wolf point suit

{4304775:5}

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

THE RESIDENCES AT RIVERBEND

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an Illinois

Not-For-Profit Corporation; ELLEN BARRY,

JOHN SIMON, PETER BROIDO and WILLIAM

AYLESWORTH,

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13-cv-4007

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation; )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,

INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiffs, The RESIDENCES AT RIVERBEND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an

Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, ELLEN BARRY, JOHN SIMON, PETER BROIDO and

WILLIAM AYLESWORTH, by and through their attorneys, McDonald Hopkins LLC, as and

for their complaint against the City of Chicago state as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiffs contend that an ordinance amending zoning adopted by the City Council

of the City of Chicago on March 13, 2013, to amend the plan of development for a portion of

Planned Development No. 98 (Amended PD-98), commonly known as Wolf Point, adversely

affects Plaintiffs property interests and that Plaintiffs were deprived of procedural and

substantive due process of law as well as denied equal protection under the law. A copy of

Amended PD-98 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Illinois Constitution provides similar

Case: 1:13-cv-04007 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/13 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:1

{4304775:5} 2

protection of both substantive and procedural due process as well as equal protection under the

law. Additionally, Section 11-13-25 of the Illinois Municipal Code provides as follows:

(a) Any decision by the corporate authorities of any municipality, home rule

or non-home rule, in regard to any petition or application for a special use,

variance, rezoning, or other amendment to a zoning ordinance shall be subject

to de novo judicial review as a legislative decision, regardless of whether the

process in relation thereto 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 apply at all

stages of the decision-making and review of all zoning decisions.

JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction of this court is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and the

Constitution of the United States of America.

PARTIES

3. At all times herein, Plaintiff, THE RESIDENCES AT RIVERBEND

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION (Riverbend) was, and is, a non-profit corporation,

organized under the laws of Illinois. Riverbend and its association members own property at 333

N. Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiffs property is located within 250 feet of Wolf Point,

property purportedly owned and/or controlled by Wolf Point Owners, LLC.

4. Plaintiffs, ELLEN BARRY, JOHN SIMON, JOHN BROIDO and WILLIAM

AYLESWORTH are citizens of the state of Illinois and members of the Riverbend association by

and through their ownership of real property at 333 N. Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois.

5. Defendant, the CITY OF CHICAGO ("City"), is a municipal corporation and an

Illinois home rule unit of local government. Defendant has been notified of this action by the

service of a copy of a Summons and this Complaint on its Mayor as its chief executive officer.


{4304775:5} 3

6. Notice of this action has been sent to all owners of real property within 250 feet of

the real property described in Exhibit A and referred to herein as the Wolf Point Property or

Wolf Point, all in accordance with 65 ILCS 5/11-13-8.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The purpose of the creation of a Planned Development for Wolf Point in 1973 was to

encourage development in the Fulton River and River North areas.

7. On June 22, 1973, the City passed a zoning ordinance creating Planned

Development No. 98 (PD-98). PD-98 affected and changed the zoning for an undeveloped

parcel of property adjoining the Chicago River. The parcel was generally bounded by the

Chicago River on the south and west; Kinzie Street on the north and Orleans Street on the east.

PD-98 was divided into two separate and distinct subareas for development: Subarea A (the

Apparel Center property) and Subarea B (the Wolf Point Property or Wolf Point).

8. Pursuant to PD-98, each of Subarea A and Subarea B had its own specified

permitted uses and maximum Floor Area Ratios (FAR).

9. In 1973, Subarea A and Subarea B were owned by LaSalle National Bank, as

trustee under Trust No. 36223. The beneficiaries of Trust No. 36223 were, generally, trusts

created for the benefit of family members and descendants of Joseph P. Kennedy. In 1973, the

family members and descendants of Joseph P. Kennedy also were the beneficial owners of

certain property, commonly known as the Merchandise Mart, adjacent to the Wolf Point Property

and lying directly east of the Wolf Point Property. Upon information and belief, legal title to the

Merchandise Mart property was also held by LaSalle National Bank as Trustee under Trust No.

36223 in 1973.

10. Wolf Point is the north boundary of the Confluence of the Chicago River. The

Confluence is where the Main Stem of the Chicago River splits into the North Branch and the


{4304775:5} 4

South Branch of the Chicago River. The Confluence is where the first inhabitants of Chicago

lived, where the first commercial development occurred and the Confluence served as the first

harbor for the City of Chicago. The area immediately to the north of the Confluence is

commonly known as the River North District of Chicago. The area immediately to the west of

the Confluence is commonly known as the Fulton River District of Chicago.

11. By 1973, the development of the City of Chicago was such that downtown

Chicago (Downtown) was located south and east of the Confluence and the property located

north and west of the Confluence was used generally used for railroad access to service

Downtown, light industrial purposes and storage and warehousing purposes. No residential use

existed near the Confluence in 1973. Many of the buildings near the Confluence were aging

and/or underutilized. The buildings located north of the Confluence were mainly replacements

for buildings destroyed by the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.

i. The FAR and Permitted Uses for Wolf Point under PD-98 as of 1973

12. The zoning allowed by PD-98 allowed separate mixes of uses of the two separate

subareas. The plan of development set different maximum bulk standards for each subarea and

for the two subareas taken together. A copy of the Planned Development Use and Bulk

Regulations and Data included in the 1973 ordinance creating PD-98 is attached hereto as

Exhibit B.

13. In planned development zoning parlance, the buildable area of the property is

known as the net site area. The FAR sets the density of structures on the buildable area. An

FAR of 12 means that, if 100% of the net site area is covered with a structure shaped like a

solid block, the structure could not exceed 12 stories in height. However, lot line-to-lot line

squat bulky buildings are not common. Taller, tapered and stepped-back buildings are usually

preferred in zoning by municipalities, developers and developers architects. To regulate the


{4304775:5} 5

design of taller, tapered or stepped back structures, maximum land coverage percentages may

and generally are imposed.

14. The permitted uses for Subarea A, the Apparel Center property under PD-98,

were: Merchandise Mart, Exhibition Facilities, Office Uses, Hotel, Parking Facilities and

Related Uses. The net site area of the Apparel Center property was designated as 187,181 sq.

ft. and the maximum FAR allowed was 12, giving a maximum density of approximately 2.2

million sq. ft. of structures (187,183 x 12) with a maximum land coverage of 85% up to a plane

20 stories above the Orleans Street Plaza level and no more than 50% above a plane 20 stories

above the Orleans Street Plaza level.

