City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co., No. 1-07-3200.

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtMcBride
Citation896 N.E.2d 364
Docket NumberNo. 1-07-3200.
Decision Date30 September 2008
PartiesThe CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIDLAND SMELTING COMPANY d/b/a Midland Industries, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and Unknown Owners, Defendants-Appellants.
896 N.E.2d 364
The CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MIDLAND SMELTING COMPANY d/b/a Midland Industries, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and Unknown Owners, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 1-07-3200.
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.
September 30, 2008.

[896 N.E.2d 368]

Mara S. Georges, Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago (Benna Ruth Solomon, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Myriam Zreczny Kasper, Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel, and Nadine J. Wichern, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steve H. Hoeft, Dawn R. Connelly and Scott W. Delaney of McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, for Defendants-Appellants.

Justice McBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:


The present action involves a parcel of property owned by defendant, Midland Smelting Company (Midland). In a prior lawsuit, plaintiff, the City of Chicago (the City), attempted to acquire the property through the use of its power of eminent domain. That action was dismissed by the circuit court as an excessive taking. The City thereafter filed the present condemnation action seeking to acquire approximately half of the property that it had sought in the original action. The trial court denied Midland's traverse and motion to dismiss and then certified the following questions for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(a) (155 Ill.2d R. 308(a)):

1. Whether the judgment entered in the original condemnation action bars the present action under the doctrine of res judicata; and

2. Whether the City's proposed taking of Midland's property is a proper exercise of the City's power of eminent domain.

We granted Midland's petition for leave to appeal.

The present case centers on three pieces of property located within the City of Chicago. Midland owns a manufacturing plant on North Halsted Street in Chicago, Illinois, and also owns an approximately 25,000-square-foot parking lot located immediately north of the plant at 1316-1328 North Halsted Street (the Midland Property). Located directly across Halsted Street from the Midland Property is an 80,000-square-foot parcel of property commonly known as 1331 North Halsted (the 1331 property). Located directly to the north of the Midland Property is the property commonly known as 1332 North Halsted Street (the 1332 property).

The record establishes that in the 1960s, the Chicago city council designated the Clybourn-Ogden Redevelopment Area (the Redevelopment Area) as slum and blighted;

896 N.E.2d 369

approved the Clybourn-Ogden Redevelopment Plan (the Redevelopment Plan); and authorized the City to acquire land in the area for redevelopment by purchase, lease, gift, or eminent domain. The Redevelopment Area is triangular in shape and generally bound on the north by West North Avenue, on the east by North Ogden Avenue, and on the west by North Branch Canal. The Redevelopment Plan's objectives are to remove structurally unsound buildings in the Redevelopment Area and to allow existing structures to be redeveloped for residential, retail, commercial, and light industrial use. All three of the properties involved in this case are located within the Redevelopment Area.

In 1988, title to the 1332 property was placed in a land trust, No. 105006-01, with the 1332 Halsted Building Partnership (the 1332 Partnership) as the beneficial owner of the trust and American National Bank and Trust Co. (ANB) as the trustee. In 1988 and 1989, the 1332 Partnership sought to redevelop the 1332 property in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan by converting the existing building on the property from an industrial use to a four-story loft-office building (the 1332 building) to be used for commercial purposes. The property, however, lacked adequate space for on-site employee parking that was required by City zoning laws. To supply the requisite parking and therefore facilitate that commercial development, the city council authorized the sale of the City-owned 1331 property to the owner of the 1332 property. After that sale, on November 1, 1988, title to the 1331 property was placed in a land trust, No. 106845-04, with the 1332 Partnership as the beneficial owner of the trust and ANB as the trustee.

The owner of the 1332 property thereafter entered into a Redevelopment Agreement with the City that required construction of a commercial off-street parking facility at the northern end of the 1331 property and provided the option of constructing a commercial/industrial complex south of the parking facility. In 1989, the City's Zoning Board of Appeals granted the 1332 Partnership two special use permits. The first permit allowed the 1332 building to be used for a commercial purpose even though it was zoned as a general manufacturing district. The second permit allowed for the establishment of an off-site parking facility on the 1331 property to satisfy the on-site parking requirements for the commercial use of the 1332 building. The second permit also required the 1332 Partnership to "maintain the property continuously in conformance with the provisions and standards hereby established under this order and § 5.8-5 of the zoning ordinance," which provides:

"In cases where parking facilities are permitted on land other than the zoning lot on which the building or use served is located, such facilities shall be in the same possession as the zoning lot occupied by the building or use to which the parking facilities are accessory. Such possession may be either by deed or long term lease * * *. * * * The requisite parking facilities are required at all times; otherwise the Zoning Administrator can recommend action through the Corporation Counsel to have the use discontinued." Chicago Municipal Code ch. 194A, § 5.8-5 (1988).

In 1998, the City sought to further improve the Redevelopment Area by encouraging the private development of additional mixed-income housing in the area pursuant to the Near North Redevelopment Initiative. The Near North Redevelopment Initiative recommended demolishing an existing Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) public housing complex known as Cabrini-Green and replacing it with a mixed-income and mixed-use community.

