HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZAB 08-22-12 Supporting DocsMEMORANDUM
TO: SEE DISTRIBUTION LIST
FROM: City of Miami Planning Department
SUBJECT: City of Miami Parks LOS Study and Policy Recommendations
DATE: August 22nd, 2012
The City is currently engaged in an effort to review and update the City's methodology for the Level of Service
(LOS) Standard for parks, recreation, and open spaces within the City. This will result in a Report and Policy
recommendations for updating the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element, as well as the Capital
Improvements and the Land Use — Interpretation of the 2020 Future Land Use Map Elements of the City's
Comprehensive Plan (MCNP) for concurrency management purposes.
Based on these efforts and recommendations, the Planning Department will be presenting, at an upcoming
PZAB meeting, September 5t1,2012, proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan updating the
Level of Service (LOS) Standard for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space, and seeking your positive
recommendation.
BACKGROUND
Recent amendments to the "Parks, Recreation, and Open Space" Element of the Comprehensive Plan were
based on the 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), as well as an assessment on how policies
complied with the May 2007 "Miami Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan", and changes to state, regional,
and local policies. As a result of these assessments, policies were amended. These policy amendments came
before the Planning Advisory Board, PAB, and were recommended for approval April 30th, 2008. They were
subsequently adopted by the City Commission, November 13th, 2008.
The 2007 Parks and Open Space Master Plan was based on an extensive public process, including city wide
meetings and a public hearing process. It pointed out the resident's desire for more parks and recreational
facilities. It also identified, ACCESS to park space in urban conditions as more of a significant issue than size,
with particular emphasis on the provision of "walk -to" access. As a result, Policy, PR1.1.4., of the Parks,
Recreation , and Open Space Element was amended to state that the City would conduct a study to support a
revised Level of Service, (LOS) for parks, recreation, and open space for concurrency purposes. The study
would be instrumental in updating policies, to achieve access and per capita funding objectives. At the
moment, the LOS standard is 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000 residents. Policy PR1.1. indicated the
City shall work to achieve a medium term objective of providing a park within one half mile of every resident
and a long term objective of a park within a quarter mile of every resident. Based on this study,
recommendations would be included to update the City's Comprehensive Plan to comply with this policy.
Goody Clancy & Associates was engaged to comply with this Policy PR-1.1.4. The Firm was responsible for
the preparation of the recent "2007 Miami Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan. Thus, they were uniquely
qualified to undertake this activity. As you may remember, Larissa Brown was the contact person for the
Master Plan. She is currently the contact person for this effort as well.
The process undertaken for the required study included two community meetings, discussions with city staff,
and the Parks Advisory Board. The community meetings were held May 1st, 2012 and June18th, 2012, at Jose
Marti Park and Legion Park respectively; both were well attended. These inputs culminated in a study which
considered a methodology to achieve a new LOS concurrency standard in line with the recommendations of
the 2007 Master Plan and the mandates of the Comprehensive Plan. The Draft Study and Policy
Recommendations are attached for your review.
At the scheduled August 22nd, 2012 workshop, the Planning Department and Larissa, Brown, by conference
call, will be available for any questions. We would appreciate your comments to the documentation provided.
Your inputs will strengthen the proposed policy amendments in order to improve access to parks and open
spaces for residents, improve vitality of the city's neighborhoods and residents quality of life.
Thank you.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
PZAB Members:
Janice I. Tarbert, Chairperson
Charles Garavaglia, Vice Chairperson
Patrick J. Goggins
Maria B. Gutierrez
Melody Torrens
Dr. Ernest Martin
Daniel A. Milian
Charles A. Gibson
Juvenal Pina
David H. Young
Sergio Cruz
Cc: Johnny Martinez, City Manager
Francisco Garcia, Planning department
Carmen Sanchez, Planning Department
City Attorney Office
Hearing Board Office
DRAFT
City of Miami
Parks and Recreation Level of Service Study
Prepared by Goody, Clancy & Associates
Rev. August 17, 2012
ARCHITECTURE
�OODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Miami has retained Goody Clancy to prepare two documents: a Level of Service Study/Report
and a Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element for the City of Miami update to the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP). This document is the Level of Service Study.
The 2007 Miami Parks and Public Places Master Plan and the 2010 MCNP includes a recommendation
that LOS for parks be reoriented towards access from the traditional measure of acres per 1,000
persons. The Master Plan, which was prepared by Goody Clancy, recommended a medium -term goal of
a park within one-half mile of every resident and a long-term goal of a park within one -quarter mile of
every resident, a balance among passive and active park uses, and a new park hierarchy system to
reflect Miami conditions. The LOS recommendation was based on the greater importance of access in
urban conditions rather than size, with particular emphasis on the provision of "walk -to" access. The
distances were chosen to represent walk times of approximately 10 minutes and five minutes.
The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (dated July 2010), for which Goody Clancy provided
assistance in updating the Parks, Recreation and Open Space element, based on the Master Plan,
includes the following directive:
Policy PR-1.1.4 — "The City will conduct a study to support a revised Level of Service of parks,
recreation and open space for concurrency purposes and adopt a revised Level of Service of parks,
recreation and open space for concurrency purposes that will assist in achieving the access and per
capita funding objectives of PR-1.1. Until that time, the Level of Service for concurrency purposes
shall be 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000 residents."
The present study fulfills Policy PR-1.1.4. The recommendations in this study are based on a review of
City of Miami data and documents, a review of regional parks and open space planning documents, a
review of the recent literature on best practices in provision of urban park and recreation services, a
review of the draft update to the City's impact fee study, map analysis, and two public meetings.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Current best practices for urban parks support the original recommendation of the 2007 Parks and
Public Spaces Master Plan that an access -based measure should be the foundation of Level of Service for
City of Miami Parks. The Miami -Dade County Parks and Open Space System Master Plan also emphasizes
the importance of access to parks, distinguishing between more immediate walking access in urban
conditions, similar to the City of Miami's conditions, and access by bicycle or transit in other conditions.
Following on the recommendations of this plan, the Miami -Dade County Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR) document adopted in 2011 recommends incorporating proximity measures for monitoring
park level of service, while preserving an acreage -based LOS measure in three Park Service Districts.
Recent parks plans completed by well -regarded urban park systems, such as in the cities of Denver and
Minneapolis, also focus on access as an important component of LOS.
Measuring access. The most -used access measure for urban parks is a 10-minute, barrier -free walk to a
park. While a 10-minute walk is generally translated into a geographic measure of 1/2 mile, it is also
possible to use a time -based measure to adjust for the amount of time on average, related to crossing of
high traffic arterial streets. A relatively simple Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis
methodology (using the Network Analyst extension to ArcGIS or similar programs) allows for quick
2
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
determination of the 10-minute walkshed from parks. If desired, additional nuances can easily be added
to the GIS analysis. (See the maps in the Appendix.)
Acreage. While access is an important new addition to determination of LOS, it is also a fact that overall
park acreage in the City of Miami is below average for a city of its size and density, based on surveys of
city park systems by the Trust for Public Land (TPL) Center for City Park Excellence, an acknowledged
national leader in research on urban park systems. TPL recently released the ParkScore system which
includes metrics for access, acreage and per capita investment in ranking urban park systems (including
parks operated by any governmental or other entity —not just city -owned parks —that are open to the
public). A number of parks in the City of Miami are small, and the use of the "minipark" label for many of
these small parks is an indicator of this issue. An LOS measure for Miami should therefore also include a
measure related to park size. The TPL ParkScore system scores park systems based on two acreage
measures: median park size and percent of city acreage in parks.
Park Land Acquisition and Development. Because much of the City of Miami is built out, acquiring land
for new parks, especially parks of an acre or more, can be difficult and expensive. The City's impact fee
system for parks and recreation allows for impact fee funds to be spent anywhere in the city to
accommodate new demand created by new development, but not simply to correct deficiencies. At
present the system only includes parks that are deemed to serve a citywide constituency (at least 3
acres) and focuses on easily -countable recreation facilities, such as athletic fields, rather than multi -use
or passive space, in analyzing costs. The underlying rationale is that impact fees require a nexus
between the demand for parks from additional population resulting from new development: new
households would not be asked to pay for additional park acreage in neighborhoods that they would not
frequent, unless that new acreage is a citywide park or recreation destination.
However, there is some evidence that nominally neighborhood level parks attract park users from
neighborhoods where parks do not exist or are inadequate, a sign that the city does not yet have a park
network that adequately serves all neighborhoods. The MCNP could include a commitment to develop a
funding plan for deficiencies.
Inclusion of park and recreation resources not owned by the City of Miami. The LOS in the MCNP and in
this analysis does not include park and recreation resources that are not the property of the City of
Miami. The Parks Master Plan process demonstrated that, from the point of view of residents,
ownership of public park and recreation areas is irrelevant. In particular, they gave high priority to
greenways and linear parks, which are not owned by the City. In the future, LOS analyses should be
adjusted to take these resources into account, while retaining a focus on the City's continued
responsibility to provide park and recreation areas.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Parks Level of Service Measures for the City of Miami. Analysis of ten-minute walking access in relation
to all City of Miami Parks, to parks of one acre or more, and to population density and land use indicates
that the MCNP should include a Parks LOS that is based on an access measure, with attention to park
size and to population density.