15. The permitted uses for Subarea B, the Wolf Point Property, were: Office

Building, Retail, Residential, Parking Facilities and Related Uses. The net site area of the

Wolf Point Property was designated as 167,730 sq. ft. and the maximum FAR allowed was 24,

giving a maximum density of approximately 4 million sq. ft. of structures (167,730 sq. ft. x 24)

with a maximum land coverage of 60% up to a plane 20 stories above the Orleans Street Plaza

level and no more than 40% above a plane 20 stories above the Orleans Street Plaza Level.

16. The total square footage allowed by the 1973 zoning of PD-98 for the Apparel

Center property and the Wolf Point Property is 6.2 million sq. ft. of buildings.

17. For purposes of comparison of intensity of use, Sears (now Willis) Tower has

approximately 4.3 million sq. ft. of building space. The Merchandise Mart has 4.2 million sq. ft.

of building space. Trump Tower Chicago has 2.6 million feet of building space.

18. After passage of PD-98, the Apparel Center property was developed with the

construction of a 24-story building with 2 million sq. ft. of primarily exhibition facilities, office


{4304775:5} 6

and hotel use. The Apparel Center structure was completed in 1977. It contains only a few off-

street parking spaces.

B. For almost 40 years, the owner of the Wolf Point Property performed no meaningful

development on Wolf Point.

19. In the past 40 years, no structure for office, retail or residential use has been built

on the Wolf Point Property. The Wolf Point Property has been used to merely provide off-street

parking spaces appurtenant to the various uses of the adjacent Merchandise Mart and Apparel

Center.

20. Upon information and belief, in 1997, title to the Apparel Center property, the

Wolf Point Property and the Merchandise Mart property was transferred from LaSalle National

Bank Trust No. 36223 to LaSalle Bank National Association, successor to LaSalle National

Bank, as Trustee under Trust No. 121000. The beneficiaries of the new trust continued to be the

family members and descendants of Joseph P. Kennedy.

21. Upon information and belief, in 1998, the Apparel Center property and the

Merchandise Mart property were sold for a reported $384 million by Trust No. 121000 to a

subsidiary of Vornado Realty Trust and title to the properties was conveyed to 350 N. Orleans

Street, L.L.C.

22. As part of the sale, LaSalle National Bank Association, as Trustee under Trust

No. 121000 and 350 North Orleans Street, L.L.C. entered into a Development Rights Agreement

(DRA) on April 1, 1998. In Section 2.1(a) of the DRA the parties agreed structures to be built

on the Wolf Point Property shall consist of a one or two-tower multi-use facility. In Section

2.1(e) the DRA granted to the purchaser of the Apparel Center property a perpetual 50%-

unobstructed view corridor zone looking southward across the Wolf Point Property. The DRA

was recorded against the properties on April 9, 1998 as Document No. 98284705.


{4304775:5} 7

23. The DRA substantially and adversely affected the ability to site and construct

buildings on the Wolf Point Property.

24. In Section 2.2 of the DRA, the owner of the Wolf Point Property agreed to build

an access road along the northern boundary of the Wolf Point Property and the south face of the

Apparel Center. The access road was designed to provide access under a certain Reciprocal

Easement Agreement executed by the owners of the Wolf Point, Apparel Center and

Merchandise Mart properties to provide a guaranteed number of parking spaces on the Wolf

Point Property for users of the Apparel Center and Merchandise Mart property. Section 2.2(c) of

the DRA provided the air rights above the access road were encumbered as a setback area from

the Apparel Center building which would be maintained free and clear of any improvements.

The DRA was recorded against the property on April 9, 1998 as Document No. 98284705.

25. On November 1, 2004, the same parties to the DRA executed a First Amendment

to the 1998 DRA. Section 3(e) of the First Amendment to the DRA granted the owner of the

Apparel Center an expanded perpetual 50%-unobstructed view corridor zone looking southward

across the Wolf Point Property equal to approximately 390 feet along the south face of the

Apparel Center and looking southward across the Wolf Point Property. In Section 3(a) of the

First Amendment, the owner of the Wolf Point Property and the owner of the Apparel Center

property agreed that the development on the Wolf Point Property shall consist of one, two or

three buildings. The First Amendment also states in Recital C that the Apparel Center owner

has substantially completed the relocation of the principal entrance from Orleans Street to

the south side of the building. Finally, Section 3(f) of the First Amendment created an enlarged

setback area 90 feet deep across from the new principal entrance of the Apparel Center and

Section 3(g) imposed a further expanded setback of 10 feet for a pedestrian sidewalk on the


{4304775:5} 8

south edge of the access road. The First Amendment to the DRA was recorded against the

properties on December 14, 2004 as Document No. 0434939062.

26. The DRA substantially encumbered Wolf Point which limited the development of

Wolf Point. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a graphic illustration of the boundaries of Wolf

Point with the existing site constraints overlaid (the approximately 390 foot wide 360 North

Orleans (Apparel Center) View Easement Zone is encumbered only to the extent of 50% of that

zone).

C. Over the past 40 years, extensive other development in the River North and Fulton

River Districts has rendered meaningless the original purpose of PD-98 and

demonstrated the lack of need by the community for the development legislated in

Amended PD-98.

27. Beginning with the Chicago 21 Plan in the early 1970s, the City has pursued a

strategy designed to have people move back to the City from the suburbs. The strategy has been

particularly successful in the River North and Fulton River Districts of the City surrounding the

Wolf Point Property.

28. Substantial residential development has occurred in the River North and Fulton

River Districts of Chicago since 1973. Over 4,000 new residential dwelling units have been

developed in the past 10 years. Substantial amounts of vacant or underused industrial and

storage space has been converted to residential use or razed for residential development. Over

1,000 additional residential living units are currently under construction within a few blocks of

the Wolf Point Property, including a 450 unit luxury residential high rise at Kingsbury and

Hubbard Streets being constructed approximately 500 feet from PD-98.

29. The Merchandise Mart and the Apparel Center have changed their business model

to move from floor space for exhibits to office tenants who come and go to work daily resulting

in a much more dense population of people utilizing the floor space. For example,


{4304775:5} 9

Google/Motorola Mobility has announced a plan to locate workers at the adjacent Merchandise

Mart and is expected to grow the number of workers at that location to 5,000 persons. Attached

hereto as Exhibit D is a recent photograph of the Wolf Point Property and the areas to the north

(River North) and west (Fulton River) of the Confluence with an overlay of the developments

and the density of added use.

30. The rapid growth in the River North and Fulton River Districts has resulted in

significant stress on neighborhood infrastructure at or near PD-98. Orleans Street is now a major

route for rush hour traffic leaving the Loop and heading to the Ontario Street feeder into the Dan

Ryan and John F. Kennedy Expressways. During the evening rush hour, traffic crawls along

Orleans Street.

