Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZAB Reso, Reviewing Agency Ltrs & Supp. DocumentsMiami 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 Ma Yes Ms. Janice Tarbert Yes Ms. Melody L. Torrens Absent Mr. David H. Young Yes FrancisGarcia, 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 n t_ Pnnnf hlotary Name /jam Notary 'r blic -te •f Florida Al • Y 4Jotary Public State of Flbdda Sandra Forges AT My Commission DD859677 f ep trw Expires 92/99/2913 Personally know 1� or Produced I.D. Type and number of I.D. produced / Did take an oath or Did not take an oath t/ My Commission Expires: Rick Scott GOVERNOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY November 30, 2012 The Honorable Tomas Regalado Mayor, City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mayor Regalado: RECEIVED PLANNfNG DEPARTMENT Hunting F. Deutsch 12 DE JVEI 11E l 9 The State Land Planning Agency has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the City of Miami (Amendment No. 12-1ESR), which was received on November 1, 2012. We have reviewed the proposed amendment pursuant to Sections 163.3184(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and identrf ed xto coma ept related,to_7mpo tan 1tate resoufce „and faclliti�s ithin the Agency's authorized scope of review that will be adversely impacted by the amendment if adopted. The City is reminded that pursuant to Section 163.3184(3)(b), F.S., other reviewing agencies have the authority to provide comments directly to the City. If other reviewing agencies provide comments, we recommend the City consider appropriate changes to the amendment based onthose comments. If unresolved, such comments could form the basis for a challenge to the amendment after adoption. The City shouldact by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. Also, please note that Section 163.3184(3)(c)1, F.S., provides that if the second public hearing is not held and the amendment adopted within. 180 days of your receipt of agency comments, the amendment shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by agreement with notice to the state land planning agency and any affected party that provided comment on the amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed the procedures for adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan. amendment. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact Bill Fable, AICP, at (850) 717- 8534, or by email at bill.pabl.e a deo.myflorida.com. Sincerely, James D. Stansbury Regional Planning Administrator IDS/bp Enclosure(s): Procedures for Adoption cc: Francisco Jr, Garcia, Director, City of Miami Planning Department James Murley, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council Florida Department of Economic Opportunity I The Caldwell Building 1 107 E. Madison Street I Tallahassee, FL 132399-4120 866.FLA.2345 j 850.245.7105 j 850.921.3223 Fax ; www.FloridaJobs.orq ( www.twitter.com/FLDEO j www.facebook.com/FLDEO An equal opportunity employer/program. Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. All voice telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persons using TTY/TDD equipment via the Florida Relay Service at 711, SUBMITTAL OF ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR EXPEDITED STATE REVIEW Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit three complete copies of all comprehensive plan materials, of which one complete paper copy and two complete electronic copies on CD ROM in Portable Document Format (PDF) to the State Land Planning Agency and one copy to each entity below that provided timely comments to the local government: the appropriate Regional Planning Council; Water Management District; Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental Protection; Department of State; the appropriate county (municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (county plan amendments only); and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools); and for certain local governments, the appropriate military installation and any other local government or governmental agency that has filed a written request. SUBMITTAL LETTER: Please include the following information in the cover letter transmitting the adopted amendment: State Land Planning Agency identification number for adopted amendment package; Summary description of the adoption package, including any amendments proposed but not adopted; Identify if concurrency has been rescinded and indicate for which public facilities. (Transportation, schools;recreation and open space). Ordinance number and adoption date; Certification that the adopted amendment(s) has been submitted to all parties that provided timely comments to the local government; Name, title, address, telephone, FAX number and e-mail address of local government contact; Letter signed by the chief elected official or the person designated by the local government. Effective: June 2, 2011 Page 1 ADOPTION AMENDMENT PACKAGE: Please include the following information in the amendment package: In the case of text amendments, changes should be showninstrike- through/underline format. Inthe case of future land use map amendments, an adopted future land use map, in color format, clearly depicting the parcel, its future land