HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZAB Reso & Supporting DocumentationMiami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board
Resolution: PZAB-R-12-040
File ID 12-00929ct October 03, 2012 Item PZAB.1
Mr. David H. Young offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE
MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE 2020 FUTURE LAND
USE MAP ELEMENTS, IN ORDER TO REVISE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD FOR
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE FOR CONCURRENCY PURPOSES, AS
DIRECTED BY POLICY PR-1.1.4 OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; MAKING
FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Ernest Martin, the motion passed and was adopted by a
vote of 8-2:
Mr. Sergio Cruz Yes
Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia Yes
Mr. Charles A. Gibson No
Mr. Patrick Goggins Yes
Ms. Maria Beatriz Gutierrez No
Mr. Ernest Martin Yes
Mr. Daniel Milian Yes
Mr. Juvenal Pi ria Yes
Ms. Janice Tarbert Yes
Ms. Melody L. Torrens ' Absent
Mr. David H. Young Yes
Francis •• Garcia, Director
Planning a d Zoning Department
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Anel Rodriguez, Clerk of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board of the
City of Miami, Florida, and acknowledges that he executed the foregoing Resolution.
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF
Prin otary Name " Notary blic 5'tate •f Florida
Personally know 1� or Produced I.D. My Commission Expires:
Type and number of I.D. produced
Did take an oath or Did not take an oath a✓
4Jotary Public State of Flbrida
4;. Sandra Forges
My Commission DD859677
Expires 92/99/2913
City of Miami
Parks and Recreation Level of Service Study
Prepared by Goody, Clancy & Associates
September 2012
ARCHITECTURE
{ YOODY PLANNING
t_J V V I PRESERVATION
CLAN&&
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 docu-
ment is the Level of Service (LOS) 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 resi-
dent 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 foun-
dation 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
GOODYCLANCY 11
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 impor-
tant 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/ 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 ESRI ArcGIS or similar programs) allows for quick 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 ac-
cess, acreage and per capita investment in ranking urban park systems (including parks op-
erated 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 "mini -
park" 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 expen-
sive. 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 analyz-
ing 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.
2 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 ac-
cess in relation to all City of Miami Parks, to parks of one-half acre or more and 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 popula-
tion density.
• LOS measure for the MCNP:
> "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:
> The City of Miami will work towards providing a park within a ten-minute, barrier -
free walk for every resident.
> The City of Miami will work towards providing a park of approximately one acre or
more within a ten-minute, barrier -free walk to park entrances for 66% of the city's
population.
> 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.
> 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
GOODYCLANCY 13
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 docu-
ment is the Level of Service (LOS) 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 resi-
dent 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 mea-
sures:
• 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) accord-
ing 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.
4 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 desig-
nated park and recreation facilities and it does not include trails, 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, pub-
lic 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.2
The precise size of the Citys 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 conserva-
tion areas, such as the part of Virginia Key outside the 80 acres managed by the Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation, are classified. Including only these 80 acres, the approxi-
mate 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 evalua-
tions were reviewed as part of this LOS study and should be updated on a regular basis.
1 Miami Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan, (2007), p. 60
2 Ibid., 73.
3 Ibid., 33.
GOODYCLANCY 15
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
The inventory and assessment of City parks in Master Plan should be maintained and up-
dated. 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, Recre-
ation 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) accord-
ing 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 ex-
panded 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
6 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
• 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
• 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 com-
pleted 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-Dades 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 charac-
ter of the county, taking into account many of the same constraints on acquiring property
for new parks that the City faces.
The County 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
4 Miami -Dade County Parks and Open Space System Master Plan (2008), p. 24.
GOODYCLANCY 17
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 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 (CS)," 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 (CS) category, with additional categories, including Greens, Play-
grounds and Community Gardens, as well as conservation areas covered under other
articles of the zoning ordinance, generally provide for the park variety found in the City of
Miami, many citizens feel that it is inadequate for the variety of park experiences to exist
as currently identified 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.
5 Miami -Dade County Evaluation and Appraisal Report (2010), pp. 2.6.-1 - 2.6.6.
8 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
An initial report proposed a system based on parks with athletic fields or similar citywide
recreational resources, park improvements, waterfront parks, and gymnasiums —all as-
sumed 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 develop-
ment 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 require-
ments focused on ensuring that adequate public facilities would be provided as new devel-
opment resulted in new households and new demand. As related to parks and recreation,
concurrency is now not required. However, municipalities must actively amend their
comprehensive plans to eliminate concurrency; otherwise they retain concurrency require-
ments. 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.' The City of Miami has elected to main-
tain concurrency for parks.
6 http://floridaldrs.com/2011/06/06/concurrency/#more-815
GOODYCLANCY 19
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 Ken-
nedy 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 communi-
ties?
• 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 di-
vided into separate groups (money for land acquisition, money for maintenance, etc.)
• We must increase impact fees to secure funding for parks.
10 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
Potential new park areas
• Parking lots along Biscayne Blvd should be removed to create a linear park that con-
nects 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?
• 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 side-
walks), 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.) pas-
sive 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 dif-
ficult 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
GOODYCLANCY 111
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 LO S 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
• 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 pur-
chasing 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
12 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
professionals that they have working for them and they make concessions. Must pres-
sure 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.
GOODYCLANCY 113
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 conven-
tional 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 suburbaniza-
tion, 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, have long promoted the need to look beyond the
acres per 1,000 population measure developed a generation ago.' New approaches to urban
park LOS and evaluating park systems have emerged. Access LOS measures are increas-
ingly 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." 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.
7 Teresa Penbrooke, "Replacing Conventional Park Level of Service (LOS) Analysis with the 'Composite
Values' Approach" Planning Essentials Symposium, American Planning Association, www.planning.
org/practicinciplanner/print/2007/fall/values.htm?print=true
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"
141 GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
Analysis rose t City Of Fort Lauderdale Perspective
Showing GRASPg Value In Relation To Target Minimum Score
e
net Lassa--sP$ -•
L
fi
r. •„e ms If1#+F
11111411
'111...2 .,1,11111111
11411111
i. ® � I DI-11- e=1 111111
J111111
A111LL
3 1111 11 t.'.'_'1'illll
ONE L!144i11111IL191Lf
�11WI1111I 11."■,,LIII���'
11111I1II11111,1i 111u1=1
It I
I. lalL11=Zir
Tuns=
1±r ■ ; .