31. Kinzie Street is a two-lane street across the Kinzie Street Bridge and,

approximately 2 years ago, became the first street in Chicago to have dedicated bicycle lanes.

Sidewalks along Canal Street are so narrow, pedestrians must walk single-file each way to pass

each other and avoid stepping into the street.

32. The commuter railroad tracks which cross Canal Street at grade adjacent to

Plaintiffs property have become a significant public safety hazard due to the dramatic increase

in traffic. Traffic backs up on the tracks beyond the railroad crossing barriers when traffic

cannot move on Canal Street due to congestion blocking Kinzie Street from the intersection at

the termination of Milwaukee Avenue at the intersection of Des Plaines Street and Kinzie Street

to the intersection of LaSalle Street and Kinzie Street. First responders cannot navigate through

traffic to answer emergency calls on Canal Street and firemen and paramedics have been seen to

abandon their vehicles and run down Kinzie and Canal Streets to get to emergencies.


{4304775:5} 10

33. Nevertheless, 900,000 sq. ft. of office space is under construction at the northwest

corner of Canal Street and Lake Street, commonly known as River Point. And, Blommer

Chocolate is scheduled to expand its manufacturing and distribution plant from 1.3 acres to 5.5

acres along the north side of Kinzie Street between Des Plaines Street and the railroad viaduct

east of the termination of Clinton Street.

34. Northbound Canal Street terminates at Kinzie Street east of the Kinzie Street

Bridge; southbound Kingsbury Street terminates at Kinzie Street east of the Kinzie Street Bridge.

Traffic from both streets must empty onto Kinzie Street. Traffic on Kinzie Street does not

connect to elevated Orleans Street, the only city street providing direct access to the Wolf Point

Property.

35. There is no need in the community for the development of Wolf Point as allowed

under Amended PD-98 given all the recent and current development in River North and Fulton

River Districts.

D. After failing to develop the Wolf Point Property over a 39-year period the owner

filed an Application for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance BPD No. 98 on May 30,

2012, which Ordinance no longer existed by reason of laspe.

36. The Application for an amended zoning ordinance was filed on May 30, 2012

with the Office of the Zoning Administrator, an office in the Citys Department of Housing and

Economic Development (DHED). A proposed ordinance amending PD-98 was attached to the

Application. DHED transferred the Application to the City Clerk. The City Clerk placed the

Application on the agenda for the City Councils next meeting and the City Council referred the

Application to its Committee on Zoning, Landmarks and Building Standards (Zoning

Committee). The Zoning Committee then referred the Application to the Chicago Plan

Commission for the holding of public hearings on the amended zoning ordinance.


{4304775:5} 11

37. The Chicago Plan Commission held a public hearing on January 24, 2013, at

which it approved the Application and recommended that the Application be approved by the

Zoning Committee and the amended ordinance be adopted by the City Council. The Plan

Commission returned the Application to the Zoning Committee of the City Council along with

its findings, determination and recommendation.

38. On February 26, 2013, the Zoning Committee held its public hearing for the

purpose of reviewing the proposed amended zoning of PD-98 and approved the Application and

returned the Application to the City Council with its report stating that it recommended the

amended zoning ordinance be adopted.

39. On March 11, 2013, the City Council approved the report and adopted the

amended zoning ordinance for PD-98 (Amended PD-98). See Exhibit A.

40. Amnended PD-98 is invalid, and/or in the alternative, violates existing zoning

ordinances in one or more of the following ways:

i. Lapse of PD-98

41. The application to amend the 1973 zoning for PD-98 (Application) was filed

with the DHED on May 30, 2012. The time period between enactment of PD-98 in 1973 and the

filing of the Application amounted to almost 39 years.

42. Section 17-13-0612-A of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides: 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.

43. Section 17-13-0612-D of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides: If

construction does not begin within the time set forth, or the construction does not proceed with


{4304775:5} 12

reasonable diligence, or if the construction in a multi-phase 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.

44. Section 17-13-0612-E of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides: Should a

planned development ordinance lapse, as provided in this section, the Zoning Administrator 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

45. PD-98 provided for the development and construction of office, residential and

retail buildings, parking facilities and related uses (collectively the Improvements).

46. Subarea A and Subarea B are and have always been treated as separate and

distinct parcels of real property for purposed of PD-98 with different and distinct restrictions on

development.

47. Construction and issuance of permits on Subarea A is separate and distinct from

any construction and issuance of permits on Subarea B in terms of the City of Chicago Zoning

Ordinances.

48. The only construction on Subarea B following the enactment of PD-98 was a

parking structure that was demolished in 2003 or 2004.

49. Notwithstanding that the owner of Subarea B contemplated the construction of

two or three buildings as contemplated in the DRAs in 1998 and 2004 respectively, not a single

building permit has been issued for Subarea B in the past ten or more years.

50. The construction of the Improvements of Subarea B has not been pursued

diligently within 6 years of the enactment of PD-98.


{4304775:5} 13

51. PD-98 lapsed by operation of law and the ordinance creating it became null and

void. There was no PD-98 ordinance that could be amended in 2013.

ii. Amended PD-98 is in derogation of the Comprehensive Plan

52. The most recent comprehensive plan of land use and development adopted by the

City of Chicago Plan Commission for the area including Wolf Point is the 2009 Central Area

Action Plan (CAAP). The North Subdistricts chapter of the 2009 CAAP, River North portion,

contains recommendations specific to Wolf Point at pages 4-16 and 4-17. A copy of the River

North portion of the 2009 CAAP is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

53. The 2009 CAAP acknowledges that the owners plans call for building 3 towers

at Wolf Point. Nevertheless, the 2009 CAAP recommendation is specific: 2 towers located in an

Opportunity Site along the north section of the Wolf Point Property, unified naturalized open

space along the south section of the Wolf Point Property (as disclosed in Image RN-1 on page

4-17) and the existing natural bluff and riverbank should be maintained because they would

complement the hard riverbank edge of adjacent developments.

54. The 2009 CAAP was adopted by the Chicago Plan Commission on August 20,

2009. Section 17-13-0308-A of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance states that in considering a

proposed zoning map amendment, review bodies and decision-making bodies should consider

whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with any plans for the area that have been adopted

by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council

55. The day of the Plan Commission meeting to review the Application, January 24,

2013, the DHED issued its Report For Approval: Proposed Amendment to Planned

Development No. 98 (Report) to the Plan Commission. The Report recommended approval

of the Application for amended zoning. A copy of the DHED Report is attached hereto as

Exhibit F.


{4304775:5} 14

56. Recommendation 3 and Finding 1 in the DHED Report are contrary to 2009

CAAP approved by the Plan Commission. See Exhibit F, pages 7, 9-10.