LOS measure for the MCNP:
o "The City of Miami's Level of Service for Parks, Recreation and Open Space is to provide a
City -owned park within a ten-minute, barrier -free walk to park entrances by 72% of the
city's population as measured by GIS pedestrian network analysis."
Policy Commitments:
3
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
o The City of Miami will work towards providing a City -owned park of approximately one acre
or more within a ten-minute, barrier -free walk to park entrances by 66% of the city's
population.
o The City of Miami will develop and maintain GIS layers to measure access to 1) City of Miami
park and recreation resources; 2) park and recreation resources open to the public that are
owned and managed by other entities; 3) the relationship of these access measures to
population.
o The City of Miami will study and develop a method of incorporating non -City park and
recreation resources open to the public into the LOS measure.
■ Definitions:
■ 10 minute walk: one-half mile from a park entrance
One-half mile measurement: pedestrian route by sidewalk or designated pedestrian route as
measured by ESRI ArcGIS Network Analyst or similar process
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Miami has retained Goody Clancy to prepare two documents: a Level of Service Study/Report
and a Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element for the City of Miami update to the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP). This document is the Level of Service Study.
The 2007 Miami Parks and Public Places Master Plan and the 2010 MCNP includes a recommendation
that LOS for parks be reoriented towards access from the traditional measure of acres per 1,000
persons. The Master Plan, which was prepared by Goody Clancy, recommended a medium -term goal of
a park within one-half mile of every resident and a long-term goal of a park within one -quarter mile of
every resident, a balance among passive and active park uses, and a new park hierarchy system to
reflect Miami conditions. The LOS recommendation was based on the greater importance of access in
urban conditions rather than size, with particular emphasis on the provision of "walk -to" access. The
distances were chosen to represent walk times of approximately 10 minutes and five minutes.
The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (dated July 2010), for which Goody Clancy provided
assistance in updating the Parks, Recreation and Open Space element, based on the Master Plan,
includes the following items relevant to developing LOS measures:
■ Policy PR-1.1.1— development of a new park system hierarchy as described in the Parks and Public
Spaces Master Plan
■ Policy PR-1.1.2 — focus on land acquisition (ideally at least one acre in size) according to community
priorities: 1) water views/access; 2) neighborhood "walk -to" parks in underserved areas; 3)
expansion of destination and community parks; and 4) linear park segments.
■ Policy PR-1.1.3 — all parks are to include some passive use areas
■ Policy PR-1.1.4 — "The City will conduct a study to support a revised Level of Service of parks,
recreation and open space for concurrency purposes and adopt a revised Level of Service of parks,
recreation and open space for concurrency purposes that will assist in achieving the access and per
capita funding objectives of PR-1.1. Until that time, the Level of Service for concurrency purposes
shall be 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000 residents."
4
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
■ Policy PR-1.5.1— mechanisms within land development regulations are to meet expanded demand
for parks and recreation
The present study fulfills Policy PR-1.1.4.
A NOTE ON THE DATA:
All map analysis in this study is based on GIS files provided to Goody Clancy by the City of Miami. The
city owned park and open space layer may not, therefore, include the most recently acquired or
designated park and recreation facilities and it does not include trails,r greenways, or other park
resources open to the public that are not owned by the City. Population data used for map and
other analysis is 2010 Census data.
2. BACKGROUND
The documents reviewed for this Level of Service Study included plans, regulations, public comments,
and map data from the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, and the State of Florida; public comments
from meetings organized for this study; recent literature on best practices for urban park LOS; and plans,
policies and regulations from other cities.
A. PLANS — CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
1. Miami Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan (2007)
The Master Plan emphasized the importance of access to parks in a city environment. The Miami Parks
and Public Spaces Master Plan recommended that the City focus on access rather than acreage alone in
providing service to city residents: "Pursue a medium -term goal of a park within one-half mile of every
resident and a long-term goal of a park within one -quarter mile of every resident by acquiring land in
underserved areas."' The plan also recommended acquisition of park land both for parks that serve the
entire city and for those that primarily serve neighborhoods. The high -priority locations or types of parks
identified through the plan's extensive public survey and public participation program are: land with
water views or water access; new "walk -to" parks in underserved areas of the city; expansion of existing
community parks; and land for expansion or creation of linear parks.'
The precise size of the City's park system is not known. As noted in the Master Plan, the precise total
acreage of city -owned parkland and all parkland in the City of Miami is not available, because many
parks have not been surveyed, and also depends on how conservation areas, such as the part of Virginia
Key outside the 80 acres managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation, are classified. Including
only these 80 acres, the approximate total acreage of the city -owned park and recreation system used in
this report is 890. Adding all the park properties owned/managed by county and state park agencies
would bring estimated park acreage within the city to approximately 1,000 acres.' The Master Plan
project also included an inventory and existing conditions evaluation of all the parks in the city system,
provided in Appendix I of the Master Plan. The inventory and evaluations were reviewed as part of this
LOS study and should be updated on a regular basis.
i Miami Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan, (2007), p. 60
' Ibid., 73.
3Ibid., 33.
5
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
The inventory and assessment of City parks in Master Plan should be maintained and updated. As part of
the Parks Master Plan, every park in the City's system was inventoried, evaluated and given a score
based on the conditions at the park. Maintenance and regular updating of this inventory will assist in
planning for improvements and acquisition of new park land.
2. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP)(July 2010)
The MCNP, for which Goody Clancy provided assistance in updating the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space element, based on the Master Plan, includes the following items relevant to developing LOS
measures:
■ Policy PR-1.1.1— development of a new park system hierarchy as described in the Parks and Public
Spaces Master Plan
■ Policy PR-1.1.2 — focus on land acquisition (ideally at least one acre in size) according to community
priorities: 1) water views/access; 2) neighborhood "walk -to" parks in underserved areas; 3)
expansion of destination and community parks; and 4) linear park segments.
■ Policy PR-1.1.3 — all parks are to include some passive use areas
Policy PR-1.1.4 — "The City will conduct a study to support a revised Level of Service of parks,
recreation and open space for concurrency purposes and adopt a revised Level of Service of parks,
recreation and open space for concurrency purposes that will assist in achieving the access and per
capita funding objectives of PR-1.1. Until that time, the Level of Service for concurrency purposes
shall be 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000 residents."
Policy PR-1.5.1— mechanisms within land development regulations are to meet expanded demand
for parks and recreation
The present study fulfills Policy PR-1.1.4.
3. City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Process - Public Comment for a 2012 EAR
A formal City of Miami EAR for the next update of the MCNP has not yet been issued, but public
meetings were held in 2010 which included public comment on the parks and open space element of
the plan. Comments recorded at public meetings include:
■ Use "parks" rather than "public spaces" and make appropriate changes to Miami 21; Don't label
parks "Civic Space"; parks must include some "green"
■ Street closure/abandonment cases should include possible use for parks, public art or other
benefit.
■ Include urban agriculture
■ Better tree canopy
■ Durable protection of parks
■ Reduce 25% structure allowance in parks
■ Athletic fields should not count as green space
■ Bryan Park should include some passive space
■ More dog parks and playgrounds needed downtown
■ Use metro -rail land for park space
■ Need wayfinding in parks
■ Promote bicycling and walking
6
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
• More shade trees
• More pocket parks in denser areas
A document prepared by the Miami Planning Department in January 2011 for the Miami 2012 EAR
identified the following "major issues:"
• Pocket park opportunities where there are street closings
• Potential reduction of 25% cap on structures in parks
• Continue to increase tree plantings
4. Miami -Dade County Parks and Open Space Measures for Level of Service
The 2008 Parks and Open Space System Master Plan for Miami -Dade County was completed at
approximately the same time as the city's parks master plan and is based on many of the same
principles, taking into account the bigger size and variety of conditions to be found in the
unincorporated county. The plan's Guiding Principles include principles of equitable access, which
specifically include:
"...the distance people have to walk, bicycle or drive to participate in the daily or weekly activities generally
associated with local (neighborhood) parks and open space."4
Miami-Dade's 2010 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) recognized the importance of access. Miami -
Dade County prepared an EAR in 2010 as part of the comprehensive plan update process. In that report,
the need to focus on the equitable access principle that emerged from the county's parks master plan
because of the increasingly urbanized character of the county, taking into account many of the same
constraints on acquiring property for new parks that the City faces.
The County's LOS includes parkland not owned and managed by its parks department and counts only
permanent residents. The County's minimum LOS for "local recreation and open space" is 2.75 acres per
1,000 permanent residents in unincorporated areas. This local recreation and open space encompasses
the kinds of parks found within municipalities like the City of Miami (from mini parks to community
parks), countywide parks that are used for local recreation, and "designated public school and college
playfields and portions of private recreation open space." The County's LOS, therefore includes park
resources not owned by the County of types that have not typically been included by the City of Miami
in calculating LOS standards. Moreover, the Level of Service is set only for permanent residents.
The County EAR noted that increasing urbanization will make it more difficult for the county to meet the
acreage -based adopted minimum level of service for local parks and that the county's comprehensive
plan should add a monitoring measure for the proximity of parkland.5
B. REGULATIONS
1. Miami 21 Zoning Code
The Miami 21 Code provides incentives for park creation and includes a general zoning district for parks.
