Search (14 results)
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 1
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 1
- Text: ” ®) TEAR cn iw BOORUM ® PEASE “FB — AR” a Sz bs id. & PEASE “RK BOORUM ba NN iv Planer ney July 18, 1969 A meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall, at 2:00 P. M., Friday, July 18, 1969. Committee members present: Rodney Cook, Chairman Q. V. Williamson Jack Summers John Flanigen Committee members absent: Gregory Griggs Charlie Leftwich George Cotsakis Hugh Pierce Edwin Sterne, ) Housing Authority Frank Etheridge ) The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: 1. A. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION PETITION BY JULIUS SCHNEIDER MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC., COLUMBUS UNION CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST AND EUGENE A, ANDERSON. Charles Watkins, First National Bank Building, was present representing the three property owners involved. Two other persons were present in support of the annexation. There was no opposition. The staff presented a detailed report to each committee member present relative to this petition, certifying that it meets all requirements set forth by the State Enabling Legislation and applicable city ordinances, and recommended its approval. The property in question lies in Land Lot 29 of the I4th District of Fulton, formerly Fayette County, and involves 69.1 acres; of the total acreage, 46.6 acres is zoned A-1 apartments; I7 acres is zoned R-3 and a smaller C-1 tract lies in Fulton County. Mr. Gladin explained the city would be annexing this property under the zoning most closely related to the existing county zoning, which in this instance is practically identical to the county's. All city services to the area are available, or can be provided upon request (letters to this effect from the appropriate city departments are included in the report). In answer to questioning by Mr. Summers, Mr. Watkins stated the owners wish to come into the city for the services that are available and to make their land more marketable for housing and sale of apartments. Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Two The committee expressed its concern about a tract immediately to the north lying in unincorporated Fulton County which, upon approval of this annexation petition, would become landlocked and asked if it could be included along with this petition. Mr. Gladin explained this is one type of problem you incur in the petition route and it could not be legally included, but could be brought up at the next filing period in May, 1970. The committee felt this would be highly desirable and should be encouraged ai that time, Mr. Eugene Anderson, part-owner of the tract which would become landlocked, appeared speaking for himself and Mrs. Schneider, also part-owner, stating they would be willing to have their property annexed; that, however, he could not officially speak for Mr. Steinmetz, another owner, but Mr. Steinmetz had told him he would be willing to be annexed. In answer to questioning by Mr. Cook, Mr. Anderson stated the C-1 zoning approved by the county was done so as part of an overall Medical Complex proposal which subsequently fell through much to their regret and loss, and there is no commercial development in the area presently. There being no further discussion, the matter was referred to Executive Session. In Executive Session, upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee. KRREKEEEEEE 1. B. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION PETITION BY JOHN E. LIVADITIS - GARMON ROAD. There was no opposition present. A detailed report relative to this petition certifying its compliance with State Enabling Legislation and applicable city ordinances was presented to each committee member present and the staff recommended approval. The property lies in Land Lot I77 of the I7th District and is approximately 2 acres in size. Mr. Gladin stated the property is presently zoned R-1 (Residential) and would be annexed as R-1; that all services are available, or can be provided upon request (letfersto this effect are a part of the report). Mr. Livaditis was present along with his representative, Robert Smith. Mr. Smith acknowledged they were aware of the fact there are no existing sewers to the property and the present plans are to use two septic tanks, but they are hopeful of working out an easement agreement with the adjoining property owner to connect with an outfall a %, / ' Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Three sewer 150 feet from Mr. Livaditis' property line. Mr. Cook called to Mr. Smith's attention a letter in the report from the Public Works Department stating that sanitary sewer is not available for the property to be annexed on Garmon Road and would not be available until approved by the property owners along this section. Mr. Smith stated they realized securing the easement would be difficult but were still hopeful it could be worked out, and in the meantime, the septic tanks are an alternative. Mr. Smith stated Mr. Livaditis is ready to begin bricking the house and doesn't have any water; since thereis a charge to tap onto the water for property outside the city, he wanted to know if final approval of this petition by the Board of Aldermen would be expedited to relieve him from having to pay this charge. A check with the Water Department indicated that if this committee approves the annexation petition today, they would not charge Mr. Livaditis to tap onto the water prior to final approval of the petition. Messrs. Smith and Livaditis expressed their appreciation to the committee. The matter was then referred to Executive Session, and upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee. KEKKKEKEKKE o 2. STATUS OF RECERTIFICATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM Pierce Mahony explained that the Planning staff is progressing rapidly toward completion of work for recertification of the Workable Program for a two-year period, rather than one year which has been approved in the past. He stated there have been considerable revisions in the requirements of the program for recertification, making it much more difficult to put together and committing us to a much more solid approach. He commented briefly on some of the new aspects of the program, such as the housing and relocation element and the department's anticipated participation in the HUD 70! planning program. He explained a federal requirement for participation in the 70I program is that one portion of the planning studies be a housing study; further, the personnel situation throughout the city, especially in the technical and professional level, is getting serious and the Planning Department hopes to solve some of its problems by hiring temporary personnel on 70! planning programs who could moveinto permanent planning vacancies as they occur. He went on to say these new requirements, particularly housing planning for low and moderate income families, points up the critical need for the Urban Information System Minutes | Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Four | for the city, because of the various and sundry data which can be obtained from it on immediate notice, and he urged the committee's support in implementation of this system. He presented a draft of "Workable Program Five-Year Goals" and stated the city will be committed to these goals and emphasized the need to begin considering an advance two-year budget. Considerable discussion then ensued about the status of the Mayor's Housing Program. Colonel Jones of the Housing Resources Committee stated that the city is about halfway through the initial five-year program. He cited figures for the two and one-half year period, stating we have under construction and completed approximately 8,000 units, and we have in the pipeline more units than the original goal of 17,000. He stated, however, a lot of the units in planning are being lost because we do not have properly zoned locations to put them on. Mr. Cook asked on what basis units are classified as being in the "planning stage". Mr. Jones explained they are put in this category when a rezoning application is filed and a proposal is submitted; if the zoning is denied, they are taken out; that more zonings for this purpose have been denied than approved. He cited the loss of 21,000 units through recent rezoning denials. Mr. Cook stated this doesn't concur with figures he obtained from the Planning Department. Mr. Gladin explained the staff analysis referred to was done about a year ago and at that time the zoning approvals were running about 80-90%; that the staff is in the process of preparing an up-to-date analysis of the housing program. Mr. Cook asked for and was furnished with a copy of Mr. Jones' latest housing report. After a cursory examination, Mr. Cook expressed concem about the discrepancy in figures contained in the report and those stated orally by Colonel Jones. Being a member of the Zoning Committee, he stated he was tired of charges being made that the city's housing goals were not being met because of rezoning denials as he did not believe this to be the case, and he finds it very confusing and frustating to be unable to justify his position when he is unable to secure reliable statistics; that he would like statistics differentiating what percentage of the 8,000 units quoted by Colonel Jones is actually low and moderate income housing. Mr. Kennedy stated he had very strong reservations that this percentage was quite low, that as stated by Mr. Gladin, the Planning staff is in the process of analyzing the Housing Program for the last two and one-half years and he felt this report would produce the type statistics Mr. Cook is looking for. ) BOORUM & PEASE “ Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Five Mr. Gladin stated he realized the problems in working with the housing figures, and again this points up the need for good management procedures, which need to be standardized, and the Urban Information System for quick delivery of these statistics over a period of time. He also commented on the need for more emphasis on the city's total housing needs. Mr. Cook directed the staff to prepare a letter for his signature to Colonel Jones requesting clarification on the following: 1. Is the actual number of units under construction and completed for the last two and one-half years the 8,000 oral figure given by Colonel Jones, or the 12,000 figure in his report of May 15, 1969; 2. What percentage of this figure is for low and moderate income housing; 3. The method used for determining what is low and moderate income housing, the name of the projects and the number of units in each project. He stated that in looking at the May I5 report and oral figures by Colonel Jones, it would appear we are moving backwards and this prompted Mr. Flanigen to remark he had no doubt but what the program is "slipping". With additional reference to the housing question, Mr. Mahony stated that at the last meeting of the Housing Resources Committee, the Legal Panel discussed the need for establishing a Housing Planning Agency within the city government to relieve the Housing Resources Committee members who are presently spending an inordinate amount of time doing surveys and research in the field of housing. He stated the logical place for such a housing function would be in the Planning Department, particularly in light of the 7Ol planning program; that the staff would like the committee's support; and he presented a letter for Mr. Cook's signature as Chairman of the Planning and Development Committee supporting the department's position. Colonel Jones stated that the Legal Panel has been studying this matter, but they have not submitted a position report to Mr. Alexander and he does not know what type of report will be submitted if and when if is, and he felt any action by this committee on this matter would be premature at this time. Mr. Gladin stated the letter does not request any final action; that it merely makes a recommendation for the Housing Resources Committee to consider in making their recommendation. Colonel Jones stated he still felt the letter was in anticipation of something and premature. er Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Six Mr. Mahony commented that the Planning Department feels very strongly about this and consequently wanted to take a positive approach, rather than waiting for a proposal from the Housing Resources Committee and reacting. The committee unanimously approved the letter and Mr. Cook appended his signature thereto. Referring back to the status report on the Workable Program, Mr. Gladin stated the staff hopes to present the final draft to this committee July 28, 1969 for review, and will request committee approval at a meeting on August |, 1969; it will then be forwarded to the next meeting of the Board of Aldermen where, hopefully, it will be finally approved and hand delivered that same afternoon to HUD. This will give HUD ample review time prior to the October expiration date for last year's recertification. REEKEKKEEEE Mr. Mahony explained the City of Mountain View, Clayton County and the City of Atlanta have common problems in the Plunkettown area which require joint study and action to solve. The following Resolution to initiate such action was approved: - A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Planning Department is presently studying the Plunkettown neighborhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighborhood Development Program, and WHEREAS, the Plunkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City Limits into the City of Mountain View and Clayton County, and WHEREAS, Clayton County, Mountain View, and the City of Atlanta face common problems in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta that Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. requests the Board of Commissioners of Clayton County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Mountain View to participate in a joint study designed to slove the problems of the Plunkettown neighborhood. The committee heard from Charles Stinson, President of the Federation of Southwest Clubs, a report on the first phase of the Southwest Community Study, being done for the Federation by graduate planning students from Georgia Tech. A copy of the first study phase was presented to each committee member present for information and no action was requested. REEKKEREEE R” ® 2fE i BOORUM & PEASE “ R” ®) EASE “Note x Pt Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Seven Mr. Gladin informed the committee members that the Sign Ordinance had been approved by the Zoning Committee and he anticipated submitting it to the full Board of Aldermen for approval Monday, July 21, 1969, and would like this committee's support at the Monday meeting. He further informed them we will be working toward recruiting personnel to implement the ordinance, that he has requested by letter that Mr. William H. Wofford, Building Official, and the Personnel Board prepare a joint study on such personnel needs. RREKEREKER Mr. Gladin stated he had received a communication from the BOND (Bass Organization for Neighborhood Development) Community requesting to appear before the committee to discuss being included in the 1970 NDP program; that he felt they should have this opportunity and he would like authorization to notify them to appear at the next meeting of the committee. In answer to Mr. Flanigen, Mr. Gladin stated the freeway ramp question in the BOND area had not been resolved, but there are continuing discussions with Ray Nixon and the State Highway Department on the matter and he felt it could be worked out. The committee concurred for the BOND group to appear at the next meeting. RREKEEEEEEE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. KRREKKREERESE Approved: Respectfully submitted: Rodney /Gook, Chairman Joanne Parks, Secretary
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 8
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 8
- Text: ’ FUNDING OF URBAN RENEWAL AND NETGHBORROOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS APRIL 29, 1969° \ ' The City of Atlanta is presently engaged in eight Urban Renewal Projects and five Neighborhood Development Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in planning only). These projects are funded jointly by the City and the Federal Government. The funding scdawenest calls for a contribution . equal to one»third of the Net Project costs from the City with the re+ maining two»thirds being supplied by the Federal Government. The City's share may be in the form of cash contributions or non-cash grants-in-aid, these grants-in-aid are demolition and removal work, project or site improvements, public and supporting facilities, and others such as eredits from construction of public housings. At present, the eight Urban Renewal projects presently in execution are summarized as follows: 4 Net Project Costs $60 million! Local Non-Cash Grants-In-Aid 20 million : Local Cash and Real Estate Credits 1 million This points very emphatically to the fact that our present Urban Renewal program has been financed almost completely through the use of non-cash grants-in-aid, The results of this policy can be seen in the long delays encountered os the closing out of these projects, some of which date back into the 1950's, The cash used for these projects has come from money set aside in the 1957 and 1963 General Obligation Bond Issues and totaling $3.2 million, There« fore, we have, at present, $2.1 million of unencumbered funds available from this source, Of this amount, $1.7 is presently expected to be needed 2 . lof this amount $4.5 million or 74% has been incurred as interest charges, to meet the cash requirements of the Beaford-Pine Neighborhood Development Program Project in 1979. The non-cash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of total expenditures totaling about $29 million and have some of the following forms. School : $11.4 million Section 1072 & Special Credits 1.3 million Streets 4.7 million Parks «7 million Water Improvement «6 million Sewer Improvements 66 million Special Facilities «3 million Traffic Improvements . el million Other e3 million $20.0 million Some of the problems encountered because of the use of non-cash contribu- tions (94.8% of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban Renewal activities are: ie Butler Street A. Middle School with a total estimated cost of $2 million has been delaying the close of this project, but should be under contract by August of 1969, —_ 2. Rawson ~ Washington og he. fetghbostond Facilities, Building with a total estimated cost of $1 million of which $150,0CO will be an eligible project cost. This project is at present unfunded with the only possible source of funds being through Model Cities, It is presently plannedfor the City to purchase the land from the Housing Authority and hold this until a determination is made Iroedits resultine from the construction of Public Housing. regarding the use of Model Cities funds, B. Park with an estimated cost of $240,000 of which $33,000 will be eligible costs, No source of cancine is presently ascertainable, 3. Rockdale A. Elementary School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and . expected to be under contract by August of 1969, ; B. An expansion of the existing elementary school with an esti- mated cost of $700,000 and at present unfunded. C. Park with an estimated cost of $75,000 which is also presently unfunded. 4. Thomasville 5 A. Elementary school with $1.5 million estimated cost and ex« pected to be under contract by August, 1969. Be park with estimated cost of $126,000 which is at present unfunded. | Cc, Tw primary schools with $1 million estimated total cost and a middle school with an estimated cost of $2 million are un- funded and no source is seen until at least June of 1971. The advent of the Neighborhood Development Program has brought to an end the period during which the City could pledge an improvement and then wait ert funding became available before completing it. Under the terms of an NDP agreement, the City must have completed or have under contract all non-cash grants-in-aid pledged for that particular year or contribute the required amount in cash. Our present MDP projects were funded for 1969 from already existing improve~ ments or supporting facilities amounting to a total City committment of $10.8 million. This supports a total Neighborhood Development Program of $32.4 million. The 1970 progrem is expected to have the following City requirements; Cash | Non-Cash Bedford-Pine $1.7 million $ .2 million fodel Cities 1.5 million 1.3 million Edgewood . el willion «2 million : Vine City _2k million o2 million $3.4 million $1.9 million This would support a total program of $19.9 million and would increase greatly if the Edgewood and Vine City projects were expanded to a signi- ficant level of activity. This means that to support the fairly light level of activity projected for 1970, the City will need approximately $1.7 willion. If any new areas are added or the level of activity increased this would increase from $2.5 to $4.0 million for 1970, The possible sources of funds include; 1. General Funds ~ This murce is already under considerable pressure and — no relief is presently anvierpaded, 2, The G. 0. Bonds already approved, for issue in the ananne of $4 million annually. The financing of Neighborhood Development Programs finm these bonds wevld requixe the use of almost this entire amount every year and could very likely become embroiled in legal tangles, 3, Another possibility is a special Neighborheod Development Progran General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 + $20 million in 1970 with another - issue 4 or 5 years later or the obtaining of voter approval to issue G. 0. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 million per year, Fh This appreach is naturally subject to ‘ims of the public, and, there+ fore, of uncertain dependability. 4, Pex thaps the best mathod would be through the obtaining of a new revenue ales tax or a payroll tax of which a 0 source, by state approval, such as a certain portion would be earmarked for Neighborhoal Development Programs, Of course in the pursuit of a new source of revenue we are at loggerheads with the state and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory revenue source, Regardless of the method you favor in obtaining the neeced funds, it is QD jiperative, if the City of Atlanta is to maintain its progressive image anc to continue its diamatic development, that a source be found; because the continuation of a sig gnificent program of restoration and rehablitation of the central core of Atlanta is a vital element in the continued evolution of our City.