57. Amended PD-98 allows 3 skyscrpaers to be built on the Wolf Point Property,

disregards the siting of the opportunity zone and the open space zone, contains no

naturalized open space and retaining only 10% of the existing natural bluff and riverbank.

The portion retained is covered over and cannot act as a complement to the hard edge of

surrounding developments. The remaining 90% of the natural bluff and riverbank is removed

and the riverbank is reconstructed as a hard edge that is bulkheaded.

58. The finding of the DHED that the amended zoning of the Wolf Point Property is

aligned with or adheres to the objectives of the 2009 CAAP is patently erroneous, misleading,

arbitrary and capricious.

iii. The Setback Area The Zoning Ordinance

59. Section 17-8-0509-A makes development of land within 100 feet of a waterway

subject to planned development approval. It provides: Planned development review and

approval is required for the development of land for any building, structure, or parking area,

when any portion of the land is located within 100 feet of any waterway.

60. Section 17-8-0912 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance imposes mandatory

restrictions on the development of property within 100 feet of the Chicago River. The Wolf Point

Property adjoins the Chicago River for approximately 950 feet.

61. Section 17-8-0912-A of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides a planned

development along the Chicago River must: provide a minimum setback of 30 feet from the top

of the bank along all points of the waterway adjacent to the Chicago River


{4304775:5} 15

62. Section 17-4-1006-A provides that Open space, parks, and public access

corridors along the Chicago River are eligible for floor area bonuses, provided they meet the

following minimum standards: 3. Setback areas must be open from the ground to the sky.

63. Amended PD-98 provides that the various documents attached and made a part of

the amended zoning ordinance are the Plan of Development and attached Sub-Area B Bulk

Regulations and Data Table (Amended Bulk Table) which states on page 1 that Setbacks

are Per Site Plans. A copy of the 2-page Amended Bulk Table is found in Exhibit A.

64. The Site Plan, the Phase 1 Green Roof Plan and the Tower Setbacks pages

attached to Amended PD-98 evidence that the West Tower and the East Tower are built into the

30 foot Riverwalk setback area and the setback area is not open from the ground to the sky. The

placement of the support columns for the 3 towers are represented by tiny circles at or close to

the edges of the tower outlines. The Phase 1 Riverwalk Cross-Sections; Wolf Point West

Tower depicts structural support columns on the sloped natural riverbank and the rest of the

improvements below the structure extending completely across the 30 foot setback area and past

the top of the riverbank. See Exhibit A.

65. Recommendation 21 of the DHED Report states that the amended zoning will

adhere to the waterway requirements as evidenced through the setback provisions and

mitigations detailed in this report, as well as, in the site and landscape plans which accompany

this proposal. See Exhibit F, page 9.

66. The 30 foot setback area is mandatory under PD zoning. The finding of the

DHED that the amended zoning of the Wolf Point Property complies with the setback area

mandated by the Section 17-8-0912-A is patently erroneous, misleading, arbitrary and

capricious.


{4304775:5} 16

iv. The Setback Area The 2005 Design Guidelines

67. In 1999 and again in 2005, the City adopted design guidelines and standards for

construction along the Chicago River. The design guidelines and standards are mandatory for

PD zoning. Section 17-8-0912-H of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance states that PD zoning must

comply with the general goals set forth in the Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines

Downtown Corridor, and any other inland waterway design guidelines adopted by the Plan

Commission or City Council.

68. In April of 2005, the Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines and Standards

(Design Guidelines) were adopted. The Design Guidelines require a 30 foot setback in depth

from the top of the riverbank of the Chicago River and prohibit the building of structures in the

setback area. Copies of pages 5-10 of the 2005 Design Guidelines are attached hereto as Exhibit

G. Figure 1.2 on page 5 and Figure 2.1 on page 8 show the boundary of the setback area running

upward to the sky.

69. Section 2.4 on page 8 of the Design Guidelines provides that buildings and

structures are not permitted in the setback zone, except as noted below in the Guidelines.

70. Section 2.7 of the Design Guidelines on Page 9 notes that Section 17-4-1006 of

the Chicago Zoning Ordinance (mentioned above) allows FAR bonuses for projects where the

setback area exceeds the minimum 30 feet.

71. Section 2.8 of the Design Guidelines on Page 9 pertains to permitted variances as

to depth and length. Section 2.8 provides:

Maximum variance (depth): Structures and private yards may encroach into the 30-

foot river setback a maximum of ten (10) feet, so that the minimum setback is never less

than twenty (20) feet from the top of the bank. (Emphasis in original.)

72. The DHED Report issued on January 24, 2013, Landscaping section (Exhibit F,

page 5) states that PD-98 is subject to the requirements of the 2005, Chicago Plan Commission-


{4304775:5} 17

approved, Chicago River Corridor Design Guidelines and Standards and calculates an amount

of square footage of encroachment. However, the amount of setback area supposedly calculated

as encroachment is not the amount of area of encroachment within 30 feet from the top of the

riverbank. Moreover, the encroachment extends beyond the maximum depth that may be

encumbered by a permitted variance. No encumbrances for new buildings are permitted by the

Design Guidelines to encroach closer than 20 feet from the top of the riverbank.

73. There is no authority to allow an impermissible variance which can be converted

to a permissible variance by a donation of land to open space as mitigation. Doing so would

allow complete encroachment into the 30 foot setback area as long as a requisite number of

square feet elsewhere on the property are encumbered as mitigation for the complete removal of

any setback area. Such a result is not permitted by the Design Guidelines. (See Exhibit G,

page 5, and compare with the Phase 1 Green Roof Plan and the Tower Setbacks pages in

Exhibit A attached hereto.)

v. Relief From Self-Imposed Hardship

74. Under Illinois law, it is unjust to grant a variance when hardship in developing the

property under existing zoning restrictions is created by the owner. Section 17-13-1107-C of the

Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides authority for the City Zoning Board of Appeals to grant

variances. It states:

In making its determination of whether practical difficulties or particular

hardships exist, the Zoning Board of Appeals must take into consideration the

extent to which evidence has been submitted substantiating the following facts:

1. the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of

the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the

property owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter

of the regulations were carried out;


{4304775:5} 18

2. the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based would not

be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning

classification;

3. the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to

make more money out of the property;

4. the alleged practical difficulty or particular hardship has not been created

by any person presently having an interest in the property.

***

75. The Report submitted by the DHED (Exhibit F) was relied upon by the Plan

Commission and the Zoning Committee to recommend the approval of Amended PD-98.

