City Commission to Decide on Tennis Courts in Flaming; An Open Letter to the Mayor and Commissioners

Dear Mayor and Commissioners:


The Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association urges that you move forward by finalizing and implementing the Flamingo Park Masterplan and its Tennis Facilities within the 17 court footprint adopted by the City Commission, approved by the Historic Preservation Board, and recommended by the City Manager.

We fully support the very good plan that resulted from over 18 months of meetings, workshops and hearings guided by Wolfberg Alvarez, CIP, Parks and Recreation, your Finance Committee, and the City Commission.

We fully support the Administration’s analysis and recommendation to move forward now within the parameters of the existing adopted masterplan.

We urge you to fashion a reasonable, realistic solution that will enable tennis players – whether seniors, adults, or our students – to play on appropriate surfaces on courts in the City. But tennis facilities in Flamingo Park ought not to overwhelm other aspects of the park – active, passive or aesthetic. That was the point made by Planning Department staff and the Historic Preservation Board in considering the Berger Plan and the 22 court proposals!

We urge that you fashion a solution without compromising the balance of uses and aesthetic value of the Flamingo Park Masterplan.

Sincerely,

Denis Russ
For Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association

Public Hearing before City Commission on Short Term Rental -- Scheduled for Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 5:00 pm

The City Commission has scheduled the Second Reading Public Hearing at 5:00 pm on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 on the Short Term Rental of Apartment Units / Townhomes.

The proposed ordinance precludes future additional operators to rent their properties short term and also sets a criteria to allow certain existing short term rentals to continue.  While there has been great difference of opinion on the issue, our Association has been consistently in support of such a compromise. 

While the final proposed Ordinance and staff recommendation is not yet available, it is generally thought that the proposal will be generally within the parameters previously stated and will be supported by the Association. 

Commission Meeting Scheduled to Discuss Flamingo Park Tennis -- Let them know: Seventeen is ENOUGH

At the City Commission meeting on Wednesday, May 12, 2010, Item R9K is a Discussion of Amending the Flamingo Park Master Plan relative to the Tennis Center -- including the number and composition of the tennis courts, the design of the clubhouse and the total footprint to the new tennis facility.

The Administration memo can be accessed at  http://flamingomb.org/2Q2010/CMB_Flamingo_Tennis_Courts_5-12-2010.pdf

The conclusion and recommendation of the Administration is

A determination of the type and number of courts to be built is needed in order to proceed with this project.  We are at 100% drawings on the 17 courts and have been unable to proceed pending a final decision on the number and type of courts to be built.  A change in the configuration of the tennis center (and tennis center building design) will require new design drawings to be developed and further costs and delays for the implementation of the Master Plan.  The Administration recommends affirming/approving the current Tennis Center design and location and the current footprint of 17 courts.  A final decision on the complement of hard versus clay courts will allow us to proceed with the next steps in the project.

At our meeting on Monday, May 3, 2010 the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association reaffirmed our support for the currently approved configuration / footprint of 17 tennis courts.  Please take a moment to write a note to the Mayor and Commissioners in support of our position and be sure to show up at the Commission meeting -- Seventeen is ENOUGH.

Meeting Notes -- Mon, May 3, 2010, 5:30pm -- What are your Ideas on Outreach and Marketing??

The Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association met on Monday, May 3,2010, 5:30 pm, at The Seymour, 945 Pennsylvania Avenue.


The Agenda followed the assignment of our designated subject areas and leaders.

Preservation and Planning

1. Short Term Rentals in Flamingo – Discussion was led by Jeff Donnelly.

There was extensive discussion of the history and current status of the issues. It was recognized that fundamentally there were strongly held positions on both sides of the matter: Some wanted no restrictions; some wanted no short term rental. A compromise was fashioned based upon a criteria including several factors, i.e., dates of operation, status of violations, tax reporting, etc. In moving forward it is generally recognized that the details of the application of the criteria is really in the hands of administration and Commission.

It was broadly agreed that the current proposal before the Commission is within the compromise agreed to earlier. It was understood that those who seem currently to be excluded would continue to seek protective status. The Association would continue to advance the compromise position.

2. Alton Road Overlay District – The discussion was led by Mark Needle.

There continued to be broad support for the Alton Road Overlay District as advanced by the Planning Department staff and considered by the Planning Board. The Association supported the following propositions:

 No variances should be permitted.

 Maintain the 4 story above-ground height limit with the understanding that underground parking would not be added to the building height.

 Aggregation beyond two lots is conditional, subject to a determination by the Historic Preservation Board that a proposed design is compatible with adjacent structures.

Flamingo Park Masterplan and Improvement Projects


3. Flamingo Park – Tennis Facilities – Discussion led by Wanda Mouzon.

There was extensive discussion of the status of Flamingo Park Masterplan and project implementation, particularly regarding the number and configuration of tennis courts.

Representatives of the Miami Beach Tennis Players Association explained their position of needing to maximize clay courts. The position of the school was described as seeking to play on hard courts at Flamingo Park.

The Association agreed to continue to advance its existing position to limit the number of tennis courts to 17 courts based upon the plan approved by the Commission on Sep 9, 2009 and as subsequently approved by the Historic Preservation Board.

Other Matters were carried over to the next meeting, including

-- Flamingo Neighborhood Street Improvements

-- Crime Prevention and Safety / Pedestrian Safety Project

Outreach and Marketing

Finally, it was agreed to solicit ideas for expanding the base of Association members and participants and to spend some time at our next meeting developing an Outreach Action Plan.

Randall Robinson strikes an ace in his message to the City Commission

From: Randall Robinson
Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Subject: Tennis

Dear Mayor Matti Bower and City Commissioners:

I am excited to be writing to you today because I believe you have the ability, through the item on the Flamingo Park Tennis Courts, to bring lasting improvement to two of the areas of Miami Beach I hold nearest and dearest: Flamingo Park and North Beach.

