The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocument Submitted into the RecordKADUSHIN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PLANNERS /44411 2/ Afrant ` a KADUSHIN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PLANNERS KADUSHIN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PLANNERS ,411,444( a5s/- KADUSHIN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PLANNERS Miami 21 Some comments about the planning process and public input Jaap Vos, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Chair Department of Urban and Regional Planning Florida Atlantic University Miami 21: A blueprint for the City of Miami of the 21st century and beyond. Miami 21 takes a holistic approach to land use and urban planning .... Miami 21 will provide a clear vision for the City that will be supported by specific guidelines and regulations so that future generations will reap the benefits of well-balanced neighborhoods and rich quality of life. The rational model of planning: • define the issue • clarify values • select goals • formulate alternatives • forecast consequences of alternatives • select alternative • develop detailed plan for implementation • review and evaluate Question 1 Will Miami 21 be about a vision for the future of Miami to create a high quality of life for its residents or simply a streamlining and revision of the zoning ordinance to facilitate growth? The rational model of planning: • define the issue • clarify values • select goals • formulate alternatives • forecast consequences of alternatives • select alternative • develop detailed plan for implementation • review and evaluate Question 2 What are the values underlying Miami 21 and have they been discussed with the public? The rational model of planning: • define the issue • clarify values • select goals • formulate alternatives • forecast consequences of alternatives • select alternative • develop detailed plan for implementation • review and evaluate Question 3 What are the goals for the studies and was there any public input in the what, how and why of each study? The rational model of planning: • define the issue • clarify values • select goals • formulate alternatives • forecast consequences of alternatives • select alternative • develop detailed plan for implementation • review and evaluate Question 4 What is the planning process and are there any places for meaningful public participation? More questions: ■ What is the relationship between Miami 21 and the Comprehensive Plan/EAR? ■ What is the legal status of Miami 21? ■ How does Miami 21 tie in with Florida's growth management system? ■ What is the time frame for the blueprint and the revision of the zoning ordinance? ■ What will this new zoning ordinance look like? ■ What guarantees are there that it will work better than what we have now? Miami is unique, Miami's cultures are unique, Miami's climate is unique, Miami's environmental resources are unique! Build on its strengths, build on its communities, turn weaknesses into opportunities, don't just blame it all on zoning or think that New Urbanism solves all problems! Did anyone download the proposal? Do these people really live in south Florida? No guidelines for comfortable exterior spaces in the sub tropics, no building orientation for energy efficiency, no recognition of a natural environment or ecology and no cultural diversity. 1 vision Poit • 7 The Future of Miami Parks1 Miami Neighborhoods United The umbrella organization of neighborhood associations across the entire City of Miami The Future of Miami Parks Presented by Miami Neighborhoods United L July 7, 2005 11111 I. The Issues- Specific Problems A. Miami level of service compared to other cities B. Current Standard in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is deficient C. Current Impact Fees are deficient D. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report are deficient E. Neighborhood participation in the development of Miami 21 goals was totally absent A. Miami level of service compared to other cities High Population Density Cities Minneapolis 383,000 5,694 14.9 Washington, D.C. 572,000 7,576 13.2 Oakland 399,000 3,822 9.6 Boston 589,000 5,451 9.3 Baltimore 651,000 5,749 8.8 Los Angeles 3,695,000 30,134 8.2 Median San Francisco 777,000 5,916 7.6 Philadelphia 1,518,000 10,621 7.0 Long Beach 462,000 2,792 6.0 New York 8,008,000 36,646 4.6 Chicago 2,896,000 11,676 4.0 362,000 1,138 3.1-2.9 Average Total Ave by Population 8.0 20,312,000 127,215 6.3 * NOTE: "All Parkland" includes all parks and preserves owned by municipal, county, metropolitan, state and federal agencies within the boundary of the city. Miami was at 3.1 acres per thousand residents in 2002 but because population has been •Ildio added and no parks have been added the ratio has diluted to 2.9 acres per thousand rpcirlpntc_ 1 Illi11'fi,I vision A. Miami level of service compared to other cities Medium -High Population Density Cities San Diego 1,223,000 38,993 31.9 Portland, Ore. 529,000 12,959 24.5 Cincinnati 331,000 7,000 21.1 Dallas 1,189,000 21,670 18.2 Arlington, Tex 333,000 4,151 12.5 Las Vegas 478,000 5,416 11.3 Denver 555,000 6,251 11.3 Seattle 563,000 6,024 10.7 St. Louis 348,000 3,385 9.7 Sacramento 407,000 3,694 9.1 Pittsburgh 335,000 2,735 8.2 Toledo 314,000 2,206 7.0 Detroit 951,000 5,890 6.2 Cleveland 478,000 2,884 6.0 San Jose 895,000 3,858 4.3 Fresno 428,000 1,323 3.1 Average Total Median 12.2 Ave by Population 1 Illi11'fi,I A. Miami level of service compared to other cities Medium -Low Population Density Cities El Paso Albuquerque Colorado Springs Phoenix Louisville/ Jefferson Count Fort Worth Tulsa Memphis Milwaukee/ Milwaukee County Indianapolis San Antonio Columbus Tampa Houston New Orleans Atlanta Mesa Tucson Average 564,000 449,000 361,000 1,321,000 694,000 535,000 393,000 650,000 940,000 792,000 1,145,000 711,000 303,000 1,954,000 485,000 416,000 396,000 487,000 26,372 17,746 10,150 36,944 14,209 10,554 7,110 10,490 15,115 11,868 16,503 8,494 3,408 21,252 5,228 3,235 2,862 3,175 46.8 39.5 28.1 28.0 20.5 19.7 Median 18.1 16.1 16.1 15.0 14.4 11.9 11.2 10.9 10.8 7.8 7.2 6.5 12.2 rotaI Ave by Population Illi11'1�11 voIn Summary... ...the City of Miami ranks 12 out of 12 for High Density Cities and Medium -High Density Cities in the United States. It is also 55 out of all 55 U.S. cities surveyed in terms of par acreage per 1000 residents! Approximate Acreage by Commission District Commission District 3 4 Total Acreage by Commission District 88.42 944.79 25.05 41.90 95.56 Percentage of acreage in each district 7.39% 79.03% 2.09% 3.50% 7.99°/.. Total Acreage for entire city 1,195.72 * Approximately 30 acres or 50% is covered with cement structures and retail, which renders most of the park useless for normal park activities. 