76. The natural physical shape of the Wolf Point Property causes no particular

hardship to the owner in complying with the 30 foot setback from the Chicago River under the

60%/40% land coverage restrictions of the 1973 amended zoning ordinance.

77. The conditions under which the amended zoning ordinance grants relief from the

River setback area are the encumbrances created by the owner of the Wolf Point Property in

1998 and 2004.

78. The purpose of seeking relief from the River setback area is exclusively to make

more money for the owner from the property.

79. At the time the Application for amended zoning was filed, the beneficial owners

of the Wolf Point Property in 1998 and 2004 still had a beneficial interest in the Wolf Point

Property.

80. The conclusion of the DHED Report (Exhibit F, pages 5, 9-10) that the amended

zoning of the Wolf Point Property allows permitted encroachments by variance of setback depth

and complies with the Citys Design Guidelines is patently erroneous, misleading, arbitrary and

capricious.


{4304775:5} 19

vi. Protection and Conservation of Natural Resources

81. Section 17-8-0106 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance declares that the intent of the

planned development regulations is to: encourage protection and conservation of natural

resources.

82. In 2006, the City adopted the Chicago Nature and Wildlife Plan (2006 Nature

Plan). In 2011, the City adopted the Chicago Nature and Wildlife Plan Update (2011-2016)

(2011 Nature Plan Update). Both plans provide: the plans number one priority is to protect

the remaining natural habitats in the city. A copy of page 8 of the 2006 Nature Plan is attached

hereto as Exhibit H. A copy of page 3 of the 2011 Nature Plan Update is attached hereto as

Exhibit I.

83. Recommendation 6 of the Report of the DHED (Exhibit F, page 8), finds that the

amended zoning would protect and conserve natural resources by the provision of a new section

of public river walk which will include historical information.

84. Provision of a new unnatural resource does not assure protection or conservation

of existing natural resources.

85. The Wolf Point riverbank extends for approximately 950 feet along the Main

Stem and the North Branch of the Chicago River. Approximately 900 feet of the 950 feet

fronting on the Chicago River now has a green and natural bluff and riverbank between the table

land and the Chicago River. At the top of the existing natural bluff is an existing concrete path

which is described as a riverwalk. The Existing Riverwalk is shown in the Phase 1 Site and

Landscape Plan: Wolf Point West Tower page attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Existing

Riverwalk is shown as double-dotted line with 2 single-dotted lines beyond depicting the

Normal Water Line and the boundary of the deeded Wolf Point Property showing the property

in the Chicago River which has been lost to erosion.


{4304775:5} 20

86. Renderings appearing on the Wolf Point web site illustrate how, after the Wolf

Point Property is fully developed under the amended zoning, approximately 800 feet of the 900

feet of the natural bluff and riverbank will be removed, the property re-graded and lowered and

the riverbank unnaturally bulkheaded from the south end of the proposed West Tower on the

North Branch to the footings of the Franklin (Orleans) Street Bridge on the Main Stem of the

Chicago River. A copy of the rendering illustrating the replacement bulkheaded riverbank from

Orleans St. to the point of Wolf Point is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

87. The conclusion of the DHED Report that the amended zoning of the Wolf Point

Property protects and conserves natural resources (the existing natural bluff and riverbank) is

patently erroneous, misleading, arbitrary and capricious.

vii. KLOA Traffic Study

88. Section 17-8-0904-A of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides that planned

developments should: 5. minimize and mitigate traffic congestion associated with the proposed

development.

89. The Wolf Point traffic study used to support the amended ordinance was produced

by Kenig, Lindgren, OHara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA) and released in May of 2012.

90. Between May of 2012 and January of 2013, the KLOA traffic study was reported

to have been revised five times.

91. Samuel Schwartz Engineering, Inc., a traffic consultant, was retained by

opponents of the project to perform an audit of the traffic counts existing at intersections

disclosed in the May, 2012 initial KLOA traffic study. Schwartzs preliminary report

determined that KLOAs traffic counts were understated by 50% to 200%. However, in

February, 2013, while the hearings on the zoning change were still ongoing, Schwartz suddenly


{4304775:5} 21

withdrew from the project. Schwartz stated that the reason for the withdrawal was its desire to

pursue business from the developer of the Wolf Point project.

92. Upon information and belief, the final version of the KLOA traffic study is not a

traffic study designed to evaluate Phase II and Phase III or the entire scope of the Wolf Point

development. After five revisions, the traffic study conclusions appear to be limited to an

analysis of increased traffic due only to construction of the Phase I West Tower.

93. Plaintiffs have attempted to obtain full copies of the revisions of the KLOA traffic

study. However, the defendant, City, has declined to release copies to Plaintiffs.

94. Paragraph 16 of the developer Statements attached to and included in the

amended zoning ordinance provides, prior to approval of the site plan for Phases II and III, the

developer shall submit a new traffic study that contemplates the full extent of the development

to assure the proposed development will not establish an improperly mitigated burden on the

existing infrastructure ... See Exhibit A, Statements, page 7.

95. The approval of the Amended Bulk Table setting forth the density that is

permitted for Phases II and III (the much larger South Tower and East Towers) and a Site Plan

that locates the placement of the South and East Towers was done without a reliable traffic study

to support the allowance of a total of four million square feet of new space on the Wolf Point

Property.

96. Section 17-8-0102 Chicago Zoning Ordinance states that the regulations are

intended to encourage unified planning and development. A traffic study should contemplate

the full extent of the development permitted and not defer a full traffic study until a later date

with no public review. The Wolf Point traffic study should have been adequate to support the

density and setback variances granted for all 3 Phases. It was not and Amended PD-98 does not


{4304775:5} 22

create a unified rational plan of development for the entire Wolf Point property is patently

misleading, arbitrary and capricious.

viii. Wolf Point Plaza Drive

97. The 1973 zoning for PD-98 presumed separate access for the Apparel Center

property and the Wolf Point Property directly from Orleans Street.

98. The Wolf Point Property is a peninsula. The property abuts only one street,

elevated Orleans Street. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a copy of a photograph of the Wolf

Point Property taken during September of 2012.

99. As Franklin Street crosses the Franklin Street Bridge over the Chicago River, it

becomes Orleans Street. The bridge is elevated and Orleans Street remains elevated above

ground level until it intersects Hubbard Street two city blocks north of the Chicago River.

Frontage of the Wolf Point Property on elevated Orleans Street is limited to approximately 130

feet at the northeast corner of the Wolf Point Property.

100. The amended zoning ordinance presumes combined access for the Apparel Center

property and the Wolf Point Property directly from elevated Orleans Street across elevated Wolf

Point Plaza Drive.