The holding of USTA Florida Orange Bowl Tennis Tournament between North Shore Tennis Center and Flamingo Park would bring attention and economic benefits to North Beach's growing appeal, while reducing the pressure on the Flamingo Park tennis facility to expand.

I cannot say it better than the Historic Preservation Board "that the adopted plan [for Flamingo Park] fits the need for a balance in varied recreational facilities and green open space respite in a way that respects the original plan for the park." 17 courts is enough! Please support the community in its desire to formalize the precious central, accessible, open space they have fought for for so long. Miami Beach's most densely populated neighborhood needs the open space.

Speaking of 'balance,' I urge you to do everything in your power to make the USTA Junior Orange Bowl Tennis Tournament a citywide event and spread some of South Beach wealth and exposure to North Beach.

Best Wishes,

Randall Robinson
Urbanist

Wanda Mouzon sends the message to City Hall: Diversity of Activites and Design Aesthetic Should Guide

Dear Mayor Bower and Commission,


I just read this interesting article and wish to share it with you. The statement that I found especially relevant to our Park renovation and our cause for the preservation of open green space is this:

" Studies show that depression correlates with the lack of access to green space, a plight of many inner-city residents; the physical isolation of suburbanites; and the immobility enforced on those who cannot drive but have no transportation alternative."

http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/how-urban-planning-can-improve-public-health-11408/

Let's not allow the disease of sprawl to infect our City OR our Neighborhood Park! The ad hoc aggregation of single-use projects and functions in a city OR in a park are contrary to creating communities that are socially diverse, environmentally sensitive and economically sustainable. Just as sprawl consumes land, is unsustainable, favors social inequality and causes traffic problems, allowing Flamingo Park to be largely consumed by single-use activities will do the very same thing!

Thank you for keeping this in mind as the final decisions are made concerning the Park. Please remember as well, the design elements and components that create the most beautiful and most enjoyable parks in the world. (that I shared with you all in an earlier email) These two items should be the key deciding factors.

Wanda Mouzon


How Urban Planning Can Improve Public Health

Miller-McCune Online
News and Options

April 28, 2010

A growing movement looks to change development patterns — as a matter of public health.
By Jonathan Lerner

Atlanta's Broad Street is often cited as an instance of urban planning that worked to created a sense of neighborhood.

(Courtesy of Congress for the New Urbanism)

You hardly need scientific research to pinpoint objectionable aspects of suburban sprawl. The big-box commercial jumble, the lifeless cul-de-sac subdivision, the traffic, the sameness — all are plain to see. Disagreeable qualities of half-empty downtowns and deteriorated city neighborhoods are equally visible. Still, people don’t usually think that the things they find aesthetically objectionable about their neighborhoods might literally be making them sick.

Yet a growing mass of scientific evidence does indicate that how places are designed and built can cause and complicate grave health problems for individuals and whole populations. Depression — the clinical kind, not the aesthetic and cultural malaise that sends people vacationing to, say, Barcelona — is one. Studies show that depression correlates with the lack of access to green space, a plight of many inner-city residents; the physical isolation of suburbanites; and the immobility enforced on those who cannot drive but have no transportation alternative.

As for cars, they don’t just spew pollution and trap people alone for wasted hours. They cause accident injuries and  deaths. Moreover, unwalkable distances and the culture of automobility encourage sedentary habits, contributing to obesity and diabetes and other illnesses. Plowing up farmland for new subdivisions at the metropolitan edge not only diminishes local food supplies and reinforces industrial agriculture — with negative implications for nutrition and resource conservation — it also forces those who must “drive till they qualify” for housing to need a car for almost every household member. Those automobile costs, usually overlooked, have exacerbated soaring rates of foreclosure and suburban poverty, with unhealthful knock-on effects like stress, displacement and homelessness.

Many examples beyond these lead to a conclusion: The crucial questions about how we build focus less on aesthetics — important as that is to our well-being — than on public health, in its broadest sense.

City planning originated, around the turn of the last century, out of concerns over health problems created by filthy slums and industries. Then the fields of public health and planning came uncoupled. Public health took on a mainly biomedical focus on individual genetics, biology and behavior and how clinicians could affect those, and on a narrowly biological approach to epidemiology and evidence. Meanwhile the planning of built environments was hijacked by the car.

Now the fields of city planning and public health — pushed by economic crisis, climate change and green technology, among other factors — are converging again. This month, the Congress for the New Urbanism was set to hold its national convention in Atlanta; it was organized with help from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the theme “New Urbanism: Rx for Healthy Places.”

The convention is hardly the first effort to address the relationships between urban form and health. The World Health Organization’s Healthy Cities movement was initiated in 1988; among other things, it encourages attention to health inequalities, participatory governance and the health considerations of economic and urban development. Some 1,200 European cities and many in Canada and Australia participate.

Back in the U.S., the Local Government Commission, an organization of elected and community leaders, government staff and planners and architects, adopted the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities in 1991. (The principles were named for the Yosemite National Park lodge where they were agreed to). The principles targeted the dysfunctional qualities of sprawl-pattern development; these ideas came to underlie the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements. Meanwhile, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Active Living Research program supports extensive research into the urban form/public health nexus. The CDC’s Healthy Community Design initiative does the same.

Dr. Howard Frumkin, special assistant to the CDC director for climate change and health and co-author of Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities, actually calls the Congress for the New Urbanism “a public health group. By promoting walkability, mixed use, connectivity and civic space within communities, we know more and more, based on emerging evidence, that CNU is promoting public health.”

To anyone who thinks the New Urbanism makes sense, research conclusions on how built environments affect health can seem self-evident. For example, studies have demonstrated that neighborhoods with shops, schools, libraries, workplaces and homes within easy walking distance tend to support higher levels of physical activity and have lower rates of obesity. Public transit use has a similar effect on activity and fatness. Research has indicated that exposure to nature may improve attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, and that people with access to parks exercise more.

Like, duh. “So much research is proving the obvious,” says Ellen Dunham-Jones, associate professor of architecture and urban design at Georgia Tech and co-author of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. “But once you get the numbers, you can hopefully get policy changes.”