1 vision Miami Parks Acreage by .1 ' �44 Commission District 79% of our total park acreage lies in Commission District 2. Four Commission Districts desperately need more parkland The Comprehensive Plan has no stated goal of how parks should be maintained, or the amount of plant material or other features usually found in parks outside Miami vision I. The Issues- Specific.1 Problems B. Current Standard in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is deficient C. Current Impact Fees are deficient D. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Evaluation and Appraisal Repor deficient E. Administration did not seek Neighborhood participation in setting Miami 21 Goals B. MCNP standards The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan has no goal or objective to increase the amount of parkland, recreation space, or othe open space It states only that its Level of Service Standards a05) will be a minimum of 1.3 acres ofpubllc park space per 1000 residents C. Current Impact Fees are .1 deficien• t Miami Impact Fees on new construction do not provide sufficient funds for the purchase of parkland to even maintain the level of level of service we had in 2002 There must be provisions that the 3.1 acres per thousand residents (thru a combination of on and off site public accessible green space) be maintained There should be additional efforts to increase the 3.1 standard over time Residents who live in the four districts west o downtown have paid for Bicentennial Park and other district two parks but yet have no significant parks in their neighborhoods. The Impact Fees collected for parks currently are not set aside for the purchase of new park land C. cont... Current Impact Fees vary according to seven development areas Non-residential buildings in all areas of the city, except in the downtown area, pay no fees toward parks. With every new building permit issued our problem becomes worse and the cure more difficult. Beside our impact fees for parkland being extremely low, we have also learned that many Impact Fees over the last four years have not been collected. Audit Number 05-010 dated February 25, 2005, shows that between October 2001 and July 2004 over $1.336 million went uncollected! D. MCNP and Evaluation/Appraisal Report ar deficient. The Planning Department has not responded to MNU requests for open dialogue relating to revisions to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. No plan to acquire new parkland has been revealed beyond the Homeland Security Bond program. That program money is being used substantially to construct buildings E. Administration did not seek Neighborhood participation in setting Miami 21 Goals AP 4 vision II. Immediate Corrective Actions Needed A. Immediate correction of Impact Fees and other considerations. B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' participation in drafting the revised Evaluation and Appraisal Report f C. Assure neighborhood participation in Miami 21 A. Immediate Correction... We ask this Commission to place a 45 day moratorium on the issuance of all building permits larger than a duplex residential unit in order that your Planning and Finance Departments can develop a new Impact Fee Schedule. We recommend that the impact fee for parks be standardized throughout the City Property tax payers all over this city have paid for downtown parks and now new residents of Miami need to pay their fair share toward parks A. continued... Duringthe 45 day moratorium, this Commission shoulconsider adding a requirement such as Tampa imposes which requires that 35% green space be left around buildings located on waterfron property. Tampa and other cities require 10% green space to be included around other buildings. Impact fees collected must be set aside exclusively for the purchase of additional parkland, there must be a time frame for land acquisition and park improvement and the process needs to be detailed in the Comprehensive Plan. This Commission must assure that Impact Fees for Parkland Purchase are segregated in a separate account with transparent administration and oversight. MNU will work with the Planning and Finance Departments, the Miami 21 consultants. vision 1 Illi 11' t � vision B. Assure MNU and other 1 stakeholders' participation Please instruct the Planning Department to work constructively with MNU on changes to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report relating to the arks and Recreation section C. Assure neighborhood 1 participation in Miami 21. Please insure that the Miami 21 project puts in place a process for participation in drafting and review of proposed plans together with both the Miami 21 consultants and the Planning Department. There is no such explicit process described in any Miami 21 materials made available so far. For instance, the public was told on April 16 that there is already model form based zoning codes for several areas of the City. MNU and other stakeholders need immediate access to such models and to all other planning goals being used. As far as MNU has been able to investigate, no contract has yet been signed to formally engage Duany Plater- Zyberk and therefore no Scope of Work or other information concerning the contract has been made available to the public or to MNU. A more explicit participative process should be incorporated in the contract, to insure timely and broad participation in the setting of goals and the planning process 1 III. Short Term Corrective Actions Needed � A. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' active, reoccurring participation in drafting amendments to the Parks & Recreation section and all other sections of the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan. ■ B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' active participation in drafting Miami 21 Goals, Regulating Plan and Form Based Code C. Initiate a plan to locate a substantial number of parks in four commission districts which are deficient. ■ Establish a Concurrency Information Center. A. Continuous, reoccurring participation Four out of five districts expressed the need for more park space in their neighborhoods. Nearly every line of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan needs revision, as current Goals, Objectives and Policies are inadequate, vague and not measurable in most instances. The plan needs details and time frames fo achievement. Instruct the Planning Department to seek advice from your Parks and Waterfront Advisory Boards and MNU. 1 Illi11'fi,I vision C. Initiate a plan to locate a substantial number of parks in four commission districts which are deficient. The city should work toward a commonly accepted goal of providing a park within one half -mile walk of every residence. Tax dollars coming from new construction should be put toward the purchase of parkland. This new money can be leveraged with state, federal and private grants to be able to reach beyond our 3.1 acres D. Establish a Concurrency -; Information Center Establish a Concurrency Information Center to provide information on capacities and levels of service to the publi Tampa has such a center IV. Long Term Corrective Actions Needed A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive with other high density population cities. 4 B. Establish an Independent Board to Manage Parks & Recreation. f C. Increase operation funding for Parks and Recreation. A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive Miami's Level of Service Standard for parkland per thousand residents must be radically increased to a level somewhere between the average acres per 1,000 by population of high population density cities which is now 8.02 and the median city which happens to be Los Angles at 8.2 acres. J MNU will be conducting detailed investigations and analyses for discussion with the consultants and Planning Dept. vision B. Establish an Independent al Board to Manage Parks & Recreation Independent Board should be given management authority, including developing the budget, for parks operation and maintenance, including the disposition of park bond funds Establish at least one Park Trust Group for every NET area Each Trust Group should be the liaison between the neighborhood and the Independent Board. A separate Park Land Acquisition Board should oversee land acquisition and improvement Neighborhood trust groups can be elected by city residents as is done in Minneapolis V. Conclusions Immediate action is necessary to collect Park Impact Fees for purchase of additional parkland - on a standardized basis from all new development projects across the whole City. More Conclusions... The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan was written many years ago and needs a complete re -write based on the City's current situation and future growth goals. The Comprehensive Plan needs specific, measurable goals and objectives with detailed policies so residents can be assured that the quality of life will not flounder from one administration to another. Miami 21 is a tremendous, positive effort on the part of the Mayor and the Commission to create a wonderful vision for Miami and the legal/regulatory infrastructure to accomplish it. 1 vision Poit • 7 The Future of Miami Parks1 Miami Neighborhoods United The umbrella organization of neighborhood associations across the entire City of Miami Miami Neighborhoods United Parks and Parkland Issues Presentation to the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami By Miami Neighborhoods United, July 7, 2005 I. Miami Parks — The facts and problems A. Miami level of service compared to other cities — three charts B. Current standard in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is deficient C. Current Impact Fees are deficient D. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report are deficient E. Neighborhood participation in the development of Miami 21 goals was totally absent II. Immediate Corrective Actions Needed A. Immediate correction of Impact Fees and other considerations. B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' participation in drafting the revised Evaluation and Appraisal Report C. Assure neighborhood participation in Miami 21 D. Integrate Current Parks and Waterfront Advisory Boards into Planning Process III. Short Term Corrective Actions Needed A. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' active, reoccurring participation in drafting amendments to the Parks & Recreation section and all other sections of the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan. B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' active participation in drafting Miami 21 Goals, Regulating Plan and Form Based Code C. Initiate a plan to locate a substantial number of parks in four commission Districts which are deficient. D. Establish a Concurrency Information Center. IV. Long Term Corrective Actions Needed A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive with other high density population cities. B. Establish an Independent Board to Manage Parks & Recreation. C. Increase operation funding for Parks and Recreation. V. Conclusions Page 1 of 19 Page 2 of 19 Parks and Parkland Issues Presentation to the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami By Miami Neighborhoods United, July 7, 2005 Introduction We are here today because the entire membership of Miami Neighborhoods United has serious concerns about the deficient amount of parkland in Miami. We are here to express the long- standing and critical need for more parkland given our impending population explosion, especially in four commission districts, which are incredible deficient. Our parks are used 365 days a year. We have nearly that many days of bright sunshine and most of the year we have good rainfall. These ingredients make it possible for Miami to create incredible parks, showcasing plant material able to grow only in South Florida. We are stuck with some incredibly small parks, but we can transform them into wonderful oasis where residents will be able to relax in as well as play in, with the addition of