101. According to the public statements of the alderman of the ward in which the Wolf

Point Property is located, Wolf Point Owners, L.L.C. has agreed to limit all traffic (except

delivery traffic) that enters the Wolf Point Property to elevated Orleans Street. However, the

limitation of all such traffic to entry from and across elevated Wolf Point Plaza Drive is not

mentioned anywhere in the amended zoning ordinance.

102. Wolf Point Plaza Drive is inadequate to allow access for multiple emergency

vehicles in the case of an emergency or a disaster on the Wolf Point Property. It presents a

public safety hazard to first responders and anyone living, working or visiting at the Wolf Point


{4304775:5} 23

Property or the Apparel Center property. Section 17-8-0904-A provides: Planned developments

should: provide safe and ample access for emergency and delivery vehicles

103. Plaintiffs have requested to be provided with any report or comments of first

responders concerning any proposal to amend the zoning ordinance. The defendant, City, has

not provided Plaintiffs with any report or comments by first responders.

104. Wolf Point Plaza Drive is inadequate to handle automobile, pedestrian and bicycle

traffic of the existing 2 million sq. ft. of office and hotel space on the Apparel Center property

and the maximum 4 million sq. of mixed uses planned for the Wolf Point Property. There is no

direct ingress to the Apparel Center property from Orleans Street at the elevated street level.

There will be no direct ingress to any of the structures allowed on Wolf Point from Orleans

Street at the elevated street level.

105. The typical local, residential right-of-way width of a Chicago side street is 66

feet. The access road is a below-standard 62 feet right-of-way width. However, residential use

under the amended zoning will only be a small portion of the existing and planned total use

totaling six million square feet for the Apparel Center property and the Wolf Point Property.

106. Conclusion 3 of the DHEA Report that the proposed development is compatible

with surrounding residential and commercial uses is patently erroneous, misleading, arbitrary

and capricious. See Exhibit F, page 10.

107. Conclusion 5 that the project will comply with the requirement of safe and

adequate access in case of fire and other emergencies is patently erroneous, misleading, arbitrary

and capricious. See Exhibit F, page 10.

108. To ensure safe and adequate access in case of fire or other emergencies (or even

without fire and emergencies), the amended zoning ordinance should have included a dedication


{4304775:5} 24

of the access road to public use, a widening to a width adequate for the contemplated combined

residential and commercial use of the Apparel Center property and the Wolf Point Property and a

report on the condition of the existing access road and its suitability to service the 6 million sq.

ft. of existing and planned uses on the Apparel Center and the Wolf Point Property.

ix. Net Site Area of Wolf Point

109. Wolf Point Plaza Drive has been described as being private by the Applicant for

Amended PD-98.

110. Section 17-8-0904-B of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides: All streets

should be constructed to city standards pertaining to paving and construction materials and be

dedicated for public use.

111. Section 17-17-02100 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance defines net site area as

The entire land within the boundaries of a site, less the area of all land required or proposed for

public use.

112. Whether or not the access road is proposed by the developer to be dedicated to

public use, the City should have required the access road from Orleans Street to be dedicated to

public use as part of approval of the development. The dedication of the area of the access road

would reduce the net site area and would correspondingly reduce the number of square feet of

space which could be built on the Wolf Point Property. Amended PD-98 should have required

dedication of the access road, contained a reduced net site area and a reduction in the

maximum square footage of structures that could be placed on the Wolf Point Property.

x. No Schedule of Completion; Reversion to PD-98 Before Amendment Upon

Lapse

113. The amended zoning ordinance purports to create a multi-phase development

with three phases. There is no specific schedule for construction of any of the three phases.


{4304775:5} 25

114. Section 17-8-0300 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides: Planned

developments may consist of one of more lots to be developed as a unit, whether simultaneously

or phased within a period of time commensurate with the character of the proposal.

115. Section 17-13-0612-D of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides: If

construction in a multi-phase development does not proceed according to the specific

schedule set forth in the planned development ordinance, then the planned development will

lapse and be null and void.

116. The plain intent of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance is that there must be a unified

plan of development with a schedule as to construction in order to create a multi-phase

development.

117. Section 17-13-0612-E of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance provides procedures

when there is a lapse of a planned development. It states that the Zoning Administrator 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

118. Amended PD-98 provides that if PD-98 lapses a Zoning Map Amendment will be

initiated to rezone the property to Business Planned Development No. 98 as passed on June 22,

1973. Exhibit A, Statement No. 23.

119. Amended PD-98 violates the provisions of Sections 17-13-0612-D and 17-13-

0612-E as it fails to provide for a schedule for completion of the construction of the

Improvements.

xi. Density of Development

120. Section 17-13-0308-C requires that the proposed development of the Wolf Point

Property is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of density


{4304775:5} 26

121. Finding 3 of the Report issued by the Citys DHED on January 24, 2013 is that

the density of the development is appropriate. See Exhibit F, page 10. For all of the reasons

stated above, the 4 million sq. ft. of density contained in Amended PD-98 is inappropriate for the

Wolf Point Property, the proposed development is not compatible with the character of the area

in terms of density and Amended PD-98 has damaged Plaintiffs property by decreasing their

property values.

E. The process that led to the adoption of Amended PD-98 deprived Plaintiffs of key

information relating to traffic congestion and severely restricted Plaintiffs ability to

develop and present relevant evidence.

122. On January 24, 2013, the Plan Commission held its public hearing concerning the

application to amend the zoning of PD-98. At the beginning of the hearing, the Plan

Commission made an announcement that each objector would be allowed to express an opinion

of opposition limited to 3 minutes each after the Plan Commission heard the presentation of

evidence and testimony by the Wolf Point development team and the presentation of findings

and recommendations of the DHED.

123. The Wolf Point development team was present at this hearing and was permitted

unlimited time to make its presentation of demonstrative evidence and testimony. Only the Plan

Commission members were allowed to question the members of the development team.

Objectors were not allowed to ask questions of or cross-examine the members of the

development team.

124. Then, the report released by the DHED earlier in the day (Exhibit F) was read into

the record. Plaintiffs and other objectors were not allowed to ask questions of or cross-examine

the representative of the DHED concerning the conclusions contained in the findings and

recommendations. It is not clear that the representative of the DHED present at the Plan


{4304775:5} 27

Commission meeting had any connection to the preparation of the DHED Report. The Report

bears no persons signature.

125. After the development team and the DHED finished their presentations, Plaintiffs

were allowed to comment for up to 3 minutes. If the comments lasted for the full 3 minutes, the

person speaking was directed by the Plan Commission to wrap it up. No expert testimony was

allowed in support of an individual objectors comments.