Research into the connection between urban life and public health is, however, also creating surprises. As an example, Dunham-Jones points to studies showing that compact communities reduce overall vehicular emissions — but that people who live next to highways and heavily trafficked arterial roads breathe in more emissions. “It may be healthy for the community at large but not for you,” she says.

Pinning down the implications of such research subtleties remains a challenge. Frumkin identifies two still-poorly understood correlatives of built environment: “We have reason to believe that community design and building design have impacts both on mental health and on social capital. Social capital in turn is a very important determinant of overall health.”

The plans for New Urbanism towns sometimes depict circles centered on retail areas, with radii labeled as the distance of a five- or 10-minute walk. But landscape architect Dee Merriam, a CDC community planner, says that even walkability, a seemingly unambiguous value, needs scrutiny. “The basic metric we’ve been using for urban design has been the automobile scale, and the walking scale is a totally different metric,” she says. “What is the distance of a five-minute walk? It’s probably very different for a young athlete than for an elderly woman or someone with toddlers.”

Merriam says more investigation is also needed into green space, despite its known health connections; Dunham-Jones agrees, saying that research has raised complex questions about trade-offs. “Cities would prefer to have one big central park to maintain, than to have a whole lot of little parks. To really get people jogging, you need a big park. But to get little kids to go play, it’s much better to have a lot of little parks,” she says. “We can improve health by doing all sorts of things, but we’re not at the point where we’re maximizing dollar investment.”

Some new efforts to find design solutions for health challenges involve food. Ideas range from turning abandoned space in declining neighborhoods into urban farms — projects like this are already under way in Detroit and elsewhere — and allotting space for community gardens in new developments. There is even a vision of “agriburbia,” where entire neighborhoods are landscaped with orchards and cropland that could feed people in and beyond the development while providing local employment opportunities.

A recent design workshop addressed another piece of the healthy living puzzle: multigenerational or “lifelong” communities, where people can continue to live actively as they grow old. Specialists on aging, developers, planners and architects tried to envision the transformation of parts of metro Atlanta, reiterating the “must-haves” of New Urbanism — transit and walkability, mixed uses, multiple housing types — but describing how such elements could better accommodate the aging with, for example, shorter walking distances and shuttles to transit stops and shopping areas.

So the Congress for the New Urbanism, the CDC and others are taking important steps to address the cause-and-effect relationships of built environment and public health. But for towns and cities to be less damaging to health, those connections must become more universally acknowledged by health professionals, designers, planners and the decision-makers and developers for whom they work. Moreover, for the environment to support better health, public consciousness has to change. Individual choices will have to sustain healthier patterns of development, and political support will be needed, too, because some of the proposed changes in development demand big cultural shifts, particularly around auto use.

Many advocates say what’s needed is a holistic view that considers health, the environment, social relations, political processes and the economy as part of the development process. Jason Corburn, associate professor of city and regional planning at University of California, Berkeley, and author of Toward the Healthy City: People, Places, and the Politics of Urban Planning, insists that architects and planners “need to recognize that they’re part of governance,” since a healthy city should invite open participation in its political processes, planning included. “This is not to say that design is not important,” he says, but that it should be just one piece of thinking relationally about multiple influences upon health.

One tool that helps government officials identify such influences is the health impact assessment, an evaluation
process similar to the environmental impact statement. Such health assessments are a relatively new phenomenon in the U.S., but several dozen have already been conducted, and the CDC is actively promoting their use. While there is a legal basis under environmental protection laws for evaluating health impacts of proposed projects, the officials responsible are often unfamiliar with the HIA concept, or can feel that it deals in types of evidence not traditionally considered valid in making development decisions.

But traditional thinking has produced the sickening built environments most Americans now inhabit. Even  “progressive” ideas won’t necessarily change them. For example, if everybody owned a car that drove 100 miles on a gallon of gas, the country would burn less oil — but sprawl would still be encouraged, and the population would continue to grow fatter, sicker and more isolated. It may be possible to influence the public to choose transit over cars; entrenched attitudes toward tobacco were changed after all. But to change transport habits, America needs to provide transit systems and walkable destinations as practical options, and that’s where the architects and planners come in.

Flamingo Neighborhood Meeting -- Monday, May 3rd, 5:30 pm -- AGENDA

Meeting Notice
Monday, May 3, 2010, 5:30 pm
at The Seymour, 945 Pennsylvania Avenue
Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association
Building and Sustaining Our Quality of Life

Please note that our meeting on Monday will begin at 5:30pm


AGENDA

1. Communications Program -- Tammy Tibbles Young  -- postponed

2. Planning / Zoning / Historic Preservation -- Jeff Donnelly and Mark Needle
Alton Road Overlay District; Short Term Rentals

3. Flamingo Neighborhood Street Improvements -- Judy Robertson
Euclid Avenue; Street Trees

4. Flamingo Park Improvement Program – Wanda Mouzon
Tennis Courts and Facility

5. Safety / Pedestrian Safety Project -- Aaron Sugarman


The Historic Urban Neighborhood in South Beach
from Washington to Alton / from Fifth to Lincoln
All Residents of the Neighborhood are Invited to Attend and Participate


Other Meeting NoticesMon, May 3, 6:30pm, Shane Water Center -- Mayor on the Move
Tues, May 4, 8:30am, Commission Chambers -- Design Review Board
Wed, May 5, 5:30pm, 21st St Recreatn Ctr -- Park & Recreation Facilities Board
Fri, May 7th, 9:00 am, Commission Chambers -- Board of Adjustment

Mon, May 10, 3:30pm, 1755 Meridian Av, #200-- Transportation & Parking Committee
Mon, May 10, 5:30pm, Commission Chambers -- CIP Oversight Committee
Tues, May 11, 9:00am, Commission Chambers -- Historic Preservation Board
Wed, May 12, 9:00am, Commission Chambers -- CMB City Commission Meeting
Thur, May 13, 3:00 pm, TCD Conf Rm 555 17 St -- Special Events Neighborhood Review
Thur, May 13, 6:00pm, MB Conv Ctr, Rm C220 -- Design Workshop - Convention Ctr Masterplan


Denis Russ Direct Line -- 305-672-4782
Miami Beach CDC -- at The Seymour
945 Pennsylvania Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Denis@MiamiBeachCDC.org

City Commission Declines to Decide on Flamingo Tennis Facilities

At its meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, the City Commission was unable to decide upon the configuration of Tennis Courts and Tennis Facilities.  The existing plan calls for 17 clay courts at Flamingo Park, was adopted by the Commission on September 9, 2009, and also approved by the CMB Historic Preservation Board.   Community advocates have called for 5 hard courts at Flamingo or at some other facility. 