In Section 3.14.4(b) — Public Benefits Program — Public Parks and Open Space, the ordinance provides
4 Miami -Dade County Parks and Open Space System Master Plan (2008), p. 24.
5 Miami -Dade County Evaluation and Appraisal Report (2010), pp. 2.6.1 - 2.6.6.
7
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
that additional floor area may be made available in T6 zones by provision of a Park, Green or Square in
an area of need defined by the Parks Plan or the Parks Department; by provision on -site; or by a cash
contribution to the Miami 21 Public Benefits Trust Fund. Article 4, Table 7-Civic Space Types, provides
for eight types of "Civic Space," including:
"a. Park: A natural preserve available for unstructured and structured recreation programs. A Park may be
independent of surrounding Building Frontages. Its landscape may be naturalistic and consist of paths and trails,
meadows, woodland, sports fields and open shelters. Parks may be Conservation Areas, preserving natural
conditions and their size may vary."
Although the Park category, with additional categories, including Greens, Playgrounds and Community
Gardens, as well as conservation areas covered under other articles of the zoning ordinance, generally
provide for the park variety to be found in the City of Miami, many citizens feel that it is inadequate for
the variety of park experiences exist and would like to have a separate zoning category for parks.
2. Impact Fee Ordinance
Impact fees are based on new demand created by new households. The City of Miami has an impact fee
ordinance for parks which is being updated. Impact fees can only be used to pay for expanded park
resources —whether additional land or expanded resources at an existing park —and cannot be used to
cure service deficiencies that already existed before the new develop bringing new households was
permitted.
An initial report proposed a system based on parks with athletic fields or similar citywide recreational
resources, park improvements, waterfront parks, and gymnasiums —all assumed to have a citywide
service area. Discussions are underway about expanding the basis for the fees to include park elements
that contribute to passive park experiences, and not just the easily countable athletic fields and
gymnasiums. Informal and individual play, walking, children's play, and other more passive uses are also
important, so the development costs of design and installation for passive areas, playgrounds, etc.,
should be taken into account. Although organized sports and recreation are an essential part of the Park
and Recreation Department mission, especially for low-income children and youth, the public survey
and meetings undertaken for the parks master plan indicated that larger proportions of the city
population were looking for more unstructured park experiences.
C. Changes in State Requirements
The State of Florida made many changes to the state requirements for comprehensive planning in 2011,
particularly as relates to concurrency. Previously, concurrency requirements focused on ensuring that
adequate public facilities would be provided as new development resulted in new households and new
demand. As related to parks and recreation, concurrency is not required. However, municipalities must
actively amend their comprehensive plans to eliminate concurrency; otherwise they may retain
concurrency requirements. If they do so, concurrency is now to be focused on achieving and maintaining
adopted LOS and the comprehensive plan has to provide guidance for the application of concurrency. In
addition, capital projects to achieve LOS must be identified as funded or unfunded, and given priority
level for funding.6 The City of Miami has elected to maintain concurrency for parks.
6 http://floridaldrs.com/2011/06/06/concurrency/#more-815
8
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
3. PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE LOS STUDY
Two public meetings were held during the LOS study to hear public concerns and comment on the LOS
and other parks -related issues. The meetings were held on May 1, 2012, at Jose Marti Park and June 18,
2012, at Legion Park. At the public meetings, participants offered comments on a variety of parks -
related issues, including competition for public park use by schools and dislike of fencing around parks.
Each meeting began with a presentation from the consultant. The PowerPoint presentations are
included as an appendix to this study. The comments most relevant to the development of a new LOS
standard were:
A. Jose Marti Park Meeting, May 1, 2012: 51 participants
Access issues
■ Consider access issues in the Coconut Grove area, at the intersection of main highway and
McFarlane road.
■ Sidewalks to park on 22nd Ave are inadequate. Sidewalk on bayshore in between Kennedy Park
and Monty's is inadequate
■ Making parks accessible to modes of transportation other than cars: bikes/pedestrians/etc.
Park size
■ Are smaller parks/rights of way being counted as parks? Concerns over "mini -parks" being
included
Under -served areas
■ Are impact fees being increased?....Is land being acquired in under -served communities?
■ Few bike trails.
■ Parks need to address children of all ages.
■ Need more community centers in North Grove/Central Miami. Water access, need more
walkways.
■ Parks needed in NW and NE sections of the city. Would like a commitment from the City to
increase parks. Provide adequate park space for all city taxpayers.
Funds should be used to acquire more park land
■ Impact fees should not only be used in a 3 acre or larger parcels. Funds should be divided into
separate groups (money for land acquisition, money for maintenance, etc.)
■ We must increase impact fees to secure funding for parks.
Potential new park areas
■ Parking lots along Biscayne Blvd should be removed to create a linear park that connects
Downtown with Bayfront Park. Make M-Path more welcoming as park space. Streets can be
used as parks. Create a park in Brickell using developers/investors in Brickell citi centre.
■ Brickell waterfront in between 14th and 15th could be converted from parking to park space.
B. Legion Park Meeting, June 18, 2012: 33 participants
Access issues
■ Possible solution to access problems: pedestrian -friendly zones, crosswalks with proper signage
(flashing lights). When streets are easier to cross, there is better access. Has this idea been
discussed by the City and if so, would there be any restrictions if the streets happened to be a
state/county roads?
9
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
• Access in Shorecrest is an issue. There are parks that I can bike to with my small child but the
route is unwelcoming to cyclists. Poor sidewalk facilities (inconsistent sidewalks), speeding
vehicles (despite 30 MPH speed limit) makes it difficult to bike/walk to parks. Lack of swimming
pools.
• Parks should be classified such as recreation (basketball courts, soccer fields, etc.) passive parks,
native habitats, etc. so that each resident's distance to a certain type of park can be quantified.
Would like to see parks with more native habitat. Access to water is an issue; by increasing
access to water the burden on inland parks would be alleviated. Non -motorized boat launches
need to be increased to improve accessibility. It is difficult to launch a paddle board/kayak when
you have to compete with other uses. If we change levels of service based on public input and
the level of service is increased, then can more public funds be allocated to parks/meeting these
new standards? Would like to see the methodology in determining accessibility and levels of
service. Peter Ehrlich, Bayside Resident: The ideas from Master Plan were not followed through.
Is Virginia Key and the spoil islands being counted in the 1.3 acres calculation? City has less park
space than other comparable cities. Lost 8 to 10 acres in Bicentennial Park to buildings and
pavement. The City has bought a small amount of land in the past few years and has lost a lot of
land. Can the city purchase more parkland while property prices are low? Recommendations to
encourage the City to obtain more green space and spend more money on parks.
• Great to see evolution of plan from prior meeting. Bicentennial Park was an example of
demolition by neglect — is there park space being created to make up for the green space lost to
the buildings? African Square Park [adjacent public land] lost in Liberty City, has this park space
been replaced? Importance of protecting park -like spaces. Native habitats; access to
environment is a human right, even small amounts of habitat count. Concurrency option —
importance of acquiring land while property values are low. Raising impact fees. Changes to 25%
maximum a step in the right direction. Parks that are too small should be removed from
calculation, including areas in State Parks. Calculating on what population statistics? Must
account for residency increases such as the "snowbird" population. We must plan for maximum
level of population. Is there a way to base LOS on potential level of occupancy instead of actual
to account for this? Virginia Key not accessible by pedestrians. Need more parks in urban core.
Need to find ways to fund parks.
• In Brooklyn, pocket parks greatly enhanced quality of life. Is there a level of service structure
that addresses staffing at parks?
• Concern over availability of parking. Commute time to parks must be considered. Despite living
across the street from Shenandoah Park, it is difficult to access because the street is difficult to
cross. There isn't enough parking at Shenandoah Park, proper parking must be provided
Impact fees and concurrency
• Was the city's decision to maintain concurrency — city, county or state level? What legislation
was involved with this decision? What are the motivations for maintaining concurrency? What
are the benefits to maintaining concurrency?
• Recommendation to raise impact fees to benefit parks
• Money collected from impact fees for parks should be separated into a fund specifically for
parks and should not be distributed into the general fund. There was a building boom and fees
from this boom were never generated.
• Impact fees are collected when building permit is applied for, but then projects are modified
after the permit, the extra money from these modifications are never collected.
Amount of park land
10
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
■ Want to keep current amount of green space in parks. Strong support for pocket parks,
especially waterfront pocket parks. Shorecrest has hardly any parks. Working on purchasing park
land by little river behind shopping center.
■ Has the City thought about specifics to amending the 25% building maximum in parks. What
percentages have been considered? Has there been any thought to what may be included or
excluded from this calculation?
■ Seattle is building a 9 acre "edible forest" — Miami should consider community gardens and
edible gardens. Get nonprofits and community involved, it benefits everyone and would greatly
help Miami.
■ Elaborate on "no net loss". Taking possession of public land for private?
■ The city is cash strapped — concerned that parkland will be the city's "piggy bank" — public and
private partnerships will result the City using park space for commercial ventures (billboards,
etc). What is being done to stop development in parks?
■ Police Benevolent Association land is under used. No improvements have been made except for
minimal tree removal and replacement. Park improvements can be funded by impact fees.
Incentive fees are not used properly. Commissioners do not listen to the professionals that they
have working for them and they make concessions. Must pressure commissioners/mayor for
more park funding via impact fees.