plant material and creative features. Our parks can be the envy of any city. But we have much planning to do and most importantly there must be a commitment of this Commission and Mayor to embrace the recommendations we will make. I. Miami Park Acreage — The facts and problems A. Miami level of service compared to other cities — three charts Miami is rated as a high population density city and the first chart you will see compares Miami to other similar cities. This study was conducted by the Trust for Public Land in 2002. You will see Miami ranks 12 out of 12 cities in term of park acreage per 1000 residents.. We will look briefly at medium -high and medium low population cities and you will see that Miami is again last. If we had added some parkland between 2002 and now we could have maintained our 3.1 acreage figure but we declined to 2.9 acres. If we showed you the low population density cities such as Jacksonville, Miami would still be last. In total we are last out of 55 major US cities. Page 3 of 19 Source: The Trust for Public Land "The Excellent City Park System", May 2003, Appendix III Page 37 City Minneapolis Washington, D.C. Oakland Boston Baltimore Los Angeles San Francisco Philadelphia Long Beach New York Chicago Miami Average Total High Population Density Cities Population Acres All Parkland * 383,000 5,694 572,000 7,576 399,000 3,822 589,000 5,451 651,000 5,749 3,695,000 30,134 777,000 5,916 1,518,000 10,621 462,000 2,792 8,008,000 36,646 2,896,000 11,676 362,000 1,138 20,312,000 127,215 Acres per 1000 Persons 14.9 13.2 9.6 9.3 8.8 8.2 Median 7.6 7.0 6.0 4.6 4.0 3.1-2.9 8.0 6.3 Ave by Population * NOTE: "All Parkland" includes all parks and preserves owned by municipal, county, metropolitan, state and federal agencies within the boundary of the city. Miami was at 3.1 acres per thousand residents in 2002 but because population has been added and no parks have been added the ratio has diluted to 2.9 acres per thousand residents. Page 4 of 19 Medium -High Population Density Cities City Population Acres All Acres per 1000 Persons Parkland * San Diego Portland, Ore. Cincinnati Dallas Arlington, Tex Las Vegas Denver Seattle St. Louis Sacramento Pittsburgh Toledo Detroit Cleveland San Jose Fresno Average 1,223,000 529,000 331,000 1,189,000 333,000 478,000 555,000 563,000 348,000 407,000 335,000 314,000 951,000 478,000 895,000 428,000 3 8, 993 12,959 7,000 21,670 4,151 5,416 6,251 6,024 3,385 3,694 2,735 2,206 5,890 2,884 3,858 1,323 31.9 24.5 21.1 18.2 12.5 11.3 11.3 10.7 9.7 9.1 8.2 7.0 6.2 6.0 4.3 3.1 12.2 Median Source: The Trust for Public Land "The Excellent City Park System", May 2003, Page 5 of 19 Miami also ranks last as well if we compare ourselves to Medium -Low Population Density cities such as Tampa, which we included for comparison purposes. City Medium -Low Population Density Cities Populatio Acres All Acres per 1000 n Parkland * Persons El Paso 564,000 26,372 46.8 Albuquerque 449,000 17,746 39.5 Colorado Springs 361,000 10,150 28.1 Phoenix 1,321,000 36,944 28.0 Louisville/Jefferson 694,000 14,209 20.5 County Fort Worth 535,000 10,554 19.7 Median Tulsa 393,000 7,110 18.1 Memphis 650,000 10,490 16.1 Milwaukee/ 940,000 15,115 16.1 Milwaukee County Indianapolis 792,000 11,868 15.0 San Antonio 1,145,000 16,503 14.4 Columbus 711,000 8,494 11.9 Tampa 303,000 3,408 11.2 Houston 1,954,000 21,252 10.9 New Orleans 485,000 5,228 10.8 Atlanta 416,000 3,235 7.8 Mesa 396,000 2,862 7.2 Tucson 487,000 3,175 6.5 Average 12.2 * NOTE: "All Parkland" includes all parks and preserves owned by municipal, county, metropolitan, state and federal agencies within the boundary of the city. In Summary, the Miami ranks 12 out of 12 of high density population cities. If we compare all cites in the study, Miami ranks 55 out of 55 cities. Page 6 of 19 B. Current standard in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is deficient. The Miami Comprehensive Plan has as no goal or objective to increase the amount of parkland, recreation space, or other open space. It only states: Policy PR-1.4. 4: The acceptable Level of Service Standards for the City of Miami with regards to Recreation and Open Space will be a minimum of 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000 residents. The Trust for Public Land study of 2002 said Miami had 3.1 acres of park land per thousand residents. Miami's actual park acreage has been adjusted down to 2.9 acres per 1000 residents because Miami has added population but has made no significant progress in adding new parkland. This is a 3.2% decline in level of service is just three years. When the estimated 60,000 new residents move into their new condos over the next 36 months our parks Level of Service will decline from 2.9 to 2.46 acres per thousand residents. Almost 41% of our reported 1195 acres of parkland is on Virginia Key. Of the remaining 709 acres of parkland, we need to subtract 68 acres which are offshore islands and not easily accessible to the public and 52 acres from Watson Island which has been counted, but technically is not parkland and which will substantially be leased to private enterprise. The addition of twelve acres of the Little Haiti Park will not compensate for the loss of parks space on Watson Island and Bicentennial Park with major buildings be constructed at those locations. Additional parkland has already been lost to various facilities being built in various parks and the contemplated police horse stables in Lummus Park represent a further loss of parkland. Refer to Chart Four: Miami Parks Acreage by Commission District Please note that 79% percent of our total park acreage lies in Commission Distinct 2, proof that four Commission Districts desperately need more parkland. Residents in four Commission Districts had made this request when meetings were held for the Comprehensive Plan but the results of those meeting were ignored by the administration. The Comprehensive Plan has no stated goal of how parks should be maintained, or the amount of plant material or other features usually found in parks outside Miami. C. Current Impact Fees are deficient. Miami Impact Fees on new construction do not provide sufficient funds for the purchase of parkland to even maintain the level of level of service we had in 2002, much less make an improvement to