Modification to PD - Void - 2001June 12, 2002
Larry Hester
14089 Apricot Hill
Saratoga, CA 95070
Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 9008-1436
Dear Geoff:
Because I have had a long history with the City of Campbell as a property owner
and developer and you haven't been on the scene all that long, I would like to take a little
bit of your time to relate my history with 40 and 48 Railway Avenue. My relationship
with the City has been both pleasant and productive. I am of the belief that it has to work
for everyone and have always done my best to make that happen. As Campbell prospers,
I prosper.
My downtown experiences started out with the purchase of 86 Railway and the
construction of the building that now houses RoadSport. With a cooperative effort, I
replaced an eyesore, tw-o old houses with yards filled with trash, with a visually pleasing
building housing an upscale business. Shortly after buying 86 Railway but before I
developed it. I purchased the two parcels known as 40 and 48 Railway, one was used as a
junkyard for an auto repair shop on Dillon. It w-as littered with over twenty abandoned
cars. Without prompting and at my expense. I removed the cars and cleaned up the lot.
The second parcel had an old house that had taken much abuse. To get rid of it I asked
the City to condemn it so that I could demolish it and clean up that lot. My intention in
purchasing 40 and 48 Railway was to develop them simultaneously with 86 Railway.
The City gave me permission to build on 86 Railway; however, it would not give me
permission to develop 40 and 48 Railway. The City told me that "they were not sure what
they wanted on the property.'' About this time the City then asked if I would consider
purchasing 36 Railway. The City recognized that it had removed most of the parking in
the area and that if one person owned 36, 40, and 48 Railway, 40 and 48 could provide
parking for 36 Railway. I then purchased 36 Railway. I felt that the City and I were
working together to make the unsightly property much more attractive until the time was
right to develop it.
Later when I wanted to build on 40 and 48 Railway, the City asked me to
demolish 36 Railway and develop all three parcels as one. I looked at it from every angle
but could not make the numbers work. I wanted, at that time as now, to develop the
property in a way that fits into the City's plans and gives me a reasonable return on my
investment.
My desire is still to develop 40 and 48 Railway. However, when the economy
was up I had to give Ca1Pac a four-year lease. Now that the lease is ending and the
economy is down, the building at 36 Railway without parking could very well become a
vacant building. At some future date I would like to develop my property, and if Frank, F
& J Auto Repair at 64 Railway, ever decides to retire, I would like to purchase his
property and develop it all as one. My goal is to protect my investments and work with•
the City to make that part of Railway Avenue attractive.
If I could get a tenant for along-term lease, I would build to suit. However, at
this time tenants are scarce and it is not economically feasible for me to speculate. I could
not afford nor does Campbell want vacant buildings on one of its main avenues.
I have always had a good working relationship with the City of Campbell and do
my best to keep it that way.
Sincerely,
Larry Hester
Community Development Department -Current Planning
June 10, 2002
Larry Hester
14089 Apricot Hill
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: PLN2001-104 - 36-48 Railway Avenue -USE PERMIT
Dear Mr. Hester:
Per our conversation this morning, I would like to provide this summary of what we discussed:
The Planning Division will not be able to recommend approval of the Use Permit as proposed.
The City has approved temporary parking facilities in the past, however, full improvements have
been required: paving, striping, lighting and landscaping of the entire parking area.
You agreed to provide a narrative description and timeline of the property. You have stated that
the use for parking is legal non-nonconforming ("grandfathered"). I will have the City Attorney
review this material once it is submitted.
You indicated that you intend to install landscaping on the properties (40 and 48 Railway
Avenue). While this is a welcome improvement, please understand that this does not affect the
need for a land use approval for the properties.
If you decide to pursue approval of the Use Permit (PLN2001-104) please refer to the letter dated
May 31, 2002 for the outstanding submittal items.
Sincerely,
Geoff I. Bradley
Senior Planner
cc: Sharon Fierro, Commu~zity Development Director
Community Development Department -Current Planning
May 31, 2002
Larry Hester
14089 Apricot Hill
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: PLN2001-104 - 36-48 Railway Avenue -USE PERMIT
Dear Mr. Hester:
There has been no progress on your application since we met on March 19, 2002 to discuss the
Public Works Department recommendations.
It appears at this time that you are not willing or able to take the steps necessary to legalize the
use of the property at 40 & 48 Railway Avenue. If this is incorrect, please submit the following
information, most of which was requested in the July 17, 2001 correspondence to you:
1. Proiect Description & Timeline - Provide a written statement outlining the proposed
scheduling for the project. Include a detailed project description, including the request for a
temporary approval only (indicate requested number of years) and the use for parking of
vehicles only for the uses of the building at 36 Railway Avenue.
2. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan -Existing grade and proposed grade should be
shown. If no changes to the existing grades are proposed, indicate the existing drainage of
the site.
3. Landscape Plan -Conceptual landscape plan indicating existing and proposed landscaping.
Indicate the percentage of the site that is landscaped. A landscape architect or qualified
landscape designer shall prepare the landscape plan as this is an important component of the
project.
4. Site Plan -the following information needs to be on the site plan (submit 15 sets of plans -
l 1x17" and six sets of full size):
a. Show existing street improvements dimensioned from the centerline of the street (curb,
gutter, sidewalks, driveways, tree wells, etc.)
b. Provide minimum 5 foot wide landscaped areas in front of fence and behind sidewalk.
Provide a poured in place concrete curbing around landscaping to protect from vehicles.
Indicate Handicapped parking space (9 foot wide space with an eight foot wide loading
zone).
Larry Hester
PLN2001-104
Page 2 of 2
d. Show all property lines and parcel numbers and addresses.
e. Provide revised parking layout that meets minimum back-up space requirements. Indicate
surface treatment of parking lot.
f. Indicate types of landscaping and irrigation system.
g. Provide north arrow, property owner, date, etc on title block.
5. Submittal Fees: -The application is for a Use Permit, since there is no existing P-D Permit
to modify through a "Modification of a P-D Permit". Please submit the difference in fees,
which is $660.00.
Failure to submit the above items by June 15~b, 2002 will result in returning the case to Code
Enforcement and the City Attorney's office for consideration of compliance measures.
Sincerely,
G off I. Brad
Senior Plannf
cc: Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
J:\Completeness Letters\PLN2001-104 36-48 Railway Ave.-2.doc