■ 5 year plan and 10 year plan, great concept but open/green spaces are not being created. Every
time green space appears in downtown, it quickly disappears to development. Eventually there
will be no green spaces left because of development. We may want to buy land in 10 years, but
it will be difficult to find because all the parcels are being developed. Need to buy land while
prices are low.
4. LEVEL OF SERVICE MEASURES
A. Traditional Level of Service Measures
Traditional Level of Services measures for park and recreation facilities identify the "service" as the
number of acres or types of recreation facilities (e.g., athletic fields, playgrounds) per 1,000 people in
the community. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) published detailed
recommendations in the 1970s and 1980s which evolved into a conventional rule of thumb that
communities should have about 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 population.' The NRPA standards were
developed in the context of rapid suburbanization, where undeveloped land could easily be purchased
and converted to park land as new subdivisions were being built. The standard was not as well suited to
older cities that were significantly built out. Moreover, counting the number of acres does not tell
anything about the accessibility of parks, their quality, or conditions specific to particular communities.
B. Access -based and Composite Level of Service Approaches
Cities around the country have recognized that a simple quantitative measure of park and recreation
LOS is not suitable for an urban environment and communities will have their own specific needs.
National urban parks advocates, such as the Center for City Park Excellence at the Trust for Public Land,
' Teresa Penbrooke, "Replacing Conventional Park Level of Service (LOS) Analysis with the 'Composite
Values' Approach," Planning Essentials Symposium, American Planning Association,
www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/2007/fall/values.htm?print=true
11
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
have long promoted the need to look beyond the acres per 1,000 population measure developed a
generation ago.8 New approaches to urban park LOS and evaluating park systems have emerged. Access
LOS measures are increasingly being applied in other jurisdictions, such as Fort Lauderdale, Fort Collins
(CO), Bloomington (IN), Denver, and Minneapolis. For example, the Minneapolis Park & Recreation
Board's goal is that every resident be able to walk to a park, which they define as no more than 6 blocks.
1) Composite Values LOS and the ParkScoreTM System
The Composite Values LOS approach was developed to create an evaluation tool for park systems that
takes into account multiple factors.9 It seeks to answer the questions: How well does a park serve its
immediate neighborhood? How well does a
park contribute to a city-wide system of
services and amenities?
The analysis requires the following steps:
1. Identify the components of the
system.
2. Identify and map these components
in GIS.
3. Identify a quality ranking scale and
assess each component, for example
on a simple scale of 1— below
expectations; 2- meets expectations;
3-exceeds expectations. The
"expectations" standard would be
defined as part of this process.
4. Identify and score other important
factors such as walkability, barriers,
service areas, and amenities (such as
restrooms).
5. Incorporate the scores into a
database for comparisons and for
GIS analysis.
This kind of analysis was used in Fort
Lauderdale's 2008 parks and recreation
master plan, as can be seen the map image
to the right from the plan. 10
Analysis Inset - City Of Fort Lauderdale Perspective
Showing GRASP® Value In Relation To Target Minimum Score
Neighborhood Access To All Components
Below 'Target Minimum Score
Above Target Minimum Score
No Service
8 Peter Harnik, Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities, Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010.
9 This approach was developed in recent years by Greenplay, LLC, which was on the consultant team for the 2007 Miami Parks
and Public Spaces Plan. This description is based on Penbrooke"Replacing Conventional Park Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
with the `Composite Values' Approach."
10 City of Fort Lauderdale Parks and Recreation Long Range Strategic Plan (2008),
http://ci.ftlaud.fl.us/life/strategic_plan/Section%208%20-%20Appendix%20C%20-
%2OGRASP%20Maps%20(11 x17).pdf
12
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
2) Trust for Public Land ParkScore TM System
In May 2012, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) released the results for the 40 largest cities in the country of
their ParkScore Project (www.parkscore.tpl.org). (The City of Miami was not one of the cities scored.) In
TPL's judgment, the three most important aspects of an effective urban park system are acreage,
services and investment, and access. TPL awarded up to 40 points for each of these three elements (for
a possible total raw score of 120) and then normalized the scores for a 100-point maximum. They
included all publicly owned park spaces, including those owned by regional, state and federal agencies.
The elements of the methodology are as follows:
1. Acreage. TPL gave points for two equally weighted measures: median park size and park acres as
a percentage of city area.
2. Services and investment. TPL gave points based on two equally weighted measures: playgrounds
per 10,000 residents and total spending (both capital and operational and including spending
from all agencies) per resident based on a three-year average.
3. Access. Points were awarded based on the percentage of the population living within a ten-
minute walk of a public park (defined as a 1/2 mile) on public streets and without barriers such as
highways, railroad track, rivers or fences.
3) How does Miami compare to the TPL national sample of 40 cities?
The table below and the maps on acreage and playgrounds on the following pages provide a snapshot of
how the City Miami compares to the averages and ranges for TPL's national sample of cities. It is
important to recognize that the City of Miami data is slightly different from the TPL data and
understates Miami's scores because it includes only city -owned parks, not parks owned by other
agencies. TPL used 2010 census data for its sample. The total population number used for Miami in this
analysis is 399,457, the 2010 population as shown on the city website.
TPL 40-City ParkScore TM Sample and City of Miami City -Owned Park System
Acreage:
Median park
size
Acreage: parks
as % of total
acres
Access: % of
population within a
10 minute walk
(barrier free 'z mile)
Services
(Playgrounds
per 10,000
residents)
Total spending
per resident (FY
2007-2009)
City of Miami (city -owned
park land only)
1.9 acres
2.5%
72.4% *
1.83
$63
Range for 40 cities (all park
ownerships)
0.6 acres to
19.9 acres
2.3% to 22.8%
26% to 97%
1 to 5
$31 to $303**
Median for 40 cities (all park
ownerships)
4.9 acres
9.1%
57%
1.89
$85
*64.8% of Miami's population
minute walk from a park of 1 acre
**Most cities spend between $50
Population data from the 2010
is a 10 minute walk from a park of 'A acre or more in size and 58.6% of Miami's population is a 10
or more in size.
and $150 per resident.
US Census.
Both the acreage measures from the TPL analysis suggest that Miami's park acreage is inadequate. The
median park size is about 38% of the median park size in the 40-city sample, and the park system as a
percent of total acres is also on the low end of the range for the sample studied by TPL. This aligns with
findings in the 2007 parks master plan. While park improvements are important, the City still needs to
look for opportunities to acquire more park land or partner with other agencies and institutions, such as
the school district, churches, and other landowners to provide both passive and active park land. The
13
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
new PlayStreet initiative to create small parks at dead ends or closed streets is an innovative effort in
that direction and builds on a Master Plan recommendation to create these kinds of parks where streets
end at Biscayne Bay.
In terms of the percent of population that is within a 10 minute walk of any park, the City of Miami is in
the midrange of the 40 cities studied by TPL and very close to the median number of playgrounds per
10,000 residents. Similarly, the City's combined capital and operational expenditure per resident during
FY 2007-2009 was in the lower range, but it was not at the bottom.
The maps below show 1) Miami population at the census block group level in relation to %-mile (ten-
minute) walk to a park; and 2) the number and location of playgrounds in Miami. Although the number
of playgrounds per 10,000 people is close to the 40-city median, the map suggests that some areas are
underserved. The population
Ten -Minute Walk Access to map indicates that many
Miami City Parks and residential areas in the city have
Population Density basic pedestrian access to a
Access = % mile without _j park. However, as the tiny spots
barriers such as highways ,r-�,p �� ,u of green in some of those areas
indicate, the parks that are
Population Density by Census
Block Group (2010) serving those areas are very
NETWORK ANALYST
Population density and walkability to any park
Parks
Wes wiNin 16.minule walk to arty -
People/acre within 10-minute walk of any park 12010i
25-1.8
7.9 -21.1
21.2 10.4
▪ 48.5-113.0
- 113.1 -7182
Peoplelacre outside -la -minute walk o1 any perk (2010)
00•24
I25•76
- 79-201
- 20.2-49.4
- 485. 1130
— 113.1 -119.2
0 025115 15
14
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Number of Playgrounds in Each City Park
Source: Parks Master Plan Inventory (data from 2006)
Legend
Number of playgrounds per city park
o
f
2
3
Non -pedestrian roads (45+ mph)
Pedestrian -unfriendly roads. (35-40 mph)
Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower)
0 025 05
2
15
Miles V I
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
5. LOS Access and Acreage Measures for Miami
A. CRITERIA FOR A NEW PARKS LOS FOR MIAMI
A new LOS should ideally address both the size of park resources and access to parks, and it should also
work with priorities expressed in the parks master plan and with the city's regulatory system.
The ten-minute access standard. Following the basic access standard that has emerged for urban parks
through the work of the TPL Center for City Park Excellence and others, a ten-minute walk from home to
a park should become the city's access standard. This translates into a %2-mile, barrier free pedestrian
route. A five-minute, %-mile standard can be an aspirational goal for future planning processes, once the
ten-minute goal has been reached.
A measure of park acreage. As noted earlier, the city's median park size is below average, as is the park
system's percentage of all city acreage. Members of the public expressed concern that very small areas
are counted as parks. There are approximately 14 acres in individual parks of less than one acre within
the city -owned system, about 1.5 percent of the total system acreage. Access LOS should be focused on
parks of at least one-half or one acre. Within a city, a park of one-half to one acre is sufficiently large to
provide both some passive park experience and some recreational facilities. Other cities, like
Minneapolis, recognize a one -acre cutoff in the way they map and analyze their park systems.