The position of the Flamingo Park Association is Seventeen is ENOUGH.  One of the best presentations of this viewpoint was prepared by Steve Mouzon.  His blog may be accessed at ---

http://www.originalgreen.org/OG/Blog/Entries/2010/4/13_Parks_vs._Recreation_Centers.html

The article is also presented as follows:

The Original Green


Parks vs Recreation Centers

Parks are essential elements of vibrant and sustainable neighborhoods, while recreation centers get most of their DNA from super-sizing and sprawl. Both parks and recreation centers foster fitness activities, but there are several differences crucial to the health of the neighborhood and the greenness of the city.

Parks are places where people can enjoy countless outdoor activities. See the patch of grass the people above are sitting on? Earlier that morning, it might have been used for a pick-up softball game. After these people leave, a few kids might kick around a soccer ball. Later in the day, you might see a couple young lovers on a stroll along the shadows at the edge of the field. Most activities are relatively unplanned. Most often, park recreation planning goes something like “hey, let’s go down to the park and see if anyone wants to play ball,” like the guys in the picture below. You don’t have to pay admission or get permission to go to the park.



Recreation centers, other than the fact that they also involve physical activity, are quite the opposite. Recreation centers have extensive facilities for certain organized sports: a swimming pool, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.



Because recreation centers require major investments, they often have to charge admission of some sort to help pay back that investment. You also may need to be a member of the recreation center’s association to gain access. As a result, many of the activities in recreation centers occur behind walls or chain-link fences.



Once, a basketball court or two, a baseball diamond, a couple tennis courts, or even a soccer field were often tucked around the edges of many parks. More recently, however, our penchant for super-sizing everything, plus our deference to major sporting events that might happen only once or twice a year have resulted in the need to expand one or two of everything to dozens of everything. Two tennis courts are now no longer good enough... gotta have a couple dozen in order to possibly host a city-wide tournament at some point in the future. One baseball diamond? Forget it... gotta have eight so you can host a tournament there, too. There are several hidden problems with these super-sized recreation centers:







You can’t walk your dog on the tennis courts. Or in the swimming pool. Or on the basketball court. A tennis-focused recreation center, for example, is only useful to people who play tennis. Because recreation centers focus on single-use recreational uses (like sprawl does with land use in general,) they eliminate fields for dog-walking, tossing a frisbee, pick-up games of whatever you want to play, or just laying in the sun or sitting on the park bench watching the world go by.



Do we need specific-use recreational facilities like tennis courts, swimming pools, etc.? Of course. It’s just a question of proportion.



Here’s one of the problems with proportion: If only a fraction of the population within walking distance of a recreation center play tennis, then building enough tennis courts to hold a major tournament means that most of the people playing on those courts will have to drive to get there. There are several sustainability ramifications here: Most obvious is the fact that you’re burning a lot of gas to get there. But you also have to surround the recreation center with lots of parking for all the cars. Plus, you’re clogging the streets of the neighborhood with traffic. Also, because the recreation center doesn’t attract nearby neighbors for all the general-use stuff like dog-walking, you’re starving the neighborhood streets of pedestrians that would otherwise make the neighborhood more vibrant and safe as I described in this post.



There are a couple rules of thumb distinguishing between parks and recreation centers: First, parks are made up primarily of multi-use fields. This means that less than half of the space in a park should be dedicated to single-use recreational facilities. A much better number is less than one-fourth single use, with the vast majority being multi-use. Many great parks are completely multi-use.







There’s also the Grandstand Rule: If an activity needs a grandstand, it’s probably drawing a crowd from further around than just the neighborhood.

So is there a place for a recreation center? Yes: Out on the highway somewhere. They are large, expensive, sprawl-based facilities, but if your community can’t do without one, then put it where it belongs: where lots of traffic can get to it quickly and easily. But by all means, don’t put it in a neighborhood. It’s not a good neighbor. It needs to keep to itself.



Parks, on the other hand, are necessary parts of a sustainable neighborhood. Everybody should be within a five-minute walk of a park, and smaller playgrounds for kids should be scattered throughout the neighborhood so that every kid is within a two-minute walk of a playground. Town planners such as those at the Congress for the New Urbanism, of which I’m a member, support these park principles.



There is a growing threat to neighborhood parks today: they’re increasingly being eaten up for single-use recreational activities, so in effect, they’re being transformed into recreation centers right under our very noses! My own Flamingo Park in Miami Beach is in grave danger of this fate. Already, so much of the land has been given over to single-use activities that there are only two general-use fields left, and they constitute a ridiculously low percentage of the entire park. Now, the tennis advocates want to take one of those two fields so that they can add to the seventeen tennis courts they have already! Might as well change the name to the Flamingo Rec Center and build a new parking lot on the other remaining field to handle all the extra traffic!



~Steve Mouzon

City Commission to Decide Flamingo Tennis Facilities on Wed, April 14, 2010, sometime after 5pm

The City Commission will decide upon whether to adjust the Flamingo Park Tennis facilities at its meeting on Wed, Apr 14, 2010.  The discussion has been scheduled for sometime after 5pm along with a number of items of importance to the Flamingo neighborhood and other neighborhoods of the City, including consideration of an amendment to short term rental ordinance.  In Sep 2009, the Commission adopted a plan for 17 courts and a new Tennis Facility.  Controversy on whether the courts should be clay or hard surface has now led to a proposal to increase the number of courts.

