Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal at Nov 15 2023 PZAB MeetingSubmitted Into The Record :.144- 35- 6?C93 Document Reference Provision Violated how? MCNP Objective PR 1.2 Resources should "support the parks, recreation and open space standards expected by the public, as indicated in surveys and other responses to public outreach, for resources and programs that benefit the community." Outdoor gym structure is not a net benefit to the community, and does not meet the health, public safety and open space standards expected by the community. No public outreach was done. MCNP Policy PR-2.1.1 Requires that when recreational facilities are built in park land, development "limit building footprint on any such land, [and] will require that conversion of park land for any other purposes be subject to public procedures, and replace the converted park land with land similar in park, recreation or conservation value in terms of usefulness and location." The proposed development contemplated in the warrant would eliminate the continuity of a grassy open -space field in a city park meant for unstructured play and recreation. No new such area is being proposed to replace the lost field. MCNP Policy PR-2.2.1 "The City will provide appropriate staffing, services, equipment, and maintenance at all parks. Criteria for appropriateness will include park category (Citywide or neighborhood), recreation programs, demand for passive and active spaces and activities, sizes, and facilities." Outdoor gym is not appropriate for a destination park in 2023. There is no demand for this amenity. Additionally, city will not be providing appropriate staffing or resources for cleanliness and maintenance of this equipment MCNP Goal PR-3 Requires park development to "increase public access to all parks, recreation, facilities and open spaces". By creating a gym area that will not be safe for children or teens and does not attract community interest, public access to the park is being decreased. Document Reference Provision Violated how? MCNP Objective PR-3.2.8 Requires that development "enhance the public's visual and physical access to waterfront areas" and also says that "all renovations and improvements to City parks and recreational facilities will be designed to enhance rather than obstruct waterfront views." Self-evident. The sightlines to the waterfront are being obstructed by creating a man-made structure in the middle of the park where one did not exist before. MCNP Goal PR-4 Amenities must "enhance the quality of recreational and educational opportunities for all age groups, persons with disabilities, and other special needs groups." Outdoor gym amenity is age -restricted and not suitably for many park users. MCNP Objective PR-4.1 Asks that park development "continue to improve the quality and diversity of recreational programs offered at destination and community parks, and neighborhood parks where such programs may be offered." By creating an obstruction in an area that was foreseen as open fields in the master plan, the recreational facility being built replaces an open field and all the diverse programs that could be offered there (yoga, unstructured play, team sports, kite - flying, etc) with a single program type. MCNP Policy PR-5.1.2 States priority in park development must be given to "the quality of programs in, and the physical condition of, existing park facilities and to meeting existing deficiencies, before constructing new facilities for parks and recreation" Perhaps the second -most glaring violation of the MNCP policies. While Ferre Park is deficient in terms of facilities when compared to the master plan, the proposed development would construct new and unwanted facilities before addressing those deficiencies. Reference Provision Violated how? MCNP Policy PR-5.2.3, Asks that new development plans "provide opportunities for park user and neighborhood consultation in the planning and design of park •recreation-• improvements and - parks and programs." amenityDocument No consultation with community groups was done before this decided on. MCNP Policy PR-5.3.7 "When parks are being renovated or designed, the City will evaluate the park's safety, consulting with park users, neighborhood residents" No consultation with community groups was done before this amenity was decided on. The proposed amenity is unsafe and MCNP PolicyPR-6.1.2 Plainly states the City should "work to implement"Museum• not • - away from it. The most glaring violation of the MNCP policies. There is simply no way the planning staff considered that the recreational facility allowed by the warrant would help implement the vision in the Museum Park Master Plan. Asks that park development encourage In a park with access to two museums, with amenities that Document Reference Provision Violated how? 2023 Parks Master Plan Page 96 "When developing program plans and strategies, it is useful to consider all the Core program areas and individual program analyses discussed in this Program Assessment. Lifecycle, Age Segment, Classification, and Cost Recovery Goals should all be tracked, and this information, along with the latest demographic trends and community input, should be factors that lead to program decision -making." Self-evident, as no community input was considered before developing the idea that an outdoor gym was needed at this park 2023 Parks Master Plan Page 211 Maps out a logical distribution of gym facilities in the City of Miami Ignores the distribution priorities set forth in the Master Plan, replacing it with the whims of the Bayfront Park Trust leadership Museum Park Master Plan Multiple provisions See prior slides Self-evident, as the inclusion of an outdoor gym area was not only never contemplated in the master plan, but makes the execution of the concepts that were contemplated for this area of the park impossible.