Percentage of population served. The park access measure should be connected to an overall
percentage of city population that is served, following the TPL model.
Priorities for park acquisition. The public planning process for the 2007 parks master plan resulted in a
priority ranking for park land acquisition:
o Land with water views and/or access
o Land for "walk -to" parks in underserved areas
o Land to expand destination and community parks
o Land to expand or create linear park segments
B. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
1) Mapping access to parks
A series of maps in the Appendix to this report illustrates a methodology for identifying service areas
measured by access. The maps are organized in sets of three that illustrate the results of differing levels
of refinement in analyzing access.
• Buffer Analysis: access as measured by buffers. This map shows %2-mile buffers "as the crow
flies."
• Network Analyst Analysis: access as measured by service areas that take into account physical
barriers to pedestrians. Using the Network Analyst extension on ArcGIS (which allows for
mapping of actual possible routes) it is possible to trace all possible %2-mile routes that could
originate from designated nodes at park locations within the actual pedestrian network. The
16
ARCHITECTURE
GOODY PLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
pedestrian network in this map includes only streets with speed limits at or below 40 mph
excluding "nonpedestrian roads" (such as interstates, ramps and other highway -like routes that
do not accommodate pedestrians), which are shown on the map but not incorporated into the
analysis. Streets with speed limits over 40 mph in the city are designed to move a lot of traffic
and crossing them, even at crosswalks, can be intimidating to pedestrians. Because the location
of parks must be attached to existing nodes within the network (which typically occur at
intersections), the effective accessibility range of some parks is not completely accurate. Ideally,
the measurement nodes should be positioned at parks' entrances to most accurately gauge how
far one would have to walk to truly enter the park, not just reach its edge (which might be a wall
or fence in some cases).
• Added Time Cost Analysis. To show how refinements of the analysis can make a difference, the
Network Analyst map was modified to add 2.5 minutes of walking time where pedestrians
would have to cross a street with traffic speeds between 35 and 40 mph, which can be
considered a pedestrian -unfriendly street because it is likely to be a minor arterial. Streets with
speeds below 35 mph are more likely to be neighborhood streets carrying less traffic and more
easily crossed.
The additional 2.5 minutes of walking time was an assumption made for illustrative purposes
and is not based on research. It could differ depending on proximity to the crossing, signal
timing, availability of pedestrian -activated walk signals, and so on. However, in practice the
impact on access may be more than simply added time cost, because crossing major streets,
even at signals, can be a psychological deterrent for adults and an effective barrier for children
who are not allowed to cross the streets alone.
A refined methodology to arrive at effective park access would also include making adjustments by
changing the definition of what constitutes a pedestrian -friendly street (for example, streets with
speeds lower than 35 mph), identifying park entrances as the location from which distances should be
measured and identifying known barriers to access that are not evident in the network analysis.
2) Access to Acreage measures
Analysis of al/2-mile walk from all parks and from only those parks that are at least one acre in size,
shows that eliminating the very small park properties from the analysis reduces the percent of the
population that is within al/2-mile walk of a park. Approximately 72% of Miami's population is within a %2
mile walk of a park, regardless of the size of the park; 65% is within a ten minute walk of park of a half
acre or more; and 59% of the population is within a ten minute walk of a park at least an acre in size.
Population Access to City of Miami Parks
City -owned parks
2010 population
served
Percent of 2010 city population
within a ten minute walk
All parks
Network Analysis
289,024
72.4%
+ Acre Parks
Network Analysis
258,875
64.8%
1+ Acre Parks
Network Analysis
233,953
58.6%
Total Miami Population
399,457
17
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOS MEASURES
A. Level of Service
The current City of Miami Level of Service is 0.9 acres per 1,000 people. This LOS applies only to park
and recreation facilities owned by the City of Miami. Suggested changes:
1) Include non -city parks and open spaces in total park acreage
When residents use a park or public open space, it does not make any difference to them if it is owned
by the City or by another entity. The overall level of service they experience encompasses all the park
and recreation resources open to the public. Parks and open spaces, regardless of ownership, if they are
publicly accessible for use in passive and active recreation should be included in the calculation of total
park acreage. This would follow the precedent of Miami-Dadecounty, which includes some school and
college recreation areas and privately owned areas. Greenway trails and linear parks, for example, are
currently not included in the total park acreage because they are not owned by the city, but they were a
high priority for residents in the Parks Master Plan survey. The park and recreation land not owned by
the city needs to be evaluated to see what should be included as part of total park acreage for the
purposes of LOS.
Facilities falling under the Marine Facilities designation in the Future Land Use Map may also be
considered as meeting water recreation needs. The Marine Facilities category is intended to apply to
waterfront properties, primarily public, to be developed to facilitate recreational waterfront activities.
This would support the park acquisition priority of "land with water views and/or access."
Of course, spaces that are not open for use of the public should not be included. Members of the public
expressed concern about schools 1) not making open space available, or 2) building on their open space
and then taking over public parks for school recreation and programs. Making school and other publicly
accessible properties part of the base calculation for Level of Service will give the City a greater incentive
to ensure that schools share their resources with the public and/or do not squeeze citizens out of their
public parks.
2) Include a commitment in the MCNP towards a one-half acre or one acre threshold for the purposes
of LOS.
Although small parks, such as pocket parks in highly urbanized settings, can be very appealing, they are
less able to offer the basic level of park experience that a park of one-half acre, at a minimum, can —a
place where it would be possible to play informal games as well as use a play structure or sit and read,
and, in the case of a park of at least one acre, where a small ball field or other active recreation could
also be established.
3) Combine access and acreage and population in an LOS measure
The level of service should include the following metrics:
■ Access within a ten-minute walk
■ Percent of resident population with access. Population numbers must be periodically adjusted
according to the latest US Census information or city data, if it is more complete.
■ Progress towards providing a higher percentage of access to parks of at least one half or one
acre in size
18
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
• A time frame to measure progress
4) Financing for park land acquisition and remedies for deficiencies
The MCNP should include language about financing for park land acquisition through impact fees and
developer contributions through the Miami 21 public benefit incentive. In addition, recommendations
on developing a plan for a consistent funding source to help remedy existing deficiencies in access
should be included.
5) Proposed Level of Service
Proposed language is as follows: "The City of Miami's Level of Service for Parks, Recreation and Open
Space is to provide a park within a ten-minute, barrier -free walk to park entrances by 72% of the city's
population as measured by GIS pedestrian network analysis." According to the analysis in this report,
58.6% of the city population currently has that access. The 60% metric would be the goal to be met
during the two five-year capital plans during the 10-year period of the MCNP. The LOS should then be
increased another 2% to 5% for the subsequent MCNP. It is important to note that the percentages in
this proposal are all based on the estimates used in this study and should be refined for the purposes of
the final LOS determination.
19
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
APPEN
20
DIN
ARCHITECTURE
�OODYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Walkability to any park
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
II r
'1, j,
Bum
F
,11
lit
21
Network analyst
Parks
Area within 10-minute walk to any park
Non -pedestrian roads (45+ mph)
Pedestrian -unfriendly roads (35-40 mph)
Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower)
2.5-minute added cost nodes
Parks nodes
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Population density and waikability to any park
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
22
Network analyst
- Parks
= Area within 10-minute walk to any park
People/acre within 10-minute walk of any park (2010)
o.o - 1.6
1.7 - 6.2
6.3 - 197
19.8 - 59.5
I i
- 59.6 - 1768
1769-7192
People/acre within 10-minute walk of any park (2010)
0.0 - 1.6
17-62
- 6.3 - 19.7
- 19.8 - 59.5
- 69.6 - 176.8
_ 176.9 - 719.2
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Land use and walkabilty to any park
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
23
Network analyst
Parks
Area within 10-minute walk to any park
nNET Areas
Future land use
1-2 family residential
Multifamily residential
Commercial
_ Central Business District
Institutions & Public Facilities
Conservation
Industrial
ARCHITECTURE
GooDYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Walkability to parks at least 1 acre in size
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
J1. I- /y..
24
Network analyst
- Parks at least 1 acre in size
Area within 10-minute walk to park at least 1 acre in size
Non -pedestrian roads (45+ mph)
Pedestrian -unfriendly roads (35-40 mph)
Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower)
2.5-minute added cost nodes
Parks at least 1 acre in size nodes
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Population density and waikability to parks at least 1 acre in size
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
25
Network analyst
▪ Parks at least 1 acre in size
nArea within 10-minute walk to park at least 1 acre in size
People/acre within 10-minute walk of a park at least 1 acre in size (2010)
0.0 - 1.e
1.7-6.2
6.3-19.7
IJ 19.8 - 595
- 59.6 - 176.8
▪ 176.9-719.2
People/acre outside 10-minute walk of a park at least 1 acre in size (2010)
co -is
11.7-6.2
- 6.3 - 19.7
19.8-59.5
- 59.6 - 176.8
▪ 176.9 -719.2
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Land use and waikability to parks at least 1 acre in size
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
UTILE HAM
uPpEu Ayr.)
Network analyst
▪ Parks at least 1 acre in size
Area within 10-minute walk to park at least 1 acre in size
▪ NET Areas
Future Land Use
1-2 family residential
Multifamily residential
Commercial
imd Central Business District
▪ Institutions & Public Facilities
Conservation
- Industrial
26
ARCHITECTURE
GooDYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Access to parks at (east 1/2 acre size
Parks at least 12 acre in size nodes
Parks at least 1/2 acre in size
Area within 10-minute walk to park at least 1/2 acre in size
Non -pedestrian roads (45+ mph)
Pedestrian -unfriendly roads (35-40 mph)
Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower)
Network analyst—Walkability
_ Parks at least 1/2 acre in size
Area within 10-minute walk to park at least 1/2 acre in size
nNET Areas
Future Land Use
1-2 family residential
Multifamily residential
Commercial
Central Business District
Institutions & Public Facilities
Conservation
Industrial
p,,
.-AMMA ,
num te
iiptor
Land use and walkability
Parks at least 12 acre in size
QArea within 10-minute walk to park at least 1/2 acre in size
People/acre within 10-minute walk of a park at least 1/2 acre in size (2010)
1 0.0 - 1.3
1.4-57
15.8-19.9
MI 200- 664
= fia_5-219.0
- 219.1 - 7 19.2
People/acre outside 10-minute walk of a park at least 1/2 acre in size (2010)
1 0.0 - 1.3
1.4 - 5.7
58 - 199
20. 0- 66.4
66. 5 - 219.0
219.1 - 719.1
Network analyst—Walkability and people/acre
within 10-minute walk
27
ARCHITECTURE
GOODYPLANNING
1 PRESERVATION
CLANCY
MCNP July 2010: PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
Goal PR-1: Provide sufficient opportunities for active and passive recreation to all
City residents based on access to parks, recreation and open space, per capita park
funding, and regular surveys of residents on park and recreation needs.
Objective PR-1.1: The City shall work to achieve a medium -term objective of
providing a park within a ten minute walk ene-half mile of every resident aid -
to achieve a long_term objective of a nark within one_guarter mile of every
resident.
Policy PR-1.1.1: The City will establish a new hierarchy for the City park
system to reflect Miami's urban condition, as described in the Miami Parks
and Public Spaces Master Plan dated May 2007 and adopted by the City
Commission. The hierarchy will have the following elements:
■ Citywide parks:
o Destination parks — four types: conservation, waterfront one acre or
moreover 3 acres, sports complex and aquatic, specialty (unique
programs)
o Community parks - parks not less than one-half acre or moreover 3
acres that include active recreation facilities
o Linear parks — greenways and trails
■ Neighborhood parks — all remaining parks under one3 acres that do not fit
in other categories
Policy PR-1.1.2: The City will focus on park land acquisition according to the
following four equal priorities that emerged from community preferences
during the 2007 Parks Master Plan process: land with water views and/or
water access; land for "walk -to" parks, including neighborhood parks, in
underserved areas of the City identified in Citywide and NET -area maps in
the 2007 Parks Master Plan and any subsequent updates to these maps;
land to expand destination and community parks; land for expansion or
creation of linear park segments. Information on target priorities and target
areas for new parks will be disseminated to all relevant City departments to
enhance the potential for parkland acquisition in conjunction with
infrastructure and other projects. Ideally, new parks should be at least one
half -acre in size, but smaller areas may be suitable, depending on the
surroundings and proposed uses.
Policy PR-1.1.3: The City will provide areas for safe, passive use in all parks,
including those in active recreational use parks. The passive areas will
include usable green space with plantings, shade and seating.
Policy PR-1.1.3.1: The City, through its land development regulations, will
designate a zoning category for parks separate from Civic Space. That
category will permit a variety of areas for passive and/or greater intensity of
recreational use opportunities in parks and open spaces.
1
Policy PR-1.1.4: The City of Miami's Level of Service for Parks,
Recreation and Open Space is to provide a park within a ten-minute
barrier -free walk to park entrances by 73% of the city's population as
measured by GIS pedestrian network analysis. A ten-minute walk will be
defined as a one-half mile, barrier -free distance on a safe pedestrian
route. Barrier -free means a continuous walk on a sidewalk or designated
pedestrian route that may include crossing streets but does not encounter
barriers such as walls or highway embankments that impede passage.
Safe pedestrian routes include those that may include crossing of streets
with speed limits of up to 40 mph.
The City will develop a map that shows which residential areas fall within
the ten-minute walk buffer and which do not. This map will then be
overlaid on a population map showing the most current U.S. Census data
available in order to calculate if at least 73% of the city's population lives
within the ten-minute walk buffer. The City will conduct a study to support a
revised Level of Service for parks, recreation and open space for concurrency
purposes and adopt a revised Level of Service for parks, recreation and open
space for concurrency purposes that will assist in achieving the access and
per capita funding objectives of PR 1.1. Until that time, the Level of Service
for concurrency purposes shall be 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000
residents_.
Policy PR-1.1.5: The City will review and enact provisions and create a plan
to remedy deficiencies for residents who do not have access to a park within
a ten minute, barrier -free walk, including financing for acquisition to remedy
deficiencies.
Objective PR-1.2: Provide sufficient per capita funds for the parks system to
support the parks, recreation and open space standards expected by the
public, as indicated in surveys and other responses to public outreach, for
resources and programs that benefit the community. The City will strive to
meet and exceed a benchmark level of annual spending, for operations and
capital improvements combined, an-n-u-al-ly of $100 per capita in 2007 dollars,
within fiscal limits and based on identified needs.
Policy PR-1.2.1: The City will establish the cost of providing park and
recreation programs and services, identify which core park and recreation
services are to be offered according to criteria related to level of benefits to
individuals and the community as a whole, identify which services and
programs should be free, and formulate how a fee structure should be set for
other services and programs.
Policy PR-1.2.2: The City will develop annual parks and recreation budgets
that explain the rationale behind the program, operational and maintenance
standards that the City intends to meet; the costs of meeting those standards;
2
and the per capita budget in comparison with similar cities, including cities in
Florida.
Policy PR-1.2.3: The City will allocate program revenues generated by the
Parks and Recreation Department to the department's budget.
Policy PR-1.2.4: The City will work to identify and create a dedicated funding
source for the park system.
Policy PR-1.2.5: The City will seek grants and other funding for new
resources, including land, activities, and programs. Some of these funds may
come from nonprofit partnership groups that may be formed, such as a
potential Miami Parks Foundation.
Objective PR-1.3: Pursue expanded and new opportunities identified in the
2007 Parks Master Plan (and any subsequent updates) to share park,
recreation and open space resources with the school district, the housing
authority, churches, nonprofit organizations, transportation agencies and
other groups that may be able to share land and programs with the City Parks
and Recreation Department.
Policy PR-1.3.1: The City will establish communication with and liaisons to
agencies and groups that have existing and potential recreation and open
space resources in order to pursue access to these resources by City
residents.
Policy PR-1.3.2: The City will evaluate current costs, benefits and
procedures for sharing resources and programming and will develop policies
and procedures that will maximize benefits for City residents.
Objective PR-1.4: Expand existing and create new greenways and trails to
meet resident needs.
Policy PR-1.4.1: The City will continue to work with transit agencies to
coordinate the park system and pedestrian connections with opportunities to
improve and expand the Metro -Path Trail.
Policy PR-1.4.2: The City will continue to work with transportation agencies
to implement the Commodore Trail improvements and the Flagler Trail (FEC
Corridor Greenway).
Policy PR-1.4.3: The City will continue to work to implement the Overtown
Greenway plan to link the Miami River through Overtown to Downtown.
Policy PR-1.4.4: The City will work with Miami -Dade County and other
groups to ensure that greenway, trail and park systems within the City are
effectively linked to proposed regional trails such as the Venetian Connector,
the Unity Trail, the Perimeter Trail, the Ludlum Trail, and the East-West Trail.
The City will continue to advocate for funding of trails identified in the Miami-
3
Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization 2030 Long -Range Transportation
Plan.
Policy PR-1.4.5: The City will designate as scenic transportation corridors
those segments of roadways that have significant vegetative features, and
will encourage the development of bicycle and pedestrian paths along such
corridors, where appropriate. Future land development regulations will
encourage the provision of sufficient land areas for uses that are compatible
with and encourage the flow of bicycle and pedestrian traffic along these
corridors.
Objective PR-1.5: Ensure that future development and redevelopment pay an
equitable, proportional share of the cost of public open space and recreational
facilities required to maintain adopted LOS standards.
Policy PR-1.5.1: The City's land development regulations will establish
mechanisms to meet expanded demand for Citywide parks, neighborhood
parks, and recreational programs resulting from new residential development,
including, but not limited to, impact fees, Zoning Ordinance intensity
bonuses and contributions in lieu of land that will be used to provide new park
and recreation resources to serve new development. The City will review
these fees annually in accordance with recreation and open space needs and
revise them as necessary to reflect increases in the cost of providing public
open space and recreational facilities to meet its adopted Level of Service for
parks, recreation and open space.
Policy PR-1.5.2: The City will continue to work with developers of mixed use
and nonresidential projects to ensure the creation of appropriate public
spaces.
Policy PR-1.5.3: The City will consider the use of special assessment
districts to help fund open space and recreational facilities projects whose
public benefits tend to be localized to specific geographic sub areas of the
City.