The Historic Preservation Board at its last meeting approved the 17 court plan with the statement that the adopted plan fits the need for a balance in varied recreational facilities and green open space respite in a way that respects  the original plan for the park.

Our neighbor and member Wanda Mouzon shares with us the following article and thoughts:

Here is a link about Urban Parks and lists some of the great Urban Parks. I have been to all but 3 of them, and I agree that they are all examples of successful parks. The key to this success is in the definition. The larger and more dense the city, the more important it is to provide residents a place to escape into nature and experience trees, grass, flowers and the like. These parks depict the many ways that this "escape" can be realized and is often based on the local climate, topography, etc. The important point is that if we allow Flamingo park to be consumed by single use recreations, this escape to nature is lost and the primary purpose for an urban park is not even achieved!

http://architecture.about.com/od/landscapedesign/tp/cityparks.htm


Great City Parks
Landscape Design in City Parks and Urban Spaces
By Jackie Craven, About.com Guide

As cities grow, it has become important to set aside green space where urban dwellers can enjoy trees, flowers, lakes and rivers, and wildlife. Landscape architects work with urban planners to design city parks that integrate nature into an overall urban plan. Some city parks have zoos and planetariums. Some city parks encompass many acres of forested land. Other city parks resemble town plazas with formal gardens and fountains. Listed here are landmark examples of city park design.

Central Park in New York City1
Central Park in New York City was officially born on July 21, 1853 when the State legislature authorized the City to buy more than 800 acres. The enormous park was designed by America's most famous landscape architect, Frederick Law Olmsted.

Parque Güell in Barcelona, Spain
Spanish architect Antoni Gaudí designed Parque Güell (pronounced par kay gwel) as part of a residential garden community. The entire park is made of stone, ceramic, and natural elements. Today Parque Güell is a public park and a World Heritage monument.

Rock Creek Park in Washington D.C.
Rock Creek Park in Washington D.C. extends 12 miles from the Potomac River to the border of Maryland. With hiking trails, a planetarium, an amphitheater, a dock, and riding stables, Rock Creek Park offers a retreat from city life.

Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California6
Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California is a vast 1,013-acre urban park with extensive gardens, museums, and memorials. Once covered with sand dunes, Golden Gate Park was designed by William Hammond Hall and his successor, John McLaren.

Forest Park in Queens, New York7
Designed by Frederick Olmsted in the 1890s, Forest Park has 538 acres of trees and fields. Forest Park is located in the New York City neighborhood of Queens.

Balboa Park in San Diego, California8
Balboa Park in San Diego, California is sometimes called the "Smithsonian of the West" for the concentration of cultural institutions. Balboa Park encompasses 8 gardens, 15 museums, a theater, and the San Diego Zoo.

Manito Park in Spokane, Washington9
Manito Park in Spokane, Washington has a perennial garden, a rose garden, a conservatory with tropical plants, and a 3-acre formal European garden designed and built in 1913.

City Park in New Orleans10
Spanning about 1300 acres, City Park in New Orleans is one of the biggest urban parks in the USA. A highlight of City Park is the Bestoff Sculpture Garden.

Bryant Park in New York City11
Bryant Park in New York City is modeled after small urban parks in France. Bryant Park is located in mid-town Manhattan.

Cherokee Park in Louisville, Kentucky12
Amenities like A 2.4 mile scenic loop, a fenced dog park, and a bird sanctuary, make Cherokee Park in Louisville, Kentucky one of the most-visited parks in the USA.

To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://architecture.about.com/od/landscapedesign/tp/cityparks.htm

©2010 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.

Letter to Mayor and Commissioners: Seventeen is Enough!

Mayor Matti Bower and
Members of the City Commission
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Re: Flamingo Park Tennis Facilities

Dear Mayor Bower and Commissioners:

The Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association favors the plan for tennis facilities adopted by the City Commission on September 9, 2009 and approved by the Historic Preservation Board at its last meeting.

The adopted plan calls for seventeen tennis courts and a new tennis building facility placed along the central axis across from the Swimming Pool. The plan was a result of well over a year of active professional input by Wolfberg Alvarez and extensive dialogue on what would be best for the whole community. Many, many options were considered and scores of meetings were held at the neighborhood and community level, in the Finance and City wide Projects Committee as well as discussion and action by the City Commission. We think a good result emerged and should be advanced into implementation.

SEVENTEEN IS ENOUGH!

As noted by the testimony and findings at the Historic Preservation Board, there are many uses and functions that are accommodated – even celebrated -- within Flamingo Park. It is important that these be balanced and guided by the history and aesthetic of the park plan. We have been advocates of the park as an important green open space amenity within a very urban, fully developed neighborhood. We certainly recognize the importance of the park as an active recreational venue and understand and support the goal of balancing the many intended uses and functions of the park. Seventeen courts certainly provide adequate tennis facilities for use by residents of the neighborhood and the City.

SEVENTEEN IS ENOUGH!

Flamingo Neighborhood Projects have experience substantial delay in implementation:  Delay in Flamingo stormwater drainage and water/sewage project while Ocean Drive is complete. Delay in Flamingo streetscape improvement projects while Washington Avenue is complete. Delay in the Flamingo Park project while South Point Park is complete.

We have been good neighbors and we have supported the bond issue and Ocean / Washington / SoFi communities, but surely our turn has come. Reopening this project to additional discussion, planning and redesign will result in another delay of work in our neighborhood. If even more courts are needed we would support the City in its expressed intention to fund such additional courts on school property, on the Par Three property, at Polo Park and/or elsewhere. Certainly, we too want what’s very best for our school children, as well.

ALL WE ARE SAYING IS FOR FLAMINGO -- SEVENTEEN IS ENOUGH!