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 4
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 4
- Text: \\ \ CITY OF' ATLANTA May 29, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30308 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director Mr. Johnny Robinson Community Development Coordinator Mayor's Office City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Johnny: Certification of Atlanta's Workable Program for Community Improvement expires on October |, 1969. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that we make our submission by August |, 60 days in advance of the expiration date. Last year, we made our submission on time; we would like to repeat the performance this year. We are enclosing a copy of the néwly revised Workable Program for Community Improvement HUD Handbook along with those portions of the Workable Program that pertain to your operation. Please note the changed requirements in the HUD Handbook. All Workable Program certifications have been extended over a two-year period. The City of Atlanta will not submit another Workable Program until 1971. Therefore, we ask that you make sure you maintain the required data pertaining to your department on a two-year basis. The reporting period for the June 3l Workable Program for this year is March 31, 1968 to June |, 1969, The Planning Department will be glad to assist you in any way possible to get the work done on time. At least a month's time is needed by us for assembling exhibits, typing and reproducing and generally tying up loose ends. Therefore, we must have the sections back by June 1I6. Sincerely yours, OM Collier B. Gladin Planning Director CBG/bls Enclosure
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 10
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 10
- Text: AGENDA Meeting: Department of Housing & Urban Development Planning Department Atlanta Housing Authority Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings Held: Office of Collier Gladin 10:30-11:00 a.m., March 12, 1968 Chairman: Helen Meyers Discussion Topics: 1. Evaluation of Atlanta Survey techniques and procedures by Department of Housing & Urban Development and Atlanta _ Housing Authority. Use of Atlanta's survey information by Department of Housing & Urban Development and by the City for Federal program planning. : Development and adoption of a uniform set of standards and definitions for structural evaluation and rating. Organizing a committee or other mechanism from the Department of Housing & Urban Development, Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta Planning Department, Housing Code Division to work on the above.
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 6
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 6
- Text: HUD-1081 (11-68) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENT. The Workable Program requires clear evidence that the community provides and continues to expand, opportunities for citizens, especially those who are poor and members of minority groups, to participate in all phases of the related HUD-assisted renewal and housing pro- grams. The particular organizational means for community involvement is left to the discre- tion of each community, but the community must demonstrate in its Workable Program submis- sion that it provides clear and direct access to decision making, relevant and timely informa- tion, and necessary technical assistance to participating groups and individuals in programs covered. : 1. (a) Identify the groups participating in the HUD-assisted programs related to the Workable Program and in the community’s program to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. (b) Describe the type of groups (e.g. civic, neighborhood, housing) that are participating, and the constit- uency represented (e.g. poor, middle-class, Negro, public housing residents). = [2-. HUD-1081 (11-68) (c) Describe what particular HUD-assisted programs and projects such groups are participating in, (d) Describe efforts to achieve coordination among citizen participation structures located in the same area or having similar program interests. ‘ - 19 - HUD-1081 (11-68) 2. Describe the arrangements or working relationships set up to provide groups and individuals opportunities for access to and participation in decision-making in the applicable HUD-assisted programs. 3. Describe the steps which have been taken in regard to the applicable programs to provide participating groups and individuals sufficient information and technical assistance. 4. Describe the nature and range of issues relating to the applicable programs with which participating groups and individuals have dealt; the recommendations subsequently made; and the specific results and accom- plishments of the participation. - 20 - U. 5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1968 O - 327-649
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Complete Folder
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Complete Folder
- Text: .------ - - - - - - - - - - - -- --
-
--
-
---
.July 18, 1969
(',.__
A meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held in Committee Room
2, Second Floor, City Hall, at 2 :00 P. M., Friday, July 18, 1969.
@
......
Committee members present:
~
Rodney Cook, Chairman
Q. V. Williamson
Jack Summers
John Flanigen
~
~
......~~
w
(/)
<
w
Committee members absent:
c·
Gregory Griggs
Char.li e Leftwich
George Cotsakis
Hugh Pierce
....!..
c~:
2:
J
cc
0
0
co
Edwin Sterne,
)
Frank Etheridge )
Housing Authority
The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered:
1
I •
A
r-'\ •
PUBLIC HEARI NG - ANN EXA. TIOI'-! PETITION BY JULIUS SCHNEIDER MEDICAL
FOUNDATION, INC., COLUMBUS UNION CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST AND EUGENE A. ANDERSON.
Charl es Watkins, First National Bank Building, was present representing the three property
owners involved. Two other persons were prese nt in support of the annexation. There
wa s no opp:isition.
@
.,..
""
~
·O
"-111
......
w
,£,,,
(/)
(
'-..._.,
tat'(
LiJ
The staff presented a deta il ed report to each comm ittee member present re lati ve to this
petition , certifying that it meets a ll requirements set forth by the State Enabling
Legi slation and applicab le c ity ordinances , and recommended its approve!. The property
in question lies in Land Lot 29 of the 14th District of Fulton, former ly Fayette County,
and involves 69. l acres; of the total acrea ge, 46.6 acres is zoned A- 1 apartments; 17
acres is zoned R-3 and a sma ll er C-1 tract li es in Fulton County. Mr. G ladin e·xplained
the c ity wou ld be annexing this property under the zoning most c lose ly related to the
ex isting county z oning, which in this instance is practi ca ll y ide ntical to the county' s.
All city services to the area are available, or can be provided upon req uest (letters to
this effe ct from the appropriate city departments are included in the report) .
In answer to que stioning by Mr. Summer~, Mr. Watkins stated the owners wish to come
into the c ity for the services that are ava il ab le and to make their land more marketable
for housing and sa le of apmtments.
!l.
c::i-<
, . .,
"'-:::
1:!. ...
J
Q:'.
0
0
u
-
-'
�Minutes
· Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Two
'·...__ ...
I
The committee expressed its concern about a tract immediately to the north lying in
unincorporated . Fulton County which, upon approval of this annexation petition, would
become landlocked and asked if it could be included along with this petition.
Mr. Gladin explained this is one type of problem you incur in the petition route and
it could not be legally included, but could be brought up at the next filing period in
May, 1970.
The committee felt this would be highly desirable and should be encouraged at that
time.
Mr. Eugene Anderson, part-owner of the tract which would become
appeared speaking for himself and Mrs. Schneider, also part-owner,
be willing to have their property annexed; that, however, he could
for Mr. Steinmetz, another owner, but Mr. Steinmetz had told him
to be annexed.
landlocked,
stating they would
not officially speak
he would be willing
In answer to questioning by Mr. Cook, Mr. Anderson stated the C-1 zoning approved
by the · county was done so as part of an overall Medical Complex proposal which
subsequently fel I_ through much to their regret and loss, and there is no commercial
development in the area presently.
There being no further discussion, the_ matter was referred to Executive Session.
In Executive Session, upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee.
1 . B. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION PETITION BY JOHN E. LIVADITIS GARMON ROAD.
There was no opposition present. A detailed report relative to this petition certifying
its compliance with State Enabling Le gislation and app licabl e city ordinances was presented
to ea ch committee member pre sent and the staff recommended approva l . The property
li es in Land Lot 177 of the 17th District and is approximately 2 acres in si z e. Mr.
G ladi n stated the property is presently zoned R- 1 (Reside ntial) a nd would be annexed
as R-1; that all services are available, or can be provided upon request (lettersto this
e ffect are a part of the report).
(-
,,
Mr. Li vaditis was present a long with his representative, Robert Smith . Mr . Smith
acknowledged the y were aware of the fact there a re no existing sewers to the property
and . the present plans are to use two septic tanks, but the y are hopeful of working out
an easement agreement with the adjoi ning property owner to connect with an outfall
�Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Three
sewer 150 feet from Mr. Livaditis 1 property line.
Mr. Cook called to Mr. Smith's attention a letter in the report from the Public Works
Department stating that sanitary sewer is not available for the property to be annexed
on Garmon Road and would not be available until approved by the property owners
along this section.
Mr. Smith stated they realized securing the easement would be difficult but were still
hopeful it could be worked out, and in the meantime, the septic tanks are an alternative.
Mr. Smith stated Mr. Livaditis is ready to begin bricking the house and doesn't have
any water; since there is a charge to tap onto the water fo r property outside the city, he
wanted to know if final approval of this petition by the Board of Aldermen would be
expedited to relieve him from having to pay this charge.
A check with the Water De partment indicated that if this committee approves the annexation
peti t ion today, they would not charge Mr. Livaditis to tap onto the water prior to final
approval of the petition. Messrs. Smith and Livaditis expressed their appreciation to the
committee.
The matter was then refe rred to Executive Session, and upon unanimous vote, this petition
was approved by the committee.
2.
STATUS OF RECERTIFICATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM
Pie rce Mahon y explaine d tha t the Planning staff is progressing rapidly toward completion
of work fo r recerti fi ca t ion of the Wo rka ble Prog ram for a two- ye a r period, ra t he r than
one ye a r which has been approve d in the past . He stated the re have bee n considerable
revisi ons in the req uire me nts of the p rog ram fo r recert ification, mak ing it much more
diffic ul t to pu t toge ther a nd committi ng us to a much more sol id app roach . He comme nted
brie fl y on some o f the new aspe c ts of the progra m, such a s the housing and re loca ti on
element and the departme nt's antici pa ted part icipa tio n in the HUD 701 p la nning p rog ra m.
He explained a federa l requireme nt fo r particip ati o n in the 701 progra m is that one
portion of the p lanning studies be a housing study; further, the person ne l situation
throughout the city , especia lly in the te ch nica l and p rofe ssiona l leve l', is getting' serious
and the Planning Department ho pe s to so lve some o f its prob lem s by hiring tempo rary
personnel on 701 planning programs w ho coul d move into permanent planning vacancies as
they occu r.
He went on to say these new requirements, particularly housing planning fo r low and
moderate income families, points up the critical need for the Urban Information System
�c.
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Four
for the city, because of the various and sundry data which can be obtained from it on
immediate notice, and he urged the committee's support in implementation of this system.
He presented a draft of "Workable Program Five-Year Goals II and stated the city wi II
be committed to these goals and emphasized the need to begin considering an advance
two-year budget.
Considerable discussion then ensued about the status of the Mayor's Housing Program.
Colonel Jones of the Housing Resources Committee stated that the city is about halfway
through the initial five-year program. He cited figures for the two and one-half year
period, stating we have under construction and completed approximately 8,000 units, and
we have in the pipeline more units than the original goal of 17,000. He sta ted, however,
a lot of !re units in planning are being lost because we do not have properly zoned
locations to put them on.
Mr. Cook asked on what basis units are classified as being in the "planning stage".
C·.
.•
Mr. Jones explained they are put in this category when a rezoning application is filed
and a proposal is submitted; if the zoning is denied, they are taken out; that more
zonings for this purpose have been denied than approved. He cited the loss of 21,000
units through recent rezoning denials .
Mr. Cook state d this doesn't concur with figures he obtained from the Planning Department.
Mr. Gladin explained the staff analysis referre d to was done about a ye ar ago and at
that time the zoning approvals were running about 80-90%; that the staff is in the process
of p reparing an up-to- date analysis o{ the housing program .
Mr. Cook ds ked for and was furnished with a copy of Mr. Jones' late st housing report.
Afte r a cu rsory examination, Mr . Cook expressed conce rn ab out the disc repancy in
fi g ures contai ned in the repo rt and those sta ted ora lly by Colone l J ones. Being a
me mbe r of the Zoning Committee, he state d he was tired of charges being made that
the ci ty's housing goa ls we re not be ing me t because of rez oning de nial s as he did not
be li e ve this to be the case, a nd he finds it very confusing and frustating to be unable
to justify his positi on whe n he is unabl e to secure re li ab le statis tics; that he would
Iike statisti cs differen ti a ting wha t pe rce ntage of the 8,000 uni ts quoted by Colone l
J ones is ac tually low and moderate income housi ng .
Mr. Kennedy stated he ha d ve ry strong rese rvations that this perce ntage was q uite low ,
that as stated by Mr. G ladi n , the Plann ing staff is in the process of ana lyz ing the
Housing Program for the la st two and one- ha lf years a nd he fe lt this report would
produce the type statistics Mr. Cook is looking for.
C.
�( _
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Five
-:
Mr. Gladin stated he realized the problems in working with the housing figures, and
again this points up the need for good management procedures, which need to be
standardized, and the Urban Information System for quick delivery of these statistics
over a period of time. He also commented on the need for more emphasis on the
city's total housing needs.
Mr. Cook directed the staff to prepare a letter for his signature to Colonel Jones
requesting clarification on the following:
l.
Is the actual number of units under construction and completed for the last
two and one-half years the 8,000 oral figure given by Colonel Jones, or
the 12,000 figure in his report of May 15, 1969;
2.
What percentage of this figure is for low and moderate income housing;
3.
The method used for determining what is low and moderate income housing,
the name of the projects and the number of units in each project.
He stated that in looking at the May 15 report and oral figures by Colonel Jones, it
would appear we a re moving backwards and this prompted Mr. Flanigen to remark he
had no doubt but what the program is "slipping".
_p.?)
~
it:
it
1to.~1
'
w
if)
~
w
n.
With additi anal reference to the housing question, Mr. Mahony stated that at the
last meeting of the Housing Resources Committee, the Legal Panel discussed the need
for establishing a Housing Planning Agency within the city government to relieve the
Housing Resources Commi t te e membe rs who are present ly spending an inord inate amount
of time doing su rveys and research in the field of housing .
He stated the logical
place for such a housing function would be in the Planning Depa rtment, particularly
in light of the 701 planning p rogram; that the staff would like the committe e's support;
and he prese nted a le tter for Mr. Cook 's signa tu re as Chai rman of the Planning and
De ve lopmen t Commi ttee supporting the department's position .
Colone l Jo ne s sta ted tha t the Legal Panel has been studying this matter, but the y have
no t subm itted a posi tion report to Mr . Ale xander a nd he does not kn ow what type of
report w il I be subm it te d if and whe n it is, and he felt any action by t his committee
on this matter would be pre mature a t t his ti me .
~
~
~
Q::
0
0
c·-~
C!)
M r. Gladin stated the letter does not request an y fina l a ction; tha t it mere ly makes
a recommendation for the Ho using Re sou rces Committee t o consider in making their
recommendation.
Colonel Jones stated he sti II felt the letter was in anticipation of something and
prematu re.
�Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page · Six
Mr. Mahony commented that the Planning Deportment fee Is very strong Iy about this
and consequently wanted to take a positive approach, rather than waiting for a
proposal from the Housing Resources Committee and reacting.
The committee unanimously approved the letter and Mr. Cook appended his signature
thereto.
Referring back to the status report on the Workable Program, Mr. Gladin stated the
staff hopes to present the final draft to this committee July 28, 1969 for review, and
will request committee approval at a meeting on August I, 1969; it will then be forwarded
to the ne x t meeting of the Board of Aldermen where, hopefully, it will be finally
approved and hand delivered that same afternoon to HUD. This will give HUD ample
review time prior to the October expiration date for last year's recertification.
*** *** **
Mr. Mahony explained the City of Mountain View, Clayton County and the City of
Atlanta have common problems in the Plunkettown area which require joint study and
action to solve. The following Resolution to initiate such action was approved: -
(~
A RESOLUTION
BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMM! TTEE
WHEREAS, the City Planning Department is presen t ly studying the Plunkettown
neighbo rhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighbo rhood Development Program, and
WHEREAS, the Plunkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City Limits
i nto t he City of Mountain View and Clayton County, and
WH EREAS, Clayton County, Mountain View, and the City of Atlanta face
common problem s in this area .
NOW, THE REF O RE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor a nd Boa rd of Alde rmen o f
the City of Atlanta that Mayor Iva n Allen , J r . reque sts the Boa rd of Comm issione rs
of Clayton County and the Mayor and Coun ci l of the City of Mountain View to
porti cipate in a joint stud y designed to slove the probl e ms of the Plunkettown
neighborhood.
(~
The committee heard from Charles Stinson, President of t he Federation of South\A.Elst
Clubs, a report on the first phase of the Southwest Community Study, being done for
the Federation by graduate planning students from Georgia Tech. A copy of the first
study phase was presented to each committee member present for information and no
action was requested .
�Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Seven
( ,;
@)
Mr. Gladin informed the committee members that the Sign O rdinance had been approved
by the Zoning Committee and he anticipated submitting it to the full Board of Aldermen
for approval Monday, July 21, 1969, and would like this committee's support at the
Monday meeting. He further informed them we wi 11 be working toward recruiting
personnel to implement the ordinance, that he has requested by letter that Mr. William
H. Wofford, Building Official, and the Personnel Board prepare a joint study on such
personnel needs.
....
<>•
i
"'...
w
CJ)
** *****
Mr. Gladin stated he had received a communication from the BOND (Bass Organization
for Neightorhood Development) Community req~esting to appear before the committee
to discuss being included in the 1970 NDP program; that he felt they should have this
opportunity and he would like authorization to notify them to appear at the next meeting
of the committee.
<(
w
0..
aj
~
,,.
---
'-
0
0
(
In answer to Mr. Flanigen, Mr. Gladin stated the freeway ramp question in the BOND
area had not been resolved, but there are continuing discussions with Ray Nixon and
the State Highway Department on the matter and he felt it could be worked out.
.....I
~
The committee concurred for the BOND group to appear at the next meeting.
m
.***** ****
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
****
Approved :
Rodney1500k, Chairma n
Respectfully submitted:
Joanne Parks, Secreta ry
@)
~
/
(
'-
i
...
"'
u.J
CJ)
<(
(J.J
a..
,."'(
-
-
1 •
�·J
AGENDA
ZONING C0r1MITTEE
Meeting, Thursday, July 24, 1969
Aldermanic Chamber, Second Floor , Ci ty Hall, 2:00 P. M.
1/U-69-34-S
An Application f or a Special Use Permit for a church to be located
at MACON DRIVE, f ronting 40 feet on the east side of Macon Dri ve, S.W.,
beginning 31 6 .5 f e~t north from the corner of Bromack Drive, S.W.
Depth appro x i ma t ely 624 feet. Land Lot 70, 14th Di strict,
Fulton County, Georgia.
Mrs . Thelma Lois Mo r gan, Owner
New Hope Baptist Church - Appl i cant
Propos ed Use - Church
(Planning Board, adverse r ecommenda t ion)
WARD 4
iffaZ-69 - 93-S
An Ordi nance to r e zone from A-1-C (Apartme nt-Conditional) Di strict
to C-1 (Commerc i al) Di s tr i ct, prop ert y located at the Northeast
corne r of OLD HAPEVILLE ROAD a nd CLEVELAND AVENUE , S. W., fronting
200 f ee t on the nor th s ide o f Cleve l a nd Avenue, S .W., beg inning
0 fe e t fro m t he nor theast c orne r of Old Hapeville Ro a d.
Depth 456 fe e t . Are a 92,00 0 square fe e t. Land Lot 69, 14th
Di strict, Fulton County, Georgi a .
·
Dr . Rob e rt B. Hodgson, Owner-App l i cant
Proposed Us e - Off ice & Se rv i c e Sta tion
(Plann i ng Boa r d, advers e r e commend ation)
WARD 4
iffaZ-69-91 - S
An Or d i na nc e t o re zone from R- 4 (Re si dential) District to
A-1 - C (Apart me nt- Conditiona l) Di s trict , pro perty loca t ed at
2965 BROHNS MI LL ROAD, S .E. , fr onti ng 78 . 2 f e et on the west
s i de of Browns Mi l l Road , begi nni ng 930 fe e t fro m the
s out hwest corne r of Spri ngside Dr i ve . De pth 1,024 feet .
Area approximat~ly 78 ,0 00 square fe et . La nd Lot 61 ,
14th Di stri c t, Fulton County , Georgi a.
William T. St anfie ld , Owne r
Robert A. Young - Appli c a nt
Proposed Us e - Apartment s
WARD 4
(Planning Board, adverse r.e commendat_i on) ·
An Ordinance to rez one fr om R-4 (Residential )D i s tr i c t to A-1
(Apar t ment) Di strict, property lo cated at 311 6 BROHNS MILL
ROAD , f r on ti ng 251. 5 feet on t he northeast side o f Browns
Mill Road , beg inning 500 . 7 feet from the no r theast co r ner
of Humph r ies Dr ive . Depth va r ie s . _Area 23 . 3 ac r e s . Land
Lot s 35 & 62 , 14t h Di s t r i ct , Fult on County , Georg i a .
Ruby All e ne Brooks & W. T . Atkinso n, Owne r s
B &. H Compa ny - Applican t
Propo s ed Us e - Apa rt me nt s
(Planning Board, adve r s e recomme ndati on)
WARD 4
1/Z- 69-89-S
�ZONING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Page· 2
July 24, 1969
ifrZ-69-84-s
·An Ordinance to rezone from A-1 (Apartment) Di strict to C-1
(Commercial) District, property located at J ONESBORO ROAD,
fronting 652.5 feet on the southwesterly side of Jonesboro
Road, beginn i ng 707.06 feet f ro m the southwe st corner of
Macedonia Road. Depth 1048.43 feet. Area 16.4 acres .
La nd Lot 34, 14th District , Fulton County, Georgia.
The Mi litary Corpo r ation, Owner
Theodore G. Frankel - Applicant
Proposed Use - Shopp i ng Center & Office Park
(Planning Board, favor able recommendation as amended to C-1-C)
WARD 4
ifZ-69-80-S
An Or dinance to r e zone f rom R-4 (Re s i dent ia l) District to A-2
(Apartment) District, property loca ted at 2946 & 2954 HAPEVILLE
ROAD, S.H. , f r onting 192 feet on the east side of Ha pevi lle
Road, S. W. , beginning 389 fe e t from the northeast corner of
Mt. Zi on Road. Dep th 293.4 f eet . Ar ea 56,208 s quar e fee t.
La nd Lot 68 , 14 th Di st rict , Ful to n County , Georgi a .
Benj ami n F . Ma rti n, Owner-App lica nt
Pr opo sed Use - Apartme nts
(Planning Boar d, adverse recomme ndation)
WARD 4
!IU- 69- 30- S
An Applica t io n fo r a Spe c ia l Us e Permi t fo r a Day Nur s ery to be
located at 3825 ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.W. , fronting 100 f ee t on the
no rth s i de of Adams vi lle Dr i ve, S.W . , begi nni ng 393 . 7 fe e t east
f rom the cor ner o f Woodstock Drive. Depth 200 feet. La nd Lot
14 , 14th FF Dis t ric t , Fulton Count y, Georgi a.
Emma Hunt (Renfroe), Owner
Doris Stri ck land - App l icant
Pr opos ed Us e - Day Nu rsery
(Planning Board, favor able r ecommendation)
WARD 7
U-69-31-C
An App l i cat io n f o r a Spe c i al Us e Permi t f or a Nur sing Home to
be located at 120 LINE ROAD, S. W. , fr onting 252 feet o n the
e ast side of Li ne Roa d, be ginni ng 680 f eet no r th from the
co r ner o f Br anch Dr ive. D~pth 698 fe et. Land L6t 13, ·
14 t h Dis t ric t , Ful t on County , Georgia
ABDEC , I nc . , Owner- Appl icant
Propos ed Use - Nursi ng home
(Pla nning Boar d, favorable r ecomme ndation)
WARD 7
Z- 69 - 85 - S
An Or dinance to rezone from R-5 (Res ident ial) and A- 1 (Apartment)
Di s t r icts to C- 1 (Commercial) Di stri ct, prope rty l ocate d at
STEWART AVENUE, fronting 131 fe et on t he e a s t s ide of Stewart
Avenue , b egi nning O feet from t he north c orner o f Grant Stree t .
Depth 218 feet . Area 14,25& swuare f eet . La nd Lot 90, 14t h
Dist r i ct, Fulton County, Georgia .
Carrie Blake, Ow ner
C. M. Mcche s ney ,- Appl i ca nt
Proposed Use - Service Station
WARD 4
(Planning Board , favorab l e recommendation)
�ZONING.COMMITTEE AGENDA
Page 3
July 24, 1969
ffaZ-69-83-S
An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to
C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 1955
CAMPBELLTON ROAD, fronting 260.7 feet on the north side
of Campbellton Road, beginning O feet from the northeast
corner of Honeysuckle Lane. Depth 212.1 feet. Area
approximately 66,000 square feet. Land Lot 168, 14th
District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Perry Boulevard, Inc., Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Service Station
(Planning Board, favorable recommendation)
WARD 7
ffaZ-69-94-S
An Ordinance to rezone from C-L (Commercial-Limited) District
to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2860
CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S.W., fronting 120 feet on the south
side o f Campbe llton Road, beginning 293 feet from the
east corner of Naxwe ll Drive. Dep th 340 feet. Area
33,000+ · square feet. Land Lot 218, 14th D~strict, Fulton
County, Georgia.
Ellis Maloof, Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Car Wash
(Planning Board, favorable recomme ndat i on)
WARD 7
ffaU-69-33-S
An Application for a Specia l Use Permit for a Car Wash and
Service Station, to . be located at 2360 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S .H.,
fronting 120 feet on the south side of Campbel lton Road ,
beginning 293 f ee t east fro1:1 the corne r of Maxwe ll Drive.
Depth 340 feet. Land Lot 218 , 14th Di s trict, Fulton County,
Georgia.
Ellis Maloo f, Owner-Appli ca nt
Proposed Use - Car Wash & Servi ce Station
(Planning Board , favo rab l e recommendation)
WARD 7
Z-69-96-S
An Ordi nance to re zone from R-4 (Residential) Di5trict to
A-1 (Apartme nt) District, p r operty located at FAIRBURN
ROAD, S.W., fronting 100 feet on the west side o f Fairburn
Road, beginning 720 feet ,ram the . south ~orne r of . qarrison
Drive . De pth 800± feet. Area 236,013 square feet. Land
Lot 8, 14th FF District, Ful ton County, Georgia.
D. E. Norr is, Owner
E. Lane Brown-Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartments
(Planning Board, adverse recommendation)
WARD 7
�AGENDA
ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY --JOINT PLANNING BOARD
Meeting, Wednesday, November 12,1969
Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall, 2:00 P.M.
i!Z-69-154-N
An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District
to C-1 (Corranercial) District property located at 1265
BOULDERCREST DRIVE, S.E., fronting 231 feet on the West
side of Bouldercrest Drive, beginning 175 feet from the
northwest corner of Eastland Road. Depth 175 feet. Area
40,425 squ are feet. Land Lot 143, 15th District, DeKalb
County, Georgia.
Alford M. Williams & Ellis A. Maloof, Owner
Ellis A. Maloof, Applicant
Proposed Use - Foor store & dry cleaners
WARD 2
i!U-69-68-N
A~ Application f or a Special Us e Per mi t for a Chu~ch to
be locate d at 1323 S. PONCE DE LEON AVE NUE , N. E., f ronting 182 feet on t he south side of Ponce de Leon Ave.,
N.E. beginning O fe et east from the corner of Springdale
Road, N.E. Depth 240.4 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District
DeKabl County, Georgia.
Elmer D. Lill ey, Owner
Church of God of Prophe cy, Applicant
Proposed Use - Church
WARD 2
i!U-69-65-N
An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Dent a l Fr a t ernity-Boarding House, to be located at 1315 PONCE DE LEON
AVENUE N.E., f r cnt ing 15 2 . 4 fee t e n t he s outh side cf Ponce
de Le on Avenue, beg i nning 170 feet wes t f rom the corner o f
Springda l e Road. Dep th 220 fee t. Land Lot 241, 15th
District, DeKalb County, Georgia.
Delta Sigma Delta House, Inc., Owner
Cliffor d Ox f ord , App l ican t
Proposed Use - Dental Fra ter ni ty - Boarding House
WARD 2
( i!Z - 69 - 172 - C)
An Oi dinance to r ezone f r om A- 2 (Apar tment) Dis t rict t o
C- 1 (Commercial) Di s t rict proper t y located at 493,497 , _
503,507 EAST AVENUE and 298 , 302 1 304 ~.ACKENZIE , fronting
180 f e e t on t he s outh s ide of East Avenue, begi nning 210
fee t f r om t he s outheast corner o f Bou levard . Depth 30 .5
fe et . Area 1 . 30 acres. Land Lot 46, 14th District ,
Fulton County, Georgia.
Caduceus Properties, Owner
Carl Cofer , Applicant
Propos ed Us e - Park i ng Lot
WARD 6
�ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, November 12 1 1969 - Page 2
/FU-69-66-G
An Application f-0r a Special Use Permit for an Apartment
above a store, to be located at 979 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E.
fronting 45 feet on the easterly side of Piedmont Avenue,
N.E., beginning 92.8 feet southwest from the corner of
Tenth Street, N.E. Depth 175 feet. Land Lot 106, 17th
District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Augusto Silva, Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartment
WARD 5
f!U-69-69-C
An Application for a Special Use Permit for Parking to be
located at 1230 & 1236 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E.,fronting
236.7 feet on the northwest side of Piedmont Avenue, beginning 250.5 feet southwest from·the corner of South
Prado, Depth approximately 160 feet. Land Lot 55, 17th
District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Morton Realty Company, Owner,Applicant
Proposed Use - Parking
WARD 5
f!Z-69-174-N
An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to
0-I (Office-Institutional) District, property located at
3783 ROSWELL ROAD, N.E., fronting 202 feet on the east
side of Roswell Road, N.E., beginning 2,257.5 feet form
the northeast corner of Ivy Road. Depth 835 feet. Area
70,700 square feet. Land Lot 97, 17th District, Fulton
County, Geor gi a,
Jeannette M. Prince, Owner,Applicant
Proposed Use - Office & Apartments
WARD 8
f!Z-69-183-N
An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to
C-1 (Connnercial) District, property located at 2114 thru
2126 DEFOORS FERRY ROAD, front _ing 633 feet on the south
side of DeFoors Ferry Road, beginning 698 feet from the
northwest corner of Collier Road. Depth 422 feet. Area
174,428 square feet, Land Lots 185,186,&194, 17th District
Fulton County, Georgia.
H.W. Dunn, et al, Owner
Initiated by Alderman G. Everett Millican
Proposed Use - Service Station/Retail Uses
WARD 3
f!Z-69-169-S
An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 · (Residential) District to
A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 2905 SPRING
DALE ROAD, fronting 206 feet on the west side of Springdale
Road, beginning 990,7 feet from the southwest corner of S.
Fredell Circle. Depth 665 feet. Area 3.7 acres. Land Lot
100, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia,
William H. Cook, Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartments
WARD 4
�ATLANTA-F1JLTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 3
Z-69-175-C
Z-69-176-C
An Ordinance to rezon~ from R-9 (Townhouse) District to
C-1 (Commerc~al) District, property located at PEYTON
ROAD, fronting 325.0 feet on the east side of Peyton
Road, beginning 340 feet from the southeast corner of
Gordon Road. Depth 165.8 feet. Area 1.265± acres.
Land Lot 205, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Peyton Center, Inc., Ovmer - Applicant
Proposed Use - Not stated
WARD 7
An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to
A-L (Apartment-Limited) District, property located at LYNHURST DRIVE, fronting 381.09 feet on the west side of Lynhurst Drive, beginning 595.9 feet from the northwest corner
of Hiawasee Drive. Depth 1,485± feet. Area 22.72 acres.
Land Lot 236, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia,
R.T. Griffith, Owner - Applicant
Pr.oposed Use - Apartments
WARD 7
Z-69-171-C
An Ordinance t6 rezone form R-5 (Residential) District to
& 3401
SCOTT ST., S,W., fronting 497.3 feet on the North side of
Scott Street, beginning O feet from the northeast cor ner
of Brownlee Road. Depth 100 feet. Area 1.01 acres. Land
Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Therori & Jackie Bolton, Owner
Theron Bolton, Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartments
WARD 7
A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 3335
Z-69-180-C
An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) Di s tr i ct to
A-1 (Ap ar tmen t ) Di s trict, prop erty loc a t ed at SEWELL ROAD
s.w.,
f r onting 570,2 fee t on the north s id e o f Sewell Road,
beginning 1450 fee t from the nor theas t cor ne r o f Fairbur n
Road. Depth 1,930 feet. Area 74.3 acre s. Land Lot 245,
14th District, Fulton County , Ge orgia.
Blaclock Machinery, Owner
Thornton Properti es , I nc., App l i cant
Propo sed Us e - Apartments
WAR,D 7
Z-69-178-S
An Or di nance t o rezone from A- 1- C (Apartment -Conditional )
Distr i ct to C- 1 (Conuner cial) Distri ct, property lo cated at
2440 FAIRBUR~ ROAD , s. w., f r onti ng 60 feet on the east side
o f Fai rbur n Road . S.W. , beginni ng 104 9 fe e t from the southe a s t corner of Campbellton Road, S .W ., Depth 792 fe e t.
Area 4 a cres. Land Lot 5, 14th District , Fulton County,
Georgia.
Maude H. Wai ts , Owner
David D. Warren, Applicant
Proposed Use - Office Building
WARD 7
�ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 4
ifZ-69-170-C
An Ordinance to rezone for ·R-3 (Residential) District to
C-1 (Commercial) District, property .1 .ocated at ADAMSVILLE
DRIVE, S.W.,fronting 100 feet on the south side of Adamsville Drive, beginning 152 feet from the southwest corner
of Gordon Road. Depth 197 feet. Area 25,672 square feet.
Land Lot 14, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.
J.I. Kingloff & Mildred L. Kingloff, Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Not stated
WARD 7
Z-69-177-C
An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to
A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 125 FAIRBURN
ROAD, N.W., fronting 102.8 feet on the east side of Fairburn Road, beginning 811.9 feet from the northeast corner
of Gordon Road. Depth 838.2 feet. Area 3.611 acres.
Land Lot 243, 14th Distr ict, Fulton County, Georgia.
Rosa G. Washington, Owner
Kfng & Spalding, Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartments
WARD 7
fFU-69-67-C
An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Care
to be located at 633 HIGHTOWER ROAD, N.E., fronting 50
on the east side of Hightower Road, beginning 515 feet
from the corner of Oldknow Drive. Depth 196.4 feet
Lot 208, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Mrs. Julie C. Ogletree, Owner-Applicant
. WARD
Proposed Use - Day Care Center
4/Z-69-179-C
Center
feet
north
Land
3
An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to
C-1 (Commercial) Di strict, property located at 2138 ,2098
& 2094 BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, fronting 75 & 133 feet on t he
south side of Bankhe ad Highway, beginning O & 330 f ee t
from the southeast corner of Alta Place. Depth 243 feet.
Area 50,544 square feet. Land Lot 176, 14th District,
Fulton County, Georgia.
Initiated by Zoning Committee
Proposed Use - Not stated
WARD 3
�.)
CITY OF .ATLANTA
May 29, 1969
CITY HALL
ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
DE PARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B. GLADIN, Dir e c cor
Mr. Johnny Robinson
Community Development Coordinator
Mayor•s Office
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Johnny:
Certification of Atlanta 1s Workable Program for Community Improvement
expires on October I, 1969. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development requires that we make our submission by August I, 60 days in
advance of the expiration date . Last year, we made our submission on time;
we wou Id Iike to repeat the performance th is year .
We are enclosing a copy of the newly revised Workable Program for
Community Improvement HUD Handbook along with those portions of the
Wo rkab le Program that pertain to your operation . Please note the changed
requirements in the HUD Handbook . All Workable Program certifications have
bee n ex tended over a two - yea r pe riod . The City of Atlanta will not submit
another Wo rkable Program until 1971 . Therefore, we ask that you make su re
you maintain th e required data pertaining to your depa rtment on a two- yea r basis.
The report ing period for the Ju ne 31 Workable Prog ram for th is year is
March 31, 1968 to June I, 1969. The Planning Department wi II be g la d to
assi st you in any way possib le to get the wo rk done on time. At least a month 1s
time is needed by us for assemb li ng exhibits, typing and re producing and generally
tying up loose ends . Therefore, we must have the sections back by June 16.
Sincerely yours ,
~
Colli e r B. G ladin
Planning Di rector
CBG/bls
Enclosure
�·I
I
RH A 7100.1
)
•
0
l
ROGR
FOR
COM
U ITV I -PR
Octo be r 1968
A HUD H
D 00
U . S. DEPARTME N T OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASH I NGTON , D. C.
204 10
�•
PREFACE FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM HANDBOOK
'Ihis Handbook sets forth a new approach and revised requirements to
guide localities that are carrying out a Workable Program for Community
Improvement.
It represents the first major revision of the Workable Program procedures since enactment of the statutory provision in 1954-,
We have several objectives which we hope will be achieved by the revision. One is to respond to the many changes that have taken place
in our urban areas over the years. Another is to ensure that our
requirements for the Workable Program are focused on performance by
localities in dealing with the problem of slums and blight~-not just
on compliance with operational procedures. Above all, the purpose is
to give local communities both flexibility an4 the responsibility to
develop effective programs to achieve the objectives of the statute in
light of the particular nature of problems and conditions existing in
each locality.
' '
'.Ihe substitution of performance standards for certain formal elements
of the Workable Program does not represent any easing in current substantive requi rements. Nor does the Handbook envision any reduction
in efforts by communities now participating in the program. The introduction of a performance-oriented approach hopefully will result in a
more effective attack on the major problems facing the community.
I am confident that, after more than a decade of experience with the
Workable Program, the Federal-local partnership has the maturity to
operate effectively under the new approach of this Handbook and thereby
we can make more meaningful progress toward overcoming the urgent
problems facing our cities and towns today.
Robert C. Weaver
Secretary
1
11/ 68
�WORKABLE PRCGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA
7100.11
•
FOREWORD
This Handbook sets forth revised policies, requirements, and procedures
for communities required to carry out a Workable Program for Community
Improvement in connection with the use of certain Departmental housing
and renewal programs to help overcome probiems of slums and blight.
-Workable Program Guides containing illustrative and advisory information
will be issued to supplement this Handbook.
The revised policies and requirements set forth herein are effective
upon issuance of this Handbook. Tnose communities which already have
submitted or· have substantially completed documentation in support of
an application for certification or recertification of a Workable
Program need not revise the material . However, communities may use the
revised forms described in this Handbook immediately . After March 31,
1969, all applications for certification or recertification of a Workable Program must be in conformance with the revised policies and
requirements.
The primary objective of the revision is to provide a fle:x:i.ble
and performance-oriented framework within which communities may demonstrate reasonable continuing progress toward· achieving the goals sought
by the statutory requirement for a Workable Program and those established by the community to implement them.
The revision also modifies reporting and documenta~ion requirements
and provides new criteria for evaluating community performance.
The revised Workable Program concentrates on four essential areas:
a.
The · adoption and enforcement of housing, building, and related
codes.
b.
The establishment of an effective action-oriented planning
and programming process.
c.
The developnent of programs to meet low- and moderate- income
housing needs and to meet relocation needs of families ,
individuals, and business concerns displaced by governmental
action.
ii
11/68
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNI'IY IMPROVEMENT
•
IRHA
7100.1
d.
I
The involvement of citizens, including poor and minority
groups, in Workable Program activities and in related HUDassisted housing and renewal programs.
The intent of this Handbook is to strengthen the Workable Program as a
flexible and meaningful tool to help communities organize and carry out
its community improvement programs. The Handbook envisions no lessening of effort by communities which h~ve been participating under
previous Workable Program guidelines. Rather, it is anticipated that
communities will make greater :grogress toward achieving the obj ectives
of the statute with the increased flexibility provided by the Handbook
to concentrate local efforts and tailor specific needs and problems
facing the community. Applications for certtfic?tion in accordance
with the requirements of this Handbook which propose a program with an
overall leve l of effort below that made in the past, will not be
acceptable.
Certifications and recertifications of Workable Programs will be e ffective for two years. Field reviews of progress will be made as necessary
by HUD Regional Office staff midway through the certification period to
provide advice and t echnical assistance.
HUD-assisted programs to which the Workable Program applies are listed
in Chapter 1, paragraph 5. A community intending to make application
for financial assistance under any of these pro grams should become
familiar with the policies and requirement s set forth in this Handbook.
An understanding of these policies and requirements will facilitate the
preparation of the application for certification or recertification of
the community 's Workable Program and thus help to expedite the processing of applications for financial assistance for specific programs.
10/ 68
iii
�J
-
HtJD REGIONAL OFFICES
RIDIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
ADDRESS AND
TELEPHONE NUMBER
I
Judah Gribetz
26 Federal Plaza,
New York, N.Y. 10007
Area Code 212 264-8068
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New York, Rhode·
Island, Vermont
n
Warren P. Phelan
Widener Bldg., 1339 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa.
Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Virginia, West Virginia
RIDION
19107
GENER.AL
JURISDICTIONAL AREA
Area Code 215 597-2560
III
Edward H. Baxter
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
~
0
.....
<
e::
Peachtree-Seventh Bldg.,
Atlanta, Ga. 3032~
Area Code 404 526-5585
~
~
>tj
IT
Francis D. Fi.sher
360 North Michigan Ave.,
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Area Code 312 353-5680
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio,. South Dakota, Wisconsin
V
W.W. Collins
Federal Office Bldg., 819
Taylor St., Fort Worth,
Texas 76102
Area Code 817 334-2867
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,
Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
450 Golden Gate Ave., Post
Office Box 36003, San
Francisco, Calif. 94102
Area Code 415 556-4752
Alaska, Arizona, California,
Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
Wyoming
x:,
Q
'
VI
I-'
~
VII
co
°'
Robert B. Pitts
Jose E. Febres-Silva
Post Office Box 3869, GPO,
San Juan, P.R. 00936
(Dial Long Distance Operator)
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands
~
x:,
0
0
~z
H
1-3
1-<1
~ ~~
-.J
I-'
0
0
•I-'
<:
1-3
767-1515
V
·-·
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
•
RHA 7100.11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
FOREWORD
HUD REGIONAL OFFICES
CHAPTER 1.
SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES
AND REQUIREMENT
Paragraph
1.
Statutory Provision ·
2.
Basic Purpose of Statutory Provision
3,
Summary of Workable Program Requirements
Local Administrative Requirements
5-
\
HUD-Assisted Pro grams for Which Workable Pro gram Is
A Requirement
CHAPTER 2.
..,
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE
PROGRAM APPLICATIONS
1.
General Principles of Administration
2.
Requirements for Application Content
3.
Criteria for Evaluation of Workable Program Application
4.
Basis for Determining Acceptability
CHAPTER 3.
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CER TIFICATION
1.
Filing of Application for Certification
2.
Governing Body Approval of the Workable Program
3.
Notification of Approval or Disapproval.
4.
Certification Period
5.
Certification Lapse
6.
Technical Assistance to Communities
V
11/68
�WORK.ABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.1
"
I
,I
Paragraph
7.
Relationship of Workable Program and Urban Renewal
Requirements
8.
Availability of Workable Program as Public Document
9.
Guides
CHAPTER 4.
CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
1.
Statutory Provision
2.
Requirements for Code Adoption
3.
Rehabilitation Standards
4.·..> ,
Requi rements for Code Enfor cement
5.
Examples of Priority Areas
6.
Considerat i ons Relate d to ·code Enforcement
CHAPTER 5.
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMI NG
1.
Planning and Programming Objectives
2.
Comprehens ive Planning Requirements
3.
Programming Requireme nts
4.
Charact er i stic s of Planning Process
5.
Summary
CHAPTER 6.
HOUSING AND RELOCATION
1.
Gen~ral Provisions
2.
Relocation Requirements
3.
Housing Requ i rements
4.
Crite~ia for Evaluation of Applications
CHAPTER 7.
1.
11/ 68
CITIZEN I NVOLVEMENT
Requirements f or Citizen Involvement
Vi
-- ---.
'
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA
7100.11
Paragraph
2.
Principles and Purposes of Citizen Involvement
3.
Examples of Citizen Involvement Activities
4.
Criteria for Evaluation of Applications
CHAPTER 8.
GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
1.
General Provisions
2.
Special Provisions
3.
Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Workable
Program Application
V ,
CHAPTER 9,
'
~-
GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS
1.
General Provision.§ ,
2.
Special Obj ectives
3,
General Criteria for Review and Evaluation of
Applications
4.
Provision for Code Adoption and Enforcement
5,
Planning Provisions
6.
Housing and Relocation Provisions
7,
Citizen Involvement Provisions
vii
10/68
�I
WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
"
R1!A
7100.1]
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1.
1.
SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENTS
STATU'IORY PROVISION. The Housing Act of 1949, as amended, requires
as a condition of certain financial assistance, the following:
11
•••
a workable program for co~unity improvement (which
shall include an official plan of action, as it exists
from time to time, for effectively dealing with the problem
of urban slums and blight within the community and for the
establishment and preservation of a well-planned community
with well-organized environment for adequate family life)
for utilizing appropriate private and public resources to
eliminate and prevent the develoµnent or spread of slums
and urban blight, to encourage needed urban rehabilitation,
to provide for redevelopnent of blighted, deteriorated, or
slum areas, or to undertake such of the aforesaid activities or other feasible community activities as may be
suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such a
program."
The statute also requires the ad.option and effective enforcement
of a minimum standards housing code, as described in Chapter 4.
In addition to the Workable Program requirements contained herein,
communities are advised that various HUD-assistance programs may
contain additionab separate requirements tailored to meet specific
program needs (e.g. relocation requirements of the urban renewal
program, general planning requirements for water and sewer, or open
space land grants). See Chapter 3, paragraph 7, for further
information.
2.
BASIC PURPOSE OF STATU'IORY PROVISION. The basic purpose of the
Workable Program requirement is to ensure that communities desiring to utilize funds for renewal and housing programs understand
the array of forces that create slums and blight and are willing
to recognize and .take the steps within their power to prevent and
overcome urban blight.
The Workable Program is based on recognition that the Federal and
local relationship is one of partnership in the task, and that
Federal funds for renewal and housing projects cannot, by themselves, be effective unless localities exercise the full range of
their powers in community efforts on a sustained and coordinated
basis to the objective of preventing and eradicating slums and
blight.
3.
SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROORAM REQUIREMENTS, The specific requirements of the Workable Program are based on the statutory objectives
described above and are designed to provide a flexible framework
Page 1
u/63
�T
WORKABLE PRCGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
"
I
l
RHA 7100.1
J
CHAPTER 1
for organizing community efforts to eliminate and prevent slums
and blight. The Workable Program calls for progress in the following four areas:
a.
Code Adoption and Enforcement. The adoption of housing, building, and related codes, and development of an effective code
enforceme nt program which is at least adequate to de a l with
areas having high priority need for en£orcement, including both
blighted areas and basically sound but deteriorating neighborhoods, and which is gear ed toward eventual community-wi de
compliance with such codes.
b.
Planning and Programming. The establishment of a continuing
public planning and programming process which develops action
programs within a comprehensive planning framework for overcoming the major physical, social, and e conomic problems
related to the slum and blighted areas of the community, and
for establishing and preserving a well- planned community with
suitable l i ving environment for family life .
c.
Housing and Relocation. The development of a centralized or
coordinated program for assisting in the relocation of all
persons and business concer_n;, displace d by public action in
the community and the development of a proi~ ~ to expand the
supply of housing for l ow- and mode rate-inc0u1E. famili es on the
basis of equa l opportunity.
d.
Citizen Involvement . The establishment of programs designed
to achieve meaningful involvement of citizens, including poor
and minority groups , in planning and carrying out HUD-ass i sted
programs related to th e Workable Program.
A detailed explanati on of th e policies and r equirements for each
of the above four areas is s e t forth in subseque nt chapte rs of
this Handbook.
4.
LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. In carrying out Workabl e
Program responsibil i ties, many different local agencies and offices
will necessarily b e involved, together with various public a nd
private institutions, organization s , and individuals. For e xample ,
building departments, planning agencies, health offices, housing
authorities, urban renewal agencies, neighborhood organizat i ons,
private builder s and dev e l opers may b e involved to proyide the
wide range of resources needed to meet Workable Program obj ectives.
While no specific a dministrative s tructure i s r equired by the
Workable Progr am, a community will be expect e d to meet t he gene ral
r equirement for establi shme nt of an administrative me chanism
11/68
Page 2
�,.
WORKABLE PRO'.}RAM FOR COMMUNITY I MPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.11
CHAPTER 1
responsible to the chief executive for the purpose of providing
leadership, supervision, and coordination of Workable Program
activities.
5,
...
HUD-ASSISTED PROJRAMS FOR WHICH WORKABLE PROGRJI.M IS A REQUIREMENT
a.
Urban Renewal Prog_ram
b.
Neighborhood Developnent Program
c.
Concentrated Code Enforcement Program
d.
Interim Assistance for Blighted Areas
e.
Demolition Grant Program
f.
Community Renewal Program
g.
Gene ral Neighborhood Renewal Plan
h.
Rehabilitation loans and gr ants in urban r enewal and concentrated code enforcement areas and in other than urban r enewal
or concentrate d code enforcement areas a ssisted under the
provision of Sec. 115(a)(2) and Sec. 312(a)(1).
i.
Low-Rent Housing Program, except for Section 23, Short Term
Leased Housing.
j.
Mortgage in sura nce under FHA Sec. 220 for housing construction
and rehabilitation in urban renewal project areas.
k.
Mortgage insura nce under FHA 221(d)( 3) at marke t or belowmarke t inter est r at e proj ect s for low- and moderate -income
famili es.
1.
Re nt Supplement Proj ects under Sec . 22 l ( d)( 3 ) for low-income
families, with certain exception s .
338-597 0 - 6 9 - 2
Page 3
10/68
�I
I
WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
•
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2.
..,
RHA 7100. l
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROORAM APPLICATIONS
1.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION. Workable Program applications will be evaluated in light of the varying conditions,
backgrounds, problems, and traditions of the par-ticula~ community.
In view of the difficulty of establisQing predetermined standards
of compliance having equal applicability to all communities
throughout the nation, the Department's review and determination
will be guided by the statutory requirements, the adequacy of the
community's proposed effort as measured against the magnitude of
the job to be done, and the constraints of available Federal, State,
and local resources. A second major consideration governing the
evaluation of application for recertification will be evidence of
reasonable continuing progress toward meeting the statutory goals
and objectives and -those set forth by the community.
2.
REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLJs;:.ATION CONTENT. The Workable Program is the
locality's program, and it i s the r esponsibility of the locality
to establish goals, action programs , and time t able s for accomplishment in each of the four elements discussed in subsequent chapters.
The goals, action programs, and timetables must be approved by the
Department, except where otherwise indicated in Chapter 5, pa r agraph 3. Because the emphasis is on the locality 's responsibi l ity
to develop its own program tailbred to its own needs and abilities
rather than on complying with speci fic Departmental requirements,
the community's application must contain sufficient evidence and
detail to permit an objective basis for review and evaluation .
Therefore, the application must clearly and specifically describe
what the community inte nds to do during the next certification
period in each of the four Workable Program elements. When applying for r ecertification, the application must also clearly describe
what ste ps the community t ook in the l ast period, in order to
provide a basis for measurement of the community ' s continuing
progress toward meeting the agree d-upon goals and objectives. In
developing its "work program" in each of the four elements for the
next certification period , the community must also show how the
proposed act ivit ies are related to a n analysis of the problems or
needs, and t o longer-range tar ge t s for accomplishment. For exampl~
in deve loping a program to meet the r equirement of Chapter 6 to
expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-income families,
the applicat ion should show the relationship of it s proposed
program and timet ables to an anal ysis of needs in the community
and to its longer-range goals or targe ts for expansion of such
supply. The questions included in Application Form 1081 are
designed to e licit the information and evidence required to provide
a reasonable basis for approving or disapproving the community ' s
Workable Program Application.
Page 1
10/68
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
~HA 7100.1
•
I
\
)
CHAPTER 2
3.
4.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATION. In reviewing a community' s application for certification or recertification of a Workable Program, the Department's assessment will be
based on the followin g factors:
a.
Problem Analysis. Adequacy of the community's analysis of the
problems and needs where required by the Workable Program
elements.
b.
Long-Ra nge Goals . Adequacy and reasonableness of the longrange goals and targets for accompli shment proposed by the
community for overcoming such problems .
c.
Action Programs. Adequacy of the specific a ctions and timetables proposed- to be taken by the community during the next
period of certification to deal with the problems identifi ed,
in light of available resource s and the magnitude of the
problems .
d.
Progress. Demonstration of r easonable continuing progress
toward meeting goals and objectives specified by the community.
BASIS FOR DETERMINING ACCEPTABILITY . The acceptability of a community's initi a l appl ication for ; certification will be base d on
the adequacy of the problem or nee d ana lysis in each of the
e l ement s , th e extent to whi ch longer-range goals or targe t s have
been identifi ed in r e lation to need, and the adequacy of the proposed action programs, in light of both need and available
resources . The acceptability of an application for r ecertifi cation
will b e based on t he performance of the community in meeting the
goa l s, t argets, and timetable s agr ee d to at the last certification,
as well as on the extent to which the proposed l ev e l of e f f ort
r epresent s continui ng progr ess fr om the l a s t per i od t oward meeting
its longer-range targe t s . When unexpe cte d developments or changed
conditions prevent a community from meeting its agr eed- to obj e ctives and time tabl~s, the application for r e certificat ion must
include a de tailed explanation of the r ea sons .
.)
10/68
Page 2
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'T'
I
RHA
7100.11
CJW>TER 3
,,
CHAPTER 3.
1.
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION
FILING OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION. Form HUD-1081 is to be
used by the community to apply for certification or recertification of its Workable Program. Careful attention to the preparation of format and content will obviate the need for correspondence
with the community and thus help to expedite the review and
evaluation of the application and its approval.
An original and three copies of Form HUD-1081 are to be submitted
to the appropriate HUD Regional Office. An application for
recertification should be submitted at least 60 days prior to
expiration of the community's current Workable Program certification.
A community desiring to discuss Workable Program policies and
requirements or to obtain assistance and guidance in the preparation of the required Form 1081 should communicate with the HUD
Regional Office.
2.
GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL OF THE WORKABLE PROO-RAM. Before being
submitted to the Regional Office, the application for certification and recertification on Form HUD-1081 must be approved by the
executive head and the governing~- body of the community.
3.
NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. The HUD Regional Office
will advise the applicant community of approval or disapproval of
the Workable Program application for certification.
a.
Reasons for Disapproval or Conditional Approval. Applicati9ns
may· be disapproved or conditionally approved for ~ither of two
reasons listed below; an explanation of the basis for such
action will be provided to the community.
(1)
Failure by the community to carry out the plan of action
and timetable it proposed for the last certification
period. In the event of disapproval or conditional
approval for this reason, the community will be advised
of the actions it must take to carry out the plans or
steps it initially proposed but did not take and did not
provide justification for not taking.
( 2)
Inadequacy of plans, programs, and timetables -proposed by
the community for the next certification period. In the
event of disapproval or conditional approval for this
reason, the community will be informed of the nature of
Page 1
10/ 68
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
Rl!A 7100.1
•
I
CHAPTER 3
the inadequacy of its proposed plans and programs, and
will be requested to submit additional information needed
to remedy such inadequacies.
b.
4.
Time Limit. Applications that are conditionally approved will
provide a reasonable, definite time limit for accomplishment
of required actions. In the event of a conditional approval,
applications for financial assistance under the applicable HUD
programs will be processed, but final approvals will be withheld until the Workable Program is fully approved. ( Once a
community's application is approved, no further requirements
will be imposed during the period of certification.)
CERTIFICATION PERIOD. All Workable Program certifications are for
a two-year period. If certification of a Workable Program has
expired, the execution of contracts for assistance is precluded
with respect to the applicable programs listed in Chapter 1,
paragraph 5. Certification is deemed not to expire, however, but
rather to continue in effect for the following purposes:
a.
To provide Federal assistance under Title I of the Housing Act
of 1949 for any urban project in the locality with respect to
which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date.
-~.-: i
b.
To provide Federal assistance under the United States Housing
Act of 1937 for any low-rent public housing being undertaken
by the locality with respect to which a contract for annual
contributions or capital grant is executed prior to the ex-.
piration date.
c.
To provide mortgage and home improvement loan insurance under
Section 220 of the National Housing Act with respect to property in the locality situated in:
10/68
(1)
The area of any urban renewal project for which a loan and
grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date,
or
(2)
Any urban renewal area not involving Federal aid under
Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 respecting which prior
to the expiration date the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Developnent has certified that he has approved the urban
renewal plan for the area, that such plan conforms to the
general plan for the locality as a whole, and that there
exist the -necessary authority and financial capacity to
ensure the completion of such urban renewal plan .
Page 2
�WORl<".ABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY JMffiOVE:MENT
I
•
RHA
7100.11
CHAPTER 3
d.
5,
To provide mortgage insurance under Section 221(d)(3) of the
National Housing Act with respect to property in the locality
for which a pre-application analysis has been made by the
Federal Housing Administration and it has agreed in writing
to accept a formal application prior to the expiration date,
or located in the area of any urban renewal project for which
a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration
date.
CERTIFICATION LAPSE. Where a Workable Program certification has
expired and a lapse has occurred , the community will be required
to show the progress made in meeting Workable Program r equirements
not only during the period in which the Workable Program was in
effect, but also during the lapse d period. Thus, it is important
that a community anticipate the expiration -date and initiate the
actions necessary to prepare an application for recertification
sufficiently in advance of this dat so that lapse may be avoided.
6.
.'TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES .
7,
RELATIONSHIP OF WORKABLE PR(X;RAM AND URBAN RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS.
Communities intending to apply for urban renewal assistance should
be aware of the following statutory requirements:
In accordance with Section
lOl(d) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, the Department will
endeavor to the maximum extent possible, to assist communities in
meeting their Workable Program objectives. Field reviews of
progress will be made as necess~ry midway through the period of
certification and Regional Office staff will be available to the
ext ent resources permit to provide consultation , advice , and
t echnical assistance.
a.
No loan or grant contract may be e ntered into for an urban
renewal project unless the Workable Program 11 is of sufficient
scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need
for the urban renewal project, and such project is in accord
with the program. 11
b.
The plan for an urban r enewal project must "conform to the
general plan of the locality as a whole and to the Workable
Program . . . "
c.
In entering into any contract for advances for surveys, plans,
and other preliminary urban renewal work, the Secretary must
"give consideration to the extent to which appropriate local
public bodies have undertaken positive programs (through the
adoption, modernization, administration, and enforcement of
housing, zoning, building and other local laws, codes, and
regulations . . . ) for (1) preventing the spread or recurrence
Page 3
10/68
�i'
WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.1
J
CHAPTER 3
in the community of slums and blighted areas, and (2) encouraging housing cost reductions through the use of appropriate
new materials, techniques, and methods in land and residential
planning, design, and construction, the increase of efficiency
in residential construction, and the elimination of restrictive practices which unnecessarily increase housing costs."
d.
HUD will not authorize a Federal aid contract for a Neighborhood Development Program (NDP) unless there is in existence a
certified Workable Pro gram which is of sufficient scope and
content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the
proposed NDP activities and such activities are in accord with
the Workable Program.
Communities are advised that because of the above statutory provisions, requirements for urban r enewal assistance may differ from
those nec essary for Workable Program certification purposes in the
following ways:
a.
Evaluation of Urban Renewal Need. With respect to subparagraphs a. and d., above, a community int ending to apply for
urban renewal or NDP assistance should ensure that the studies
undertaken in connection with the planning and programming requirement describ ed in Chapte;r, 5 are of sufficient scope and
quality to provide a basis for evaluation of the need for the
urban renewal project or NDP activities. In general, the
studies carried out under th e Workable Program should be
adequate to determine that the area is sufficiently blighted
or deteriorated to qualify for an urban renewal or NDP program.
Information should be included to illustrate both building and
environmental deficiencies, such as overcrowded conditions,
exce·ssive densiti es, and so forth . For further information on
urban renewal eligibility requirements see RHA 7205.1 of the
Urban Renewal Handbook, Chapter 1, General Eligibility Requirements. A community may, if it so wishes, supplement its'
Workable Program submission with other related studies having a
bearing, such as a Community Renewal Pro gram, General Neighborhood Renewal Program, or other similar studies.
b.
Renewal Plans. With respect to b ., above, the Urban Renewal
Handbook sets forth the following minimum elements of a general
plan: land use plan, thoroughfare plan, community facilities
plan, public improvement s program, zoning ordinance and map and
subdivision regulations . The preparation of such plans ( except
for a zoning ordinance or other comparable memo for guiding
land usage) is not a prerequisite to the approval of the
Workable Program, though many communities may find the preparaof them helpful in the development of general plans to guide
10/68
Page 4
�I..
I
WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA
7100.11
CHAPTER 3
•
community growth and development, which is a Workable Program
requirement describ ed in Chapter 5. In addition, for purpose s
of approving specific urban renewal proj ects, a greater de gree
of planning completion may be required than would be necessary
for Workable Program purposes, e spe cially in smaller communities and others seeking initial certification or recertification.
c,
..,
Codes. With respect to c., above, a community intending to
apply for urban renewal assistance is advised that approval of
the housing, building , and other code r equir ements of the
Workable Pro gram will constitute compliance for urban. r e newal
purpose s with Se ction lOl(a) of the Housing Act of 1949, and
no additional information will be r equired for that purpo s e.
8.
AVAILABILITY OF WORKABLE PR03RAM AS PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Since th e
Workable Pro gram is a publi c docume nt , i t must be made available
for public perusal a nd examination. At the ir reque st, copies
should be made available by the locality to citizen groups and
organizations which should be encourage d to participate in the
'develoµn ent and implementation of the Workable Pro gram.
9.
GUIDES . Supplementary guide s will be issue d to provide communities
with advi ce and illustrat ions in conne ction with carryi ng out the
Workable Pro gr am, including des crJption of the s cope a nd conte nt
of compr ehensive pl~nni ng progr ams, ways of organizing and carrying
out effe ctive r e lo cation and code enforcement pro grams, and means
for encouraging and deve loping citi zen involvement. Pending i ssuance of the Guides , questions and r eque sts for technica l assistance
should be dire ct ed to the Regional Offi ce.
Page 5
10/68
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'r
RHA 7100.1
•
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 7.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
1.
REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZEN I NVOLVEMENT. A guiding principle of Departmental policy is to in sure that citizens have the opportunity
to participate in policies and prograijls which affect their welfare.
Therefore, the Workable Program requires clear evidence that the
community provides opportunities for citizens, including those who
are poor and members of minority groups, to participate in all
HUD assisted programs for which a Workable Program is a requirement, and in the community's plan to expand the supply of low- and
moderate-income housing. (S ee Chapter 1, paragraph 5 for li st of
applicable HUD programs.) The community will also be expected to
show what progress has be en made durin g each certification period
to achi eve an adequate and effective degree of citizen involvement.
2.
PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT, The growing complexity of urban deve lopme nt and gove rnment organization make it
essential that widespr ead opportunities for citizen involvement
be created, including opportunities for poor and minority groups,
for many reasons. In some cases, existing local institutions
seem unable to identify the serious proplems of many citizens, as
the citizens define them. In turn, th e people may feel cut off
from their public r epresentative·s', and lack understanding of what
government is doing to and for them. At the same time, traditional
acts of pa rticipa.tion--voting , attendance at meetings, letters to
Congressmen-- are frequently ineffective in dealing with the immediate problems raised by increasingly l ar ge and complex programs
having direct impact on peoples' lives. For these reasons, new
forms of collaborative relationships between citizens and government, new means for participation in the decision-making process,
need to be developed. Recognizing th e need for experimentation and
innovation, the Workable Program does not contain any specific requirements for the form that citizen participation must take. Tne
choice of mechanisms depends upon the needs of the particular community and the structure of the local government. However, there
are certain principles and objectives which should underlie the
community's effort. One is that the community's responsibility
does not end with the establishment of a particular mechanism or .
set of mechanisms. The Workable Program requires continuing effort
on the part of the community to improve and expand the opportunities for creative forms of participation and collaboration that
both ensure repres entation by poor and minority groups. as well as
enable government to take effective, purposeful, and expert action
to deal with the problems and needs facing the community. It is
essentia l that the participation be satisfying, rewarding, and not
frustratin g if it is to achieve the basic objective of cr eating
and sustaining a vo luntary union and mutual trust between governand its citizens.
p
338- 597 0 - 60 - J
Page 1
11/68
�WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.1
"
CHAPTER 7
3,
EXAMPLES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES. It is important that
the community deve lop specific plans for achieving and maintaining
adequate and e ffective citizen involveme nt in the programs covere d.
A community may establish a new community-wide advisory committee
embracing all major interests~ including the poor and members of
minority groups or may create several new special-purpose groups,
or may make b ette r utilization of existing organi zations. Communities which already have establishe d ef.fective citizen advisory
committees for Workable Program purposes are encouraged to retain
them and improve their effectiveness. Communities participating
in the Mode l Cities program or other programs involving a high
degree of citizen participation are encouraged to coordinate the
citizen involvement activities under the Workable Program with the
citi zen pa rtic ipat ion r equirements of th ese programs , where
applicable. In addition to establishing appropriate organizational means for citizen involvement, a community may wish to
take such steps as the following in orde-r - t o- further the objectives
of this element:
a.
.. .. ,
,
,
b.
The developfilent of specific function s for c itizen committees,
such as having t hem hold public hearings , prepare comments on
Workable Program appli cation s , evalua t e proj ect pla n s , conduct
interviews and surveys of neighborhood residents ' views, etc.
The development of specific methods by which the community can
establi sh a basis for insuring there will be fa ir and reasonable r epr esentativeness of advisory committee s participa ting
in th e Workable Program. For example , one method by which to
compo se a community-wide advisory committee might be to choose
repres entatives in equal proportions, from private neighborhood
groups, government program-connected advisory groups, and civic
groups.
/
4.
c.
The establi shment of a planning group t o he l p develop new ideas
and t e chniques for generating greater involvement among poor
and di sadva ntaged groups .
d.
The pr ovision of funds and technical assistance to neighborhood
and other advisory groups so they may become be tter informed
and equippe d t o deal with complex redevelopment problems.
e.
The assignment of specific activities in HUD- assiste d pro j ects
to de signate d ne ighborhood groups, such as evaluating site and
design cons ide r ations, e stablishing information centers, and
making recommendations with r espect to housing project regulation s.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS. To provide a basis for
.e valua ting the citize n involveme nt el ement of Workable Program
ll/ 68
Page 2
�WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.~
CHAPTER 7
•
applications and for determining the adequacy of such involvement,
the community will be expected to submit the following kinds of
information:
a.
A description of the arrangements or working relationships
established to provide citizen groups with opportunities for
access to the decision-making pro.cess with respect to the related HUD-assisted projects related to the Workable Program.
b.
A description of the nature and range of issues with which the
participating groups and individuals have dealt, the recommendations subsequently made, and the general results and
accomplishments derived from such involvement.
c.
A description of the specific steps the community took in the
preceding period and proposes to take in the next certification
period to achieve or maintain an adequate and effective degree
of citizen involvement, including plans for providing sufficient information, technical assistance, and access to decision-making.
\.>,
Page 3
10/68
�HUD-1081
(11-68)
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
REQUIREMENT. The Workable Program requires clear evidence that the community provides and continues to
expand, opportunities for citizens, especiall y tho se who are poor and members of minority
groups, to participate in all phases of the related HUD-assisted renewal and housing programs. The particular organizational means for community involvement is left to the discretion of each community, but the community mu s t demon s trate in its Workable Progra m submission that it provides clear and direct access to decision making, relevant and timely information, and necessary technical assistance to participating groups and individuals in programs
covered.
1. (a) Identify the groups participating in the HUD-assisted programs related to the Workable Program and in
the community's program to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income hou sing.
(b) Describ e the type of groups (e.g. civic, neighborhood, hous ing) that are participating, and the constituency repre sented (e.g. poor, middle-class, Negro, public hous ing res idents ) •
• 18 •
�HUD·! 081
(11-68)
(c) Describe what pa rticular HUD-ass is ted programs and proj ects s uch groups a re parti ci pating in .
•
(_.,
.,
(d) Desc ribe efforts to achi eve coordination among cit.izen participation structures loc ated in the same area
or having s imilar program inte res ts.
·
- 19 -
�HUD-1081
(11-68)
2. Describe the arrange ments or working re lations hips s et up to provide groups a nd indi vidua ls opportunities
for access to a nd partici pa tion in deci s ion-making in the a ppli cabl e HUD-ass isted progra ms •
•
3. Des cribe the s te ps whi ch have been taken in regard to the applicable programs to provide participating
groups a nd individua ls s uffi c ie nt information a nd techni ca l ass is tance .
4. Des cribe the nature a nd range of issues re lating to the applicable programs with whi ch participa ting groups
and individua ls have dealt; the recommenda tions s ubs eque ntly made; and the s pec ific res ul ts and accomplis hments of the partic ipa tion.
• 20 U. S. GOVERNMENT P RINTING OFFICE: 1068 0 - 327 - 649
�CITY OF A.TLANTA.
May 30, 1969
CITY HALL
ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B . GLADIN , Dir e ctor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jof1) Robi ~son
FROM:
c~
SUBJECT: Summer Program 1 69
Our contacts with the Summer Program for all matters except zoning will be
George Aldridge and for zoning, Tom Shuttleworth .
CG/jp
�r
. FUl'f0I NG OF URBAN R.EN:SW1~L AND
lIBJ.GHBOREOOD DEVELO?i:,fENT PROGB}J,1
PROJ ECTS
APRI L 29, 1969 .
.
�-I
,-
. '---· ·
The City of Atlanta is pres ent ly engaged in eight Urban Renewal Projects
and five Neighborhood Developme nt Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in
Thes e projects are fund ed jointly by the City and the
planning only).
Federal Governmen t.
The funding arrangement calls for a contribution
equal to one~third of the Net Project costs from tha City with the· re~
rnaini.ng two--thirds being suppJied by ·che Federal Gov ernmen t.
The City's share may b e in the form of ca sh contributions or non-ca sh
grants-in-aid, th e se grnrits-in- aid are demo lition and removal work,
project or site i ~prov eme nt s , public and supporting facilities, and other s
such as credits fro~ construc~ion of public housings.
At pres ent, the
eight Urb an Ren rn-1 al project~ presently in execution are Slunrna rized as
follows:
Net Project Costs
Local Non- Cash Gra nts-In-Aid
Local Cash and Real Estate
Cr edits
$60 millionl
20 rn:i.llion
1 million
This points very emphatically to th e feet that our prese nt Urban Renewa l
program has been financed al mos t comp l e tely through the use of non-cash
grants·· in-aid.
The res ults of this policy can be seen in th_e long delays
encountered in the clo sing out of these projects, some of which date back
into the 1950 's·.
The cash used for these projects has cor:ie frcr:rt money set aside in the 1957
and 1963 Genera l Obl igat ion Bond Issue s and totaling $3.2 milliono
There-
fore, we have, at present, $2.1 million of unencu:.1bered fun ds available
f:rom this source.
Of this amount, $1. 7 is presently expected to be needed
lof this amount $4.5 mi llion or 7\% has been incurred as interest charges.
�- I
___·L__-
to meet the cash requin:ments of the Be~:fo:cd-Pine Neit;hborhooc1 Develop;T1.2ni:
Program Project in 1970.
The non.,c ash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of
total expenditures totaling about
$29 million and have some of the
following forms .
School
Sect i on 107 2 & Specia l Credits
Streets
Parks
Water T.mp:r.ove1aent
Sewer Improvement s
Special Facilities
Traffic I r,1p;:-ovemeats .
Oth er
$llol~ million
1.3 million
l~. 7 m:i.llion
.7 million
. 6 million
c6 m:i.lJ.:Lon
.3 m:i.11:Lon
.1 million
million
-~
$20.0 million
Some of the problems encount ered because of t he use of non-cash contributions (9408% of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban
Renewal activities are :
1.
Butler Street
A.
Middle School with a total estim.'.lted co st of $2 million has
been delaying the close of this proj ect , but should be under
contract by August of 1969.
2o
Ra-1vson - Washington
A• . Neighborhood Fac ilities, Building with a total estimated cost
of $1 million of which $150,0C0 will be an e ligibl e proj ect
cost.
This project is at present unfunded with -the only
poss ible source of funds be i ng t~rough Mode l Citi es o
It is
presen t ly plenned f or the Ci t y to purchase the l and from t he
Housing Authority and hold this until a det ermi na tion i s made
_;
2r.rN1i
rs rP.sulti.n ~ fro m th e construction of Publ ic Housing .
�-I -· . L_ __
r egard irrg t h e t.1. se of :t-:ode J. CH :i. es f und s.
B.
P.s.rk 1-lith an es tiir.a t ed co s t 0£ $2L:0,000 of wh :i.ch $33,000
will b0 el igibl e cos ts .
No s our c e of fu nding is pr e sently
asce r tainabl e ,
A.
El emen t a ry School 1-1ith an e st i ma t ed cost of $1.5 mj_llion a nd
expected to be und er contract by Aui us t of 1969.
B.
An e:-::pansion of the cx:i.st ing el ernent 8. ry scho o1. with an e s ti-
mated co s t of $700,000 and a t pre sent unf:un ded.
c.
Pa1·l~ with an e s tima t ed co s t of $75,000 which is al s o p:;:-es ently
unftinded .
4, Th omasvi ll e
A.
El ement ary schoo l wi th $1.5 mill i on es timat ed co st and expect ed to b e under contract by Au gus t, 19 69.
B.
Pa rk with est i ma t ed cost of $126,00 0 which i s at pr esent
unfunded.
C.
Tvn primar y scho ol EJ
with $1 million es tina t ed total cost and
a middl e school wi th an est i ma t ed co s t of $2 mi llion are unfunded and n o s our c e is s een until nt l eas t J ~~e of 1971.
The a dvent of th e Neighb orho od Deve l opment Program has br ought t o a n end
t he period during whi ch t he Ci ty could pl edge an i mprovemen t and t he n
wai t unt il funding b ecame av.s.i l ab le b efore c ompl et i ng it.
Und e r t he t erms
of an NDP agreeme nt, the City must h ave co~nple t ed or have unde r cont ract
al l non- ca sh grants - in- aid p l edged f or tha t pa r ticul ar yea r or contribut e
the requ i r ed amoun t in c ash.
- 3-
�..
,....
'
Our p:rc: :, cnt
1-mr
p1~ojects We:re
funded fo;~ 19 69 £r ora c11;:-eac1y existing imp:rnve··
ments o~ supporting facilities amounting to a tot a l City coDmi ttment of
$10. 8 million.
This supports a tot a l ·Nei ~hbo:choo
.din - Import.wee of ~rvey , to City of Atlanta, Planning Dep.::rtm.ent, Housing Code Division. Responsibility of Planning Department and Housing Code Division, Introduction of Planning Department Contact Person (Neyers). HUD representatives - Importance of Survey to Housing Code Compliance Progre.m, to Workable Progran, to other Cities. .' .. ~ In attendance: J. S. Buchanan Tom Ficht Harold Taylor IV. Questions and Answers �AGENDA Meetine: Department of Housing & Urban Development Planning Department Atlanta Housing Authority Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings Held: Office of Collier Glndin 10:30-11:00 a.m., March 12, 1968 Chairman: Helen l.feyers ~cussion Topics: 1. Evaluation of Atlanta survey techniques and procedures by Department of Housing & Urban Development and Atlanta Housing Authority. 2. Use of Atlanta's survey information by Department of Housing & Urban Development and by the City for Federal program planning. 3. Development and adoption of a uniform set of standards and .definitions for structural evaluation and rating. 4. Organizing a corr.mittee or other mechanism from the . Department of Housing & Urban Developm~ nt, Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta Planning Department, Housing Code Division to work on the above. �, / ATTENDANCE SHEET ! j Collier Gladin - Planning Dept. W. Buchanan - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Tom Ficht - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Harpld Taylor - Dept. of Housing &_Urban Development Wally Screws - Atlanta Housing Authority Jim Smith - Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings George Aldridge - Planning Department John Watson - Planning Department Helen Meyers - Planning Department Jack Linville - Planning Department Wallace Edson - Housing Code Division Robert Tipton - HousiP~ Code Division 10 Housing Code Inspectors - Housing Code Division •.. �l\1EIG1-IBOR..1-IOOD D:'!:V:-.:LOP11ENT PROGR.!J :;: PI'OJ ECTS APRI L 29 , 1969 �The City of At l anta i s pres ent l y engage d in ei ght Ur ban Renewa l Pr ojec ts and five Neighbo r ho od Development Pro gram Projects (3 i n ex ecut ion , 2 in planrti ng onl y). Thes e pr oj ec ts a r e f unded jo int l y by t he Ci ty and t h e Fede:r:a l Governmen t. The fu nding a r r angement ca ll s for a contribution equal to one- th ird of the Ne t Proj ect co s t s from t h e City wi t h t h e remaining ti,10~t h i rds being s upplied by the Federa l Government . The Ci t y ' s share ma y be i n the f or m of cash cont r i butions or non- ca sh grants-in-aid , t hes e grant s -in- a i d ar e demol it io n and r emova l wor k , pr ojec t or s it e i mprovements , public and support ing f acil ities , and ot h e r s s uch a s c red i t s f rom cons truct ion of pub lic ho us i ngs . At pr ese nt, t he eight Ur ban Renewa l pro j ec t s presen tl y in execution are s unm1ar i zed a s follows: Net Pro j ec t Cos t s Loc a l Non-C a sh Gran ts - In-Aid Loca l Ca sh a nd Rea l Es t a te Cr edit s $60 millionl 20 million 1 million This poi nts ve ry emphat ic a lly to the f ac t t hat our pr es ent Urban Renewa l pr ogram has b een f inanced al most compl etel y through t h e us e of non- cash grant s-in- aid . The r e su lts of t h is pol i c y c an b e seen in tl~e long d elays enc ountered in th e c los ing out of these pr ojects, some of wh ich da t e back i nto the 1950 ' s ·. Th e cash used f or thes e pr oj ects has c ome from money set aside i n the 1957 a nd 1963 General Ob l igat ion Bond Issue s and to t aling $3.2 mil l i on o Th er efo r e, we have, at present , $2.1 million of unenc umbered f und s ava ilab l e f r om thi s s ource . Of th is amount, $1.7 is pre s ent l y expected to be needed lo£ thi s a,t1ount $4. 5 million or 7}{/4 has been incurred as interest charges o �·. ' - to mee t . tl ,e cash r equi rements of t he Bedfor d-Pine Nei ghbo r hood Development Program Proj ec t i n 1970 . The non- cash con t ributions of $20 mi l lion a re the e l igibl e portion of to tal expenditures tota ling ab out $2 9 million and have some of the fol lowing fo rms . Schoo l Sec tion 1072 & Special Credi ts Stre et s Parks Wa t er I mpr ovement Sewer I mpr ovemen:: s Spec i al Fac i l it i es Tra ff:i. c I m:_Jl'."ovements . Other $11o4 million 1. 3 mi ll ion ~.• 7 mi ll i on • 7 mi ll i on .6 million 06 mill i on .3 mi ll i on .1 million o3 mi llion $20 . 0 million Some o f th e prob l ems encountered becaus e of th e us e of non-ca sh cont ributions ( 9li. o8% of total city f unding) as t he City ' s s our ce of funding Ur ba n Renewal activiti e s ar e: 1. But l er St ree t A. Middle School with a to tal e s timated co st of $2 milli on has been delaying th e c l ose of this pro j ect, but should be under contrac t by August of 1969. 2o Rawson - Washington A. Ne ighbor hood Fa c ilitie s, Build ing with a total es t i ma ted co st of $1 million of wh ich $150, 000 will be a n eligible pr oj ect c ost. This pr oj ect i s at pr esent unfunded with the only pos sib l e s ource of f unds being through Model Ci ties o It is presently planned for the City t o purchase the l and f r om th e Housing Au thor ity a nd hold this unt il a dete rmi nation is made �·• J - r egarding the use of Mode l Ci t ies funds. B. Park with an estimated co st of $240,000 of which $33,000 will be eligible costs . No source of funding is presently ascertainable . 3. Rockdale A. Elementar y School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and expec ~ed to be under contra ct by August of 1969. B. An expansion o f the existing ele1 entary school with BL esti- mated c ost of $700 ,000 and at present unfunded . C. Par k 1·1 ith an estimc1ted cost of $75,000 which is also pre sent l y unfunded. ~.. Thomasvil le A. Elementary school with $LS million estimated cost and exp ected to b e under contract by August , 1969 . B. Park with estimated cos t of $126,000 which is at p res ent unfunded. C. Tw:> prima ry schoola with $1 million estimated total cost and a middle school with an estimated cost of $2 mi llion are unfunded and no source is seen until &t least J une of 1971. The advent of the Neighborhood Development Program has brought to an end the period during which the City could pledge an improvement and then wait until funding became ava ilable before completing it. Under the terms of an NDP agreemen t , the Ci t y mus t have comple ted or have und er contrac t all non-cash grants-in-aid pl edged f or t h at part i c ular year or contribute t he required amount i n cash . - 3- �-I_ I ' Our present NDP pr oj ec ts we:;_·e funded for 1969 fr om already ex isting i mprove~ ments or suppor ting facilities amoun ting to a tota l City coP-anittment of $10 .8 million. This supports a t ota l l·~eighborhood Development Program of $32.fi. million. The 1970 program is expected to have the following City requirements : Non~Cash Cash Bedfo1·d-Pine $ • 2 million $1. 7 mil lion 1.5 millinn 1.3 million Hodel Cities • l mi ll1.c11 . 2 mi llion Edgewood • 2 million . 1 mil ?. ion Vine City $3.Lf mi ll lou $1.9 mill ion Thi s would support a total program of $1909 mi l lion and would i ncrease great ly if the Edgewood and Vine Cit y proj ect s were expanded to a significant level of activi t y. This means that to support th e fair ly light level of activity projected f.o r 1970, the City wj_ll need approxi mately $1. 7 million . I f any new areas are added or the level of activity increased this woul d increase f rom $2 •.S to $4. 0 mi llion for 19 700 The possible s ources of fund s include: 1. General Funds - This ro urce is already under considerab l e pressure and no relief is presently anticipat ed . 2. The G. annually . o. Bonds already approved, f or issue in the amount of $4 mi llion ' The fi nanc ing of Neighborhood Development Pro6rams from these bonds would require t he us e of almost this entire amoutit every year and could ver y likely be come embroited in l egal tangles. 3. Another possibility is a spec ial Neighborhood Development Program General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 million in 1970 with another issue 4 or 5 years lat er or the obtaining of voter approval to issue G. O. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 million per year. �' .I This approach is n atura l ly s ubject to t:..he ut :Lrns of th e public, and, t herefo re , of unce rtain dependab ility . 4. PerLaps the be st metlod would be th r ough the obtaining of a n eH revenue s ource, by s tate approva l, such as a s ales tax or a payr oll tax of which a c ertain portion wou ld be earma:i::-ked for Neighborhoo:1 Deve lopmen t Progr e....rns . Of cours e in the pursuit of a new sourc e of r ev enue we are a t lo ggerh eads with the sta ~ and may not be able to obta in a s at isfacto ry revenue source . Regard le s s of the method you f avor in ob t aini ng the needed funds , it is i mperat i ve, if the City of At lanta is to ma inta in its progre ssive i mage and t o c ont i nu e its drama t ic deve l opment , that a source be found ; bec au s e the cont i nuat ion of a signific ant program of restoration and rehabl i ta tion of t he c entral co r e of Atlanta i s a v ital element in t he continu ed evo l utio n o f our Cityo - 5- �COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM City Planning Department City Hall Atlanta, Ga. January, 1968 OUTLIN"E .INTRODUCTION IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOAIB & PROGRA..M STRATEGY STATEMENT - GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNI NG (1) Discussion Reports (2) Distributien of Rep0rts ATTACHMENTS Discussion Reports Chart Report #1 - Problem .Analysis, Sample Outline �IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION If the planning of the Model Neighborhood Program is to be successful, it is absolutely essential that all key participants ·i.ir the program are well organized. This means that the following organi zational matters should be accomplished before planning begins. 1. The Model Neighborhood Executive Boa rd should be formed to act as the ultimate authori ty of the pr@gram. It should allow representation from all levels of gover-JLment - city, county, state, and federal; residents of the Model Nei ghborhood area; and residents of the city-at-large. 2. The Model Neighborhood staff should be f ormed, including the executive director, the three chief planners and the technical staff. 3. Stable local organizations which adequ at el y represent the residents of the various neighborhoods in the area should be in operation. While those organizations should be representative of the interests of all residents and give everyone a voice in their affairs, they should not be se cumbersome that they cannot work effectively with the planners. In other words, it will be physica.JJ..v impossible for the planners to carry all of their work directly to the 'grass roots' organizations of the area. This may be necessary for some key issues, but for the most part planners will have to work with a small committee of 10-20 persons if they are to accomplish anything worthwhile. �COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The Model Neighborhood Program offers an excellent opportunity to bring about basic improvements in one of the most problematic areas of Atlanta. The area selected for the pr0gram contains all the varied and complicated forms of urban blight which plague American cities today, from overcrowded, su~standard housing to incompatible land use mj_xtures to poer street conditions and inadequate community facilities to all facets of socio-economic poverty and deprivation. Most of these conditions have deep roots and are so complex and of such a nature that it will take nothing less than a special concentrated long-term effort to eliminate them. So far no major city in the country has been successful in eliminating them. The Model Neighborhood Program can bring about t he special concentrated effort which is needed to alleviate the conditions of the ' Model Neighborhood' area. It is designed to pool the resources of the city, county, state, and federal governments along with tho se of private interest groups to make a total attack on the serious and widespread problems of the area for a period of several years. The funds it provides will support the pr gram through the planning and implementation stages. However, if the Model Neighborhood Program is to avoid the mistakes of many previous efforts to help slwn residents it is very important that the pr gram be carefully planned and that local residents be involved throughout all stages of planning. The purpose of this report is to show how c mmunity par ticipation ean be effectively fitted into the planning f the M del Nei~hborho0d Pr gram. -2- �Hence the neighborhood groups of the area should be capable of fer.ming such a cemmittee which can wor k with the planners and relay this work to the 'grass ro0ts' groups . It has been suggested that the steering committee of the various neighb0rhood gr oups in the area serve this function . PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING The federal government has set the pr ocedure s for the planning of the Model NeighborhQod Program. The period allowed f or planning is one year, beginning with the date of the congressional announcement of the program (Nov. 15, 1967 - Nov• . 15, 1968). During t his period t he foll0wing planning items have to be submitted to the fe de ral government for approval: 1. Problem Analysis, Goals & Progra~ Strategy Statement 2. Five -Year Pl an 3. Firs t-Year Action Progr am 4. Pl anning and Evaluation Progr am S. Statement of Administ rative St ructLITe for Impl ement ation Of t hese planning submission requirements , the firs t one - the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program St rategy'Statemeht - i s probably the most important, as it will set the stage for the rest of the planning effort. It will establish the general orientation of the Five-Year Plan and the FirstYear Action Program and will initiate the general procedures for community participation in planning. Thus, it can serve as a guide as to how the local residents will be involved in plam1ing. -3- �PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOALS AND PROGRAM STRATEGY STAT~j§JIT-GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING The preparation of the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program Strategy is divided into three stages or milestones: Strategy. Problem Analysis; Goals; and It is intended that the Model Neighborhood planning staff and the community will be working cl0sely toget her in this preparation so that the best of their ideas will go into the f inal statement submitted to HUD. (1) DISCUSSION REPORTS The basis 0f the working relationship between the Model Neighborhood planning st aff and community will cent er ar oLU1d discussion repor ts to cover each milestone: Problems; Goals; and Strategy. These reports will be done by the planning staff and designed to st imulate discussion among t he r esi dents . They will not be the f inal word on anything, but merely present t he information available to the pl anning st aff so as to initi ate community involvement and discussion on t he significant pl anni ng is sues. The community will be able to criticize , add to and/or subtract from the reports . F0r exampl e , t he f irst r epor t will cover the subject: Problem Analysis and attempt to identify and survey the major condi t ions and problems of the Model Neighborhood area which ju st ify treatment. a. It will: define and document the major conditi0ns And problems as far as available data will allow and according to f ollowing categories: employment; housing ; schools; recreation ; land use; health services; family, legal services; police protection.; ,and 'ether. -4- �b. preseBt the i..nforrnati0n in a simple and concise manner so th2t lay citizens will have a minimum amount of tr<:mble in reading it. c. provide a brief questionnaire on which residents can rate the priority of problems in their community according to the above categories in (a). d. provide space in which residents caD criticize the contents of the report, i.e., redefine problems, r eorganize data, contribute additional ideas, etc. (2) DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS The reports are to be distributed to each of the six communicities in the Model Neighborhood area. They will include infonnation on the area as a whole and on the particular community to which it is distributed. It probably will not be feasible to get written responses from all residents ef the area. But perhaps certain people frem each community could be responsible for surveying the responses of the residents, summarizing them, and writing them down to be ret urned to the planning staff. The reports will be all wed to circulate for a maximum period of two weeks. This should give enough time for r esidents to gather up their written responses te the report. Also during this time it would be desirable to have a general meeting in each community, whe r e residents can _freely express their own ideas ab0ut the subj ect matter of the report. After this circulation period which hopefully will br ing about fruitful dialogue and exchanges between the planners and the cormnunity, the planning staff should then be in a position to draw up final reports on Pr blems, Goals and St rategy which fully incorporate the ideas of �the residents. These reports would then make up the final Problem Analysis, Goals, and Pregram Strategy Sta tement . ATTACHMENTS Attached to this report are: 1. a chart which shows how the deadline dates and circulation periods of the discussion reports fit int0 the work program for the Problem Analysis, Geals, and Progr am Strategy Statement . 