the overall level of service. When population is added to the city, there must be provisions that the 3.1 acres per thousand residents (thru a combination of on and off site public accessible green space) be maintained which means any new projects should meet at least that standard. Page 7 of 19 The current policy of collecting only fifteen cents per square foot for parks from construction in the downtown area on the theory that the downtown already has Bicentennial Park and needs no additional parks is simply wrong. This practice ignores the fact that Bicentennial Park has been paid for by property taxes collected on property all over the city. Residents who live in the four districts west of downtown have paid for Bicentennial Park and other district two parks but yet have no significant parks in their neighborhoods. The Impact Fees collected for parks currently are not set aside for the purchase of new park land as they should be but are used for multiple purposes. Current Impact Fees vary according to seven development areas and in most cases, including the downtown area, residential buildings pay less fees for parks than non residential buildings. This practice ignores the purpose of a residential building is to house additional population. On the other end of the fee spectrum, non residential buildings in all areas of the city except in the downtown area pay no fees toward parks. With every new building permit issued our problem becomes worse and the cure more difficult. We have also learned that many Impact Fees over the last four years have not been collected. Audit Number 05-010 dated February 25, 2005, shows that between October 2001 and July 31, 2004 only $7 million of Impact Fees were collected on all construction projects in Miami. The Audit found that over $1.336 million went uncollected and $62,580 dollars were overcharged. MNU has not learned if the undercharged Impact Fees have been collected. D. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report are deficient. The Planning Department has not responded to MNU requests for open dialogue relating to revisions to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The Parks Committee of MNU has identified many flaws in the Parks & Recreation section of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Mayor Diaz and the city web site both speak about increasing parkland but no plan to acquire new parkland has been revealed beyond the Homeland Security Bond program. That program money is being used substantially to construct buildings and little is being invested to acquire new parkland. E. Neighborhood participation in the development of Miami 21 goals was totally absent. Aside from initial meetings with neighborhoods scheduled to begin later this week, there has been no known process or meetings which has involved neighborhoods in the development of the goals of Miami 21. At this date, MNU and other neighborhood groups are doubtful their input will be heard in regard to the further development of Miami 21, its Regulating Plan and the form based zoning code. Page 8 of 19 II. Immediate Corrective Actions Needed A. Immediate Correction of Impact Fees and other Considerations. As presented above, there is a significant deficit in providing for additional parkland, specifically because new residents are allowed to move into new residences without adequately contributing toward the creation of new parks. A family, which buys a single family home, pays a premium for green space outside their four walls, for a front, side and back yard. Multi family buildings, be they rental or ownership, should provide their residents with some on site green space, plus perhaps a pool and or some exercise area. Consider that space as a back yard. But where is their front yard? We submit that parks are the front yards, the public yards for everyone to enjoy and new residents need to contribute to, not dilute our parkland acreage. The Parks Level of Service of 3.1 acres per 1,000 persons, which we had in 2002, must be maintained as the minimum standard. When new residents are added to the city, there must be a requirement that residential buildings provide a combination of on site and off site parks space open to the public equal to at least 3.1 acres per thousand residents. We ask this Commission to place a 45 day moratorium on the issuance of all building permits larger than a duplex residential unit in order that your Planning and Finance Departments can develop a new Impact Fee Schedule. We recommend that the impact fee for parks be standardized throughout the City. If the Mayor is serious in creating "One Miami", as he has publicly stated, then there must be equality among neighborhoods. Such a schedule must take into consideration that property tax payers all over this city have paid for downtown parks and that new residents of Miami need to pay their fair share toward parks, which they will enjoy. New bonds and property taxes should not be an option for maintaining a 3.1 acre per 1,000 for new residents. During the 45 day moratorium, this Commission should consider adding a requirement such as Tampa imposes, which requires that 35% green space be left around buildings located on waterfront property. Tampa and other cities require 10% green space to be included around other buildings. Tampa has one developer who voluntarily makes 15% of his units available at less that $200,000. For comparison purposes Tampa has 50,000 fewer residents but provides fourteen swimming pools, while Miami has ten. Park Impact fees collected must be set aside exclusively for the purchase of additional parkland, there must be a time frame for land acquisition and park improvement and the process needs to be detailed in the Comprehensive Plan. This Commission must assure that Impact Fees for Parkland Purchase are segregated in a separate account with transparent administration and oversight. MNU will work with the Planning and Finance Departments, the Parks Advisory Board and to prepare recommendations of new Park Impact Fees for the Commission. Page 9 of 19 Any parkland covered by buidlings larger than 1500 feet , including existing and new buildings on Watson Island, Bicentennial Park and the Meese Golf Course must be replaced with green parkland elsewhere before any