Northeast
1777-4141;:'
1
LEGEND - INSET FRAME
Neighborhood Access To All Componenls
Below Target Min imum Score
IM Above Target Minimum Score
No Servile
GOODYCLANCY 115
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 expecta-
tions. 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. io
2) Trust for Public Land ParkScoreTM 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 mea-
sures: 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 of Miami compares to the averages and ranges for TPL's na-
tional 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.
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-%20GRASP%20Maps%20(11x17).pdf
16 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 Y2 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 is a 10-minute wa k from a park of % acre or more in size and 58.6 % of Miami's population is a 10-minute
walk from a park of 1 acre or more in size.
**Most cities spend between $50 and $150 per resident.
Population data from the 2010 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
new PlayStreet initiative to create small parks at dead ends or closed streets is an innova-
tive 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 1/2-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 map indicates
that many residential areas in the city have basic pedestrian access to a park. However,
as the tiny spots of green in some of those areas indicate, the parks that are serving those
areas are very small.
GOODYCLANCY 117
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
Ten -Minute Walk Access to Miami
City Parks and Population Density
Access= 1/2 mile without barriers such
as highways
Population Density by Census Block
Group (2010)
NETWORK ANALYST
Population density and walkability to any park
- Parks
Area within 10+ninute walk to any park
People/acre within 10-minute walk of any park (2010)
09-24
25-78
79-201
-202- 484
- 48.5 - 113.0
- 113.1-7192
People/acre outside 10-minute walk of any park (2010)
0.0-24
25-78
- 7.9-20.1
- 20.2- 48.4
- 48.5- 1130
- 1131 -7192
0 02505
18 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
Number of Playgrounds in Each City Park
Source: Parks Master Plan Inventory (data from 2006)
Legend
Number of playgrounds per city park
_ D
2
3
Nan -pedestrian roads (45+mph)
Pedestrian -unfriendly roads (35-40 mph)
Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower)
D 0.25 0.5 1.5 2
Miles
GOODYCLANCY 119
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 1/2-mile, barrier free pedestrian route. A five-minute, 1/4-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 Minneapo-
lis, 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:
• Land with water views and/or access
• Land for "walk -to" parks in underserved areas
• Land to expand destination and community parks
• 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.
20 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
• Buffer Analysis: access as measured by buffers. This map shows 1/2-mile buffers "as the
crow flies."
• NetworkAnalystAnalysis: access as measured by service areas that take into account
physical barriers to pedestrians. Using the Network Analyst extension on ESRI ArcGIS
(which allows for mapping of actual possible routes) it is possible to trace all possible
1/2-mile routes that could originate from designated nodes at park locations within the
actual pedestrian network. The pedestrian network in this map includes only streets
with speed limits at or below 40 mph excluding "nonpedestrian roads" (such as inter -
states, 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 inter-
sections), the effective accessibility range of some parks is not completely accurate. Ide-
ally, 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).
• AddedTime Cost Analysis. To show how refinements of the analysis can make a differ-
ence, 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 illustra-
tive 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 adjust-
ments by changing the definition of what constitutes a pedestrian -friendly street (for ex-
ample, 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.
GOODYCLANCY 121
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
2) Access to acreage measures
Analysis of a 1/2-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 re-
duces the percent of the population that is within a 1/2-mile walk of a park. Approximately
72% of Miami's population is within a 1/2 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%
%2 + Acre Parks
Network Analysis
258,875
64.8%
1+ Acre Parks
Network Analysis
233,953
58.6%
TOTAL MIAMI POPULATION
399,457
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 ap-
plies only to park and recreation facilities owned by the City of Miami. Suggested chang-
es:
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 experi-
ence 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 -Dade County, which includes some school and college recreation
areas and privately owned areas. Greenway trails and linear parks, for example, are current-
ly 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
22 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 calcula-
tion 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 ap-
pealing, 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 com-
plete.
• Progress towards providing a higher percentage of access to parks of at least one half or
one acre in size
• 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 municipally -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. A ten-minute
walk will be defined as a one-half mile, barrier -free distance on a safe pedestrian route.
GOODYCLANCY 123
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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.
Every three years, the City will develop and update a map that shows which residential
areas fall within the ten-minute walk buffer for City -owned parks, and which do not. This
map will then be overlaid on a population map showing the most current U.S. Census
population data available in order to calculate if at least 72% of the city's population lives
within the ten-minute walk buffer."
According to the analysis in this report, 72.4% of the city population currently has that
access. 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 deter-
mination.
241 GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
APPENDIX
GOODYCLANCY 125
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
1. Walkability to any park
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
Network analyst
Parks
Area within 10-minute walk to any park
Non -pedestrian roads (45+ mph)
Pedestrian -unfriendly roads (3540 mph)
Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower)
2.5-minute added cost nodes
Parks nodes
26 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
Land use and waikability to any park
Buffer analysis
Ok
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
Network analyst
Parks
F-1 Area within 10-minute walk to any park
NET Areas
Future land use
1-2 family residential
Multifamily residential
Commercial
Central Business District
Institutions & Pubfic Facilities
Conservation
Industrial
GOODYCLANCY 127
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
Population density and waikability to any park
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
Network analyst
Parks
Area within 10-minute walk to any part
People/acre within 10-rninute walk of any park (2010)
0.0 - 1.6
1.7 - 6.2
6.3 -19.7
19.8 - 59.5
59.6 - 176.8
176.9-719.2
People/acre within 10-rninute walk of any park (2010)
0.0 - 1.6
1.7 - 6.2
6.3 - 19.7
- 19.8 - 59.5
- 59.6 - 176.8
- 176.9-719.2
28 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
2. Walkability to parks at least 1/2 acre in size
Parks at least 1/2 acre In size nodes
11. Parka at least 1f2 acre in size
Area within 10•minute walk to park at least 1f2 acre in size
Non -pedestrian roads (45t mph)
Pedestriarkunfrierkiy roads (35-40 mph)
Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower)
Network analyst—Walkability
- Parks at lea5I 172 acre in size
I I Area within 10.minute walk to park at least 1f2 acre in size
NET Areas
Future Land Use
1-2 family residential
Multifamily residential
Commercial
Central Business District
si lulions 8 Public Faalifie$
_on salvation
industrial
Land use and walkability
- Parks el lead 1,2 acre in size
O/Yea whin 10.ran to wok le perk at Iaesl I r2 acre In size
PecplelaCre mum 10•minute walk or a park at least 112 acre In size (20101
0.o-13
5e-10a
J200-a*d
- Wi8 - 210.0
- 21e3 ]192
People/acre outside 10+ninule walk of a park at leasl 112 acre In size 12010)
00 r,3
Id SI
58 lea
- 200•804
▪ • 21a.0
- alai •I1aI
Network analyst—Walkability and people/acre
within 10-minute walk
GOODYCLANCY 129
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
3. Walkability to parks at least 1 acre in size
Buffer analysis
Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at
pedestrian -unfriendly intersections
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
30 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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
Network analyst
Parks at least 1 acre in size
nArea within 1O-minute walk to park at least 1 acre in size
1--1 NET Areas
Future Land Use
1-2 family residential
Multifamily residential
Commercial
Central Business district
▪ Institutions & Public Facilities
- Conservation
- Industrial
GOODYCLANCY 131
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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
Network analyst
-rParks at least 1 acre in Size --��-�1
Area wilhin 10-rtiinute '..valk 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 -1.8
1.7 - 6.2
6.3 - 19.7
19.8 - 59.5
▪ 59,6 - 176.8
▪ 176.9-719.2
Peoplefacre outside 10-minute walk of a park at least 1 acre in size (2010)
0.0 - 1.6
1.7 - 5.2
8.3 - 19.7
19.8 - 59.5
59.8 - 176.8
▪ 176.9 - 719.2
32 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
PARKS LOS STUDY —MEETING ONE —PUBLIC COMMENTS
May 1st, 2012
• Propose children -oriented "safety town" in new PBA park. Work with police explorers
and PAL.
