On Tues, Mar 16th Representatives of Miami Beach Tennis Players Association Met with City Staff to Discuss a New Tennis Center Plan

From: Rebecca Boyce [mailto:rboyce@astidavis.com]


Subject: Meeting of MBTPA and City Staff 3/16/10 re: Flamingo Tennis Center

Meeting of MBTPA and City Staff, March 16, 2010.

Attending were: Kevin Smith, Mario Gonzalez-Pola, William Cary, David Berger, Diana Fontini (Aide to Commissioner Gongora) and Andy Plotkin and Rebecca Boyce

Meeting started at about 5:45 and ended about 7:30 p.m.

David Berger opened the meeting with a presentation of the 'Berger' plan, consisting of an option to located the tennis pavilion in an east/west location in the middle of four banks of tennis courts of 5 courts each (total twenty courts). The option would include 5 hard and 15 clay courts.

David Berger explained that the plan is a compromise:

1. The plan would involve infringing on only about 60-75' of the green space north of the park and would in return increase the north/south corridor fulfilling the desire of the FPNA to increase the width of the north/south pedestrian walkway) as an extension of Jefferson Avenue by an additional approx. 50 feet. The prior plan (e.g. Plan ‘L’) had the building located very near the border of the pedestrian sidewalk.

2. The high school would have its desired 5 hard courts; the tennis center would lose 2 clay courts for a net gain to the tennis facility of 3 courts. (Total courts would be 5 hard and 15 clay vs. the existing 17 clay courts and in contrast with the currently approved plan that includes 12 clay courts and 5 hard).

· Rebecca Boyce and David Berger met yesterday morning with Dr. Sidener, Principal of the Miami Beach Senior High School. Dr. Sidener supports the ‘Berger’ plan and will write a letter and attend City meetings to that affect.

William Cary's concerns were:

1. Could a building in that location be architecturally satisfactory to accommodate the needs of tennis players and aesthetically attractive enough (particularly with an entrance facing east that would include a public bathroom at the east side of the building).

· Mr. Berger pointed out that the issue of the location of a public bathroom for benefit of the tot lot users might be an issue that could be considered outside the current discussion and that the construction of the tennis pavilion should probably not hinge on the public bathroom issue, and that there are more than likely other options that could provide access to a public bathroom for the tot lot users.

2. Would the HPB consider it proper use of infringing on the green space by about 60-75 feet to leave an adequate amount of open green space for the intended use of that open green space.

· Mr. Cary was not aware of what the FPNA wants to use that space for – he was under the impression that the neighborhood wanted to use that green space for free activity such as pick-up soccer games.

1. Mr. Cary was informed that the FPNA seems to want to use that space for leisure passive activity only.

2. Mario Gonzalez-Pola informed Mr. Cary that the space was intended to be landscaped with undulation and foliage that would preclude the land use for play activities.


3. Mr. Cary raised the issue of whether having tennis courts in the green space under consideration would be a valid option at all from a historical perspective, in that no tennis courts existed in that area prior to the 1984 construction of the Holtz stadium and its clay courts.

· Mr. Cary was unaware that there were 3 clay courts located at the site of the former Holtz stadium (in the green space under consideration). He though there had only been one court at that location. Those 3 courts were demolished along with the stadium in 2007, leaving the current 17 clay courts (formerly 20 clay courts).

· Mr. Cary was informed that historically, per its 1930 blueprints, there were originally 24 courts located at Flamingo Park – 12 at the current site, and 12 at the site of the football field, therefore raising the question of whether questioning the use of space issue from a historical perspective is relevant.

1. Mr. Berger pointed out that the City has chosen to reduce the historical number of tennis courts at will while increasing use of the park for other venues – one soccer field, two baseball fields, one track and football field, swimming pools, tot lots, bark parks, public vehicle parking, etc. Mr. Berger went on to assert that the historical issue of whether use of space for tennis is valid is largely irrelevant as the City of Miami’s inclination has been to take land originally intended for the sport of tennis and to allocate it elsewhere as the needs of the community have changed.


Kevin Smith stated that the decision of whether or not to use the green space for other than its current designation rests with the HPB, not with the Commission.

· David Berger questioned Mr. Cary whether the HPB would consider a new plan for the space – Mr. Cary responded that the HPB would consider a new plan provided it was not the same as a plan previously submitted.

Mario Gonzalez-Pola brought up some concerns:

1. Logistical issues with the Berger plan would arise with respect to access to the storage/utility room area. Delivery of clay and access to the courts would be most likely possible from an eastern entrance to the building from Meridian Avenue. That would involve a curb carve-out and entry gate from Meridian.

· Currently, clay is brought in by truck along the pedestrian walkway and then loaded onto carts that then bring it into the storage area of the facility.

· Current plan L would deliver clay in the current fashion.

· The Berger plan could also deliver clay in this fashion.

1. Wouldn’t it be better, however, to deliver the clay along Meridian than to bring trucks onto the pedestrian sidewalk?

2. The plans for the new pavilion are nearly complete and that the Berger plan would require creating a new building. He would like to avoid additional delays.

The discussion turned to other options:

1. A Berger plan modification #1 locating the tennis pavilion in an east/west placement along the north edge of the tennis courts between the courts and the green space.

2.  A Berger plan modification #2 locating the tennis pavilion in an east/west placement along the south edge of the tennis courts along 11th Street.


Both plans have merit:

a. Mario Gonzalez-Pola indicated that the existing plans for the new pavilion could be used in large part.

b. Concerns for the tot lot bathroom were raised again regarding distance for a public facility not too near the tot lot.

The meeting ended with Mario Gonzalez-Pola agreeing to confer with Charles Carreno (who will speak with Jorge Gomez) regarding obtaining a go-ahead to request preliminary presentation of plans for Berger Plan Options #1 and #2 – locating the tennis pavilion north of the courts (#1) or South of the courts (#2) for the Neighborhood Committee meeting of March 30, 2010, if possible. If this cannot be done before that meeting, it was agreed that presentation of this item should be deferred to the April 27, 2010 Neighborhood Committee meeting.