly has service access from the alley, which will be insufficient for the intensity of the Hoteluse.

37. The Hotel Site IS not currently vacant but is improved with a McDonald'srestaurant.

6


7/104

..

COUNT I - UNCONSTITUTIONAL ZONINGDECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 735 ILCS 5/2-701

38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 37 as

though fully set forth herein.39. Ordinance No. S02013-3335 is arbitrary and capricious, unrelated to the public

health, safety and morals, and in violation of Plaintiff s constitutional rights.40. A real and actual controversy exists between the Plaintiff and Defendants as to the

legality of Ordinance No. S02013-3335. As a result of the foregoing acts, an actual controversyexists between the parties of this action which can be determined by a judgment herein, withoutother suit. This Court is requested, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701, to declare the rights of the partieshereto, and to give such other relief asmay be necessary to enforce this Court's declaration of rights.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare that OrdinanceS02013-3335 or alternatively, that portion of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 approving the Hotelon the Hotel Site, is null and void, of no force and effect, and such other and further reliefas thisCourt deems just and equitable, and award Plaintiff its costs incurred in this matter.

COUNT II - CITY HAD NO LEGAL AUTHORITYTO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. S02013-3335

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 735 ILCS 5/2-70141. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 37 as

though fully set forth herein.42. The City had no legal authority to enact Ordinance No. S02013-3335 because PD

958 had lapsed and expired.43. Since PD 958 had lapsed and expired prior to the filing of the application by

Applicants for the amendment to PD 958, the City did not possess authority to accept, consideror approve an amendment to PD 958 that had lapsed and was no longer in existence.

7


8/104

..

44. Accordingly, Ordinance No. S02013-3335 is null and void and the City had nolegal authority to enact it.

45. Applicants failed to provide written notice pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-13-7, andaccordingly the City had no authority to enact Ordinance No. S02013-3335.

46. Ordinance No. S02013-3335 improperly amended the Chicago ZoningOrdinance, without the City having followed any of the required process to amend the ChicagoZoning Ordinance.

47. A real and actual controversy exists between the Plaintiff and Defendants as to thelegality of Ordinance No. S02013-3335. As a result of the foregoing acts, an actual controversyexists between the parties of this action which can be determined by a judgment herein, withoutother suit. This Court is requested, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701, to declare the rights of the partieshereto, and to give such other relief asmay be necessary to enforce this Court's declaration of rights.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare that OrdinanceS02013-3335, or alternatively, that portion of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 approving the Hotelon the Hotel Site, is null and void, of no force and effect, and that the City of Chicago had nolegal authority to enact such Ordinance and such other and further relief as this Court deems justand equitable, and award Plaintiff its costs incurred in this matter.

COUNT III - INJUNCTION48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully set

forth herein.49. Plaintiff has clearly ascertainable rights in need of protection, including the

protection of the value of the Romano Property, and the continued right to use and enjoy theRomano Property.

8


9/104

50. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm from theplanned and imminent development, construction, and operation of the Hotel pursuant toOrdinance No. S02013-3335.

51. The City's unlawful approval of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 cannot beadequately remedied solely through an action at law, inasmuch as monetary damages alone areclearly inadequate to compensate Plaintiff for the unlawful actions of the City. The Plaintifflacks an adequate remedy at law. There is a substantial likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevailon the merits.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare that OrdinanceS02013-3335 or alternatively, that portion of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 approving the Hotelon the Hotel Site, is null and void, of no force and effect, enjoin Applicants from constructing oroperating the Hotel and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable, andaward Plaintiff its costs incurred in this matter.

COUNT IV- PROSPECTIVE NUISANCE

52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs lthrough 37 as though fully setforth herein

53. Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in and clearly ascertainable and property right toprotect Plaintiffs property from causes and intrusions that unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffsuse and enjoyment of Plaintiffs property or that lead to a loss in value ofPlaintiffs property.

54. Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in and clearly ascertainable and right toprotection from causes and intrusions that may lead to a loss in value of Plaintiffs property.

55. Plaintiff has a legitimate interest, which is a protectable right, certain and clearlyascertainable, to protect Plaintifffrom actions that threaten Plaintiffs health and safety.

