Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2004-21196-C-3 Lord & Taylor

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in the assessment of the
property as established by the Cook County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
DOCKET NOS. PARCEL NOS. LAND IMPRV. TOTAL
03-22636.001-C-3 10-09-411-074 $410,764 $1,755,236 $2,166,000
04-21196.001-C-3 10-09-411-074 $410,764 $1,755,236 $2,166,000
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/mmg
1 of 16
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Lord & Taylor
DOCKET NOS.: 03-22636.001-C-3 & 04-21196.001-C-3
PARCEL NOS.: 10-09-411-074-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board
(hereinafter PTAB or the Board) are Lord & Taylor, the appellant,
by Attorneys Gregory J. Lafakis and Ellen Berkshire of the law
firm of Liston & Lafakis, in Chicago; the Cook County Board of
Review (hereinafter the board of review or BOR) by Cook County
Assistant State's Attorneys Ralph Proietti, Ayesha Khan, and
Margaret Zilligen; and the intervenor, the Niles High School
District 219, by Attorney Michael J. Hernandez of the law firm of
Franczek Sullivan, P.C., in Chicago.1 The PTAB granted the
parties request to consolidate both years of appeals for hearing
purposes.
The subject property consists of an 8-year-old, single-tenant,
owner-occupied, two-story, masonry constructed, anchor department
store located in The Westfield Shoppingtown Old Orchard Shopping
Center. The subject is a Lord & Taylor store. The subject is
one of five anchor tenants in what is considered a super-regional
mall. The subject contains 121,642 square feet of building area
and sits on a land site of 72,064 square feet. The land to
building ratio is 0.59:1.00. The subject is zoned B-4, Regional
Shopping District. The entire mall contains approximately 1.8
million square feet of gross leaseable area.
The appellant, through its attorneys, appeared before the PTAB
and argued that the market value of the subject was not
1 The intervenor is a party in the 2003 appeal but not the 2004 appeal.