It’s just good business to make a plan and then implement it. It’s just good government to move from the adopted plan into project implementation. Let’s learn a lesson from the National Agenda and embrace a clarion call for the fierce urgency of now in the implementation of projects in Flamingo – Tennis Projects, Park Projects, Stormwater projects, Water and sewage projects and Streetscape projects.

We urge you to move forward in the implementation of the existing adopted plan with seventeen courts at Flamingo Park….now.

Sincerely,

Denis Russ for
Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association.

Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce considers Tennis in Flamingo Park; Takes No Action at this Time

The Board of Director of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce met on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.  Among itesm on a full agenda was Flamingo Tennis.

The discussion -- originally called for 4pm -- got moved eventually to 5pm. At that time Commissioner Ed Tobin presented his views on Tennis, clay courts, location at high school, tennis tournaments, etc.

Denis Russ presented the position of the Flamingo Park N'hood Assn supporting the 9-9-09 adopted plan: Seventeen is Enough! The discussion among the board reflected the positive feelings they have for tennis tournament play. And they would likely be supportive of plans that included major tennis tournament play.

While the Board was certainly respectful of both presentations, their sympathies were with tournament play.  During the discussion they detected the absence of a quorum and took no action. Although they might at some subsequent meeting.

City Commission Neighborhoods Committee moves the decision on Flamingo Tennis Facilities to the Commission

The City of Miami Beach Neighborhood Committee met on April 6, 2010 to consider a revised plan for Tennis Courts and Facility at Flamingo Park. The Committee forwarded all option to the City Commission at their meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 2010


Commissioner Libbin proposed that 5 new hardcourts be built in Polo Park for the High School, thereby allowing the City to proceed with the Flamingo tennis facility as previously approved by the Commission. However, he still held out the possibility of building 18 courts rather than 17 by removing the ficus tree which is currently located at the SW corner of the tennis facility, and he is still open to 2 or 3 of the Flamingo courts being hard courts. He also remains open to consideration of the tennis player proposal for 20 courts, if the 5 courts at Polo Park turn out to be unacceptable to the full Commission.

Both staff and Commissioners stated that any expansion of the tennis center beyond the currently approved proposal for 17 courts would have to go back to the Historic Preservation Board, and that its decisions on this matter are decisive and are not subject to being overturned by the Commission. Commissioner Tobin stated that he found the deliberations of the HP Board quite convincing on this issue of balancing uses at Flamingo Park.

Commissioner Wolfson attended the meeting, although he is not a member of the committee, and expressed strong support for 17 courts at Flamingo. He was not pleased with the Polo Park proposal, because he believes that it would be unlikely to get built, just resulting in further delay of the Flamingo Park project.

Tammy Tibbles and Jack Johnson testified on behalf of the FPNA position. Rebecca Boyce and David Berger testified in support of just 17 courts and expressed support for Commissioner Libbin’s suggestion of courts at Polo Park as a way to resolve the call for hard courts by the High School. Informally, the Tennis Players’ Association continues to advance their 20 court proposal.

There was assertive testimony from high school parents and teachers calling for 5 hard courts in Flamingo Park. Actually the tone of their advocacy seemed to alienate all others and seemed focus only on winning the day rather than reasonably exploring alternative possible solutions. Commissioners seemed put off by their tone.

At the end of the meeting, Commissioners Libbin, Tobin and Exposito voted unanimously to require city staff to come up with a rough estimate of the cost of building 5 new hard courts at Polo Park and to present that to the full Commission at its April 14 meeting. However, they also voted unanimously to require staff to develop an estimate of the cost of requiring Wolfberg Alvarez to develop a new plan for the tennis center based on the tennis player's 20 court proposal.

It appears that the 14 City Commission meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 will be decisive on this issue, and all Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association activists should plan to be present at that meeting if humanly possible.

Tennis Player's Association Representatives Share Plans; Flamingo maintains: Seventeen is Enough

At the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Meeting on Monday, April 5, 2010, Rebecca Boyce and David Berger and members of the Miami Beach Tennis Players Association described their efforts at re-planning and improving the plan for tennis facilities. Their new plan would call for 15 clay courts, 5 hard courts and a total of 20 courts with the tennis building facility located along Eleventh Street.


After considerable discussion it was agreed that FPNA would not consider alternative plans at this time, but would move forward on advocacy of the existing plan with just seventeen courts.

Adopted Position

1. Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association supports the existing plan for Tennis Facilities adopted by the City Commission on September 9, 2009: Seventeen is Enough!

2. FPNA favors clay courts in the Flamingo Park Tennis Center, as better for seniors, adults and young people. [ONLY IF NO FURTHER ADVANCEMENT OF 20 COURTS]

3. FPNA would support City funding of hard courts at the High School, on the Par Three Golf Course, or elsewhere. [ONLY IF NO FURTHER ADVANCEMENT OF 20 COURTS]

4. FPNA requests the creation of temporary working groups to work within the existing plan's footprint to achieve the greatest form and function for each aspect of the park.

City Commission to Decide on Short Term Rentals on Wed, Apr 14, 2010

At the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Meeting on Monday, April 5, 2010 it was reported that the draft Ordinance to be presented to the City Commission at its meeting on Wed, April 14, 2010 is consistent with the position of the Flamingo Neighborhood previously adopted by resolution.

Accordingly there will be consistent advocacy on behalf of adoption of the proposed ordinance by the Association.

A copy of the staff report and recommendation to the commission can be accessed at the following link:

http://flamingomb.org/2Q2010/CMB-short_term_rentals_Memo_4-14-10.pdf

A copy of the ordinance will be posted as it is made available.

Flamingo Streetscape Projects -- Issues Raised on First Phase Implementation -- Abstract from BODR 2002

The First Implementation Section of Flamingo Neighborhood Capital Improvement Projects will address:  Washington Avenue to Meridian Avenue, 7th Street to 9th Street;  + Meridian Avenue to 10th Street, + Penn Plaza – south toward 6th Street. 

