.- ,..

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
THOMAS A. ROMANO, Sr, Trustee of
the Thomas A. Romano, Sr. Living Trust
Dated May 11, 2000,
N
f\,. . I
2013CH23837
CALENDAR/ROOM 08
TIME 00;;00
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 ANDOTHER RELIEF
; )
The Plaintiff, Thomas A. Romano, Sr., Trustee of the Thomas A. Romano, Sr;Living
Trust 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 Street
LLC, and states as follows:
PARTIES
1. 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 West
Patterson, Chicago, Illinois (the "Romano Property").
2. The Romano Property is developed with three apartment buildings with a total of
ten 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 of Chicago ("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 West Addison Street, Chicago, Illinois
60613.
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 liability
company 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 with
its principal place of business being located at 1053 West Waveland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
60613.
8. Wrigley Field Holdings LLC, Wrigley Field Parking Operations LLC, Triangle
Property 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 West
Addison Street, 3639-3659 North Clark Street, 1101-1103 West Waveland Avenue, 3701-3709
North Clifton Avenue and 3614-3640 North Clark Street in the City of Chicago, Illinois
2
(collectively the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property consists of Wrigley Field and certain
adjacent parcels of land.
10. The Romano Property is directly adjacent to the Subject Property.
THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
11. On or about April 6,2005, the City approved Entertainment and Spectator Sports
Planned 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 unless
construction, as authorized by a building permit, has commenced within 6 years
of the date of City Council approval of the planned development ordinance and is
thereafter 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 pursue
such 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 an
amendment to PD 958.
15. Plaintiff did not receive any written notice of the Applicants' application to the
City.
16. Upon information and belief, the Applicants did not send written notice of the
application to surrounding property owners via registered mail, return receipt requested as
required 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 amendment
to PD 958. A copy of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3
..
18. Pursuant to Ordinance No. S02013-3335, the Subject Property may be developed
with various uses, including a ten (l0) story hotel with 182 rooms and other uses ("Hotel") to be
located on the portion of the Subject Property located on the west side of Clark Street directly
across from Wrigley 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 of
the Subject Property was changed to C2-5 Motor-Vehicle Related Commercial District, more
than doubling the allowable density and buildable floor area of the Hotel Site.
21. Section 17-8-0901 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides that: "Planned
developments are subject to strict compliance with the floor area ratio standards of the zoning
district applicable to the subject property immediately before approval of the planned
development. Planned developments must be in substantial compliance with density, use,
setback, building height, and open space and other (non-fAR-related) development standards of
the zoning district applicable to the subject property immediately before approval of the planned
development."
22. In contravention of Section 17-8-0901 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance,
Ordinance No. S02013-3335 improperly amended the standards and definitions for the
following development standards, including but not limited to, floor area calculations, on
premise signage, accessory parking, planned development ordinance expiration, and sustainable
elements.
23. The loading docks, service entrance and refuse area for the Hotel are planned to
be located off ofthe public alley on the west side of the Hotel Site.
4
24. The loading docks and service entrance for the Hotel are accessible only through
the 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 separated
from 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 the
Romano Property.
27. The development, construction, and operation of the Hotel pursuant to Ordinance
No. S02013-3335 will cause the value of the Romano Property to decrease significantly.
28. The development, construction, and operation of the Hotel pursuant to Ordinance
No. S02013-3335 is incompatible with the surrounding uses and with the use of the Romano
Property.
29. The development, construction, and operation of the Hotel pursuant to Ordinance
No. S02013-3335 will negatively affect use and enjoyment of the Romano Property and other
adjacent 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
31. The action of the City in approving Ordinance No. S02013-3335 was arbitrary
and capricious.
32. Ordinance No. S02013-3335 is inconsistent with Plaintiff's existing residential
uses and the residential uses of nearby property because of the location and size of the Hotel, and
the nature and intensity of the Hotel, including the traffic and noise involved in and conducted in
connection with the Hotel.
33. Ordinance No. S02013-3335 has had and will continue to have a significant
negative 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 Romano
Property 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 as
set 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 hardship
imposed upon the Plaintiff because the Hotel will cater to out-of-town guests while providing no
benefit to the nearby residents and property owners.
36. The Hotel Site is not suitable for the proposed Hotel because it is located adjacent
to residential uses, the Hotel Site is too small for a 10 story hotel with 182 rooms, the Hotel Site
cannot accommodate the traffic and loading requirements for the Hotel use, and the Hotel Site
only has service access from the alley, which will be insufficient for the intensity of the Hotel
use.
37. The Hotel Site IS not currently vacant but is improved with a McDonald's
restaurant.
6
..