9


10/104

56. Applicants, through the development and construction of the Hotel pursuant toOrdinance No. S02013-3335, will unreasonably interfere with the Plaintiffs interest in the useand enjoyment of the Romano Property.

57. Applicants, through the development and construction of the Hotel, willunreasonably interfere with the Plaintiffs property values which will cause significant harm tothe Plaintiff.

58. Applicants, through the development and construction of the Subject Property,will unreasonably harm the health and safety of the Plaintiffby subjecting Plaintiff to excessive

noise, traffic, odors and other negative impacts.59. The Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law. There is a substantial likelihood

that the Plaintiffwill prevail on the merits.60. Plaintiffclaims damages in excess of $6,000,000.00.WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare that the Hotel

approved by the City under Ordinance S02013-3335 shall constitute a nuisance to Plaintiff, andthat the Court enjoin Applicants from constructing or operating the Subject Property for theHotel use pursuant to Ordinance No. S02013-3335, and that this Honorable Court enterjudgment in favor of Plaintiff in such amounts as this Court deems just and equitable, and awardPlaintiffits costs incurred in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,THOMAS A. ROMANO, Sr., Trustee of theThomas A. Romano, Sr. Living Trust DatedMay 11,2000

B Y ~ m : - - - - -10


11/104


12/104

7/24/2013 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 58425

Reclassification Of Area Shown On Map No. 9-8.(As Amended)(Application No. 17730)(Common Address: 1Q60 W. Addison St., 3639 -- 3659 N. Clark St., 1101 -- 1103 W.Waveland Ave., 3701 -- 3709 N. Clifton Ave. And 3614 -- 3640 N. Clark St.)[502013-3335]Be It Ordained by the City Council of the City of Chicago:SECTiON 1. That the Chicago Zoning Ordinance be amended by changing all of theRT4 Residential Two-Flat. Townhouse and Multi-Unit District, Entertainment and SpectatorSports Planned Development Number 958 and 83-2 Community Shopping District symbols

and indications as shown on Map 9-G in the area bounded by:a line 103.78 feet north of and parallel to West Waveland Avenue; a line 120.00 feet eastof and parallel to North Clifton Avenue: West Waveland Avenue; North Sheffield Avenue;West Addison Street; the public alley next west of and parallel (in part) to North ClarkStreet; the north right-of-way line of West Patterson Avenue; North Clark Street; WestWaveland Avenue; and North Clifton Avenue,

to those of a C2-5 Motor Vehicle-Related Commercial District.SECTION 2. That the Chicago Zoning Ordinance be amended by changing all of the C2-5Motor Vehicle-Related Commercial District symbols and indications as shown onMap g-G inthe area bounded by:a line 103.78 feet north of and parallel to West Waveland Avenue; a line 120.00 feet eastof and parallel to North Clifton Avenue; West Waveland Avenue; North Sheffield Avenue;West Addison Street; the public alley next west of and parallel (in part) to North ClarkStreet; the north right-of-way line of West Patterson Avenue; North Clark Street; WestWaveland Avenue; and North Clifton Avenue,

to those of Entertainment and Spectator Sports Planned Development Number 958, asamended.SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be In force and effect from and after its passage and duepublication.

Plan of Development Statements referred to in this ordinance read as follows:

EXHIBIT A


13/104


14/104


15/104


16/104


17/104


18/104


19/104


20/104


21/104


22/104


23/104


24/104


25/104


26/104


27/104


28/104


29/104


30/104


31/104


32/104


33/104


34/104


35/104


36/104


37/104


38/104


39/104


40/104


41/104


42/104


43/104


44/104


45/104


46/104


47/104


48/104


49/104


50/104


51/104


52/104


53/104


54/104


55/104


56/104


57/104


58/104


59/104


60/104


61/104


62/104


63/104


64/104


65/104


66/104


67/104


68/104


69/104


70/104


71/104


72/104


73/104


74/104


75/104


76/104


77/104


78/104


79/104


80/104


81/104


82/104


83/104


84/104


85/104


86/104


87/104


88/104


89/104


90/104


91/104


92/104


93/104


94/104


95/104


96/104


97/104


98/104


99/104


100/104


101/104


102/104


103/104


104/104

Wrigley complaint

Documents

Transcript of Wrigley complaint