Minutes - Council - 11/14/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

similar to this before on another property sharing a fenced in area with access to a building. Mr. Sharp indicated he was not willing to be flexible in the fenced in area and does not want cars to be located there. Mr. Fisher indicated he suggested moving the fenced line towards Highway 10. This was not a compromise acceptable to either party. They have come to an impasse on the parking with neither tenant willing to be flexible. Ms. Patty Sharp, K & K Sharp, asked when the 25 vehicle necessity in the gated area was included in the lease, as they were not notified of this. Mr. Fisher replied the 25 car parking allowance was initiated at the beginning of negotiations with Midwest Car Care. Originally there was a concern that they would be selling used cars, and Midwest Car Care assured that there would not be used cars. A cap of 25 was put on the number of cars that would be allowed in the rear of the building. From that time forward, Midwest Car Care has grown accustomed, or has favored the position, of having vehicles in the back because it is secure. Ms. Sharp stated on September 26, Dennis Sharp was present at the Council meeting when the lease was approved and she (Ms. Sharp) is curious if the 25 spaces were approved at that time. K & K Sharp was not aware of the 25 car issue, which results in security issues for them. They are offering secured boat storage, so they hold keys, along with Pro Sports. If they add a third party into this area they are very concerned about the security issues. It will be difficult to monitor who is coming in and out of the property. K & K Sharp would not be flexible in regards to the 25 spaces in writing, but she feels they can work something out. However, in the past when something like this is allowed inevitably there are problems getting the vehicles moved; they have run into many things that caused too much trouble. Councilmember Olson asked if moving the fence towards Highway 10 would increase the size of the fenced in area. Mr. Fisher replied yes, he had suggested moving the fence from the rear of the building up to the end of the garage areas. However, the cars would still be parked in front of the doors that K & K Sharp would access, so from time to time the cars would need to be moved. Moving the fence would relieve the issue of security because there would be a double gated area, but Mr. Sharp had indicated he would still have to be counting on the cars being moved. Mr. Sharp indicated that was not a workable solution. Councilmember Olson inquired about splitting another portion of the parking in the rear. Mr. Fisher replied this was discussed as well; 6701 has a fair amount of width, as does 6745, and he suggested splitting the vehicles behind each building. Mr. Sharp needs access for maneuvering and was not very excited about this option. Mr. Sharp also expressed concern regarding the issue of security and having more than two or three people with key access. Councilmember Olson questioned if there is not an option to have separate fenced areas. Mr. Fisher replied logistically it may be possible. It is more of a security issue with Mr. Sharp. City Council / November 14, 2006 Page 15 of 31