Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 21, 2007 K-01AGENDA ITEM VVW I &I&% CITY OF LODI CAWNCIL COMMUNICATION 1M AGENDA TITLE: Discuss and Provide Direction on Future Development of Roget Park Located at 2229 Tienda Drive MEETINIS DATE: Februmy 21, 2007 PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Community Development Directors RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and provide direction on future development of Roget Park located at 2229 Tienda Drive. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On December 17, 1993, a4.64 -acre parcel located on the north side of Tienda Drive and immediately east of the Target shopping center was donated by the late Dr. Gordon Boyd Roget to be developed as a "passive use park". Subsequently, an adjacent parcel on the west (3.39 acres) was purchased by the City to add to the park. In 2000, Council directed staff to develop a park design and concept plan for Roget Park. Following Parks and Recreation Commission review, on May 16, 2001, the City Council approved the site master plan and authorized test well drilling on the site (Exhibit A). (Note that the test well indicated the site is not suitable for a municipal well and the plan should be revised to eliminate the well.) The plan includes a new street in accordance with the Street Master Plan, extending northerly from Tienda Drive that would eventually connect to Interlaken Drive and possibly Lower Sacramento Road. Over the years, adequate funding has not been available to develop the park as planned. Park staff has abated the weeds and removed trash as needed on the property. The property is presently signed "unavailable to public access or public use". On September 14, 2006, the City received a letter (Exhibit B) from Dr. Gordon Bruce Roget in which he expressed concern that the "passive use park" had not been developed. Dr. Roget requested that a park of simple design be developed immediately or that the City consider returning the parcel to the Roget Family Trust. The Parks and Recreation Commission at its October 3, 2006, meeting, voted to recommend to the Council that the donated portion of the park be developed as a passive park and that the City -purchased portion be sold with the proceeds dedicated to development of the park. On January 17, 2007, staff presented the Commission recommendation and options to the Council. The minutes from that item are attached (Exhibit C). Generally, the options are: QlLtion Ng. 1: Develop the full 8 -acre park and street in accordance with the Master Plan previously approved by the Council. Estimated capital cost is roughly $1.5 million, including street, underground utilities, sidewalks, curb and gutter improvement costs. This cost is included in the City's Parks and Recreation Impact Mitigation Fee Program. A subset of this option would be to develop the park in stages, starting with the donated parcel and later develop the purchased portion along with the street extension. APPROVED: / Blai Kin , City Manager KAWPIC0UNCIL1071Roget Park.doc 2/16/2007 Discuss and Provide Direction on Future Development of Roget Park Located at 2229 Tienda Drive February.21, 2007 Page 2 Qbft 2: Per the Commission's recommendation, pursue sale of all or a portion of the s i *reel and develop the remaining park parcel, Capital costs for the park portion (without tyle street) are rough ly'$,600,000. The street, including utilities, will cost roughly $500,000. The rail value of the "for -tale" portion(s) is in the $1.5 to $2 million range. It appears there may be enough value in the land to cover the cost of building the street and park, pay City fees and provide a return on investment. A portion of the purchased property could be retained to provide Metter access and visibility to the park. This option could be accomplished in a number of ways: a) The City could retain a consultant to design the combined project and present the Council with various alternatives and following selection, sell the "surplus" property and use the proceeds to develop the park. This would also mean going through the legal steps to declare the property as surplus, notifying various agencies, etc. b) The City could develop goals for the property, issue a Request for Proposals from qualified developers to design the project and make proposals, select a proposal and enter into a contract for the project. This would, in effect, be a joint development project and could be accomplished through a development agreement. The agreement could provide for the developer to build the park or pay the City to build the park or a combination of both. goen Me. Leave parcel in an "as is" condition and return the 4.64 -acre parcel to the Roget mrly Trust. Sell the City -owned 3.39 acres abutting the Roget parcel and the Target center. The revenue would need to go back to the Park IMF fund and would amount to roughly $850,000 to $1 million. Since only three Council memibers were present at the meeting, the item was rescheduled. The discussi4Os included consideration of moving the North-South street and prospective uses of the surplus property. While no decision vos made at the January meeting, the consensus of the three members seemed lo be that some park should be developed and some opportunity to develop revenue for parks should be pursued. This is essentially Option 2. Pursuing*ither Option No. 1 or No. 3 is fairly straightforward. Pursuing Option No. 2 involves developrent of goals and criteria, as well as determining which way to proceed. There are a large number d alternatives that could be considered for developing a combined project. Some of the variables include: • L nd Use - Should the development be commercial (which would require a rezone) or residential, aed if so, should it be restricted to senior housing? • Assuming residential, should the development be single-family/duplex dwellings or should other attached housing be considered (or some combination - note that the portion north of the street could be done differently from the portion adjacent to the Target store). • Location of the NorthlSouth Street - Should development front or back up to the park, or be varied or should we leave that choice open to project developers? Note that moving the street from the western alignment will necessitate some utility relocation. • Slize of the Park - Shauuld it be just the donated parcel or include some portion of the City -purchased property? Having some portion of the north end of the park extend to the west would improve access.and visibility from the street. Some otihese variables are illustrated in the attached Concept Plans: • {nvept A shows the street located next to Target with lots on the City -purchased parcel backing up to the donated panel. Given the East-West dimension of the City -purchased parcel, the lots ale very large. A variety of other lot configurations could be developed to provide higher density or the park could be made wider. K:IWMC0t1JCIL1071R6W Palk.doe 2118!2907 Discuss and Provide ENrection on Future Development of Roget Park Located at 2229 Tienda Drive February, 21, 2007 Page 3 • Qonoept 0 shows the Mame street layout, but fewer lots and the park extended to the street along the north to provide better park visibility and access. Again, alternate lot/density layouts are possible. Potentially, one lot could be created at the northwest comer without impairing visibiAty a$ shown with the dashed line. • Concept C again shov4s the same street and park layout, but instead of large lots, the for -sale space is left open. The lot is subdivided in a variety of configurations or developed with condominiums or soma type of clustered housing. • Cencept D moves the street easterly to the donated parcel and the lots back-up to Target. As in Concept A, a variety of other lot configurations could be developed or the park could be made wilder. • Concept E is the same street layout as C, but the "for sale" property is left as two large parcels that could be developed as in Concept C. Or, the smaller parcel at the north could be developed wikh more traditional single-family lots as in Concept D. Also, the street could be centered on the west parcel line of the donated parcel which would slightly increase the area of the large "for sale" parcel. This would slightly reduce the area of the park, but since the street is providing direct access to the park, this is a reasonable and appropriate use of the property. The poirA. of presenting these concepts is not to make a final decision on any particular layout; they are presenter to illustrate the design variables described above if Option 2 is selected. If Council selects Option 2, staff recommends that we develop our goals with minimal speck criteria Council believes is importara and proceed as described in Option 2b. Staff suggests that if we are to seek a developer to carry out a project, we should give them as much flexibility as possible to be creative with the goal of meeting the City's objectives and provide revenue to the City. Staff will present at the meeting, a listing of possible goals to help focus the discussion to reach consensus and give direction for seeking developrtent proposals. FISCAL NAPiACT: One-time costs/revenue (construction/sale proceeds) is described above in the Options. Ongoing maintenance cost of the park is of concern. Annual maintenance costs will range from $68,000 for the full park (Option 1) with typical park amenities (restroom, turf, play structures, etc.) down to $25,000 for a passive park without most of these amenities. Assuming any newly -developed lots in the area are included in a maintenance distinct, annual revenue from the district would run from about $1,000 for just the "for -sale" portion to $3,500 if future development to the west is included since most of the neighboring residentid area is already developed. It is possible that an agreement to develop a project under Option 2b could provide additional funds that could be set aside for maintenance. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Development Impact Mitigation Fee account (Capital costs) GeneraffodpDistrict (operational costs) :r Richard C. Prima, Jr. Public Works Director D- - ..Director RCP/pmf Attadwrientl cc: city ttormy Parks mailing list KAWP1C0L CILT71Raget Pa*.doc 2116120')7 3A1iEV YVISd 1.I. sp�yy A Exhibit A .AZ CL pCL � s � L x � � V� �w V z' LU .� YC wir m c V� -.- 4 219I28f2a06 I R: 03 2093330864 GORDON ROGET M D PACE 01 Exhibit B Gordon Bruce Roget 510 S. Fairmtmt Ave, Lodi, CA %N0 334-4975 City of Lodi Dept. of Parks and Re r-reakon A'I`M: Mr. Tony GoeWg Via fax 2038.3$3.0162 Leer Mr. Goahring. My father diad 14 year► ago. He donated a park that vas nearly finished, in that he waw It to be s wild Was. Mr. Petersen felt that the: parcel was too small for a pa*, especiaity if it was not to be developed. Therefore (as I underatand it), an essentIsIlyt equal Aze Parcel of captiguous bare land to the wast was acquired kora the Ounscomb farcy. The eroemble was to ber imne Roget Paris when money had been rami from fees coming from Me Kirst d mloprnent to the east. Well, that development is essentially complete and there is still no %got Park When I spoke to You approvmvhOy two years agca, you gold me that #tier+e was no money available in the foreseeable ftAum to do anything further about Roget Park. Now Ed DeSenedetti Fins called me to inquire about allowing the efty to sell the parcel rimy father dcmalied, and use time money for the Lodi Grope Boas! resort protect. I can assure you that it was My lathear's Intent to donate a park, -not dons6e money to get his names on something. ft's time to make a Park; even if ids not a typical tate. You nevi to take dawn the No Trespassing signs and put up tae one I`ve attached. Put garbage seats at every corner and arrange. for them to be emptied. Inform the Police Deparbttent of the chaff in status of the parcel acrd ask Own to petro# it. Inform your Vabft carrier if you need to. Continues to talw care of it just as you two for the fs4t 14 years, except don't plow under they CaMbmis Poppies when they come up in ft open sp®ce in the back, I have also attached (or will shortly send) a copy of they original grant deed. The tem of the dead have not been met for a day since tie grant was made. Should you fall to comply with the above request within 60 days, I will undertake action on behalf of Nancy Roger to have the parse returned to her, It wiff makeguile a story for the t c di Nerves Sentinel, l`m sure, and the people? of Lodi will be disappointed with your fWlurce to act. We're serious. Sincerely. Grareion Roger Exhibit C K-2 "Discuss and Approve the Revised Design and Conceptual Plan for Roget Park, a 4.64 -Acre Parcel Located at 2229 Tienda Drive, as Recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission" City Manager King briefly introduced the subject matter of a design and conceptual plan for Roget Park. Parks and Recreation Director Tony Goehring provided a presentation regarding Roget Park, specifically discussing proposed development options, chronological history, Census map and figures, acreage available for project development, proposed conceptual site plans for master planned park, development costs, and correspondence from Dr. Roget. Mr. Goehring stated options include building the original park design at $1.7 million, developing the vanilla park design at $545,000, or/or giving a portion of the property back to the Roget family and selling the remainder. Mr. Goehring stated the Parks and Recreation Commission approve of the vanilla park design and that fiscal impacts associated with the mitigation fee and department line item budgeting have not been reviewed in detail. Council Member Hitchcock suggested including the 3.39 acres in the vanilla park plan. She also expressed concerns regarding frontage of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, narrow access for police response, building a road on the side of the park, and houses fronting the park for security purposes. In response to Mayor Johnson, Steve Virrey, Park Project Coordinator, stated Roget Park is 251 feet in width and Century Meadows Park is a close comparison to the proposed Roget Park. City Manager King stated the City Council can pursue a variety of options for property across the park including senior housing, single-family detached homes, and mixed uses. He stated there are options to surplus the property, which may require a review of demographic and statistical census information. Mr. Prima stated there are a variety of options available with road development as well. Mr. Goehring stated 130 letters were sent to surrounding neighborhoods and few responses were received. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Randy Snider, representing the neighbors backing up to the proposed park on Brittany Lane, spoke in favor of the vanilla park development, stating his opposition to the sale of the property due to the size of the lot. Council Member Hitchcock expressed interest in senior housing to allow for street visibility for a proposed park. Discussion ensued between Mayor Johnson and Public Works Director Prima regarding zoning and the potential location of a proposed road. In response to Council Member Hitchcock, City Manager King stated there may be an opportunity for revenue in connection with the development of the park through the sale of the 3.39 acres or a senior housing development across from the proposed park. Discussion ensued between Council Member Hitchcock and City Manager King regarding the value of the proposed surplus property, senior housing and single-family residence development in the area, park impact fees, and ongoing costs associated with maintenance for the proposed park. Mayor Johnson stated funds generated in connection with Parks and Recreation should remain with the same and inquired about a motion to approve Option 2 with a minimal park, selling the proposed surplus property, and giving the remaining funds to Parks and Recreation. Council Member Hitchcock stated she could support a motion with a street next to the park and limit development to senior housing only. Discussion ensued between Mayor Johnson, Council Member Hitchcock, City Manager King, and Public Works Director Prima regarding backing potential residential uses to the Target shopping center. Council Member Katzakian stated he agreed that money should be put back into Parks and Recreation. City Manager King stated park impact fees must be used for the same and suggested tabling the matter while staff conducts further research so that a full Council can consider and make a decision on the project. MOTION /VOTE: The City Council, on motion of Council Member Hitchcock, Katzakian second, tabled the subject matter until such time as all Council Members could be present. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members — Hitchcock, Katzakian, and Mayor Johnson Noes: Council Members — None Absent: Council Members — Hansen and Mounce � sz' Roget Park Concept A ~ LOT #1 LOT #2 LOT #3 LOT #4 LOT #5 LOT #6 LOT 7 10527.9 SQ.FT. 9,994.8 SQ.FT. 9,994.6 SQ•FT. 9,994.6 SQ.FT. 9,994.6 SQ.FT. 9,994.6 SQ.FT. 9,792.3 SQ.FT. LOT Q. 77'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 111461 SQ.FT. Rr•. .iA wr 1111 Iii 1,,,_, • 74'1 141.6• SOD LOT #10 13,307 SQ.FT. LOT #9 13,973 SQ.FT. O OFLWILD OW RS ROGET PARK - Concept "A" SCALE: 1"=100' M:\OPEN\EXHIBITS\07X002\Roget_Option_A.dwg, A Size, 02/09/2007 2:36:10 PM, jpizzo 3a' 74' 74' 74' 7 74' Roget Park Concept A ~ LOT #1 LOT #2 LOT #3 LOT #4 LOT #5 LOT #6 LOT 7 10527.9 SQ.FT. 9,994.8 SQ.FT. 9,994.6 SQ•FT. 9,994.6 SQ.FT. 9,994.6 SQ.FT. 9,994.6 SQ.FT. 9,792.3 SQ.FT. LOT Q. 77'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 74'x136' 111461 SQ.FT. Rr•. .iA wr 1111 Iii 1,,,_, • 74'1 141.6• SOD LOT #10 13,307 SQ.FT. LOT #9 13,973 SQ.FT. O OFLWILD OW RS ROGET PARK - Concept "A" SCALE: 1"=100' M:\OPEN\EXHIBITS\07X002\Roget_Option_A.dwg, A Size, 02/09/2007 2:36:10 PM, jpizzo OF _ OF • . -V += �FoRPUBLIC WORKS Roget Park Concept B TARGET RETAIL STORE BLOCK WALL 8' PLANTER yq' 2' PLANTER S' SIDEWALK O 0000 84' La! #2 O \ o o \ o f O L= o \ o o SOD 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 O �I IR CATION 0 © VALVE © o RWEU z � ® / w o CR O ALLIRRIDAALME R o o���--OHO " —� 0 00 �. ° � O" 00 W W O e R. WIDE a FT. WIDE (— o carvcRETE wALKwnr WILD corvcRErE WA—AY w O FLOWERS WILD i O O © FLOWERS (E) HOMEOWNER (E) HOMEOWNER WCOD FENCE WCCD FENCE ROGET PARK - Concept "B" SCALE: 1°=100 M:\OPEN\EXHIBITS\07X002\Roget_Option_B.dwg, A Size, 02/09/2007 2:34:51 PM, jpizzo 2' PLANTER 8' PARKW Y STRIP "C" 6' SIDEWALK LOT �1 LOT �2 LOT #3 LOT �4 LOT #5 LOT �8 LOT �7 LOT #8 8,820.4 SQ.FT. 8,317.7 SQ.FT. 8,317.7 SQ.FT. 8,317.7 SQ.FT. 8,317.7 SQ.FT. 8,317.7 SQ.FT. 8,317.7 SQ.FT. 9,793.2 SQ.FT. 70'z12B' 85'z128' - 85'z128' - 65'z128' 85'z120' - 65'z128' 85'z128' - 78.7'z128' 8' CHAIN LINK FENCE 70' 88' e ' 88' BS' 78.7' ELECTRCWL SOD PANEL & RRICATION EOUIPME B R. WICE CONCRETE WALK Y e M:\OPEN\EXHIBITS\07X002\Roget_Option_B.dwg, A Size, 02/09/2007 2:34:51 PM, jpizzo OF _ OF • . -V += PUBLIC q`Fo= • . Roget Park Concept C TARGET RETAIL STORE BLOCK WALL 8' PLANTER yq' 2' PLANTER S' SIDEWALK O O O O O 84' La! #2 O o \ o 2' PLANTER 8' PARKWAY STRIP "C" \ OD O5' SIDEWALK ° \ "FOR SALE" PARCEL _ ° SOD 1.57 ACRES (NET) ( O ° J � ° V CHAIN ° LINK FENCE o 699.9' W9 CW PANEL SOD PANEL & 1� RRICATION EOUIPME B R. WI CE IR CATION CONCRETE WALK Y (DQ VALVE CALYPTU ISI � GRWE z o (D ® / w o R O ALL © oo . O���o 50� IRRICAALVE SQA ° /o�� . o00 00 . e F. WIDE Wm5 F. WIDE carvcRETE wLKwnr WILD CONCRETE WALKWAY w FLOWERS WILD O O © FLOWERS (E) HOMEOWNER (E) HOMEOWNER WC OC FENCE ADC FENCE ROGET PARK - Concept "C" SCALE: 1"=100' M:\OPEN\EXHIBITS\07X002\Roget_Option_C.dwg, A Size, 02/09/2007 2:36:47 PM, jpizzo OF _ OF • . -u PUBLIC 9�FOR- • . TARGET RETAIL STORE BLOCK WALL 70' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 73.5' LOT '1 IDT /2 IDT j3 LOT g4 IDT /6 LOT $5 LOT /7 LOT /5 8440.8 SQ. PP. 8788.8 SQ. PL. 8788.8 SQ. PP. 8788.8 SQ. PP. 8788.8 SQ. PP. 0705.6 SQ. IT. 8788.8 SQ. PL. BB85.1 SQ. PL. 70'.135' 85'x135' 85'x135' 85'x135' 85'.135' 85'.135' 85'.135' 73.5'.135' 8'PLANTER 2'PLANTER � F 8' SIDEWALK 70' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 85' 87.2' 34' Roget Park Concept D 34' L0T a7o7.B SQ. Q. I15'i'.57.0' IDT /10 5551.4 SQ. Ff. 151'.57.0' IAT /11 5530.5 SQ. Ff. 151'.57.0' 124' Y • AA �irr�,�;' •OEM- � � 1_,11 �� • ROGET PARK - Concept "D" I SCALE: 1'r=100' M:\OPEN\EXHIBITS\07X002\Roget_Option_D.dwg, A Size, 02/09/2007 2:37:17 PM, jpizzo OF _ OF • . -u PUBLIC 9�FOR- • . Roget Park Concept E TARGET RETAIL STORE BLOCK WALL 34 533.5' "FOR SALE" PARCEL 135.7 1.65 ACRES (NET) 26 0.8A SO. PT. 0.8 ACRES 8'PLANTER 2' PLANTER 8' SIDEWALK O- 34, W ELEII I PANEL & 1� RRICATICN ECUIPMEN B R. WILE ///�E��� IR CATION CONCRETE WALK Y L - , Q VALVE � 7 } © O �J SEM F' © gyp, ��0 S R O CN ALL © �\ �0 /�I����� / \ ��oO IRRICAALVE �W iPA W' �\ �W^ a © � . o © 00 n\ �� e 7. WIDE O C\` °✓5 FT. (— o carvcRETE wALKwnr WILD C orvcRE7EErE WeLKwnr \�✓ O FLOWERS WILD (D 00 © FLOWERS (E) HOMEOWNER (E) HOMEOWNER WOOD FENCE ACC FENCE ROGET PARK - Concept "E" SCALE: 1"=100' M:\OPEN\EXHIBITS\07X002\Roget_Option_E.dwg, A Size, 02/09/2007 2:37:42 PM, jpizzo CITY COUNCIL BOB JOHNSON, Mayor JOANNE L. MOUNCE Mayor Pro Twnpore LARRY D. HANSEN SUSAN HITCHCOCK PHIL KATZAKIAN Concerned Parties CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)333-5706 FAX (209) 333-6710 EMAIL pwdeptQIodi.gov http:k\www.lodi.gov February 16, 2007 BLAIR KING City Manager RANDI JOHL City Clerk D. STEVEN SCHWABAUER City Attorney RICHARD C. PRIMA, JR. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Discuss and Provide Direction on Future Development of Roget Park Located at 2229 Tienda Drive Enciosed is a copy of background information on an item on the City Council agenda of Wednesday, February 21, 2007. The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street. This item is on the regular calendar for Council discussion. You are welcome to attend. If you wish to write to the City Council, please address your letter to City Council, City of Lodi, P. O. Box 3006, Lodi, California, 95241-1910. Be sure to allow time for the mail. Or, you may hand -deliver the letter to City Hall, 221 West Pine Street. If you wish to address the Council at the Council Meeting, be sure to fill out a speaker's card (available at the Carnegie Forum immediately prior to the start of the meeting) and give it to the City Clerk. If you have any questions about communicating with the Council, please contact Randi Johl, City Clerk, at (209) 333-6702. If you have any questions about the item itself, please call me at (209) 333-6759. Richard C. Prima, Jr. -iCr t Pudic Works Director RCPlpmf Ers closure cc: City Clerk NADGET PARK.00C DAME ADDRESS CITY - RY ROSENE 2336 BRITTANY LN LODI CA 95242 JOHN & JODIE SNIDER 2328 BRITTANY LN LODI CA 95242 R BRANDON RANKIN III 2320 BRITTANY LN LODI CA 95242 ROGER & L TRS VINCENT 2319 BRITTANY LN LODI CA 95242 NANCY S HAMMOND 2327 BRITTANY LN LODI CA 95242 JAMES & HEIDI WILLIAMS 2335 BRITTANY LN LODI CA 95242 46 RTIN & LISA LEARY 2343 BRITTANY LN LODI CA 95242 KEITH & CAROL SELLESETH 2350 ST ANTON DR LODI CA 95242 KAICHELE A WAKEHAM PO BOX 22054 CARMEL CA 93922 KENNETH & M L CANTRELL 2334 ST ANTON DR LODI CA 95242 CAROL E ASHCROFT 2326 ST ANTON DR LODI CA 95242 LAVERNE H AVILA 2318 ST ANTON DR LODI CA 95242 RICHARD & GAYLENE ENTZI 2344 BRITTANY LN LODI CA 95242 {GREGORY & SUZANNE BURNS 2112 ST ANTON DR LODI CA 95242 DONALD & JOAN $RYANT 1105 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 ALAN & LEANNE GOLDHAHN 1102 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95240 5UNALD & K B JONES 1110 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 STEPHEN & JOLIE RUIZ 1118 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 VICKI PARKER 1126 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 GRANT & KARIN ROGERO 1134 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 JOHN & DEBORAH [;'EMSHAR 1142 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 JOSEPH & MARYBETH HANDEL 1133 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 JOHN & MARCIA FITZGERALD 1117 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 KFELLI PAGE 1109 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 WILLIAM & JACKIE MCCAMMON 1101 CHATEAU CT LODI CA 95242 VII TROY BECKMAN 1115 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 GEORGE & MARIE KANEKO 1127 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 JAMES & DEBORAH BAUMBACH 1139 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 DAVID & BRENDA AKIN 1151 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 DAVID & TERESA CABRAL 1150 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 FRANK & GAIL CUNNINGHAM 1138 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 BRIAN CRAWFORD 1126 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 AN ROIBINSON 1114 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 NNIS PERAK 2104 ST ANTON DR LODI CA 95242 A THUR JAMES BEESKAU 1121 GENEVA LN LODI CA 95242 RAMON & MARY FUENTES 1133 GENEVA LN LODI CA 95242 RODNEY & PENNY LAW LEY 2058 PETERSBURG WY LODI CA 95242 ANtD & WENDY AL HOMOUD PO BOX 1808 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 LA NELL ESCALANTE 2034 PETERSBURG WY LODI CA 95242 MARK & TAMMI RIZZOLO 1155 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 WILLIAM D SEIDLITZ 1160 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 RICHARD E PAULL 1150 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 PAUL & MARIA GULOTTA 1140 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 BRUCE RONALD PARDELLA 1130 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 J KENNETH & LINDA MEYERS 1120 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 {CORDON CERVO 1048 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 DAVID A & RUTHIE A AGGETf I 1050 GENEVA LN LODI CA 95242 MARK & LAUREN ROE 5325 BLACKHAWK DR DANVILLE CA 94506 EVANS R & PAMELA HAMMOND 2029 PETERSBURG WY LODI CA 95242 RAYMOND & DONNA LILLEY 2019 PETERSBURG WY LODI CA 95242 MARY L MCCOMB 1117 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 LAP C & YEE C WONG 1051 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 A FRED & G CAMY BAKER PO BOX 1510 LODI CA 95241 HELEN ARCHIBALD 10711 THORNTON RD #115 STOCKTON CA 95209 KENNETH & NANCY HYSKE 14200 N CURRY AVE LODI CA 95240 BRUCE & LINDA CAMPER 1263 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 HOWARD & MARY WEBB 1255 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 MONTY L & SUSAN KAY ZORB 1247 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 DOUGLAS & SUSAN I_ARSSON 1239 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 VICTOR & ADRIANA SCHUH 1231 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 RONALD & BARBARA WINTERS 1223 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 LODI DEVELOPMENT INC 1420 SOUTH MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 JON T & WENDY M 1167 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 C WUHARA LYMAN M & LING K 1159 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 CHANG EUGENIO F & TERESITA 1349 MOKELUMNE DR ANTIOCH CA 94509 DYES LOWELL B & VIOLET 2031 BERN WY LODI CA 95242 FLEMMER DENT & SHARON 2023 BERN WY LODI CA 95242 FLEMMER RICHARD & ROSANNE 2015 BERN WY LODI CA 95242 CHRISTIE DAVID & DOLORES 1202 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 PRUDHEL STEVEN A & ROBIN L 1216 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 WOOD GLENN M & CYNTHIA A 1215 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 CLARKE WESLEY DALE & 2030 BERN WY LODI CA 95242 SHARON EMIG JON GREGORY & 2038 BERN WY LODI CA 95242 MINAJOY LEE ANTHONY L RANTZ 1220 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 VIRGIL W & CARLA J 1228 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 ASHBAUGH FFREY G & CHRISTA 1236 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 STEELE DAVE D ROBINSON 1244 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 MICHAEL V & SUSAN A 1252 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 THOMAS MARC & LAURA 1260 HEIDELBERG WY LODI CA 95242 WVEISMAN RAMON & TRACY 1245 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 FERNANDEZ JOHN & VICKI FITZHUGH 1239 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 RICHARD & LILLI 1233 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 HENRICKSEN RICHARD & NOELLA 1227 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 ERICHSON MICHAEL & DEBRA 1221 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 GEORGUSON NICK & RUTH OLGA 1088 GULL AVE FOSTER CITY CA 94404 KYRIAKIS PETE & BONNIE SILVANI 9317 THORNTON RD STOCKTON CA 95209 ROGER & LINDA 1234 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 BARKER WESLEY & ALENE 1240 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 HASH I MOTO NANCY JOANNE WALL 1246 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 DAVID & RACHEL VERA 1227 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 DOUGLAS & HOLLI EDDY 1219 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 STEVEN & CHARLENE ROSTOMILY 1211 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 PAUL & LYNETTE HALEY 1203 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 YEN MING & HSIUFEN CHANG 1195 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 RODNEY & JAYNIE GAINES 1187 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 MCHARD & SHELLEY TOY 1179 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 ELMER