Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2004-26444-R-3 Fulton House Condominium Assn.

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in part and an increase in
part in the assessment of the property as established by the Cook
County Board of Review is warranted. The correct assessed
valuations of the property are:
LAND: SEE PAGES 11 to 18
IMPROV.: SEE PAGES 11 to 18
TOTAL: SEE PAGES 11 to 18
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/KPP
1 of 19
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Fulton House Condominium Association
DOCKET NO.: 03-27407.001-R-3 thru 03-27407.113-R-3
04-26444.001-R-3 thru 04-26444.113-R-3
05-23475.001-R-3 thru 05-23475.113-R-3
PARCEL NO.: See Pages 11 through 18
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board (hereinafter PTAB) are Fulton House Condominium Association, the appellant, by Attorney David S. Martin with the law firm of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP in Chicago and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 21,586 square foot parcel of land with 3,830 square feet of air rights above the Chicago River. This parcel is sited with frontage on the West bank of the Chicago River, while located west of the Apparel Center in Chicago. The land is improved with a mixed-use, 16-story, masonry, condominium building with 103 residential units located on the upper floors of the building as well as commercial and industrial units on the first and second floors of the structure. The improvement was utilized as a cold storage warehouse from 1905 through 1978, and was renovated thereafter into residential, commercial and industrial units. The building contains: eight units per floor; eight duplex units; nine commercial units; and one industrial unit representing a total unit blend of 17 business units and 96 residential units. The total unit area comprises approximately 150,049 square feet of living area with 13,685 square feet of total common area. The appellant, via counsel, argued that the market value of the subject property is not accurately reflected in the property's assessed valuation as the basis for this appeal.