• Decreasing barriers such as gates, fences to parks
• Concerned about security in parks, increase night time patrols in parks. Consider access
issues in the Coconut Grove area, at the intersection of main highway and Mcfarlane
road. Issues with Brickell Key Development. Increase in co-op gardens.
• Are smaller parks/right of ways being counted as parks? Concerns over "mini -parks"
being included
• Parks that are being counted lack access because of special events, being used for tem-
porary parking (Museum Park). Would like dog park in downtown.
• Increased law enforcement in parks
• Are impact fees being increased? Fees should be increased because maintenance is slip-
ping. Is land being acquired in under served communities? Will parks receive a differ-
ent designation from "civic space" in Miami 21? Are there plans to increase tree canopy
in parks? Are there plans to create mini -habitats? Do you have plans for community
gardens?
• Hardly any bike trails. Parks need to address children of all ages. Need more commu-
nity centers in North Grove/Central Miami. Water access, need more walkways.
• Charter schools without playgrounds closing public parks for private use.
• Playground equipment at 1814 Brickell is not suitable for use by toddlers.
• Gates/fences are barriers to parks. Making parks accessible to modes of transportation
other than cars, bikes/pedestrians/etc. Brickell waterfront in between 14th and 15th
could be converted from parking to park space.
• FPL Substation on SW 2nd Ave is an eyesore. Create structure over it and place a park
on top of it. Extend parks into the bay.
• Most parks are only open from sunrise to sunset, parks should be made more accessible.
• We lack parks in NW section of the city. Need more parks in NE part of the city.
Would like a commitment from the City to increase parks. Provide adequate park space
for all city taxpayers.
• Impact fees should not only be used in a 3 acre or larger parcels. Funds should be di-
vided into separate groups (money for land acquisition, money for maintenance, etc.)
• Local schools have driven baseball teams out of parks in Little Havana. Field is only
limited to children under 16, this restricts citizens from using the park.
• Little Haiti park's facilities are limited; needs locker rooms, etc.
• Increase sense of ownership of parks. Fences restrict access. Include informational signs
about historic origins/names of parks. Miami circle park should not be a dog park.
• We must increase impact fees to secure funding for parks. Take advantage of the water-
front by encouraging water activities. Start recycling in parks.
GOODYCLANCY 133
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
• Work with schools to allow access to parks/fields after school hours. Work with MDT
to develop land under metrorail into parks.
• Parking lots along Biscayne Blvd should be removed to create a linear park that con-
nects Downtown with Bayfront park. Make M-Path more welcoming space. Streets
can be used as parks. Using developers/investors in Brickell citi centre to create park in
Brickell. Parks should not be fenced.
• The City should work with community organizations and empower citizens.
• Police presence in parks must be increased.
• Better lighting in parks
• Impact fees are important but we should not rely on them, because they target certain
areas. Should not rely on developers to enact change, opens up issue of corruption.
• Must integrate other municipalities into future plans
• Sidewalks to park on 22nd are inadequate. Sidewalk on bayshore in between Kennedy
Park and Monty's is inadequate. No summer camps in Brickell/Downtown/Coconut
Grove.
• More furniture in parks. Including movable furniture.
View Master Plans at:• www.miamigov.com/planning
341 GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
PARKS LOS STUDY —MEETING TWO —PUBLIC COMMENTS
June 18th, 2012
• 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 pur-
chasing park land by little river behind shopping center.
• Palm Grove Resident: 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?
• Bunny Feinberg: 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.
• Adam Dunshee, Morningside Resident: Was the city's decision to maintain concurren-
cy — 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?
• 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?
• Bayside Resident: 10 miles of coastline in the City but there are no beach areas with
sand. Lots of time spent on public transportation to reach areas with beaches. Need
areas where people can wade into the water.
• Shorecrest Resident: 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 dif-
ficult to bike/walk to parks. Lack of swimming pools.
• Bayside Resident: Safety in parks is an issue; proper lighting is needed, there are areas
with "patchy" lighting. Legion Park boat ramp on weekends is chaotic, there are many
users at the same time (jet skis, boats), which raises safety concerns. Speeding jet skis
and boats pose a threat to human and manatee safety. Perhaps charging for use of the
boat ramp can solve this issue. Is there an arborist in Parks and Recreation Department?
Trees are in need of maintenance, limbs have fallen.
• Francisco, Miami Gardens: Seattle is building a 9 acre "edible forest" — Miami should
consider community gardens and edible gardens. Get nonprofits and community in-
volved, it benefits everyone and would greatly help Miami.
• Michael Laas: 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
GOODYCLANCY 135
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
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 calcula-
tion? City has less park space than other comparable cities. Lost 8 to 10 acres in Bicen-
tennial 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.
• Elaborate on "no net loss". Taking possession of public land for private?
• Recommendation to raise impact fees to benefit parks
• 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?
• Robert: Is there consideration for LEED standards for new and renovated park buildings?
• Sam Van Leer: 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 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.
• Carrie Celand: 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.
• Bill: Beach idea may not be happening because of protected sea grass habitat. Pocket
Parks are great concepts and provide benefits (psychological, social, etc.). In Brooklyn,
pocket parks greatly enhanced quality of life. Is there a level of service structure that
addresses staffing at parks? Boat ramps and other parks have litter and crowd issues;
creates dangerous conditions.
36 I GOODYCLANCY
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY
• Sam Van Leer: Fish and Wildlife Commission will ticket speeding boaters and jet ski
users. One possible method of revenue could be boat ramp charges (parking) similar to
Key Biscayne method.
Joe: 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.
• Robert Hernandez, Palm Grove Resident: What is the park department doing to avoid
the situation in Bicentennial Park where the museums were constructed because the
park was neglected. Park in downtown on Flagler is occupied by homeless and not
maintained so the space is unwelcoming.
• Mary Is the City and the City's Planning Department working with the County? The
County's planning is coming along nicely. We should create partnerships.
• 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.
• Joe: 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.
• Community organizations partnering with public county/state parks. Miami Parks
department not interested in partnerships. Look at barriers to partnerships such as
worker's comp to volunteers.
GOODYCLANCY 137
Parks Master
Plan officially
adopted
• 2oo6-2oo7 planning
period
• Extensive public
process — public
surveys, 13 NET
meetings, citywide
meetings, public
hearings
MIAMI PARKS
AND PUBLIC
SPACES
■
If 1
MAN 7UOF ( THE CfTr OF MIAMI
PARKS L. NECREATION DEPARTMENT ANu P4ANIN1NC DEPART Mate
IIP4 1D I+ GOODY 41.1u$CY
D Ilk W0411M a1.44CM,Ti I C1114 iF 1 I sIt ,.1.11.111.10.01 I ItltIr 1P.L CAICalll p;WGU
44
Parks Master Plan
surveys: diverse
city —diverse needs
Allocation Of 5100 To Fund CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN PARKS FACILITIES
$10
Develop new
indoor recreation
facilities
$11
Develop new outdoor
aquatic facilities for
year-round use
s1S
Create new
walking and
biking trails1
RESULTS FROM SURVEY
58
Build new fields
and sports facilities
improve existing parks,
playgrounds, and
recreation facilities
Other
NEED FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, BY TYPE
% YES •. NO
small neighborhood parks
64 36
walking and biking trails
55 45
large community parks
53 47
large group picnic areas and shelters
46 54
beach access parks
41 59
nature center and trails
34 66
outdoor swimming pools/ water parks
66
indoor fitness and exercise facilities
33 67
playground equipment
30 70
ndoor running/ walking track
28 72
indoor pools tor recreation
24 76
outdoor amphitheaters/ bandstand
24 76
outdoor tennis courts
24 76
canoe, kayak and small water boat access 23 77
fishing areas
22 78
off -leash dog parks
21 80
senior center
20 BO
indoor exercise swirn lap lanes
20 81
indoor basketball/ volleyball
20 81
youth baseball and softball fields
18 82
youth soccer fields
15 85
youth football/ lacrosse/ rugby
13 87
adult softball fields
12 88
skateboarding parks 11 89
uurce' Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan & vay, 21Jt
R if TO MIAOW ttrlL fNTAGES FOR ZVI4NSy%¢RS TO/di Mai rHAv Irlp%.
Parks Master Plan Recommendation
• A park within % mile of every resident in the medium
term and within % mile in the long term
• Access is a more accurate measurement of service than
quantity
• Must be "effective access": account for physical barriers
Parks Master Plan land acquisition
priorities
• Land with water views and/or
access
• Land for "walk -to" parks in
underserved areas
• Land to expand destination and
community parks
• Land to expand or create linear
park segments
L
Acquisitions since the Zoo? Master
Plan
• Park land in various parts of the city has been acquired
since 2oo7:
— 1814 Brickell
— Manatee Bend
— Shorecrest
— Police Benevolent Association site
— Play Street — Little River Pocket Park
— Crimson Tower park donation in Edgewater
• Greenway segments completed — e.g., Miami River
Greenway to ion street
• Parks 8z. Recreation works with neighborhoods and Asset:
Management to identify potential land for purchase
Selected park improvements since
2007 Master Plan
• Grapeland Water Park
• Jose Marti Gym
• Little Haiti Soccer Park
• Little Haiti Cultural Center
• Splash parks:
— Little Haiti Soccer Park
— Juan Pablo Duarte Park.
• Shade structures for 37 parks
• About 40o trees planted per
year
• Aging facilities demolished
and replaced
— Williams Park
— Robert King High Park, Coral
Gate Park
— Gibson Park
• Renovations:
— Morningside Park
— Kinloch Park.
• On -staff landscape architect
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan (MCNP)
• Required by state law
• A policy framework with the effect of law to guide all public
and private development decisions in the city
• Focuses on the physical development of the city:
—To meet the needs of existing and future residents,
visitors and businesses
—To preserve the character and quality of the community
• Most recent MCNP approved in 2010
• 2oo7 Parks Master Plan recommendations were
incorporated into the 2010 MCNP
Parks , Recreation and Open Space
Element ofthe MCNP - 2010
• Objective PR -LE The City shall work to achieve a medium -term objective of
providing a park within one-half mile of every resident and to achieve a
long-term objective of a park within one -quarter mile of every resident
• 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 ofparks, recreation and open space for
concurrency purposes that will assist hi achieving the access and per
capital funding objectives ofPR-r r. Until that time, the Level of
Service for concurrency purposes shall be 1.3 acres of public • ark spac
per moo residents." Goom
LANCY.
What is Level ofService (LOS)?
• A standard to measure how well the park and recreation
system is serving the community
• Old style:
— Developed by the National Recreation and Park Association with
suburban expansion in mind
— Number of acres per i,000 population
— LOS "rule of thumb" across U.S. cities: ro acres per r,000 people
• Current number of acres per i,000 people within City of
Miami
— Approximately 3.o acres if all park agencies (city, county, state) are
included oor))
— Approximately 1.3 acres if only city land is included Li_ nNc:v
New measures for urban parks
• New- focus on access
— Can residents walk to a park?
—Are there physical barriers and
conditions that affect access?
• Newer- access plus: "composite
value LOS"
— Quantity and access
— Quality and condition
— Factors specific to the place,
such as, proximity to water,
shade, health benefits
Composite value LOS for urban parks
• How well does a park serve its immediate neighborhood?
• How well does a park contribute to the city-wide system of
services and amenities?
(JOOD)
I A N r.
Cities using Composite
Value LOS
• Fort Lauderdale, FL (pictured)
• Minneapolis, MN
• Denver, CO
• Fort Collins, CO
• Montgomery County, MD
• Asheville, NC
• San Francisco
f dm •
,
.•_•J •
'11
tionhoott
t 1
041.11114 VALIUM.
ej
A
; \
-,,
,. Tin—
, .