Issues Raised:  Detail Design Requirements, Lighting, Euclid and Pennsylvania Avenues, Crosswalk Treatment, Roadway Alternatives, Greater Opportunities, and Issues Outside First Implementation Section.  The full description of these issues can be found at the following link:   POSSIBLE ADVOCACY ISSUES

To further shed light on these issues, please note the following Comments from Basis of Design Report – June 2002.

Each of the proposed above-ground improvement projects . . . include assorted amounts of pedestrian scale street lights, wayfinding signage and historic district markers.

Traffic Calming  . . . Another one of the most requested neighborhood improvements was for more traffic calming. The planning exercise identified several locations in need of traffic calming and several alternatives were studied and proposed. Each of the proposed funded projects have some measure of traffic calming such as the reduction of travel lanes, the reduction of crosswalk lengths, the creation of a "tighter" section through the introduction of street trees, etc.

One traffic calming alternative has been selected to be utilized in locations where there is no other proposed funded project planned. Bump-outs contain each of the above-mentioned traffic calming devices and provide visual and physical "calming" effects when placed at specific intersections in a coordinated pattern (Appendix "B" – Sheet 20).

Euclid Avenue  . . . Euclid Avenue is a heavily traveled North/South vehicular corridor through the Flamingo neighborhood that connects 5th Street to Lincoln Road. The existing section of the Avenue consists of two 17’-0" wide travel lanes with +/- 2’-6" planting strips and 5’-0" sidewalks on either side. The Avenue was identified by residents as being the least pedestrian friendly Avenue in the neighborhood due to the speed of traffic and the lack of shade along the sidewalks.

The proposed improvement is to modify the existing section to match that of the "preferred" Meridian Avenue section. This would require relocating the existing curb & gutter to allow for +/- 7’-6" planting strips with a continuous shade tree canopy. This would also "calm" the traffic by reducing the travel lanes widths to +/- 12’-0". To further improve the pedestrian experience, the existing sidewalks will be widened to +/- 6’-0" where possible (Appendix "B" – Sheet 21).

Pennsylvania Plaza:   This unique site is located at the intersection of 7th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue and Washington Avenue. The existing site is an underutilized, partially paved, partially planted trapezoidal shaped right-of-way bordered by 7th Street and Washington Avenue and on axis with Pennsylvania Avenue with a view of the Sony Building on Lincoln Road. This site provides an opportunity to provide a "pocket park" and serve as a focal point for both the Flamingo and Lummus neighborhoods.

The proposed improvement is to "clean up" the existing site by repairing and replacing the concrete surface and organizing the site planting to formalize and reorient the plaza to its surroundings. A new double row of shade trees will be planted on axis with Pennsylvania Avenue to provide shade from the afternoon sun as well as screen an existing adjacent residential parking lot. Pedestrian plaza scale lighting will be provided to ensure a safe, more pleasant environment and to illuminate a proposed textured map of the City’s Designated Historic Architectural District (Appendix "B" – Sheet 25).

Pennsylvania Avenue:   The two blocks along lower Pennsylvania just north of the proposed Pennsylvania Plaza include several multi-story buildings that "front" Washington Avenue and present a "back" to the low-rise residential buildings across Pennsylvania Avenue.

The proposed improvements include sidewalk repair and new bump-outs with shade trees to mitigate the effect of the scale and character of the larger buildings that front Washington Avenue on the smaller buildings that front Pennsylvania. The shade trees will also protect and define the existing parallel parking lanes (Appendix "B" – Sheet 27).

Issues Arising Outside the First Implementation Area

10th Street:   10th Street is the only uninterrupted street in the Flamingo/Lummus neighborhood that connects Biscayne Bay to the Atlantic Ocean. It is a unique opportunity to create a direct pedestrian link between the two bodies of water.

The proposed improvement is to provide a pedestrian friendly corridor with wide sidewalks and a continuous row of shade trees through the Flamingo/Lummus neighborhood. The street trees will be planted in tree grates (or equivalent) and the sidewalks widened to +/- 7’-6". The street trees will encroach +/- 2’-9" into the parking lanes at +/- 20’-0" centers to help shade and delineate individual parking spaces. The placement of the trees should not reduce the number of existing parking spaces. In order to achieve the proposed street section and "calm" the traffic, the travel lanes will be reduced to 10’-0" each and the parallel parking lanes to 7’-0" wide similar to the streets east of Washington Avenue (Appendix "B" – Sheet 19).

Drexel Avenue  . . . Two of the Flamingo Park neighborhood’s most interesting pedestrian oriented streets/destinations are located only two blocks apart but are unconnected and their proximity remains unknown to many. A pedestrian friendly link between Lincoln Road and Española Way has been a community priority for several years. Several proposals were designed and evaluated each consisting of wider walks, shade trees and ample signage.

The proposed improvement is to connect Lincoln Road and Española Way by way of a median promenade down the center of Drexel Avenue from Lincoln Lane South to 15th Street. The character of the promenade will relate to the existing improvements at Lincoln Road and the soon to be existing improvements at Española Way including the proposed plaza and fountain. An extensive street renovation will include the replacement and relocation of sidewalks, curbs & gutters and travel lanes and the construction of a new +/- 20’-0" wide tree lined walkway with a special pavement treatment and pedestrian scale street lighting. This proposed improvement requires the modification of the existing traffic pattern including restricting left turn movements from Drexel Avenue onto 16th and 15th Streets. **Modified by Commission

Find this information at --
http://flamingomb.org/1Q2010/BODR_Abstract_SouthEast_Section.doc

High School Tennis Players could play on the High School Campus

Aaron Sugarman points out that the high school can build their own courts on their property with the following advantages:

1. Eliminate transportation/safety issues to Flamingo, Polo Park, Normandy, etc..
2. On-site locker rooms, showers, etc.
3. Intramural and "gym class" use of tennis courts
4. Plenty of parking for tournament games
5. Upgrades the high school with its own 5 courts
6. Preserves greenspace and existing tennis footprint at Flamingo Park
7. Preserves clay courts for regular tennis players and MBTPA
8. Uses County/School land for seasonal school use
9. Uses County/School funds for county/school use

He and Tammy Tibbles have collaborated on an analysis of the school property and develped an image that suggests that the Tennis Courts will fit!