126. At the close of comments by Plaintiffs and other objectors and a few proponents

(who could not later be cross-examined by objectors concerning the reasons expressed for their

support and whose comments could not later be commented upon by objectors because the

supporters spoke last), the Plan Commission immediately voted unanimously to recommend

approval of the application for amended zoning by the Zoning Committee of the City Council.

127. On February 11, 2013, the Zoning Committee of the City Council voted

unanimously to approve the recommendation of the Plan Commission to approve the amended

zoning ordinance. Plaintiffs and other objectors were at that meeting because the Application

was added to the agenda of the Zoning Committee at the last moment and without sufficient

notice to the public. When Plaintiffs objected to this covert, illegal proceeding by the Zoning

Committee, the vote to approve was rescinded and the Application was placed on the agenda of

the Zoning Committee for its meeting on February 26, 2013

128. On February 26, 2013, the Zoning Committee of the City Council, based upon the

presentation made by the development team, the DHED findings and recommendation and the

Plan Commissions recommendation of approval, unanimously reapproved a motion to adopt an

ordinance granting the amended zoning for the Wolf Point Property in PD-98. Plaintiffs and

other objectors were again allowed to make comments limited to 3 minutes each in opposition


{4304775:5} 28

but were not allowed to call witnesses of their own or adverse witnesses from the Wolf Point

development team or the DHED for the purpose of impeaching their testimony given to the Plan

Commission.

129. Plaintiff, ELLEN BARRY, filed a detailed statement of the substantial defects in

the Application and submitted petitions signed by over 200 owners of residential property within

250 feet of the Wolf Point Property to remand the Application for amended zoning back to the

DHED for correction of its erroneous, misleading, unsupported findings and recommendations

and for further hearings (the Statement). Plaintiffs, ELLEN BARRY, JOHN SIMON, PETER

BROIDA AND WILLIAM AYLESWORTH were among the signers of the Petitions seeking the

remand. A copy of the Statement is attached hereto as Exhibit L.

130. Plaintiff, ELLEN BARRY, also submitted a letter from the Chair of the Zoning

Committee dated February 22, 2013 (four days prior to the Zoning Committee meeting) which

pointed out with regard to PD-904, which had been created in 2004, that the developer had six

years to begin construction and nine years had passed without construction of the allowed 6.9

million sq. ft. of new building space on the site. The letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit M, gives notice of pending proceedings to amend the zoning map to remove PD-904 and

states:

There have been many new developments in the area over the last nine (9)

years, and times have changed since 2004. The particular concern is that

PD904 allows for a dense residential development in an area already suffers

(sic) from a glut of residential units and traffic congestion. The site has limited

access to city streets, with Wells Street to the north and Wentworth Avenue to

the south providing the only means of ingress and egress to the site

131. The Zoning Committee voted during the February 26, 2013 meeting and

unanimously recommended approval of the amended zoning ordinance.


{4304775:5} 29

132. On March 11, 2013, without further hearings on the Application, the City Council

agreed with the recommendation of its Zoning Committee and passed the amended zoning

ordinance by a voice vote.

133. The Application to amend the zoning of the Wolf Point Property raised numerous

and complicated issues concerning set forth earlier in this Complaint.

134. The process by which actions of the Plan Commission, the Zoning Committee and

the City Council in passing the amended ordinance for the Wolf Point Property did not afford

Plaintiffs with procedural due process rights guaranteed under the federal and Illinois state

constitutions. Plaintiffs were not given a full, complete and adequate opportunity to be heard

and present evidence through the presentation of expert witnesses and the opportunity to cross-

examine witnesses in support of their reasons for opposition to the amended zoning ordinance.

The denial of a full, complete and adequate opportunity to be heard has resulted in an amended

zoning ordinance which grants to the Wolf Point Property, and solely the Wolf Point Property,

special privileges and benefits which are arbitrary, capricious and do not promote the health,

safety or welfare of the citizens of Chicago and result in damages suffered by Plaintiffs to their

property.

135. Due to the proximity of their property to the Wolf Point Property, Amended PD-

98 will cause the Plaintiffs to suffer a significant loss in value of their property and a loss in the

quiet enjoyment of their property due to the increase in noise, traffic and light pollution caused

by the development of Wolf Point.

COUNT I

Denial of Federal Procedural Due Process Rights

136. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above and foregoing Paragraphs 1 through and

including 135 of this Complaint, as if set forth in full herein.


{4304775:5} 30

137. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO denied Plaintiffs due process of law by denying

them an adequate opportunity to present their opposition to the amended zoning ordinance for

the Wolf Point Property at all stages of Defendants process to amend the zoning.

138. In particular, Defendant has regularly refused to provide Plaintiffs necessary

requested information regarding traffic, refused to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to cross

examine witnesses during public proceedings, and limited participation of all opponents to the

proposed amendments by permitting only statements of opinion of three minutes or less.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

A. That this Court enter a declaratory judgment finding that passage of Amended

PD-98 deprived Plaintiffs of their property interests protected by the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and

B. Find and declare that Amended PD-98 is arbitrary, capricious and bears no

substantial relationship to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the community

and that it is, therefore, void;

C. Find and declare that Amended PD-98 as applied to Plaintiffs property

irreparably damages the value of Plaintiffs property;

D. That Plaintiffs be awarded their costs and all such other and further relief as this

Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT II

Denial of Federal Substantive Due Process Rights



140. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO denied Plaintiffs substantive due process of law

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by adopting an arbitrary,

capricious and unreasonable amended zoning ordinance for the Wolf Point Property.

141. First, Defendant purported to amend a zoning ordinance that had lapsed by

operation of law and was null and void by the time of the proposed amendment.


{4304775:5} 31

142. Furthermore, and to the extent Defendants proposed amendment was permissible

notwithstanding the lapse of the zoning ordinance at issue, the amended ordinance (a) conflicts

with the comprehensive 2009 CAAP, numerous sections of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, the

2005 Design Guidelines, the 2006 Nature Plan, and the 2011 Nature Plan Update; (b) grants

relief from self-inflicted hardship; (c) fails to require a dedication for the only street providing

the site and its six million square feet of permitted uses; (d) uses an overstated net site area to

reach an excessive density; (e) relies on an inaccurate and incomplete traffic study; (f) has no

schedule of completion of development for any phase; and (g) permits excessive density beyond

the capacity and limits of the neighborhood to absorb.

143. In addition, during the nearly 40 year period since the adoption of PD-98, as a

result of successful implementation of various initiatives alleged herein, the River North and

Fulton River Districts have been extensively developed and expanded to support dramatic

increases in residential and commercial uses, such that the original purpose of PD-98 is no longer

necessary or appropriate, and in light of the significant negative effects of the proposed

development, particularly as amended, its implementation is improper and constitutes a violation

of Plaintiffs rights.