use designation, and its adopted designation. A copy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate. Note: If the local government is relying on previously submitted data and analysis, no additional data and analysis is required; Copy of the executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan amendment(s); Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for expedited review: The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. List of additional changes made in the adopted amendment that the State Land Planning Agency did not previously review; _ List of findings of the local governing body, if any, that were not included in the ordinance and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed amendment; Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed by the State Land Planning Agency in response to the comment letter from the State Land Planning Agency. Effective: June 2, 2011 Page 2 South Florida Regional Planning Council MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM #IILD DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2012 TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED AND ADOPTED AMENDMENT CONSENT AGENDA Pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, Council review of amendments to local government comprehensive plans is limited to 1) adverse effects on regional resources and facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (S.RPP) and 2) extrajurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the Region. A written report containing an evaluation of these impacts, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, is to be provided to the local government and the State Land Planning Agency within 30 calendar clays of receipt of the amendment. Staff analysis confirms that the proposed and/or adopted amendments identified in the Table below are generally consistent with and supportive of the Goals and Policies of the SRPP, Attached are the separate amendment review forms that will be sent to the local government and State Land Planning Agency. Broward County 12-4ESR Islamorada #12-2ACSC Miami #12-1ESR Miami -Dade County #12-2ESR Miami Shores #12-1ESR Miami Springs #12-2ESR Monroe County #12-3ACSC 6/4/12 Consistent 5/7/12 Inconsistent N/A 7/9/12 Consistent N/A** N/A N/A 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416, State (800) 985-4416 FAX (954) 985-4417, e-mail: sfadmin@sfrpc.com, website: www.sfrpc.com Opa-locka N A 8 9/10/12 #12-1ESR / Inconsistent *If adopted the proposed Council Review Date and Consistency Finding is shown in Column "The State Land Planning Agency determined the amendment would be processed as adopted. Recommendation Find the proposed and adopted plan amendments from the local governments of Broward County, Islarnorada, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Miami Shores, Miami Springs, Monroe County, and Opa- locka generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida. Approve this report for transmittal to the local governments with a copy to the State Land Planning Agency. 2 Attachment 3 FLORIDA REGIONAL COUNCILS ASSOCIATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW FORM 01 South Florida Regional Planning Council Agenda Item and Date: III.D; December 3, 2012, Local Government Amendment Number: City of Miami proposed #12-1ESR. Date Comments due to Local Government: December 1, 2012, Date Mailed. to Local Government and State Land Planning Agency: Prior to December 1, 2012 with final Council Action on December 3, 2012. Pursuant to Section 163,3184, Florida Statutes, Council review of amendments to local government comprehensive plans is limited to adverse effects on regional resources and facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP) and extrajurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the region. A. written report containing an evaluation of these impacts, pursuant to Section 163,3184, Florida Statutes, is to be provided to the local government and the state land planning agency within 30 calendar days of receipt of the amendment. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT The proposed amendment package contains text amendments to the Recreation and Open Space, Capital Improvements, and Future Land Use Elements of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Master Plan. The amendments would revise the Level of Service (LOS) Standard for Parks, Recreation and Open Space based on the City of Miami Parks and Recreation Level of Service Study (2012) that was conducted to assess LOS for parks and concurrency requirements per Policy PR-1.1.4. The major changes to the Recreation and Open Space Element would direct the City to provide a park within a ten-minute walk of every resident; include Regional Parks into the City Park inventory system; revise the LOS for Parks, Recreation and Open Space from 1.3 acres of public park space per 1,000 residents to provide a municipally -owned park within a ten-minute, barrier -free wall< to park entrances for 72% of the city's population using a Geographic Information System pedestrian network analysis, which is to be updated every three years; and limit the amount of building footprint andimpervious parking area surfaces in parks of one (1) acre or more to no more than 25% of the park land area, Minor changes to the Capital Improvements and Future Land Use Element would reflect the new LOS Standards. No adverse effects to regional resources and facilities or extrajurisdictional impacts would result from the map amendments, 1. ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL RESOURCES AND FACILITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY PLAN. Not Applicable. 2. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THE REGION. Not Applicable. The Council requests the local government to please send a copy of the adopted version of the amendment. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT November 26, 2012 Mr, Francisco J. Garcia, Director City of Miami Planning & Zoning Department 444 S,W, 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Dear Mr. Garcia: Subject: City of Miami, Department of Economic Opportunity #12-1ESR Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its review of the proposed amendment package submitted by the City of Miami (City). The amendment package revises the Level of Service Standards for Parks, Recreation and Open Space facilities within the City, There appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District forwards no comments on the proposed amendment package. The District offers its technical assistance to the City and the Department of Economic Opportunity in developing sound, sustainable solutions to meet the City's future water supply needs and to protect the region's water resources. Please forward a copy of adopted amendments to the District. For assistance or additional information, please contact Terry Manning, Policy and Planning Analyst, at (561) 682-6779 or tm an n inc@sfwmd.ciov. Sincerely, Rod A. Braun Director Office of Intergovernmental Programs RAB/tm c: Ray Eubanks, DEO Rachel Kalin, SFRPC Terry Manning, SFWMD Harold Ruck, Miami James Stansbury, DEO Mark Woerner, Miami -Dade County 3301. Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (561) 686-8800 FL VVATS 1-800- 432-2045 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416.4680 • www.sfwmd.gov Florica Department of Environr'iental Protection Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 November 15, 2012 Mr.Harold Ruck Chief Planner, City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Miami 12-1ESR Proposed Expedited Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Ruck: Rick Scott Governor Jennifer Carroll Lt. Governor Herschel T. Vinyard Jr. Secretary The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has reviewed the above -referenced amendment proposal under the procedures of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Department conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities, specifically: air and water pollution; wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; water and wastewater treatment; and, where applicable, the Everglades ecosystem. Based on our :review of the proposed amendment, the Department has found no provision. that requires comment under laws that form the basis of the Department's jurisdiction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment package. Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please call me at (850) 245-2169. Sincerely, Chris Stahl Office of Intergovernmental Programs / cjs www.. dep. state, fl. ti RICK SCOTT GOVERNOR Miami, Florida 33-172-5800 November 16, 2012 Francisco J. Garcia, Director City'of Miarni Planning Departmer P.O, Box 330708 444 SW 2ad Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33130 Florida Department of Transportation 1000 NW 111 Avenue ANANTH PRASAD, P. SECRETARY Subject: Comments for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, City of Miami #12-1ESR Dear Mr, Garcia: The Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, completed a review of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, City of Miami #12-1ESR, The District has reviewed the amendment package per Chapter 163 Florida Statutes and has found no adverse impacts to transportation resources and facilities of state importance. Please contact Ken Jeffries at 305-470-5445 if you have any questions concerning our response. Sincerely, Phil Steinmiller District Planning Manager Cc: Harold Desdunes, PE, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6 Aileen Boucle, AICP, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6 Ray Eubanks, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity www.dot.s .fl.us 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 A ritilysis few t - City Fort Lauderdale Perspecthre Showirig GRASP 'Value In ReIatlrn Ti Target Minimum Scone II� 1 '- J.