COUNT I - UNCONSTITUTIONAL ZONING
DECLARATORY 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 controversy
exists between the parties of this action which can be determined by a judgment herein, without
other suit. This Court is requested, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701, to declare the rights of the parties
hereto, and to give such other relief as may be necessary to enforce this Court's declaration of rights.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare that Ordinance
S02013-3335 or alternatively, that portion of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 approving the Hotel
on the Hotel Site, is null and void, of no force and effect, and such other and further relief as this
Court deems just and equitable, and award Plaintiff its costs incurred in this matter.
COUNT II - CITY HAD NO LEGAL AUTHORITY
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. S02013-3335
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 735 ILCS 5/2-701
41. 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, consider
or approve an amendment to PD 958 that had lapsed and was no longer in existence.
7
..
44. Accordingly, Ordinance No. S02013-3335 is null and void and the City had no
legal authority to enact it.
45. Applicants failed to provide written notice pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-13-7, and
accordingly the City had no authority to enact Ordinance No. S02013-3335.
46. Ordinance No. S02013-3335 improperly amended the Chicago Zoning
Ordinance, without the City having followed any of the required process to amend the Chicago
Zoning Ordinance.
47. 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 controversy
exists between the parties of this action which can be determined by a judgment herein, without
other suit. This Court is requested, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701, to declare the rights of the parties
hereto, and to give such other relief as may be necessary to enforce this Court's declaration of rights.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare that Ordinance
S02013-3335, or alternatively, that portion of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 approving the Hotel
on the Hotel Site, is null and void, of no force and effect, and that the City of Chicago had no
legal authority to enact such Ordinance and such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and equitable, and award Plaintiff its costs incurred in this matter.
COUNT III - INJUNCTION
48. 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 the
Romano Property.
8
50. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm from the
planned and imminent development, construction, and operation of the Hotel pursuant to
Ordinance No. S02013-3335.
51. The City's unlawful approval of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 cannot be
adequately remedied solely through an action at law, inasmuch as monetary damages alone are
clearly inadequate to compensate Plaintiff for the unlawful actions of the City. The Plaintiff
lacks an adequate remedy at law. There is a substantial likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail
on the merits.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare that Ordinance
S02013-3335 or alternatively, that portion of Ordinance No. S02013-3335 approving the Hotel
on the Hotel Site, is null and void, of no force and effect, enjoin Applicants from constructing or
operating the Hotel and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable, and
award Plaintiff its costs incurred in this matter.
COUNT IV- PROSPECTIVE NUISANCE
52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs lthrough 37 as though fully set
forth herein
53. Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in and clearly ascertainable and property right to
protect Plaintiffs property from causes and intrusions that unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs
use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs property or that lead to a loss in value of Plaintiffs property.
54. Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in and clearly ascertainable and right to
protection 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 clearly
ascertainable, to protect Plaintiff from actions that threaten Plaintiffs health and safety.
9
56. Applicants, through the development and construction of the Hotel pursuant to
Ordinance No. S02013-3335, will unreasonably interfere with the Plaintiffs interest in the use
and enjoyment of the Romano Property.
57. Applicants, through the development and construction of the Hotel, will
unreasonably interfere with the Plaintiffs property values which will cause significant harm to
the Plaintiff.
58. Applicants, through the development and construction of the Subject Property,
will unreasonably harm the health and safety of the Plaintiff by 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 Plaintiff will prevail on the merits.
60. Plaintiff claims 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, and
that the Court enjoin Applicants from constructing or operating the Subject Property for the
Hotel use pursuant to Ordinance No. S02013-3335, and that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in favor of Plaintiff in such amounts as this Court deems just and equitable, and award
Plaintiff its costs incurred in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS A. ROMANO, Sr., Trustee of the
Thomas A. Romano, Sr. Living Trust Dated
May 11,2000
B Y ~ m : - - - - -
10
Saul R. Wexler
Grumley, Kamin, Wexler & Rosie LLC
70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Phone: (312) 558-9191
Attorney ID# 21868
11
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 the
RT4 Residential Two-Flat. Townhouse and Multi-Unit District, Entertainment and Spectator
Sports 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 east
of 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 Clark
Street; the north right-of-way line of West Patterson Avenue; North Clark Street; West
Waveland 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 C2-5
Motor Vehicle-Related Commercial District symbols and indications as shown on Map g-G in
the area bounded by:
a line 103.78 feet north of and parallel to West Waveland Avenue; a line 120.00 feet east
of 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 Clark
Street; the north right-of-way line of West Patterson Avenue; North Clark Street; West
Waveland Avenue; and North Clifton Avenue,
to those of Entertainment and Spectator Sports Planned Development Number 958, as
amended.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be In force and effect from and after its passage and due
publication.
Plan of Development Statements referred to in this ordinance read as follows:
EXHIBIT A