Goal PR-2: Preserve and enhance existing parks and recreation facilities.
Objective PR-2.1: Protect existing park land.
Policy PR-2.1.1: The City has a no -net -loss policy for public park land and
will adopt procedures to this effect for park land in the City Zoning
Ordinances, as described in the 2007 Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan.
These will allow only recreation and cultural facilities to be built on park land,
will limit building footprint on any such land, will require that conversion of
park land for any other purposes be subject to public procedures, and replace
the converted park land with land similar in park, recreation or conservation
value in terms of usefulness and location.
Policy PR-2.1.2: The City will continue to define and protect conservation
areas in the zoning code, as well as other parks and recreation areas.
4
Policy PR-2.1.3: The City will amend the zoning code to limit the amount of
total impervious surfaces (building, parking, hardscape) to 25% of a park
area. Buildings and impervious surfaces will continue to be limited to
recreational and cultural uses and accessory elements that serve park and
recreation goals. Any request to expand this percentage will require a special
permit (warrant) and public hearings with residents in the half -mile area
surrounding the park.
Objective PR-2.2: Maintain and enhance existing parks and recreation
facilities.
Policy PR-2.2.1: The City will provide appropriate staffing, services,
equipment, and maintenance at all parks. Criteria for appropriateness will
include park category (Citywide or neighborhood), recreation programs,
demand for passive and active spaces and activities, sizes, and facilities.
Policy PR-2.2.2: The City will strive to maintain and staff e-as many
public swimming pools to be open all year round as possible given funding
constraints and will strive to identify new funding sources to expand access to
year-round swimming. by 2009, with the remainder to be open year round by
2012.
Policy PR-2.2.3: The City, through the Parks and Recreation Department,
will continue to develop and implement maintenance level of service
standards, identify associated costs, and address funding those costs,
including replacement programs for equipment and vehicles, before adding
more assignments.
Policy PR-2.2.4: The Parks and Recreation Department will maintain and
regularly update the Inventory and Evaluation of City -Owned Parks that was
prepared for the 2007 Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan.
Goal PR-3: Increase public access to all parks, recreation, facilities and open spaces
including waterfront areas and the Picnic Islands in Biscayne Bay.
Objective PR-3.1: Enhance public access by pedestrians and bicyclists to
parks and recreation sites
Policy PR-3.1.1: The City will continue to implement sidewalk and shade tree
planting programs along public roadways that connect to parks and other
community destinations. The improvements will be targeted to pedestrian
routes that provide a 10 minute walk to a park to the greatest number of
persons. Tree planting programs will be implemented in accordance with the
2007 City of Miami Tree Master Plan.
Policy PR-3.1.2: The City will work with the Parks and Recreation
Department and with neighborhood groups to identify the ten-minute
5
pedestrian routes within a half -mile radius of parks that are appropriate for
improvements to sidewalks, lighting, street trees, crosswalks and pedestrian
count -down signals, and signage, as described in the 2007 Parks and Public
Spaces Plan.
Policy PR-3.1.3: Bicycle parking facilities such as bike racks shall be
provided in existing and future park projects.
Objective PR-3.2: Enhance the public's visual and physical access to
waterfront areas.
Policy PR-3.2.1: The City will continue to work to complete the Baywalk,
encompassing as much of the Biscayne Bay waterfront as possible, and to
complete the Riverwalk and the Miami River Greenway.
Policy PR-3.2.2: All City -owned waterfront property, including the Miami
River shorelines, will provide for public open spaces that provide access to
the shoreline.
Policy PR-3.2.3: The City will incorporate provisions for public physical
and/or visual access to the shoreline in its waterfront zoning regulations. (See
Coastal Management Policy CM-2.1.7.)
Policy PR-3.2.4: Where appropriate and in the interest of public safety and
promotion of outdoor recreation opportunities on environmentally sensitive
areas, future land development regulations will require non -water dependent
or related development and/or redevelopment to maintain public access to
the coastal and Miami River shorelines. (See Coastal Management Policy
CM-2.1.1.)
Policy PR-3.2.5: The City will continue to expand launch areas for personal
kayaks/canoes, kayak/canoe rentals and other boating programs at parks on
Biscayne Bay, the Miami River and the South Fork of the Miami River.
Policy PR-3.2.6: The City will pursue creation of water shuttles or water taxis
that will expand public access to the Picnic Islands in Biscayne Bay off the
Upper Eastside and the Dinner Key islands off Coconut Grove.
Policy PR-3.2.7: The City will work with other organizations and agencies to
identify public recreational opportunities, including boating, on the smaller
waterways in the City, such as Wagner Creek, the Little River, and the
canals.
Policy PR-3.2.8: All renovations and improvements to City parks and
recreational facilities will be designed to enhance rather than obstruct
waterfront views.
Policy PR-3.2.9: The City will increase public recreational opportunities on
Virginia Key through implementation of the Virginia Key Master Plan and will
6
introduce land use designations and/or zoning, as appropriate, to permit use
of previously developed areas on Virginia Key for amenities and uses that
support passive and active park recreation at suitable locations on Virginia
Key. and its implementation.
Policy PR-3.2.10: The City shall continue to ensure that park and
recreational lands open to the public are included in redevelopment projects
for Watson Island and will monitor the project after construction to ensure
continued public access without any requirements for the public to make
purchases or any other barriers to open public use.
Policy PR-3.2.11: As specified in the City of Miami Charter and Related
Laws, and more specifically the Waterfront Charter Amendment, all new
development and redevelopment along the downtown waterfront is required
to provide a waterfront setback, and those developments that require publicly
accessible shoreline walkways, will design them in conformance with the
"Baywalk/Riverwalk Design Standards." (See Coastal Management Policy
CM-2.1.8.) The City will monitor these areas to ensure continued public
access, as required.
Objective PR-3.3: Park and recreational facilities will be accessible to
handicapped persons and provide opportunities for special needs groups.
Policy PR-3.3.1: All renovations, expansions, and development of park and
recreation facilities will be designed in accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements, including handicapped parking spaces, ramps,
handrails, pathways and other accessibility improvements to be appropriately
located with respect to recreational facilities.
Policy PR-3.3.2: Designs for renovations, expansions, and developments of
park and recreation facilities will be evaluated to ensure that there are
sufficient facilities within the service area to provide for the recreation,
education, and safety needs of preschool age children, the elderly, persons
with disabilities and other special needs groups.
Goal PR-4: Enhance the quality of recreational and educational opportunities for all
age groups, persons with disabilities, and other special needs groups.
Objective PR-4.1: Continue to improve the quality and diversity of recreational
programs offered at destination and community parks, and neighborhood
parks where such programs may be offered.
Policy PR-4.1.1: The City will use participant evaluation surveys, at the
completion of recreational programs to evaluate program success, online
public opinion surveys at least once every three years, and scientific surveys
at least once every seven years to identify needed and desired programs.
Policy PR-4.1.2: The City will increase staff and hours of operation where
necessary and fiscally feasible, provide professional development
7
opportunities for park and recreation staff, and encourage staff to be certified
by the Florida Recreation and Parks Association.
Policy PR-4.1.3: The City will continue to provide interpretive displays,
educational programs, wildlife observation locations, and picnic areas in
parks and open spaces for outdoor recreation activities.
Policy PR-4.1.4: The City will continue to coordinate with nonprofit providers
of social services to the elderly, youth, and other special needs groups, so as
to permit such providers to use public park facilities for meeting the
recreational and educational needs of these groups.
Goal PR-5: Improve management and operations in the park and recreation system.
Objective PR-5.1: Increase the efficiency of park operations, while improving
the quality of recreation services and strengthening the financial support of
the parks and recreation service system.
Policy PR-5.1.1: The vision and mission of the Parks and Recreation
Department will be revised to include the protection of green spaces and
natural areas in addition to the existing focus on recreational and cultural
activities.
Policy PR-5.1.2: The City's operating budget and the Capital Improvements
Element (CIE) will give priority to the quality of programs in, and the physical
condition of, existing park facilities and to meeting existing deficiencies,
before constructing new facilities for parks and recreation. This policy does
not preclude the use of impact fees or other funds to purchase additional land
to be held in inventory for new parks in underserved neighborhoods.
Policy PR-5.1.3: A projection and analysis of operational and maintenance
costs associated with all park and recreation related capital projects which
exceed $50,000, with their anticipated funding sources, will be required and
made publicly available prior to the decision to appropriate public funds for
capital improvements.
Policy PR-5.1.4: The City will continue to implement innovative management
and maintenance alternatives designed to minimize operating and
maintenance costs while not reducing the extent and quality of programs or
adversely affecting the physical condition of park facilities. This will be done
through establishment of core services according to level of benefit to the
community, identifying costs and potential revenues, improving management
accountability, establishing preventive maintenance and replacement
programs, establishing formal policies and systems for working with groups
that sponsor programs that use City facilities, and strengthening support
services.
Policy PR-5.1.3.5: The City will continue to assign staff time to develop and
manage a network of volunteer "friends" groups for individual parks.
8
Policy PR-5.1.6: The City will continue to develop and implement
public/private partnerships to contribute to the maintenance and
enhancement of parks, recreational facilities, and public spaces, while
ensuring that public spaces remain freely open to the public.
