|
1
|
- Current and Long-Range Planning Work Plan 2005/2006
|
|
2
|
- Purpose:
- To brief the Council on the department’s workplan and seek direction on
upcoming efforts.
|
|
3
|
- City Council
- City Plan Commission
- Board of Adjustment
- Special Purpose Sign Committee
- Develop community and neighborhood groups
- Property owners
|
|
4
|
- Assistant Director
- 10 Planners (1 vacancy)
- 5 Administrative
|
|
5
|
- Zoning review and processing through City Plan Commission and City
Council (225 applications)
- Variance, special exception and appeal review processing through Board
of Adjustment (300 requests)
- Special purpose sign district administration (40 cases)
- Council agenda coordination (285 cases)
|
|
6
|
- Development, Landscape, Site Plan Amendments
- Ch 51 Alcoholic Beverage and Restaurant Use Correction
- Shared Access Regulations
- Local Utility Screening
- Home Occupation Ordinance
- Homeless Issues
- SRO’s
- Bazaar Use classification
- Smart Growth Initiatives
- Institutional Uses in Residential Districts
- Live/work units
- Single Family/Duplex Parking in CA
- Board of Adjustment Process
- Cul-de-sac Length and Lots Served
- Drive-thru other than Bank or Restaurant
- SF Design Standards
- MF Design Standards
- Fence and Screening Standards
- New SF District for Zero and Garden Homes
|
|
7
|
- Review of authorized hearing process
- Oak Cliff Gateway
- Mountain Creek – Hensley Field
- PD 571 (I-35 and Trinity)
- Cherrywood at Inwood and Lemmon
|
|
8
|
- Kiosk Program Implementation
- Annexations and ETJ Issues
- Appointed Officials Training Program
|
|
9
|
- City Council
- City Plan Commission
- Landmark Commission
- Property Owners
- Neighborhoods
- Preservation Community
- Development Community
- Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
|
|
10
|
- Assistant Director (interim)
- 16 Planners (7 vacancies)
- 1 Administrative
|
|
11
|
- Individual landmark designations (8)
- Certificates of appropriateness, routine maintenance requests and
demolitions (600)
- 106 reviews (1,100)
- Historic property tax incentives (10)
- Conservation district permits (500)
- Appeals from Landmark Commission to City Planning Commission (10)
|
|
12
|
- Historic Districts (3)
- Conservation Districts (6)
|
|
13
|
- 2 Conservation Districts underway (Edgemont Park and Vickery Place)
- 3 petitions submitted (Lakewood North, Northern Hills, Stevens Park
Estates)
- 8 neighborhoods actively collecting signatures on petitions (North Oak
Lawn, L.O. Daniel, Meadow Wood Estates, Perry Heights, Hillcrest
Estates, Elmwood, Preston Hollow East, Greenway Crest)
- 15 neighborhoods inquiring and organizing to collect petitions)
|
|
14
|
- Complete Forward Dallas Comprehensive Plan
- Complete and implement Neighborhood Overlay Ordinance
- District 10 Plan and Implementation
- Northwest Highway/Bachman Land Use Study and Implementation
- South Dallas and 10th Street Historic District Surveys
- East Kleberg Land Use Study
|
|
15
|
- Trinity River Implementation
- Four Mixed Use form-based zoning districts, including TOD zoning tools
- Urban Design Overlays
- New Parking Standards implementation
|
|
16
|
- University of North Texas Campus Area Plan
- Stemmons Corridor/Medical District/Station Area Plan
- Westmoreland DART Station Area Plan
- Southern Sector Intermodal/Agile Port/Freight-oriented
District/Industrial Sanctuary Strategy
|
|
17
|
- Monroe Shops TOD Plan
- Mockingbird TOD Plan
- Bachman Lake TOD Plan
- Lancaster Corridor Plan
- Cedars/Farmers Market
|
|
18
|
- Entertainment District
- Vickery Meadow Plan
- Asian Trade District
- Arts District update
- MLK Entertainment District
- Policy framework to address Conversion/Stabilization of Ailing
Multifamily
- Proactive infrastructure planning for strategic Greenfield and
redevelopment areas
- School Planning Coordination
- Context Sensitive Design Manual
|
|
19
|
- ADDITIONAL REQUESTS:
- Code Amendments
- Authorized Hearings
- Neighborhood Plans
- Special Studies
|
|
20
|
- Disadvantages:
- Backlog continues to grow
- No prioritization
- Lacks “big picture” view
- Unrealized expectations
|
|
21
|
- Council direction:
- Staff recommends an annual review and approval of the departmental
workplan (similar to the Auditor’s office approach).
|
|
22
|
|