---___—_---
' MA:
1 LI wfr._057st7.7..w. —
IA,
411
-1-3/
I ,1
90.11
1'1'11 1111111.10
:7,''
11101
• ri
11112- 1'1
p-
r -
1=-4
LECiEN - INSE I _MAME
Walkable Access To All Components
Below Target Nliminum Score
Above Tdrget Minimum Score
No Service
b
lextelo' do Km
Composite Values -based system...
• Data -driven
• Transparent
• Simple to understand
• Shareable
Inventory, rate, map, compare
• Park inventory and quality ratings (Master Plan basis)
• Common matrix with standardized variables: compare
parks
• Link the matrix to GIS (geographic information systems) to
make ratings visible
r
110
Measures can combine access, quality,
and people
• Physical access:
— Maximize comfortable pedestrian accessibility for as
many residents as possible.
• Park and recreation quality:
— Inventories, rating system for quantity,
quality/condition of park and amenities
• Demographic sensitivity:
— Identify needs of local neighborhoods.
GoOD)
I.'\ N.Y.
Miami Example: accessibility
NORTH/ EAST COCONUT' GROVE
ESTcOiCONUT GROVE
Parks Access
City_Parks
1111025Mile
Q 50 Mile
Transportation
- Highways (55+mph)
Roads (40-45mph)
Streets (35mph and slower
• MetroRailStatnons
— MetroRad
• MetroMoverStations
— MetroMover
Railroad
A A? t 2Woo
s
NM SWIM eft or Aim
Miami Example: passive park space and
access
Passive Parks Access
• Crty Parks with Passive Space
III Passive 0.25 Mole
Passive 0.50 Mile
Transportation
— Highways (55+mph)
Roads (40-45mph)
Streets (35mph and slower)
• MetroRarlStatrons
MetroRail
▪ MetroMoverStatlons
MetroMover
Railroad
Adding demographics: relative density of the senior
citizen population by census block zo o).
Passive Park Level of Service
Residents 65+/acre
.17 781249. 218 710743
394604-47.781248
3648791 . 11 394603
- 1 999900.3.648790
1 848892. 1 999899
0 000000 - 1 848891
Transportadon
- Highways (55++nph t
Roads t44-45mph)
Streets (35rnph and slower)
• MetroRa'IStatrcxts
- MetroRail
• MetroMovet Stations
- - MetroMover
Railroad
Merging access and demographics: senior citizens are
key passive park users
This area has a high
concentration of seniors
but no access to passive
park amenities
This area lacks
many seniors so
might be over -
served with passive
park amenities
SOUTH MST' COCONUT GROPE
LIl'f
jam
NORTH! EAST CACOtRR GROG'[
DOWNTOWN
This area of high senior
settlement is well -served
with passive park
amenities
e
Passive Parks Access
IMIC$ty Parks with Passive Space
Passive 0.25 Mile
Passive 0.50 Mile
Residents 65+/acre
■479-2187
Ell .5-47.8
�3.7-11.4
2.1 - 3.6
1,7 - 2.0
0,0 - 1.6
Transportation
- Highways (554mph)
Roads (40-45mph)
Streets (35mph and slower)
• MelroRaslStathons
— MetroRall
• MetroMoverStalons
MetroMover
Railroad
C nk + d
Woe.
Della SNOOP CM" M Awn
Visualizing ratings: quality of passive parks' space
PASSIVE SPACE
A RAGE R4TING
2.0 4E
8.2 t5
1.5 t3
0.3
75
0.7
0.3 39
0.25 47
0.2 59
0.3 79
0.2 43
0.2 49
2.2 47
8.2 9
2.0 8
1.0 25
0.7 78
0.3 83
1.0 z3
0.1
SMITH iST roc ONill GROVE
ER EASTSIDE
MN WOOD, EDGEWATER
DOWNTOWN
e
Passive Park Level of Service
Glty_Parks_Passive_Bes!
Gty_Parks_Passive_Average
Gott'_ Parks_Passrve_Struggling
Service
Passive Best 0 25 Mole
Passive Best 0 50 Mire
Passive Average 0.25 Mile
Passive Average 0.50 Mole
Passive Struggling 0 25 Mile
Passive Struggling 0 5D Mire
Transportation
- Highways (554rnpri
Roads (4O•45m0)
Streets (35rnph and slower)
• MetroRaitStatrons
- MetroRail
• MetroMoverStationS
- MetroMover
Railroad
3 f 2 f
W 6%
Diu tidwts City Or pin
Merging quality, access, and demographics to
visualize general level of service
This area includes a high
concentration of seniors
served by a park with low -
scoring passive space
f - !1 f'
m.
•
ry�'
.-14011.
- w
ti
SOIfiI,iWEST GOCONIfT GROVE
1
NORTH /EAST COC&H T GROVE
I16—
, __Ti
UPPER EASTSIOE
WOOEDGEWATER
The many seniors in this
area enjoy parks with
high -quality passive space
Passive Park Level of Service
City_Parks_Pass+ve_Best
City_Parks_Passive_Average
City_ Parks_Passore_Struggring
Service
Passive Best 0 25 More
Passive Best 0 50 Mere
Passive Average 0.25 Mile
Passive Average 0.50 Mile
Passive Struggling 0 25 Mere
Passive Struggling 0 50 Mire
Residents 65+lacre
- 47.9 - 218.7
- 11.5 - 47.8
-37.114
-21-36
17-20
00-15
Transportation
Highways (55.rrVh)
- Roads (40-45rrm )
Streets 135rnph and slower)
• MetroRat4Stat ons
- MetroRad
• MetsoMoverStatiofls
MetroI over
Rarlroed
OM• Core. CA" or Flom
Taking account of physical barriers
• Simple % mile or % mile radii
around a park "as the crow flies"
• Actual travel paths:
—Typically much more nuanced
—Affected by barriers and other
breaks in the transportation
network
• Simple radii often exaggerate the
range of realistic accessibility.
eQ.V RTL
N
0116 111
LITTLE HAVANA
4.211
I.'\ N.Y.
• Park service areas
limited to % and 72
mile districts
accessible as travelled
along the existing
streets or "as the crow
flies." This is an
example not from
Miami.]