896 N.E.2d 370

The new mixed-income housing was to be developed upon five acres of City-owned land that surrounded the 1331 property to the north, east, and south. However, the City-owned land created an irregularly shaped development site and the City determined that incorporating the 1331 property into the development would create a nearly rectangular parcel more suitable to development. Additionally, the 1331 property had not been fully developed in that the 1332 Partnership had not exercised its option of constructing a commercial/industrial complex south of its parking facility on the 1331 property. At the time, the 1331 property was zoned for industrial uses and the City intended to rezone the property to "Residential and Related Uses." Therefore, the City solicited proposals for development of the City-owned land into the mixed-income housing and also encouraged those submitting proposals to incorporate the 1331 property into the development. The City ultimately selected North Town Village to develop the desired housing, which included 261 units of housing, approximately half of which were units to be made available to low-income families (the North Town Village Project). The North Town Village proposal included the 1331 property and therefore the City's Community Development Commission (Commission) recommended acquisition of the 1331 property for redevelopment "in furtherance of the Clybourn-Ogden Redevelopment Plan." According to the Commission, acquisition of the 1331 property would allow for completion of the desired mixed-income housing, strengthen the area, and allow the 1331 property to be used in a manner consistent with the Redevelopment Plan. The city council subsequently approved the Commission's recommendation and passed an ordinance authorizing the City's corporation counsel to negotiate for the purchase of the 1331 property and, if unsuccessful, to initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire title to the property. The City was unable to negotiate for the purchase of the 1331 property and therefore sought to acquire it by filing a condemnation action against ANB on July 15, 1999 (the 1331 litigation).

During the pendency of the 1331 litigation, a problem arose in that acquisition of the 1331 property would have left the 1332 building without its required off-site parking. The City determined it was necessary to replace that parking because it had facilitated the commercial redevelopment of the 1332 building and because, in order to continue that commercial use, City zoning laws and the special use permits required the 1332 building to maintain its accessory parking. The Commission ultimately concluded that the most appropriate substitute property was the Midland Property, located immediately south of the 1332 building. The Midland Property was selected because of its proximity to the 1332 building and because switching the parking location for the 1332 building from the east to the west side of Halsted Street would help separate commercial uses from residential uses. The Commission also noted that the Midland Property was currently being used as a commercial parking lot and was zoned M2-5 "General Manufacturing District," that the City was in the process of amending the land use to "Residential and Parking1," and that providing for parking on the Midland Property would therefore be consistent with the proposed land uses of property in the Redevelopment Area. The Commission further noted that acquisition of the Midland Property would meet the design objectives

896 N.E.2d 371

of the Redevelopment Plan and would allow for the existing parking lot used by the 1332 building to be redeveloped as part of the North Town Village Project, thereby fulfilling the objectives of the Near...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Rock River Water Reclamation Dist. v. Sanctuary Condominiums of Rock Cut, No. 2–13–0813.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 11, 2014
    ...rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. See City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co., 385 Ill.App.3d 945, 955, 324 Ill.Dec. 578, 896 N.E.2d 364 (2008). The court concluded, however, that not all of the elements of res judicata were present. The court explained:“This Court finds that a......
  • Enbridge Energy (Ill.), L.L.C. v. Kuerth, NOS. 4-15-0519
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 13, 2016
    ...a condemnation action by filing a traverse motion. City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co. , 385 Ill.App.3d 945, 965, 324 Ill.Dec. 578, 896 N.E.2d 364, 383 (2008). By definition, a traverse is a "formal denial of a factual allegation made in the opposing party's pleading." Black's Law Dicti......
  • APOLLO REAL EState Inv. FUND v. GELBER, No. 1-09-1989.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 11, 2010
    ...action other than that in which it was rendered.” ’ ” City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co., 385 Ill.App.3d 945, 961, 324 Ill.Dec. 578, 896 N.E.2d 364, 380 (2008), quoting Thomas v. Sklodowski, 303 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1033, 237 Ill.Dec. 401, 709 N.E.2d 656, 659 (1999), quoting Buford v. Chie......
  • City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co., No. DA 15–0375.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • August 2, 2016
    ...Reports 157 (N.H.Super.Ct. of Judicature 1854)); see also City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co., 385 Ill.App.3d 945, 324 Ill.Dec. 578, 896 N.E.2d 364 (1st Dist.2008) ; Charlotte v. Rousso, 82 N.C.App. 588, 346 S.E.2d 693, 694 (1986) (“A judgment, even though in an action between the same ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Rock River Water Reclamation Dist. v. Sanctuary Condominiums of Rock Cut, No. 2–13–0813.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 11, 2014
    ...rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. See City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co., 385 Ill.App.3d 945, 955, 324 Ill.Dec. 578, 896 N.E.2d 364 (2008). The court concluded, however, that not all of the elements of res judicata were present. The court explained:“This Court finds that a......
  • Enbridge Energy (Ill.), L.L.C. v. Kuerth, NOS. 4-15-0519
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 13, 2016
    ...a condemnation action by filing a traverse motion. City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co. , 385 Ill.App.3d 945, 965, 324 Ill.Dec. 578, 896 N.E.2d 364, 383 (2008). By definition, a traverse is a "formal denial of a factual allegation made in the opposing party's pleading." Black's Law Dicti......
  • APOLLO REAL EState Inv. FUND v. GELBER, No. 1-09-1989.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 11, 2010
    ...action other than that in which it was rendered.” ’ ” City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co., 385 Ill.App.3d 945, 961, 324 Ill.Dec. 578, 896 N.E.2d 364, 380 (2008), quoting Thomas v. Sklodowski, 303 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1033, 237 Ill.Dec. 401, 709 N.E.2d 656, 659 (1999), quoting Buford v. Chie......
  • City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co., No. DA 15–0375.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • August 2, 2016
    ...Reports 157 (N.H.Super.Ct. of Judicature 1854)); see also City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Co., 385 Ill.App.3d 945, 324 Ill.Dec. 578, 896 N.E.2d 364 (1st Dist.2008) ; Charlotte v. Rousso, 82 N.C.App. 588, 346 S.E.2d 693, 694 (1986) (“A judgment, even though in an action between the same ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT