Bishop Davis Land Use & Zoning Study
Contents
-
Purpose & Background
-
Steering Committee Members
-
Existing Conditions
-
Goals & Strategies
-
Proposed Bishop/Davis Zoning Areas
-
Prototypes & Site Sections
-
Right-of-Way Usage
-
Height Maps
-
Community Outreach
-
Supporting Properties
-
Sub-District Zoning Proposal
Next Steps
April – City of Dallas Planning Commission will open the public hearing process.
April/May – City of Dallas will schedule public hearings with the communities in the proposed study areas.
May/June – City of Dallas Planning Commission will debate and vote on accepting the land use plan and the proposed zoning changes.
June – City of Dallas City Council will debate and vote on the land use plan and zoning recommendations passed by the planning commission.
Click here for final-report_final-pdf
Filed under: Proposals












January 16, 2009 • 9:40 pm 2
The plan is not consistent or compatible…
Posted by Darryl Baker:
After looking at the plan in detail, I see some major structural flaws.
1. The majority of the study area is NOT Davis Street.
2. The urban forms proposed are not consistent or compatible with what is here or what most people would envision is traditional and green Oak Cliff.
3. The residential component does not reflect the needs or concerns of current residents and the is NO RESIDENTIAL REPRESENTATIVE on the committee.
4. Based on what has been presented so far, I do not see new neighborhoods of involved and connected residents since most of them will be renters and not “owners”. There is a severe lack of owner-to-renter balance that is being proposed.
5. There is no demonstration that high concentrations of renters form “viable neighborhoods” — especially in Dallas.
6. The consultant has failed to provide any pro forma data that support the levels of density in the proposed plan and he has not shown that there is a viable plan that would encourage these levels of newcomers as renters to Oak Cliff in a timely manner that would support the plan.
7. Given the current and five-year future market, there is no demonstration that these proposals are economically feasible or advisable.
Filed under: Comment