project is allowed to proceed so as to avoid a further decline in parkland. We recommend that each of you set aside 90 minutes to review the drawings and video tapes of the Bicetennial Park charette to see if granting of four acres to each of two musuems truly represented the desires as spoken and drawn by the 280 participants. B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders participation in drafting the Revised Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Please instruct the Planning Department to work constructively with MNU on changes to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report relating to the Parks and Recreation section. C. Assure neighborhood participation in Miami 21. Please insure that the Miami 21 project puts in place a process for participation in drafting and review of proposed plans together with both the Miami 21 consultants and the Planning Department. There is no such explicit process described in any Miami 21 materials made available so far. For instance, the public was told on April 16 that there is already model form based zoning codes for several areas of the City. MNU and other stakeholders need immediate access to such models and to all other planning goals being used. As far as MNU has been able to investigate, no contract has yet been signed to formally engage Duany Plater-Zyberk and therefore no Scope of Work or other information concerning the contract has been made available to the public or to MNU. A more explicit process should be incorporated in the contract, to insure timely and broad neighborhood participation in the setting of goals and the planning process The initial schedule announced on April 16 for the first quadrant does not seem tenable based on the current situation and total lack of information. D. Integrate Current Parks and Waterfront Advisory Boards into Planning Process The Parks Advisory Board and the Waterfront Advisory Board should have more access to information and planning activities and much more latitude in making recommendations to this Commission, also including participation by Miami Neighborhoods United and other stakeholders of Miami in a transparent, open process. Page 10 of 19 III. Short Term Corrective Actions Needed A. Assure MNU and other stakeholders of active and reoccurring participation in drafting amendments to the Parks & Recreation section and all other sections of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Major modifications of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan are necessary namely because it fails to address a major finding of the consultant's report which stated that residents in four out of five districts expressed the need for more park space in their neighborhoods. Nearly every line of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan needs revision, as current Goals, Objectives and Policies are inadequate, vague and not measurable in most instances. The plan needs details and time frames for achievement. For example, there needs to be specific goals added to address the kind and amount of plant material and other standard features found in most parks. The MNU Parks Committee looks forward to working closely with the Planning Department, the Parks Advisory Board and Waterfront Advisory Board in reviewing and drafting all parks - related proposed amendments going forward. Please instruct the Planning Department to work with your Parks Advisory Board, your Waterfront Advisory Board and MNU. B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders active participation in drafting Miami 21 Goals, the Regulating Plan and the Form Based Code We commend you for launching the Master Plan study for our parks being conducted by Goody, Clancy and Associates as part of Miami 21 and look forward to working closely with them and with the Planning Department on the Plan and necessary amendments to the MCNP. Please insure that the Miami 21 process incorporates full disclosure and that participation and input is taken seriously. C. Initiate a plan to locate substantial number of parks in four commission districts, which are deficient. The completed Master Plan for parks must include the addition of parks and greenways in neighborhoods of the city where none exist. The city should work toward an initial goal of providing a park within one half -mile walk of every residence. The future goal will be to provide a park within one -quarter mile as recommend by the Trust for Public Land. To finance additional parkland MNU strongly recommends that in addition to increasing impact fees specifically for parkland acquisition that you also allocate a substantial portion of property tax dollars coming from new construction toward the purchase of parkland. Other sources of monies should also be identified. These new monies can be leveraged with state, Page 11 of 19 federal and private grants to be able to reach the new, much higher Standard of parkland per thousand residents. D. Establish a Concurrency Information Center MNU recommends the establishment of a Concurrency Information Center, which shall provide to the public, upon request, information on existing and anticipated capacities and Levels of Service of all services addressed. This information shall reflect existing facility and service capacities, planned and committed facility and service capacity increases or extensions and existing and committed service demands. Tampa has such a center. IV. Long Term Corrective Action A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive with other high density population cities. Miami's Level of Service Standard for parkland per thousand residents must be radically increased to a level somewhere between the average acres per 1,000 by population of high population density cities which is now 8.02 and the median city which happens to be Los Angles at 8.2 acres. MNU will be conducting detailed investigations and analyses in preparation for discussion with the consultants and Planning Dept. on this issue. B. Establish an Independent Board to Manage Parks & Recreation. The Independent Board should be given management authority including developing the budget for parks operation and mainenance, including the disposition of park bond funds. With staff assistance, the Independent Board should