J SANGUINETTI 10654 PLEASANT VALLEY CIR STOCKTON CA 95209 BIAIR & NANCY KING 1163 VIENNA OR LODI CA 95242 PHILIP & JULIE VAZ 1168 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 NANCY JEAN SCHRADER 1192 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 JOHN & KIMBERLY TETZ 1176 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 CRAIG & TERRI BOTTKE 1200 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 TER F WOODS 1184 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 HARRY M JYONO 1208 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 MICHAEL & NICOLE WEST 1216 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 IDC LODI PLAZA 100 SWAN WY #206 OAKLAND CA 94621 LODI RETIREMENT RESIDENCE PO BOX 14111 SALEM OR 97302 CHURCH OF GOD 7TH DAY OF LODI 2100 TIENDA DR LODI CA 95242 NOE LUNA 1127 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 HARVINDER & NITA SIINGH 1224 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE PO BOX 213030 STOCKTON CA 95213 BRITTANY LLC PO BOX 1510 LODI CA 95241 CLARENCE & LUELLA SEVERSON 2050 TIENDA DR LODI CA 95242 DEREK ULMER 1121 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 JONATHAN & ALYSIA SMITH 1232 VIENNA DR LODI CA 95242 LODI FIRST NAZARENE CHURCH 2223 WEST KETTLEMAN LN LODI CA 95242 JOHN M JR & KERRY GIANNONI 2960 APPLEWOOD DR LODI CA 95242 LELAND R KAMMERER 1133 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 JAMES O NEAL & JUDITH HUFFMAN 1115 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 RICHARD JOHN & JOYCE BRISTOW 1107 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 MILLSBRIDGE OFFICE PO BOX 1598 LODI CA 95241 BARK WEST iifiCHAE D & DIANNA LONG 1151 MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 fAICHELLE M LEMLEY 1209 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 5RNDALL KUCHENBECKER 1227 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 NfARIA RUIZ PO BOX 910 LODI CA 95241 GAYLE W PLUMMER 1101 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 GREGORY & CINDY NELSON 1139 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 CGA ISABEL ORAM 1157 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 ARTHUR & BARBARA JOHNS 1215 MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 EUGENE III & KRISTEN SCHENONE 1305 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 CHARLES KELLEY HAHN 2017 TIENDA DR LODI CA 95242 JUNE MASUI 1427 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 JOHN L & JOYCE MARIE COSTA 1145 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 RICHARD & MARGARET ANAFORIAN 1203 MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 BIRENT L & SHARON A FLEMMER 2023 BERN WY LODI CA 95242 VINCENT HUNTER 1311 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 LLOYD & ELIZABETH KARGER 1210 SALZBURG LN LODI CA 95242 Roget Park — General Options ■ Option No. 1: Develop the full 8 -acre park Option No. 2: Partial park and private development ■ Option No. 3: No park A Ah ,. 3 'J`: - ..- _ ..: u Y -r y mo- 4-'� �'v51. l_ �' •= ri' .� � •6' - y. .rK. it ¢ �. .. '^.�' FS`- . t+. A jwt t =rtILA 1� '' ++ C R y 's.47_ �� +t Z _ Roget Park - General Options Option No. 2: Partial park and private development ■ Parks &Recreation Commission recommendation ■ Appears there may be enough value in the land to cover the cost of building the street and park, pay City fees and provide a return on investment. ■ Annual maintenance - $25,000 ■ Portion could be retained to provide better access and visibility to the park. ■ Option could be accomplished in a number of ways: o Retain a consultant to design the combined project ■ present the Council with various alternatives ■ sell the "surplus" property; use the proceeds to develop the park. Li Develop goals for the property ■ issue a Request for Proposals for entire development ■ joint development project through a development agreement 4 Um= MM 9IM w K r Ra11K Roget Puk O#LC" 14'�3R' i,�e 47T. Mrdml see 4�T- TIIZM !�L TL 7# I l [. 4#t�w Snips sqJL T 'xL tm �, k 1�4L iE rae 71,�e1 �ii ,e ' lar LA A 0 LIIF AM I&M RIrr PARK _ Concept "N'. SCALA I'mW r aF 11lL� + 1 FUMM r Ta L aA Roget Park Concept S f Rli1A � rRn�c TLIMW EZZLM 9rm raR �o � o 4 � 0 15 I� e� o • 4 0 0 do I&b a �y i r (:P00% o .� e woo N 00 �e w RCCET PARK - % " E" acus 1" -IW ras mr M � M rm P 7d! IOZ SOR WR fJR r,Ms;ur-r Orr. eXa.r qrc. E,i1T.7 E.17T.T JL ;81}.} 7d'ri�' � •G'�' 1 dR'el�' � M'[lie 44'�11 r � �� rQ II R f a x Vft W%Maz:, PlK PW TLT CITY OF LODI} rPUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT Roget Park Concept �L4CJC5YYaL T 4LRR' TiRGSP $Eii�F. S7� i'S�WAIX O 0 4 S 4 J P YhAk7�R #NJtld'N.Y4Tf�P� n � � R Y� rir 4d/YJa�IIC ° � e "FOR R S 4L.E�� PARCEL 1.57 ACRES (NET) P ° � P — j 8 �s.Y TJI fa °1} e(Dk {I. r ,f ueLa wlLdt FtOwpaS rPa � ROCET PARK - Concept "" SCALE: ]'LIOQ r aF 11lL� + 1 F WORKS L U aA ST Roget Park Concept D -AMY R K ww a �y iCRDO r o ID 0 WLD �..� ��RS N �e w RCCET PARK - % "D11 acus T��f �a SWUM Q � ��A ��AR��AR��A 1���6 r ■lIJVI�L res Roget Park Concept D -AMY R K ww a �y iCRDO r o ID 0 WLD �..� ��RS N �e w RCCET PARK - % "D11 acus T��f �a SWUM Roget Park Concept E rater Bran arm w � S�4IS PARS. � 1.0 AC 38 QMT3 w+ i WPU� �r11�fr�1 •�GI'/iLl[ w �i i ' 600%9 i r H C3 ,, lei w�a N w: w ROGET PARK -CkmW"r Option 2 Goals SaT revn7urdia7s in itafi(s Option No. 2: Partial park and private development ■ Land Use o Residential? Li Restrict to senior housing? Li Restrict to "for sale" housing? o Affordability considerations/requirements? Li Suggest Council select preference ■ Development form o Suggest leaving open for proposals ■ Park form Ej Minimal development or include active features? Ej Have full access to street at west? Ej At a minimum, northern portion should have street access/visibility 10 Option 2 Process SaTrevn7urdia7s in itafi(s Request for Proposal(s) Format/Process ❑ Focus on goals as adopted by Council ❑ Require park & street improvements by developer ❑ Include standard property development requirements, fees ❑ Include new Development Agreement terms ❑ Legal review by City Attorney ❑ Allow multiple proposals/options from single developer ❑ Presentations on proposals (time/date depending on number received) ❑ Council decision in late 2007 11 �� ���� � � >v-� � �, P 2 �� � �. Poem: Blair King SNlrrt: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:52 PM TO: Randi Johl CSC: Richard Prima; Tony Goehring Sibjed: FW: Roget Park Phone Call Additional public comments for Council consideration related to Roget Park Fpm: Richard Prima 916nt: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:40 PM Tlx: Blair King; Randy Hatch; Tony Goehring eject: FW: Roget Park Phone Call FYI - This lady owns one of the duplexes on Tienda at Heidelberg and thought a walk-through park would be great, but thought restrooms would be a bad idea given the adjacent continuation school. She thought the excess property could be some type of commercial - office or mini - storage. Richard -----Original Mes$age----- From: Pamela Farris Seat: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:08 AM To: Richard Prime Subject: Roget Park Phone Call Mrs. Armstrong called about the Roget Park council item & would like you to call her at 474-6661. Pain Farris Administrative secretary Punt Works Administration City of Lodi (209) 333.8$00 x2656 pfarft4lodi.gov K• I No= Randi Johl Ont: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:41 AM TO: 'Victor Schuh' Cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Tony Goehring Subject- RE: Roget Park Thank you for your email Mr. Schuh. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk FWm: Victor Schuh [mako:vschuh@lansas.com] Sant: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:30 AM TO: Randi Sohl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Sobject: Roget Park Dear city council I am emailing you today in regards to a topic on the regular calendar for tonight's meeting future development of Roget Park. I live at 11231 Heidelberg way that backs up to Roget Park. When I purchased the lot to build my home I paid a premium price because of the park behind me. I received last week some of the proposed ideas as to what to do with this property. I would be very disappointed to see again a donation not taken advantage of and have this property returned back to the Roget family. My concern is that this land would be developed into residential lot are even worse commercial lots and bring down the value on my property especially after paying additionally for it. I would love to see the entire park developed as per the original plan, how ever I understand the cost in doing this is high. The added on portion of the park between the park and Target was a pleasant surprise when the city purchased it to add onto the park. How ever was not part of the original park when I purchased my lot so if only developing the donated property is what the council decides to do so be it. Of the proposed plans to develop the land west of the park I would be most in fever of one of the plans having residential lot that back up to the park with the street next to Target. I hope to be at tonight's meeting thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Victor Schuh P.O Box 1063 18929 N. Lower Sacramento Road Wm&rWp, CA 95258-1063 Phone (209)368-4337 Pax (209)368-0347 To: City Council City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca. 95241-1910 From: Gary Rosene 2336 Brittany Ln. Lodi, Ca. 95242 Dear Counsil Members, Your decision concerning the Roget Park has a significant effect on my property and household. I strongly recommend that you approve option #1, the previously approved pian. Developing the park in stages is an obvious solution to financial delays. Any significant changes to the originally approved plan would be inefficient and unfair to all parties that have been concerned over the many years. Sincerely, Gary A. Rosene