= �. Kartrieast • EGEND - INSET FRAME Ne ;hth.irbood AcoLs To All Component I o w- target Minimum Score I Above Target Nfinimum Score les:o ice f 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 or playgrounds per city park _ G 1 2 _ 3 Non -pedestrian roads (45. mph) Pedestnarr-untnendly roads (35-40 mph) F'edesman-rriendly streets (30 mph and slower) a= 0 0.25 0 5 75 2 Haag int 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 MI Parks Area within 10-minute walk to any park Non -pedestrian roads (45+ mph) Pedestrian -unfriendly roads (35-40 mph) Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower) 2.5-minute added cost nodes Parks nodes 26 I GOODYCLANCY CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY Land use and walkability to any park Buffer analysis • PT,,,,rP Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at pedestrian -unfriendly intersections Network analyst - Parks nArea within 1O-minute walk to any park NET Areas Future land use 1-2 family residential Multifamily residential Commercial Central Business District Institutions & Public Facilities Conservation Industrial GOODYCLANCY 127 CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STUDY Population density and waikabiiity to any park Suffer analysis Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cost at pedestrian -unfriendly intersections Network analyst - Parks 1-1 Area within 10-minute walk to any park Peaplefacre within 14-minute walk of any park (2010) ❑.0 - 1.6 17 . 6.2 6.3 - 19.7 19.8 - 59.5 kinCil 59.6 - 176.6 - 176.9 - 719.2 Peoplefacre within 10-minute walk of any park (2010) 00-1.6 17-6.2 6.3•te.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 1l2 acre In size nodes - Parks at 1eas1 112 acre in size Area within 10•minute walk to park at least' 1l2 acre in size Non -pedestrian roads 05+ mph, Pedestriartuntriendly roads (35.40 mph) Pedestrian -friendly streets (30 mph and slower} Network analyst—Walkability _ Parks at Mast 112 abre In site Area wknin 10.minute walk to park et leas) 112 acre in Site NET Areas Future Land Use 1-2 family residential Multifamily residential Commercial 71 Central Business Dislncl trlshtulans 8 Public Peciidies Land use and walkability NoParks SI WW1 2 MB in 5620 Area ratan 1e-mrMe oak to park el teas, 1.2 erne n size People/acre within 10-minute Walk of a park at least if! acre kt size 120101 o o • r 3 -5.7 SO- ma god-ead a1.5-2tud - 2101• 110.2 Peoplelacre outside 10-minu a walk of a park at Peril ll2 acre in size 12010) 10 i3 Id 5,7 511 199 200 69d - 66.5 -VOA - 219.1- 719.1 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 feast 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 walkabillty to parks at (east 1 acre in size Buffer analysis Network analyst with 2.5-minute added cast al pedestrian -unfriendly intersections Network analyst 1.1 Parks at least 1 acre in size 7-1 Area within 1O-minute walk to park at least 1 acre in size ! f 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 -��! t-t Parks at leas' r acre rn size 1 Area within TO -minute walk to park at least 1 acre in sae People/acre within 10.minute walk of a park at least 1 acre in size (2010) O.O - 1.8 t7 - 5.2 63 - 19.7 19.6 - 59.5 - 59..6 - 176.8 - 1769-7182 People/acre outside 10-minute walk of a park at least 1 acre in size 12010j 0.0 - 1.6 17 -6.2 6.3 - 19.7 19.8 - 59.5 NI 69.6 - 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 Parks Access ■ c Pants ■ 0 25 Mile 0 50 Mile Trans portation — Highways (55+mph) Roads (40-45mph) Streets (35mph and slower) • MetroRardStat`ons — MetroRail • MetroMoverStations — MetroMover Railroad Mem Oats Source CMS or Mom Miami Example: passive park space and access Passive Parks Access in City Parks with Passive Space • Passive 0,25 Mile Passive 0,50 Mile Transportation — Highways (55*mph) — Roads (40 45mph) Streets (35mph and slower) • MetroRai Stations — MetroRad • MetroMoverStations MetroMover Railroad u-, Adding demographics: relative density of the senior citizen population by census block zo o). Passive Park Level of Service Residents 65-Hacre 47.781249. 218 710743 - 11,394804 - 47 781248 - 3.848791 - 11 394803 - 1 90900 3448790 1 648892 - 1 999899 0 000000 - 11348891 Transportation Highways (55+mph) Roads (40-45mph) Streets (35mph and slower) • MetroRa+lStatjons - Metr©Ra,l • Metr9oMc verStations krietroMover - Rairoad Dais swrw Cs, af Now 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 2.0 8.2 1.5 0.3 0.7 0 3 0.25 0.2 0.3 0_2 0.2 2.2 8.2 2.0 1.0 0.7 0.3 1.0 AVERAGE RATING ac 65 63 15 75 10 39 47 59 79 43 49 8i 25 NORTH EAST COCONUT GROVE Passive Park Level of Service 11111 City_Parks_Passive_Best Crty Parks_Passive_Average Crty_Parks_Passive_Struggring Service Passive Best 0 25 Mile Passrve Best 0 50 Mile 11.1 Passive Average 0.25 Mile Passive Average 0.50 Mile Passive Struggling 0 25 Mile Passive Struggling 0 50 Mile Transportation Highways (55+rnph) Roads (40-45m0) Streets (35mph and slower) • MiblroRailStations Met,oRai l • MelrOMoverStations MetroMover Railroad 1.4001 DAM srturoe CAy or Von 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 r Citybomdary — Traasitlretwark Body ul water •.. Greeeway • ■ . Blueway River/stream • Neighborhood park — Greea street Citywide park Parkwalk O Transit hob Urhao wildsr nature corridor S MAWS •"CENTRAL PARK" - 111 • t 410 • •+ I ♦♦ fir• ♦♦•\>e • • rrrwllu��♦�� • • • •• • • ♦ • Vat'� . \\N\ 404 • •q• COCONUT GROVE WATERFRONT GREFNWAY • ell u* • • S • • w• i DOWNTOWN "PARK LE PARKS" • ' ♦ r ♦! •• • • • • 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 c City boundary Body of water Rieerlstreanr • Neighborhood park "•• Citywide park O Transit hub — Transit network • •, Greenway ■ •. Blneway - Green street Parkwalk Urhan wilds! nature corridor • 1! 4. t, e +• # •ya"�l`1 •• COCONUT GROVE WATERFRONT GREENWAY • ■•aa•a■w■aaI• ••• ii DOWNTOWN "PARK IF PARKS- �• •••• • • • • •• 41 • •