144. For example, Amended PD-98 will result in the significant diminution of values

of Plaintiffs property.

145. On information and belief, the destruction of Plaintiffs property values by the

proposed construction on the Wolf Point Property will not promote the public, health, safety,

morals, or general welfare. Plaintiffs reasonably believe that none of the proposed uses serve

any important benefits to outweigh the destruction of value in the surrounding properties.


{4304775:5} 32

146. Indeed, on information and belief, the excessive density of the proposed uses will

further encumber the already over-burdened surrounding streets, imposing public safety hazards

due to increased traffic and further impediments to access by first responders.

147. On information and belief, any benefit to the public generally of the proposed

construction is minimal at best. At the time that PD-98 was enacted in June 1973, the River

North and Fulton River Districts lacked properties that could support the purposes for with PD-

98 was originally designated. However, during the nearly 40 years since that time, there has

been substantial development of the surrounding properties rendering those original purposes

unnecessary and redundant. Thus, development of the Wolf Point Property as proposed under

Amended PD-98 provides for minimal benefit to the public as compared to the significant

hardships imposed upon Plaintiffs.



PD-98 deprived Plaintiffs of their property interests protected by the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and








COUNT III

Denial of Federal Equal Protection




{4304775:5} 33

149. Defendant, CITY OF CHICAGO, denied Plaintiffs equal protection under the law

by creating two classes of property in the area in the vicinity of the Wolf Point Property which

are treated differently. One class of property, the property of the Plaintiffs, which must remain

in compliance with the restrictions of the 2009 CAAP plan for development, the various

provisions of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, the 2005 Design Guidelines, and the 2006 Nature

Plan and the 2011 Nature Plan Update. The other class of property is the Wolf Point Property

which is exempt from compliance with the above restrictions applicable to all of the other

property in the area.

150. The passage by Defendant of Amended PD-98 confers special privileges and

benefits on the Wolf Point Property to the detriment of Plaintiffs property.



PD-98 deprived Plaintiffs of their right to equal protection under the laws which

is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

United States Constitution;



and that it is, therefore, void; and

C. That Plaintiffs be awarded their costs and all such other and further relief as this


COUNT IV

Denial of State Procedural Due Process Rights



152. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO denied Plaintiffs due process of law by denying

them an adequate opportunity to present their opposition to the amended zoning ordinance for

the Wolf Point Property at all stages of Defendants process to amend the zoning.


{4304775:5} 34

153. In particular, Defendant has regularly refused to provide Plaintiffs necessary

requested information regarding traffic, refused to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to cross

examine witnesses during public proceedings, and limited participation of all opponents to the

proposed amendments by permitting only statements of opinion of three minutes or less.


A. That this Court enter a declaratory judgment finding that passage of the amended

zoning ordinance deprived Plaintiffs of their property interests protected by the

Due Process Clause of Article I, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and

Section 11-13-25 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-13-25); and








COUNT V

Denial of State Substantive Due Process Rights


including 135, and 140 through and including 147 of this Complaint, as if set forth in full herein.

155. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO denied Plaintiffs substantive process of law by

adopting an arbitrary and unreasonable amended zoning ordinance for the Wolf Point Property,

including but not limited to purportedly amending a zoning ordinance (a) that had lapsed, (b)

conflicts with the comprehensive 2009 CAAP, numerous sections of the Chicago Zoning

Ordinance, the 2005 Design Guidelines, the 2006 Nature Plan, and the 2011 Nature Plan Update;

(c) grants relief from self-inflicted hardship; (d) fails to require a dedication for the only street

providing the site and its six million square feet of permitted uses; (e) uses an overstated net site

area to reach an excessive density; (f) relies on an inaccurate and incomplete traffic study; (g)


{4304775:5} 35

has no schedule of completion of development for any phase; and (h) permits excessive density

beyond the capacity and limits of the neighborhood to absorb.


A. That this Court enter a declaratory judgment finding that passage of the amended

zoning ordinance deprived Plaintiffs of their property interests protected by the

Due Process Clause of Article I, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and

Section 11-13-25 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65ILCS 5/11-13-25);





irreparably damages the value of Plaintiffs properties and those of other

neighboring property owners;



COUNT VI

Denial of State Equal Protection



156. Defendant, CITY OF CHICAGO, denied Plaintiffs equal protection under the law

by creating two classes of property in the area in the vicinity of the Wolf Point Property which

are treated differently. One class of property, the property of the Plaintiffs, which must remain

in compliance with the restrictions of the 2009 CAAP plan for development, the various

provisions of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, the 2005 Design Guidelines, and the 2006 Nature

Plan and the 2011 Nature Plan Update. The other class of property is the Wolf Point Property

which is exempt from compliance with the above restrictions applicable to all of the other

property in the area.


{4304775:5} 36

157. The passage by Defendant of Amended PD-98 confers special privileges and

benefits on the Wolf Point Property to the detriment of Plaintiffs property.



PD-98 deprived Plaintiffs of their right to equal protection under the laws which

is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

United States Constitution;



and that it is, therefore, void; and



COUNT VII

For Permanent Injunctive Relief as to Amended PD-98



157. As set forth above, pursuant to the Constitutions of the United States and the State

of Illinois, Plaintiffs have clearly ascertained rights in need of protection.

158. Unless a permanent injunction is entered as requested herein, Plaintiffs have

suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a consequence of being denied their due

process rights.

159. Plaintiffs lack any adequate remedy at law as a result of Defendants actions as set

forth in this Complaint, as such actions impair and negatively impact Plaintiffs real property.

160. The balance of hardships favor Plaintiffs.


A. That this Court enter an order permanently enjoining Defendant CITY OF

CHICAGO, and any and all persons acting by, for, or on behalf of Defendant


{4304775:5} 37

CITY OF CHICAGO, from taking any action pursuant to or derived from

Amended PD-98;

B. That this Court enter an order permanently enjoining Defendant CITY OF

CHICAGO, and any and all persons acting by, for, or on behalf of Defendant

CITY OF CHICAGO, from allowing any action to be taken by any person

pursuant to or derived from Amended PD-98; and



Dated: Respectfully submitted,

THE RESIDENCES AT RIVERBEND

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION , Ellen

Barry, John Simon, Peter Broida and William

Aylesworth,

By: /s/ Richard N. Kessler

One of Their Attorneys

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

RICHARD N. KESSLER (6183140)

JOSEPH J. JACOBI (6273967)

McDONALD HOPKINS LLC

300 N. LaSalle Street Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60654

312-280-0111

46246951_1


wolf point suit

Documents