•
South East Store
Identify additional barriers experienced by park
users on foot
• For example:
— High speed roads could be removed from the pedestrian network
— Intersections with inadequate crossings could be weighted to
reflect how they delay or deter pedestrian flows
— Potential use to guide pedestrian travel and streetscape
improvements
Composite Value LOS is also a planning
tool
• Active, not static, system
• Annual updates as part of capital planning process
• Can be used to create target values and future goals
• Transparent and open to the public
• Public and private will be using same technology platform,
allowing ease of sharing.
A 21st-Century Vision for Miami's Parks and Open Spaces
City boend aayr
Body oI water
Rirerisirearn
Neidhbadrood park
C) Citywide park
a Transit hob
Triosit network
.. , Greer way
.. Blueway
Greer street
Parkwalk
Urbar wilds/
nature corridor
MIAmrs
"CENTRAL PARK'
'
44104.
•
• ♦ • "id'
■• ♦ •
■
tut
Vf -
!••
1
••
♦
DOWNTOWN
'PARK OF PARKS,.
ar: emo `
♦♦ ••
'+.
•♦
♦♦
•
COCONUT GROVE
WATERFRONT CREENWAY
•
•
•
Next Steps - Tentative Schedule
• Week of June II — Second Public Meeting to review
proposed approach and potential MCNP amendments
• Early July on website for public comment - first draft MCNP
amendments
• July i8 — Planning and Zoning Advisory Board
Recommendation Hearing
• September 13 — City Commission First Reading Public
Hearing
• October 25 — City Commission Second Reading — Adoption
Public Hearing
MiarniParks, Recrea*jon and Open 4 �_
Space Element ojthe Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
Me&sizthig level �fSexvice =-
Public Meeting — June Ig 2OI2
Agenda
1. Context
2. Issues and Analysis
3. Preliminary Level of Service (LOS) Recommendations
4. Considerations for Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan (MCNP) Recommendations
5. Next Steps
6. Discussion
ARCH TEcTurrIE
GOODYGOODYidNIP1G
PR PLAES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
CONTEXT
ARCH TEOTuNE
(jcODY PLANNING
GOODv
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Parks Master
Plan officially
adopted
• 2oo6-2oo7 planning
period
• Extensive public
process — public
surveys, 13 NET
meetings, citywide
meetings, public
hearings
MIAMI PARKS
AND PUBLIC
SPACES
MAY 2007 I THE CITY OF MIAMI
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PREPARED BY GOODY CLANCY
WITH ❑ODSON ASSOCIATES GREENPLAV LLC, LEISURE VISION I ROSENBERG CARDNER DESIGN
Parks Master Plan
surveys: diverse
city —diverse needs
Allocation Of $100 To Fund CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN PARKS FACILITIES
$10
Develop new
indoor recreation
facilities
$11
Develop new outdoor
aquatic facilities for
year-round use
$15
Create new
walking and
biking trails
RESULTS FROM SURVEY
Build new fields
and sports facilities
$36
Improve existing parks,
playgrounds, and
recreation facilities
$17
Acquire new
park land and
open space
Other
NEED FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. BY TYPE
small neighborhood parks
walking and biking trails
% YES % NO
64 36
55 45
large community parks
53 47
large group picnic areas and shelters
46 54
beach access parks
41 59
nature center and trails
34 66
outdoor swimming pools/water parks
34 66
indoor fitness and exercise facilities
playground equipment
indoor running/ walking track
indoor pools for recreation
outdoor amphitheaters/ bandstand
33
30
28
24
24
67
70
72
76
76
outdoor tennis courts
24 76
canoe, kayak and small water boat access
fishing areas
off -leash dog parks
23
22
21
77
78
80
senior center
20 80
indoor exercise swim lap lanes
indoor basketball/ volleyball
youth baseball and softball fields
20
20
18
81
81
82
youth soccer fields
15 85
youth football/ lacrosse/ rugby
13 87
adult softball fields
12 88
skateboarding parks
11 89
Source: Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan Survey, 2006
DUE TO ROUNDWG, PERCENTAGES FOR SOME ANSWERS TOTAL MORE THAN WO%.
Parks Master Plan Recommendation
• A park within % mile of every resident in the medium
term and within % mile in the long term
• Access is a more accurate measurement of service than
quantity
• Must be "effective access": account for physical barriers
Parks Master Plan land acquisition
prio n ties
• Landwithwater views and/or access
• Land for "walk -to" parks in un erserveareas
• Landto expand destination andcommunity parks
• Landto expandor create linear parksegments
Acquisitions since the Zoo? Master
Plan
• Park land in various parts of the city has been acquired
since 2oo7:
— 1814 Brickell
— Manatee Bend
— Shorecrest
— Police Benevolent Association site
— Play Street — Little River Pocket Park
— Crimson Tower park donation in Edgewater
• Greenway segments completed — e.g., Miami River
Greenway to ion street
• Parks 8z. Recreation works with neighborhoods and Asse
Management to identify potential land for purchase
R! C.H P : Jr;E
r rae;Er ATION
Selected park improvements since
2007 Master Plan
• Grapeland Water Park
• Jose Marti Gym
• Little Haiti Soccer Park
• Little Haiti Cultural Center
• Splash parks:
— Little Haiti Soccer Park
— Juan Pablo Duarte Park.
• Shade structures for 37 parks
• About 40o trees planted per
year
• Aging facilities demolished
and replaced
— Williams Park
— Robert King High Park, Coral
Gate Park
— Gibson Park
• Renovations:
— Morningside Park
— Kinloch Park.
• On -staff landscape architect
.• GH17ECTurIE
cOD Y PLANNING
\�j j PRESERGATIS,;
CLANCY
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan (MCNP)
• Required by state law
• Policy framework with the effect of law to guide all public
and private development decisions in the city
• Focuses on the physical development of the city:
— Meet existing and future needs
— Preserve community character and quality
• Most recent MCNP approved in 2010 and Parks Master Plan
recommendations were incorporated
• Concurrency for parks and recreation now a local option
under recent changes to state law
.• GHITECTuPE
c(1DY E REIdsNIP1 GA itGn'
CLANCY\_
What is Level ofService (LOS)?
• A standard to measure how well the park and recreation
system is serving the community
• Old style:
— Developed by the National Recreation and Park Association with
suburban expansion in mind
— Number of acres per I,000 population
— LOS "rule of thumb" across U.S. cities: To acres per I,000 people
• Current number of acres per I,000 people within City of
Miami
— Approximately 3.o acres if all park agencies (city, county, state) a
included O�Y
A��C1�I7ECruPE
OODYPLAIdNIP1G
PR ES FRGATIGn'
— Approximately i. acres if onlycityland is included CLANCY
PP Y 3
Composite value LOS for urban parks
• How well does a park serve its immediate neighborhood?
• How well does a park contribute to the city-wide system of
services and amenities?
ARCH TEcTurrIE
GOODYGOODYidNIP1G
PR PLAES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
New Trustfor Public Land
ParkScoreTM System Methodology
• Access. Percentage of the population living within a ten-
minute walk of a public park (defined as a /2 mile) on public
streets and without barriers
• Acreage. Median park size; acreage as a percentage of city
area.
• Servicesandinvestment. Playgrounds per Po,000 residents
and total spending (3 year average both capital and
operational and from all agencies) per resident.
r.�
Find your
ParkScore
the website goes live!
1PIP A
1,--,4,-,f4A
''4(Z,;••errii
- '
‘siur
ci
AfC.H r C urr]
GOODYGOODYidNIP1C
�rPLAes�I tiar r�
CLANCY
How does Miami compare to
ParkScore for 40 largest US cities?
[2oio census
Miami
population]
ACREAGE:
MEDIAN
PARK SIZE
ACREAGE:
PARKS AS
% OF
TOTAL
ACRES
ACCESS: % OF
POPULATION
WITHIN A %
MILE OF A
PARK
SERVICES :
PLAY
GROUNDS
PER 1o,000
RESIDENTS
SERVICES:
TOTAL
FYo7-09
SPENDING
PER
RESIDENT
City of Miami
2.1 acres
4.5%
72.4%
(with barriers)
1.83
$ 6 3
(city -owned
park land only)
Range for 40
cities (all
owners)
o.6 acres to
19.9 acres
2.3% to
22.8%
26% to 97%
1 to 5
$31 to $303
Median for 4o
cities (all
ownership)
4.9 acres
9.1%
57%
1.89
oODY P��dN '
PLANN1 %Tq
CLANG°
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
ARCH TEOTurIE
(jcODY PLANNING
GOODv
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Public comment and concerns relative
to LOS measures and comprehensive
plan
• Miami has less park acreage than comparable cities
• Some parks are very small
• Miami 21 zoning:
—Classifies parks as "Civic Space"
—Permits up to 25 % building on parks
• Specific areas mentioned as underserved
ARCH TEcTurrIE
GOODYGOODYidNIP1G
PR PLAES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
Assumptions to illustrate the
methodology
• The maps in this presentation are illustrative of the
methodology --not final determinations of access
measures and location.
• Assumptions for the purpose of illustrating barriers
and time costs:
• Streets with speeds above 4o mph are barriers to pedestrian access
• Average extra time to cross streets with speeds 35-4o mph is 2.5
minutes
• These assumptions must be refined and tested for the
Miami park system before use in implementation of a
LOS standard and capital planning.
JOYPLArdNIP1G
PR ES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
Ten minute walk to ai/city owned
parks
• % mile radius — % mile radius with barriers — % mile
radius with time cost (+ 2.5 minutes to cross 35-45 mph
streets
BUFFER ANALYSIS
Walkabinty to any park
rser
o Is
ETWORK ANALYST
Land use and walkability to any park
aarnS
Area.. 10-mtuJte walk to any yank
Nonpe0estian roads (45r melt)
Peaesmamtntnen0y roads 135-40 mpn)
P¢pestrtan-M1Knpy Streets OP npn an4 StOseerl
POUNS n00e5
w,.
NETWORK ANALYST WITH 2.5.MINUTE ADDED
COST AT PEDESTRIAN -UNFRIENDLY INTERSECTIONS
alkabalry to any park
p., 3n ..nf gene!, 1.:15 .33-r man
.'Smph
"I,. aae c' covke�ctlesY
Ten minute walk with barriers to city
owned parks of /east one acre in size
• % mile radius — /2 mile radius with barriers — /2 mile
radius with plus 2.5 minutes to cross major streets
withoutbarriers With barriers
air
1
....® --.
e-
o oil ANALYSIS
Ikability to perks at least 1 acre In size
Padre stk. 1 acre n fie
Area oath. 10elmw oath lo past, al teal 1 son n awl
:�: `�7�aild�■aii:
At NAIR.
NETWORK ANALYST
a!Nobility to parks et least 1 acre in sloe
MI -east 1 acre to ace
ores arein te.mmw raw to esrt n most l solo n sots
Ndngsddsmen made i05• ton.
Pedesnlorvonldendy mods 13510 mon,
Pa0H0I0M1}nendtt streets IN m05 sed Ware
Pans sl least 1 aae m we ewxe
Alr
with barriers and
time cost to cross
major streets'
ETWORK ANALYST WITH 2.5•MINUTE ADDED
OST AT PEDESTRIAN -UNFRIENDLY INTERSECTIONS
alkabllity to parks at least 1 acre In size
- Parks al leant I arm n vs -a
Area ashn Alamo. walk to park at bad 'acre n ace
Nnsl-a[-0¢d0A1 made aye mWV
- - PedastnanNnhaen45r15.ease135,0 1245td
Peaestnanhsndy sheets 130 wnn and swweq
25,0100 added cost miles
- Pork, alkast Ixren "...odes
Comparisons —access to all parks and
to parks ofi+ acres
access to allparks
- with barriers
JETWCRK ANALYST
.and use and walkability to any park
- Parks
Area within 1O-metete walk to any park
Nor -pedestrian roads (45+ mph)
-- Peelestnan.unmenary roads(35.40 morn
PMestnan-tnenay streets tad Mph and slower)
Parks nodes
Fre
ells l•t
yi i
access to parks ofi+ acres
- with barriers
NETWORK ANALYST
Walkability to parks at least 1 acre In size
- Parks al least 1 acre in Rixe
Area *Mtn 10-minute wank In park at least 1 ante In else
Nen.pedeetrien mark t4S. mph]
Psdeslrimminfiendly made 115.40 moo
Pedestrian -friendly streets 00 mph and Rowell
Parka et leant 1 ALM le e1Te notes
•
0 025 OS t
access to parks ofi+ acres
- with time cost
NORK ANALYST WITH 2.5-MINUTE ADDED
TAT PEDESTRIAN -UNFRIENDLY INTERSECTIONS
ability to parka alleaet 1 acre In size
-4 ..m..10-..vnweawagran I...num
-
—p0d000! «,Na0tl11aa.l1s<oFPO
ibr sotto de�3130i 0er and
2.5-innne added
Pan. la acrevn no.
