|
dame de Pompadour," was designed
<br />permits on a wide range of consti-
<br />by architect Howard Van Doren
<br />tutional and administrative claims.
<br />Shaw. ICS purchased the Blair
<br />In International College of
<br />House in 1947 for $85,000 and the
<br />Surgeons v. City of Chicago, Nos.
<br />Countiss House in 1950 for
<br />91 C 1587 and 91 C 5564 (N.D. Ill.
<br />$185,000. The Blair House serves as
<br />Jan. 10, 1992)] 11 PLR 1106 (Jan.
<br />office space and the Countiss
<br />1992)], the U.S. District Court of
<br />House contains the "International
<br />the Northern District of Illinois
<br />Museum of Surgical Science." Both
<br />dismissed several of the constitu-
<br />mansions have rear coach houses.
<br />tional claims raised by the owners.
<br />ICS entered into a contract in
<br />In that decision, the district court
<br />February 1989 with Robin Con-
<br />upheld the Chicago landmarks ordi-
<br />struction Corp., a co -plaintiff, for
<br />nance against a facial challenge
<br />the sale and development of. the
<br />under the Fifth and Fourteenth
<br />site, with the expectation of realiz-
<br />Amendments to the U.S. Constitu-
<br />ing a return of $17 million. (For
<br />tion. The court determined that the
<br />purposes of discussion, the ICS and
<br />ordinance was constitutionally
<br />Robin Construction Corp. are re-
<br />valid "on its face," finding that the
<br />t- ferred to hereinafter as "the own-
<br />City, through its ordinance, did not
<br />ers.") As part of the redeyelopmen-r_']unlawfully "take" property without
<br />project, the owners proposed to
<br />compensation or violate the Equal
<br />demolish the rear and side portions
<br />Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
<br />of the mansions and their respec- -
<br />Amendment. The court also upheld
<br />tive coach houses to construct a 41-
<br />the ordinance's interim protection
<br />story, mixed -used condominium
<br />provision against several due pro -
<br />tower on the site, leaving only the
<br />cess claims and ruled that the
<br />facades of the existing structures.
<br />Commission had properly refused
<br />On October 10, 1990, the own-
<br />to consider evidence on proposed
<br />ers applied to the Commission on
<br />redevelopment plans in its review
<br />Chicago Landmarks (the "Land-
<br />of the owners' application for a
<br />marks Commission") for the requi-
<br />demolition permit. The district
<br />site demolition permits. In actor-
<br />court, however, granted leave to the
<br />dance with its rules, the Landmarks
<br />owners to amend their complaint
<br />Commission issued a "preliminary
<br />to support an allegation of bias and
<br />disapproval" on October 23, 1990,
<br />directed the Commission to re -
<br />and conducted a public hearing on
<br />spond to specific charges that the
<br />December 18, 1990. The Land-
<br />Commission had denied them
<br />— marks Commission denied the
<br />equal protection by "acting solely
<br />�1% demolition permits on January 9,
<br />to stop their proposed develop -
<br />1991, and subsequently denied a
<br />ment."
<br />separate application for an econom-
<br />The federal district court has
<br />is hardship exception on July 3,
<br />now addressed the remaining issues
<br />1991, after holding a public hearing.
<br />raised by the owners in their law -
<br />The owners then filed suit chal-
<br />suit against the City, its Commis-
<br />lenging (1) the preservation ordi-
<br />sion on Chicago Landmarks, indi-
<br />nance on its face; (2) the designa-
<br />vidual members of the Commis -
<br />tion of the Seven Houses district;
<br />sion, and the North State, Astor,
<br />and (3) the denial of demolition
<br />Lake Shore Drive Association. In a
<br />14 PLR 1088 . Preservation
<br />Lain Reporter May 1995
<br />complete victory for the defen-
<br />l dants, the court rejected the own-
<br />ers' federal and state equal protec-
<br />tion and due process claims, a
<br />number of state law claims, includ-
<br />ing a takings claim under the Illi-
<br />nois constitution, and a separate
<br />administrative law claim that the
<br />manifest weight of the evidence did
<br />not support the Commission's deci-
<br />sion to deny the owners' request for
<br />an economic hardship exception.
<br />Each of these issues is discussed
<br />below.
<br />Federal and State Equal Protection
<br />and Due Process Claims
<br />Ruling in favor of the City, the
<br />court easily rejected
<br />the owners' equal pro- The C01
<br />tection claim under
<br />the federal constitu- rejeetei
<br />• tion. The owners had owners
<br />argued that the City, protect
<br />in establishing the under i
<br />"Seven Houses" land-
<br />mark district, had "un- al cons
<br />fairly singled out the
<br />ICS and treated its properties differ-
<br />ently than similarly situated prop-
<br />erties," by, in essence, creating a
<br />class of one. Relying on the Sev-
<br />enth Circuit's ruling in Albright v.
<br />Oliver, 975 F.2d 343 (7th Cir.
<br />1992), aff'd., 114 S. Ct. 807 (1994),
<br />that "the state's act of singling out
<br />an individual for differential treat-
<br />ment does not itself create (a]
<br />class," the district court concluded
<br />that the issue of whether the City
<br />had singled out the owners' proper-
<br />ties was "immaterial." The court
<br />also stated that "[elven if that ques-
<br />tion (was] material, there is no
<br />genuine dispute that the city did
<br />not single out the Blair and Coun-
<br />tiss houses or treat them differently
<br />than other similarly situated prop-
<br />erties through the designation ordi-
<br />nance."
<br />Probing the owners' equal pro-
<br />tection claim further, the court
<br />specifically rejected charges that
<br />the City had infringed on the own-
<br />ers' constitutional rights by protect-
<br />ing every facade of every building
<br />in the Seven Houses district while
<br />protecting only portions of build-
<br />ings visible from a "public way" in
<br />a nearby historic district, and by
<br />denying the demolition permits
<br />while allowing changes to other
<br />houses in the Seven Houses dis-
<br />trict. In responding to these argu-
<br />ments, the court explained that
<br />several of the facades of the Blair
<br />and Countiss Houses
<br />in easily at issue were visible
<br />from a "public way"
<br />i the and that changes al-
<br />' equal lowed to other build-
<br />�on Claim ings within the district
<br />he feder- "were relatively minor
<br />interior and exterior
<br />Itution. changes, and nothing
<br />on the order of the
<br />demolition of all but the front fa-
<br />cades."
<br />The court likewise rejected the
<br />owners' argument that the City,
<br />through its designation ordinance,
<br />had arbitrarily grouped seven non-
<br />contiguous buildings together, fail-
<br />ing to include other "similarly situ-
<br />ated" landmark quality buildings
<br />within the designation. Deferring to
<br />the Commission on this issue, the
<br />court explained that expert testimo-
<br />ny that the district could be shaped
<br />differently does not "create a genu-
<br />ine issue as to whether the Desig-
<br />nation Ordinance was arbitrary."
<br />The court stressed that no one
<br />"genuinely disputed" that the hous-
<br />es included in the district, both
<br />May 1995 Preservation Lain Reporter 14 PLR 1089 }
<br />
|