See the image through the following link:   Campus Tennis Courts

http://flamingomb.org/1Q2010/TennisCourts_HighSchoolCampus.JPG

Aaron makes the following observation --

Tammy helped me mock-up an aerial photo showing 5 tennis courts at the high school athletic field.  I do not know if the measurements are exactly to scale, but my crude analysis leads me to speculate that 4-5 courts might fit at the north end of the field.

Judy Robertson Appeals to Mayor and Commission -- Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association Says 17 is Enough! -- HPB Agrees and Calls for Holding the Line at the Present Footprint

Dear Mayor and Commissioners:

Surely you are suffering the same fatigue from this issue that we in the Flamingo Park Neighborhood are suffering, albeit absent the outrage.

It pains us to see our elected leaders so blind to the unfairness of this drawn-out process to the residents of this neighborhood (let us be clear about the hardship on Flamingo Park residents to take time during business hours to keep participating in these repeated discussions, while tennis players, the majority of whom reside outside the Neighborhood and are not, as a group, representative of the working class in our City, are much more able to voice their position during mid-day hearings).

It angers this voter to witness an old Commission taking an approval action on one day, and then a newly-elected Commission succumbing to special interest pressure and granting a "do-over" to some late-comer on another day. (who the heck is David Berger, what are his credentials, and what gives him any say in this matter???...)

It infuriates us to discover that City Staff is entertaining outside, unnoticed, discussions like the one transcribed below, a clear miscarriage of the process conducted over A PERIOD OF YEARS that led to last September's approval of the Master Plan Option L, and was upheld by the Historic Preservation Board's approval March 9 of this year.

It is outrageous that the City is asking our Neighborhood to defend, over and over and over again, a position that it supported and adopted last year.

What is most saddening is our perception that City Hall has opted out of its longstanding partnership with this Neighborhood. Years of reasoned and thoughtful dialogue have gone into this relationship, and many wonderful improvements have been accomplished as a result of our combined efforts. Is the Commission willing to put that enduring relationship in jeopardy and risk the resentment of the largest voting block in the City over this issue?

Judy Robertson for the
Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association

William Cary Clarifies Research Findings, Position of HPB, and Role in Any Further Plans

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


Mr. Cary was aware of most of the assertions made by Ms. Boyce and Mr. Berger at the meeting, but disagrees with many of those assertions based on his own research and examination of historic aerial photographs, as well as the original master plan for Flamingo Park, and his personal field observations of on-site of activities that currently occur in the open green space and have occurred there historically, as well as testimony given by Flamingo Park Neighborhood residents at the March 9th HPB meeting that diverse activities in the open green area are ‘good’ and desirable.

Mr. Cary further observed at last night’s meeting that members of the HPB at the March 9th HPB public hearing expressed serious concern about the appropriateness of expanding the density and length of the tennis court area further northward in the southeast quadrant of the park and the adverse impact that this would have upon the adjacent historic residential district, and Mr. Cary stated that this is an ‘appropriateness’ determination that only the Historic Preservation Board can make.

Any new proposal to the HPB would have to convince the Board members otherwise.

Wm Cary
MIAMIBEACH
William H. Cary, Assistant Director
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7550 / Fax: 305-673-7559 / www.miamibeachfl.gov

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.

Flamingo Studying CIP Plans -- City to Enter Into Design/Build Contract for Initial Work Area -- Important Decisions at April 5th Meeting

Judy Robertson convened an ad hoc meeting to discuss CIP Right of Way program.  The City anticipates entering into a design build contract with RicMan.  The Scope of the work would include:

above ground streetscape improvements, storm water drainage and water distribution -- from Washington to Meridian, from 7th Street to 9th Street, extending North on Meridian to 10th Street and South on Washington toward 6th Street.

 It was agreed to develop a list of Potential Advocacy Issues, present those issues to the next Flamingo Meeting on April 5th, and based upon priority selection thereafter move forward to advocacy with the City.   You may access the report of our meeting at the following link --

Possible Advocacy Issues .

Design Element

 Must take into account current existing conditions and uses on a block by block, lot by lot basis including hardscape, landscaping, electric, etc. [ i.e., trees, lighing, auto raming, dumpster ramps and all other conditions].

 Lighting

•  Frequency of Pedestrian Acorn Lights along the streetscape
• Design of Pedestrian Acorn Lights
• Cobra Lighting Plan
• Retention / Replacement of Existing Cobra Lights
• Alternative Designs of new and replacement Cobra Lights

 Euclid Avenue / Pennsylvania Avenue

•  Width of Auto Travel Lanes
• Width of Parking Lanes
• Width of Swale Area (Possibility of Paved Swale Area)
• Width of the Sidewalk Area
• Treatment of areas with Parking Meters – Do not replace meters, rather kiosks
•  Reclamation of Right of Way -- from Private Encroachments

 Do the Plans call for Cross Walk Treatment

•  Advocate Cross Walks at Every Intersection
• Should Cross Walks be painted or textured

 Alternative Roadway Improvements

•  Diagonal Parking
• One Way Streets
• Serpentine Streets
• 4-Way Stop Signs at Every Intersection in Flamingo

 Opportunity for Greater Streetscape Improvements

•  In those areas where all existing lights and trees are to be removed / replaced
• In those areas without streetscape improvements – e.g., Meridian Avenue
• Upon replacement of sidewalks, Opportunities; Impact upon Roots and Trees.

 Issues Arising Outside the First Implementation Area

•  The 60% Drawings for Drexel (from Espanola to Lincoln) call for Las Ramblas
• Reclamation of Tenth Street Private Property Encroachments – Alton to Michigan  but not on other Streets (e.g., 8th or 9th) nor Avenues (e.g., Euclid).