Ten minute walk and relationship to
future land use map
access to allparks
- with barriers
All"' MEW
�k r
ETWORK ANALYST
and use and walkability to any park
Parks
= Area within 10-minute walk to any perk
NET Areas
Future land use
1-2familyresidential
Murbramly residential
Commercial
central Business UI5UIcl
Instnubwls $ Public Facades
IA Conservation
_ Industrial
NORTH EAST 0000N LIT OWE
I
TOWN
access to parks ofi+ acres
- with barriers
NETWORK ANALYST
�aeaa.
tit
_gipana1
00.01. war
i
aawat WII
Land use and walkability
to parks at least 1 acre in size
- Fades at least 1 acre in see
Area within 1 O•minute walk Io park at least 1 acre it size
= NET ATMS
Future land use
1-2 Mildly re -oriental
Multifamily rasidenaal
Commercial
Central business District
Irwtnaxnra & Pubic FadnaB
3La Cawewaten
Inbuslnal
WWI
access to parks ofi+ acres
- with time cost
�.k
NETWORK ANALYST WITH 2.5-MINU te0
▪ IL
eta
WITWINAVENA
OST AT PEDESTRIAN.UNFRIENOLY INTERSECTIONS
and use and walkabillly to parks at least 1 acre in sine
- Pans vwzTr woe aria
Area atlro 10-mule aalk b pak s roll t acre n
Q NET kes
Anent Land Use
s2 ramorriseineo
mom. falai
Cornmoroal
MI caws O..,Nana
sewwr a her Fadiwa
Crow*
▪ IwIornal
seers No
ONOIril Men
Ten minute walk to any park and
population density r�acensus data)
ETWORK ANALYST
pulation density and walkability to any park
Parka
Peomacre wanin ia-minute walk of any pafk 12010)
11 .za
0 25
TCC-2ah
-e¢_a
9f15-1130
▪ 113.1-7192
Peoplelacre outside 1 amiaate walk of any part (20101,
oap-.
022
-20.1
� fa-
- 113.1']10.2
NETWORK ANALYST WITH 2.5-MINUTE ADDED
COST AT PEDESTRIANAUNFRIENDLY INTERSEC
Population density and walkability to any park
- Paw
0 naa wmA 19-mo-naa caallc la any park
Peepblacre mulln t sminute walk of any park 12010)
o..0-19
0 1]-02
M 3.107
- 199-555
- 59.d- lift a
- 1205-7192
7aOphlacn within 10minute walk of any park (20101
=OP -Is
u12-62
- 63-191
- lark -SOS
- 50.6- 116.0
0 ass O5 t 15 eaten—1.9-7192
9 09505 15 2
Ten minute walk to 1+ acre park and
population density r�acensus data)
ETWORK ANALYST
opukation density and walkability
o parks at least 1 acre in size
plaque within tom nute walk at a park at least 1 acre In size (2010)
plehcre outside 10eninute walk of park at least 1 acre in size I2010)
00-20
52.4
25-1258
NETWORK ANALYST WRH 2.5-MINUTE ADDED
COST AT PEDESTRIAN -UNFRIENDLY INTERSECTIONS
Population density and walkabllhy
to parka at least 1 acre in alze
p parse
ese�se pat at east sceenes
P eopSsieeros.sqlsi101nirle walk er a pads 91 last 1 asn in size{thlo)
� as
1 r-ax
11116.3-111.7
sus- 595
mow- a
MI Ina . alit
✓ eeprelepe Outside 1Pminule walk of a is as leas [1 acre in s¢e 0010)
P1-
•06
S.-1703
116.a T19.2
4.3
o 51151 15 2N 411
With barriers
Population densit,v
I`'
NETWORK ANALYST
Population density and walkability to any park
I—jArea .nhN,o-mi, t walk anyw
Playgrounds
Legend
Number of playgrounds per city park
_ 0
1
z
3
Non -pedestrian roads (45-, mph)
Pedestrian -unfriendly roads (35-40 mph)
Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower)
PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOS
ARCH TEOTurIE
(jcODY PLANNING
GOODv
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Recommended access LOS measure
i. io minute walk from a park of approximately one acre or
more
2. io minute walk to be measured as % mile from park
3. /2 mile access to be measured by GIS Network Analyst or
similar process
a) From park entrances at the street
b) Network Analyst to adjust for barriers to pedestrian access:
highways, rivers and streams, high-speed traffic streets, walls, e
ARCH TEcTurrIE
GOODYGOODYidNIP1G
PR PLAES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PARKS
AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF
THE MCNP
ARCH TEOTurIE
(jcODY PLANNING
GOODv
PRESERVATION
CLANCY
Change in state requirements for
comprehensive plans
• Concurrency for parks and recreation not required
• Municipalities may retain concurrency requirements, and if
retained:
— Focus is on achieving and maintaining LOS
— Projects to achieve LOS must be identified as funded or unfunded, and
given priority level for funding
ARCH TEcTurrIE
GOODYGOODYidNIP1G
PR PLAES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
Parks , Recreation and Open Space
Element ofthe MCNP — 2010 (existing)
• "Objective PR-i.i: The City shall work to achieve a
medium -term objective of providing a park within one-
half mile of every resident and to achieve a long-term
objective of a park within one -quarter mile of every
resident ."
ARCH TEcTurrIE
GOODYGOODYidNIP1G
PR PLAES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
AIL
Draft Changes to MCNP
• Revise Objective PRi.i:
• The City will provide "a park of approximately one acre in
size within a ten-minute walk of 75% of residents within 5
years and 8o% of residents within ro years."
—Ten minute walk to be measured by a half mile distance
without barriers to pedestrians.
—New benchmark will be set in the following MCNP
• Revise 25% building maximum on parks to take into
account the size of parks and impervious surfaces rather
than building footprint.
ARCHITEC TurIE
cODYPLAIdNIP1G
\�j j PR ES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
Next Steps
• July on website for public comment - first draft MCNP
amendments
• Fall 2012
— Parks Advisory Board
— Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board
— City Commission
ARCH TEcTurrIE
GOODYGOODYidNIP1G
PR PLAES FRGATIGn'
CLANCY
A 21st-Century Vision for Miami's Parks and Open Spaces
Cif bnwndary
Body el water
Riveristrearn
Neighborhood park
Citywide park
Transit limb
■
--� Trarsitnetwork
.. Greerway
.. • Blueway
- Greer street
Palm alk
Urtiar wildsi
nalurecorndor
.
■
•Mt
do,*
•
••ON • ••
as
•
i
•
■to
it ■
✓ +qa. •
▪ 40.
•
f.
ti
DOWNTOWN
"PARK Of PARKS"
COCONUT GROVE
WATERFRONT GREENWAY
•
•♦
♦
•
•