be responsible for establishing at least one Park Trust group for every NET area. There shoud be allowace for every park to have a trust group if the neighbhood so choses. Each trust group should be the liason between the needs of the neighborood and the Independent Board. A separate Park Land Acquisition Board should oversee the funds set aside exclusively for park land acquisition and improvement. Neighborhood trust groups can be elected by city residents as is done in Minneapolis, Minnesota which has one of the finest parks systems in the United States. C. Increase operation funding for Parks and Recreation Parks need to be considered as a service provided to the residents of Miami and to our visitors. Large open spaces, while they can serve to host commercial activities on an infrequent basis, should not be considered a major factor in designing a park. Our parks should include play Page 12 of 19 fields but the remaining area should be green, planted and shaded to serve residents without having to generate revenue. Consideration should be given to establishing a police force dedicated to patrolling parks and additional funding must be dedicated toward regular replacement of plant material, maintenance and programming in order that our parks can grow greener as they should, given our unique twelve month growing climate. V. Conclusions Immediate action is necessary to collect Park Impact Fees for purchase of additional parkland - on a standardized basis from all new development projects across the whole City. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan was written many years ago and needs a complete re -write based on the City's current situation and future growth goals. It needs specific, measurable goals and objectives with detailed policies so residents can be assured that the quality of life will not flounder from one administration to another. Miami 21 is a tremendous, positive effort on the part of the Mayor and the Commission to create a wonderful vision for Miami and the legal/regulatory infrastructure to accomplish it. However, there are immediate, short-term and long-term needs, which must be addressed if we are to raise our parks and other attributes of our city to world -class status. Page 13 of 19 APPENDIX A Are Parks Important? Sure, parks are nice. But are they important? Do parks contribute to a community's health and vitality in the same way traditional urban infrastructure does? Recent studies say yes. Parks have a far-reaching impact on neighborhood economics, health, education, and safety. • According to the Centers for Disease Control, Americans living closer to parks are more likely to exercise regularly, leading to weight loss, increased energy, and better overall health. • Economic surveys conducted by private and public sector agencies confirm that parks increase residential and commercial property values. • Studies show that urban parks deliver significant environmental benefits, filtering pollutants from the air and helping to control storm water runoff during rainy seasons. • Teachers report that parks enhance education by serving as destinations for local field trips and outdoor classrooms that illustrate natural and life science lessons. • Police departments document sharp declines in juvenile arrests after recreational facilities open in low income neighborhoods. • Urban planners agree that well -maintained parks improve communities by increasing neighborhood cohesion. After parks open, neighbors are more likely to interact, take pride in their communities, and form neighborhood watch and other local improvement groups. Parks aren't an "extra" that can be ignored in tough economic times. As a part of the urban infrastructure, they're as essential as roads, bridges, and utilities. A TPL white paper, "Parks for People: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space," presents additional research describing the importance of park space in urban areas. The white paper is available at www.tpl.org/pforp. Source: No Place To Play by The Trust for Public Land Page 14 of 19 Appendix B ENDNOTES i The Trust for Pubic Land plans to expand this Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis to include additional cities as data become available. We encourage other metropolitan areas to improve their data collection practices and participate in future park access analyses. To stay informed as additional information becomes available, sign up for the Parks fror People edition of TPL's Landlink electronic newsletter at ww.tpl.org/newsletter 2 Increasing Physical Activity: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 26, 2001, p. 1 ("Increasing Physical Activity"), available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5018a1.htm. See also, Emily B. Kahn, Leigh T. Ramsey, Ross C. Brownson, Gregory W. Heath, Elizabeth H. Howze, Kenneth E. Powell, Elaine J. Stone, Mummy W. Rajab, Phaedra Corso, and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, "The Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Physical Activity," American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002;22 (4S), pp. 87-88. 3 See, for example, John L. Crompton, The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Values and the Property Tax Base, (Ashburn, Va.: National Recreation & Park Association, 2000). Mark R. Correll, Jane H. Lillydahl, and Larry D. Singell, "The Effect of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space," Land Economics, as cited in "Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors," 4th Edition, National Park Service, 1995, p.14, available at: www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econ all . p df. 4 USDA Forest Service Pamphlet #R1-92-100, cited in "Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas," Web page, Colorado Tree Coalition, Available at: www.coloradotrees.org. See also David J. Nowak, "The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality," USDA Forest Service, available at www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/gif/trees.pdf, and Jeff Beattie, Cheryl Kollin, and Gary Moll, "Trees Help Cities Meet Clean Water Regulations," American Forests, Summer 2000, p.18. 5 See Peter Harnik, "The Excellent City Park System: What Makes It Great and How to Get There;" The Trust for Public Land, 2003 and "Healing America's Cities: How Urban Parks Can Make Cities Safe and Healthy," The Trust for Public Land, 1994. 6 See Robert J. Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush, "Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods — Does It Lead to Crime?" Research in Brief National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Feb. 2001, pp. 1-2. Available at: www.ncjrs.org/pdffilesl/nij/186049.pdf Page 15 of 19 Appendix C Miami Parks Acreage by Commission District Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District 1 2 3 4 5 African Square Park Albert Pallot / Magnolia Park Allapattah Mini Residential Allapattah Mini Park Site Allen Morris AMCO Antonio Maceo Park Armbrister Park Athalie Range Park Bay of Pigs Bayfront Park Baywood Park Belfonte - Talcocy Belle Meade Mini Park Bicentennial Park Billy Rolle / Coconut Grove Mini Park Biscayne Heights Mini Park Biscayne Park Blanche Park Brickell Park Broward Circle Mini Park Bryan Park Buena Vista Park City Cemetery Coconut Grove Tennis Courts Coral Gate Park Coral Nook Park Crestwood Cuban Memorial Plaza Culmer Mini Park Curtis Park David T. Kennedy Park Miller Dawkins Dinner Key Picnic Islands #4,5,6 Dorsey Park Douglas Park Eaton Park E. G. Sewell Park Elizabeth Steele Mini Park Elizabeth Virrick Park Ernesto Lecuona Park Fern Isle Park Flagami Mini Park Fort Dallas Gibson Park 0.33 0.40 3.65 0.25 27.70 1.00 10.33 8.41 3.00 .10 5.13 61.30* 1.87 .40 30.30 ** .17 .04 7.32 1.50 2.20 10.00 .30 20.89 56.70*** 2.52 10.00 6.21 0.50 4.65 0.65 0.20 0.25 1.00 2.07 3.62 .25 1.02 1.17 11.85 3.09 1.20 1.00 0.60 8.04 Page 16 of 19 MNUParksPresentationFINALHW SHA. doc Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District 1 2 3 4 5 Glen Royal Mini Park Grapeland Park Grove Mini Park Hadley Park Henderson Park Highland Circle Mini Park Jose Marti Park Juan Pablo Duarte Allapatah Comstock Park Kenneth Myers Park Kinloch Park Kirk Monroe Legion Park Legion Park Picnic Island #2 Lemon City Park Lincoln Park Little River Commerce Lummus Park Margaret Pace Park Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Silver Bluff Mini Park Martel Park Maximo Gomez Domino Park Melrose Park Merri Christmas Park Miami River Rapids Miami River Walk Moore Park Morningside Park Morningside Picnic Island #3 North Bay Vista 0.50 Oakland Grove 0.20 Pace Park Picnic Island #1 Paul Walker Mini Park Peacock Park Pine Heights Mini Park Plaza De Cubanidad Pullman Park 0.40 Rainbow Village Park 1.52 Range Park #1 0.11 Reeves Park 3.44 20.00 9.16 3.49 2.60 0.85 0.25 10.00 1.44 13.70 11.49*** 0.22 5.90 12.00 .50 0.60 5.39 0.70 42.38 19.28 11.02 0.12 9.40 0.20 0.50 3.50 5.60 0.11 0.25 29.70 0.25 2.30 0.50 19.60 Page 17 of 19 MNUParksPresentationFINALHW SHA. doc Riverside Park Roberto Clemente Park Robert King High Park Carlos Arboleya Campground Shenandoah Park / Pool Simonhoff Park 1.50 Simpson Park South Bay Vista 0.20 4.89 3.50 8.21 17.00 10.00 Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District 1 2 3 4 5 Southside Park 2.23 Spring Garden Point Park 1.14 Stearns Park 5.40 Torch of Friendship Park na Town Park 0.86 Triangle Park 0.50 Twelve Avenue Mini Park na Unity Hall Park 0.26 Virginia Key 486.00 Virrick Gym 4.46 Wainwright Park 21.44 Watson Island 51.96 West Buena Vista 1.10 West End Park 6.94 Williams Park 5.03 Woodson Park 0.40 Total Acreage by Commission District 88.42 944.79 25.05 41.90 95.56 Total Acreage for entire city 1,195.72 Percentage of acreage in each district 7.39% 79.03% 2.09% 3.50% 7.99% * Approximately 30 acres or 50% is covered with cement structures and retail, which renders most of the park useless for normal park activities. ** Approximately 8 acres or 30% will be covered with two massive museum buildings, which will eliminate the only opportunity in the entire city where residents could have the opportunity to escape to a great natural green park and not be able to view buildings. The land remaining after the construction of two massive museums will not be large enough to provide any type of natural experience. The only other substantial green area remaining where a resident will be able to have a natural experience to escape the concrete of Miami will entail taking a trip to Virginia Key which is not quickly or easily accessible by any Miami resident. * * * The 68.18 acres on the picnic islands are not easily assessable by any Miami resident. * * * * Approximately 45 acres of Watson Island has been or will be covered with buildings used for commercial purposes. Page 18 of 19 MNUParksPresentationFINALHW SHA. doc The above four instances effectively means 151 acres counted in Commission District Two or ten percent of our total park acreage is not available for traditional park uses. In addition 486 acres on Virginia Key are not easily accessible to the vast majority of Miami residents. Page 19 of 19 MNUParksPresentationFINALHW SHA. doc The Future of Miami Parks The umbrella organization of neighborhood associations across the entire City of Miami 10 Presented by Miami Neighborhoods United July 7, 2005 I. The Issues- Specific Problems A. Miami level of service compared to other cities A. Miami level of service compared to other cities A. Miami level of service compared to other cities In Summary... Approximate Acreage by Commission District Miami Parks Acreage by Commission District I. The Issues- Specific Problems B. MCNP standards C. Current Impact Fees are deficient C. cont... D. MCNP and Evaluation/Appraisal Report are deficient. II. Immediate Corrective Actions Needed A. Immediate Correction... A. continued... B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' participation C. Assure neighborhood participation in Miami 21. III. Short Term Corrective Actions Needed A. Continuous, reoccurring participation C. Initiate a plan to locate a substantial number of parks in four commission districts which are deficient. D. Establish a Concurrency Information Center IV. Long Term Corrective Actions Needed A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive B. Establish an Independent Board to Manage Parks & Recreation V. Conclusions V• 'PFg • c-.6 • • a L . More Conclusions... The Future of Miami Parks The umbrella organization of neighborhood associations across the entire City of Miami