Getting to Consensus

Bartell & Co was retained for two separate office warehouse sale listings, 27,500 and 37,000 rsf, that shared one roof, some but not all of the parking, and were both members of a condo association. Separately, Bartell was hired by another client to market an adjacent piece of vacant land for a 32,000 sf build-to-suit medical building, that was not part of the association. The proposed medical site lay in front of the two buildings and fronted on a major arterial road. There was one common entrance servicing all three properties. On one side of the larger office warehouse site, the two buildings technically shared a separate access gate and adjoining land that was adjacent to only one of the properties but was owned by them both. Plus, the smaller office-warehouse property owner owned but was not adjacent to a small 3,750 rsf “out” storage building that was next to the larger office warehouse that couldn’t use it but needed it for access and parking.

The parking spaces allotted to the two warehouse listings were not registered for use by the proposed medical building. Also, several of the spots shared by those two warehouses were actually controlled by the medical building on a different side of the parcel.

 

THE FIX

Dan Bartell proposed the following:

1. The medical building agreed to share the use of its controlled spaces with the two office warehouse properties, through the Association.
2. In return, the medical building got half of the parking spaces that were near the entrance to the singular entry off the major arterial.
3. The two office warehouses got the common use of the balance of those up-front spots.
4. The larger (37,000 rsf) office warehouse got complete ownership and control of the previously shared access owned by both.
5. The smaller property got paid full price per square foot for that “out” storage building.
6. The larger property, in return for that control and access, agreed to create and pay the cost of additional parking abutting the two office warehouse properties, for their common use.
7. CONCLUSION:
   1. The proposed medical building got control of contiguous parking spaces adjacent to its project and just off of the major arterial road.
   2. The larger office warehouse got control of contiguous and efficient ownership of access and parking for its semi-trailers.
   3. The smaller office warehouse got paid a high market value for a little-used “out” storage building.
   4. The two office warehouses got the shared use of new parking spaces to be created.
   5. All parties got what they really needed using a terrific compromise that satisfied them all financially and practically.

BACK