Policy PR-5.1.7: The City will encourage creation ofcreatc a Citywide Miami
Parks Foundation by non -governmental groups and individuals by 2010 to
serve as a nonprofit partner to focus attention on the park system, raise
money to help support maintenance, enhance and expand parks and
recreational programs, attract volunteers, and broaden the constituency for
the park system.
Objective PR-5.2: Create institutions and procedures to ensure resident and
community consultation in the development of system wide policies and
planning for park and recreation program improvements.
Policy PR-5.2.1: The City will continue to work with establish a permanent
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board made up of residents who are park
users, program participants, and representatives of groups with special
relevant expertise. The Board's responsibilities will include advising elected
officials and staff on implementation of the 2007 Parks and Public Spaces
Master Plan and any adopted subsequent updates to that Plan. The Board
will be supported by staff from the Parks and Recreation Department, and will
report annually to the Mayor and City Commission on progress in
implementing the Master Plan, including financial reports, holding at least one
public hearing on the draft report before submitting it to the Mayor and
Commission. The Board will also review and advise on capital plans and
designs based on the Master Plan and advise the Commission on any
proposals to expend more than $50,000 to acquire new park land, to diminish
or convert existing park land, to accept donated land for parks, or to sell City
land that may be suitable for parks. The City will periodically review and refine
the mission and charge of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board in order
to ensure maximum opportunities for public involvement and effectiveness in
addressing parks and recreation needs. Proposed changes to the mission
and charge of the Board will not be implemented until after a public hearing
by the appropriate public board.
Policy PR-5.2.2: The City will survey City residents to monitor preferences,
needs and satisfaction with the park system on a regular basis, at a minimum
through evaluations of all programs by program participants to evaluate
program success, online surveys every three years, and scientific surveys
every seven ten years (starting from the Parks Master Plan survey of 2006).
Policy PR-5.2.3: The City will develop regular procedures to provide
opportunities for park user and neighborhood consultation in the planning and
design of park and recreation facilities improvements and new parks and
programs.
9
Policy PR-5.2.4: The City will develop a full update on the Parks and Public
Spaces Master Plan at least once every ten years, to coincide with a scientific
survey of residents' park and recreation needs and to precede and
contribute to the EAR process.
Policy PR-5.2.4: The Parks and Recreation annual capital improvement plan
will be provided to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for their review
and comment before submission to the City Commission. In addition,
designs for new parks and for capital improvement projects will be brought
before the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at the design development
stage, before final design, so that the Board can review and comment on the
proposed designs and projects.
Objective PR-5.3: Continue to increase public safety and security within City
parks.
Policy PR-5.3.1: The City will continue to equip Ail all parks will be equipped with
adequate energy efficient night lighting as parks are updated with improvements and
will continue to use remote computer scheduling of lighting in order to advance
energy efficiency in the park system.by 2012.
Policy PR-5.3.2: Citywide and neighborhood parks will increase their hours
of operation and enhance their programs, whenever feasible, so as to
encourage a greater public presence in the parks.
Policy PR-5.3.3: The City's Police Department will continue to work with
neighborhood residents to create and support community crime watch groups
to assist in park safety and crime prevention.
Policy PR-5.3.4: The City will continue regular, uniformed police patrols and
presence in and around Citywide and neighborhood parks.
Policy PR-5.3.5: In all parks with active recreation the City will maintain an
adequate number of trained staff based on standards recognized by
professional organizations such as the Florida Recreation and Park
Association or the National Recreation and Park Association, and on a
regular basis will conduct safety inspections of equipment and structural
facilities.
Policy PR-5.3.6: The City will disseminate information to the public on proper
safety procedures that are to be followed while using park facilities.
Policy PR-5.3.7: When parks are being renovated or designed, the City will
evaluate the park's safety, consulting with park users, neighborhood
residents, -and the police whether high fences, gates, or other obtrusive
security measures remain necessary.
Goal PR-6: Develop and enhance the quality of parks and open spaces within the
City's downtown and other neighborhoods in a manner that meets the Level of
10
Service standard and addresses the needs of City residents, workers and visitors,
and strengthens the City's economic development.
Objective PR-6.1: Implement the NET Area Visions in the 2007 Parks and
Public Spaces Master Plan, using the NET Area Implementation Tasks and
Park Opportunities section of the Plan as a guide to enhancing and expanding
Citywide and neighborhood parks, recreational facilities and programs.
Policy PR-6.1.1: The City will annually review implementation sections of the
2007 Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan to include implementation actions
in developing an annual work plan and capital improvements plan for parks
and recreation facilities and programs.
Policy PR-6.1.2: The City will work to implement the specific master plans
that include parks and recreation facilities, such as the Coconut Grove
Waterfront Master Plan, the Museum Park Master Plan, and the Virginia Key
Master Plan, and create pedestrian and water linkages among Fern Isle Park,
Sewell Park, the recently acquired Police Benevolent Association property,
and Curtis Park to create a Miami "Central Park." As depicted in the
Waterfront Master Plan and programmed in the CIE, the City will provide a
continuous network of public parks and major attractions along the downtown
waterfront.
Policy PR-6.1.3: The City will continue to redevelop Lummus Park in the
Riverside District to provide an activity/program center for history, riverfront
activities and recreational facilities for visitors and City residents., including
creation of a specialty "Fisherman's Wharf" cafe district and marine service&
center.
Policy PR-6.1.4: The City will create a specialty "Fishermen's Wharf" cafe
district and marine services center in the Riverside District along N.W. North
River Drive on the Miami River.
Objective PR-6.2: Improve and enhance public spaces and linkages in the City.
Policy PR-6.2.1: The City will continue to encourage development of urban
street promenade linkages with widened sidewalks, high quality materials,
shade trees, landscaping, lighting, graphics and furnishings.
Policy PR-6.2.2: The City will continue to work toward improving landscaping
and pedestrian -oriented amenities along major boulevards, including
Biscayne Boulevard, Brickell Avenue, and North 1st Avenue, and other major
transportation corridors, to create distinctive images and unifying elements
between downtown districts.
Policy PR-6.2.3: The City will continue to work towards enhancement of
public spaces (entrances, plazas, lobbies, courtyards and atriums) and
gateways through artwork. The City will use, whenever appropriate, the "Art in
Public Places" allocation in public facility construction budgets as well as the
11
assistance of the County Arts Council staff, and encourage private
organizations to construct civic monuments at gateway locations.
Goal PR-7: Develop public parks and open spaces that are aesthetically appealing
and enhance the character and image of the City.
Objective PR-7.1: Improve the aesthetic qualities of parks and recreation
facilities.
Policy PR-7.1.1: The City will use the design principles in the 2007 Parks
and Public Spaces Master Plan as a basic framework for the design and
redesign of parks and park improvements, and prepare more specific design
guidelines as needed.
Policy PR-7.1.2: The Parks and Recreation Department will continue to have
City will ensure that its staff includes a landscape architect on staff who
haswith knowledge of best practices in park and recreation facility design and
that this staff person who will be employed to design park improvements, and
when designers are retained on contract, to review and monitor park design
projects, when designers are retained on contract,
Goal PR-8: Encourage the development of high quality cultural arts facilities and
programs within the City.
Objective PR-8.1: Continue to develop and support cultural districts, facilities
and programs.
Policy PR-8.1.1: The City will continue to support development of a
downtown cultural arts district as described in the proposed Downtown
Master Plan, through land development regulations and other strategies.
Policy PR-8.1.2: The City will support cultural and heritage programs and
facilities in selected areas of the City such as, but not restricted to, Overtown,
the Design District, and Little Havana, including small performing arts venues,
heritage trails, street fairs, and similar programs, through land development
regulations and other strategies.
Goal PR-9: Establish sustainable and green practices in park design, maintenance,
building, planting and energy efficiency.
Objective PR-9.1: Protect and restore native plant communities, where feasible
and appropriate, and provide educational programs and interpretive signage
about South Florida environments.
Policy PR-9.1.1: The City will continue its program of native plant protection
and restoration and elimination of exotic plants at Simpson Park and the
Virginia Key nature area; expand this program to the conservation area at
Wainwright Park; restore native vegetation in woodland, shoreline and
streamfront edges of parks, where appropriate; establish, where appropriate,
12
native plantings that require limited water and fertilizer in parks; and establish
native plantings in public road, rail, drainage and utility corridors that are not
suitable for pedestrian and recreation access.
Policy PR-9.1.2: The City will continue to ccck partnerships to establish ?:n,
maintain coastal hammock exhibit plantings as part of environmental
education programs and exhibits in community parks.
Policy PR-9.1.3: The City will continue to promote the planting and
preservation of native species by property owners in the City through
educational materials and programs.
Objective PR-9.2: Introduce sustainable and energy -efficient materials and
methods in park maintenance and operations.
Policy PR-9.2.1: The City will employ life -cycle costing to evaluate costs of
new park structures and make efforts to incorporate energy- and water -
efficient methods and materials, in new and renovated park structures
including the use of green roofs, solar panels, and other innovative
approaches.
Policy PR-9.2.2: The City will implement best management practices such as
water conservation, integrated pest management, water conservation,
elimination of toxic chemicals, and similar sustainable practices.
Policy PR-9.2.3: The City will implement to all pesticide and herbicide
methods of application for all sodded areas compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
13