2. a sample outline of Rep0rt #1, Probl em Analysis. - 6 - �DISCUSSION REPORTS CHART PLANNING ACTIVITY Milestone Work Tasks Jan . Feb. Mar . Apr. May l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 - 1) Problem Analysis Goals and Strategy Swnmary ef Tasks l) Citizen or i entation 2) Problem Analysis 3) Goals Development 4) Strate gy 5) Pr eparation of Report A) Preblem Analysis Report #1 1) Assemble Availabl e Data 2) Decision on Additional Data Requi red 3) Gather Additional Data Required 4) Citizen Analysis of Problems 5) Summarize and .Anal yze 6) Pr epare Report Legend Deadline for distributing reports to community .A Circulation period - - - - Deadline for collection reports from community -y - ·- .--I- - - �Jan. Miltest0ne Werk Tasks Feb . Mar. Apr. Summary of Tasks ' B) Goals Report #2 1) Decument Exi sting Goal s 2) Citizen Goals Set ting 3) Synthesis and Repor t Pr eparation C) Str ategy Report #3 1) Devel 0p Program Approach 2) Establish Program Pr i ority 3) I denti fy Cr itical Changes Requir ed 4) Report Preparation I May 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 •--, - L.. ---. -- �REPORT #1 - PROBLEM ANALYSIS SAMPLE OUTLINE I. II. Introduction A. Pu~pose of report - to identify and document major conditiens · and problems of area B. Brief description of Model Neighborhood Area and its six communities Problems of Model Neighborhood Area as a Whole 1. 2. 3. 4. s. I II. 6. Health services 1. Family, legal services Housing Employment Schools Recreation Land Use 8. 9. Police protection and c0mmunity relations Other Problems Which Are Especially Acute In Parti cular C0mmunity (e.g. Grant Park) While Grant Park contains all of the proble s affecting the Model Neighborhood areas as a whole, it is especiall~r har dpressed with the following pr oblems. 1. 2. IV. Employment Family, legal services Questionnaire: How Do You Rate Your Community? Schools ___god ___fair ___poor v. Housing Etc. ---good --- fair ---poor Comments 1. Do you think this report adequat ely covered the main problems f your neighborhood? 2. What problems do you find not mentioned in the report? � - Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: December 29, 2017
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 12
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 12
- Text: FUNDING OF UPp/n RENEWAL AND NETGHSORHOCD DEVSLOFMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS APRIL 29, 1969 The City of Atlanta is presently engaged in eight Urban Renewal Projects and five Neighborhood Development Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in planning only). These projects are funded jointly by the City and the Federal Government. The funding were calls for a contribution equal to one-third of the Net Project costs from the City with the re- maining two-thirds being supplied by the Federal Government. The City's share may be in the form of cash contributions or non-cash grants-in-aid, these grants-in-aid are demolition and removal work, project or site improvements, public and supporting facilities, and others such as credits from construction of public housings. At present, the eight Urban Renewal projects presently in execution are summarized as follows: Net Project Costs $60 million! Local Non-Cash Grants-In-Aid 20 million Local Cash and Real Estate Credits 1 million This points very emphatically to the fact that our present Urban Renewal program has been financed almost completely through the use of non-cash grants-in-aid, The results of this policy can be seen in the long delays encountered in the closing out of these projects, some of which date back into the 1950's. The cash used for these projects has come from money set aside in the 1957 and 1963 General Obligation Bond Issues and totaling $3.2 million. There- fore, we have, at present, $2.1 million of unencumbered funds available from this source, Of this amount, $1.7 is presently expected to be needed lof this amount $4.5 million or 74% has been incurred as interest charges. ee to meet the cash requirements of the Bedford=Pine Neighborhood Development Program Project in 1970. The non-cash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of total expenditures totaling about $29 million and have some of the following forms. School $11.4 million Section 1072 & Special Credits 1.3 million Streets 4.7 million Parks «7 million Water Improvement e6 million Sewer Improvements 06 million Special Facilities e3 million Traffic Improvements . el million Other e3 million —— es $20.0 million we ee Some of the problems encountered because of the use of non-cash contribu- tions (94.8% of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban Renewal activities are: 1. Butler Street A. Middle School with a total estimated cost of $2 million has been delaying the close of this project, but should be under contract by August of 1969. 2. Rawson ~ Washington 7 A. tetenboehood Facilities, Building with a total estimated cost of $1 million of which $150,000 will be an eligible project cost. This project is at present unfunded with the only possible source of funds being through Model Cities. It is presently plannedfor the City to purchase the land from the Housing Authority and hold this until a determination is made rss Beers eee Bia Sha aanenteinedan AF PANTS Paws dries resarding the use of Model Cities funds, B. Park with an estimated cost of $240,000 of which $33,000 will be eligible costs, ascertainable. 3. Rockdale No source of funding is presently A. Elementary School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and expected to be under contract by August of 1969. B. An expansion of the existing elementary school with an esti~ mated cost of $700,000 and at present unfunded. C. Park with an estimated cost of $75,000 which is also presently unfunded, 4. Thomasville A. Elementary school with $1.5 million estimated cost and ex- pected to be under contract by August, 1969, B. Park with estimated cost of $126,000 which is at present unfunded, C. Tw primary schools with $1 million estimated total cost and a middle school with an estimated cost of $2 million are un-= funded and no source is seen until at least June of 1971. The advent of the Neighborhood Development Program has brought to an end the period during which the City could pledge an improvement and then wait until funding became available before completing it. Under the texms of an NDP agreement, the City must have completed or have under contract all non-cash grants-in-aid pledged for that particular year or contribute the required amount in cash, 23. Our present NDP projects were funded for 1969 from already existing improve~ ments or supporting facilities amounting to a total City committment of $10.8 million. This supports a total Neighborhood Development Program of $32.4 million. The 1970 program is expected to have the following City requirements: : Cash Non-Cash Bedford-Pine $1.7 million $ .2 million Model Gities 1.5 million 1.3 million Edgewood el millica «2 million Vine City el million «2 million $3.4 million $1.9 million Be ere ee ote This would support a total program of $19.9 million and would increase greatly if the Edgewood and Vine City projects were expanded to a signi- ficaht level of activity. This means that to support the fairly light level of activity projected for 1970, the City will need approximately $1.7 million. If any new areas are added or the level of activity increased this would increase from $2.5 to $4.0 million for 1970, The possible sources of funds include; 1. General Funds - This »urce is already under considerable pressure and no relief is presently anticipated. 2. The G O. Bonds already approved. for issue in the amount of $4 million annually. The financing of Neighborhood heveliomment Programs fm these bonds would require the use of almost this entire amouht every year and could very likely become embroiled in legal tangles, 3. Another possibility is a special Neighborhood Development Program General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 million in 1970 with another issue 4 or 5 years later or the obtaining of voter approval to issue G. 0. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 million per year. This approach is naturally subject to the whims of the public, and, there- fore, of uncertain dependability. 4, Perhaps the best method would be thxough the obtaining of a new rvevenve source, by state approval, such as a sales tax or a payroll] tax of which a certain portion would be earmarked for Neighborhool Development Programs, Of course in the pursuit of a new source of revenue we are at loggerheads with the state and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory revenue source. Regardless of the method you favor in obtaining the needed funds, it is imperative, if the City of Atlanta is to maintain its progressive image and to continue its dramatic development, that a source be found; because the continuation of a significant program of restoration and rehablitation of the central core of Atlanta is a vital element in the continued evolution of our City.
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 2
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 2
- Text: #U-69-34-S #Z-69-93-S #Z-69-91-S #Z-69-89-S AGENDA ZONING COMMITTEE Meeting, Thursday, July 24, 1969 Aldermanic Chamber, Second Floor, City Hall, 2:00 P.M. An Application for a Special Use Permit for a church to be located at MACON DRIVE, fronting 40 feet on the east side of Macon Drive, S.W., beginning 316.5 feet north from the corner of Bromack Drive, S.W. Depth approximately 624 feet. Land Lot 70, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Mrs. Thelma Lois Morgan, Owner New Hope Baptist Church - Applicant Proposed Use - Church (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4 An Ordinance to rezone from A-1-C (Apartment-Conditional) District to C-l (Commercial) District, property located at the Northeast corner of OLD HAPEVILLE ROAD and CLEVELAND AVENUE, S.W., fronting 200 feet on the north side of Cleveland Avenue, S.W., beginning O feet from the northeast corner of Old Hapeville Road. Depth 456 feet. Area 92,000 square feet. Land Lot 69, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Dr. Robert B. Hodgson, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Office & Service Station (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-1-C (Apartment-Conditional) District, property located at 2965 BROWNS MILL ROAD, S.E., fronting 78.2 feet on the west side of Browns Mill Road, beginning 930 feet from the southwest corner of Springside Drive. Depth 1,024 feet. Area approximately 78,900 square feet. Land Lot 61, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. William T. Stanfield, Owner Robert A. Young - Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 4 (Planning Board, adverse recommendation): yg? ei An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (nesidentialipiecetce to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 3116 BROWNS MILL ROAD, fronting 251.5 feet on the northeast side of Browns Mill Road, beginning 500.7 feet from the northeast corner of Humphries Drive. Depth varies. Area 23.3 acres. Land Lots 35 & 62, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ruby Allene Brooks & W. T. Atkinson, Owners B & H Company - Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4 Sige a ar Aiello, scant ZONING COMMITTEE AGENDA Page 2 July 24, 1969 #Z-69-84-S #Z-69-80-S #U-69-30-S #U-69-31-C An Ordinance to rezone from A-1 (Apartment) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at JONESBORO ROAD, fronting 652.5 feet on the southwesterly side of Jonesboro Road, beginning 707.06 feet from the southwest corner of Macedonia Road. Depth 1048.43 feet. Area 16.4 acres. Land Lot 34, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. The Military Corporation, Owner Theodore G. Frankel - Applicant Proposed Use - Shopping Center & Office Park (Planning Board, favorable recommendation as amended to C-1-C) WARD 4 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-2 (Apartment) District, property located at 2946 & 2954 HAPEVILLE ROAD, S.W., fronting 192 feet on the east side of Hapeville Road, S.W., beginning 389 feet from the northeast corner of Mt. Zion Road. Depth 293.4 feet. Area 56,208 square feet. Land Lot 68, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Benjamin F. Martin, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use ~- Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) ‘ WARD 4 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Nursery to be located at 3625 ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.W., fronting 100 feet on the north side of Adamsville Drive, S.W., beginning 393.7 feet east from the corner of Woodstock Drive. Depth 200 feet. Land Lot 14, 14th FF District, Fulton County, Georgia. Emma Hunt (Renfroe), Owner Doris Strickland - Applicant Proposed Use - Day Nursery (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Nursing Home to be located at 120 LINE ROAD, S.W., fronting 252 feet on the east side of Line Road, beginning 680 feet north from the corner of Branch Drive. Depth 698 feet. Land Lot 13, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia ABDEC, Inc., Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Nursing home (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 #Z-69-85-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) and A~1 (Apartment) Districts to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at STEWART AVENUE, fronting 131 feet on the east side of Stewart Avenue, beginning 0 feet from the north corner of Grant Street. Depth 218 feet. Area 14,258 swuare feet. Land Lot 90, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. 3 Carrie Blake, Owner Cc. M. McChesney,- Applicant Proposed Use - Service Station WARD 4 (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) sl isha ZONING COMMITTEE AGENDA Page 3 July 24, 1969 #Z-69-83-S_ - #Z-69-94-S = #U-69-33-S - #Z-69-96-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 1955 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, fronting 260.7 feet on the north side of Campbellton Road, beginning O feet from the northeast corner of Honeysuckle Lane. Depth 212.1 feet. Area approximately 66,000 square feet. Land Lot 168, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Perry Boulevard, Inec., Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Service Station (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from C-L (Commercial-Limited) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2860 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S.W., fronting 120 feet on the south side of Campbellton Road, beginning 293 feet from the east corner of Maxwell Drive. Depth 340 feet. Area 33,000+'square feet. Land Lot 218, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ellis Maloof, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Car Wash (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Car Wash and Service Station, to be located at 2860 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S.W., fronting 120 feet on the south side of Campbellton Road, beginning 293 feet east from the corner of Maxwell Drive. Depth 340 feet. Land Lot 218, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ellis Maloof, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Car Wash & Service Station (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-l (Apartment) District, property located at FAIRBURN ROAD, S.W., fronting 100 feet on the west side of Fairburn Road, beginning 720 feet from the, south corner of, Garrison Drive. Depth 800+ feet. Area 236,013 square feet. Land Lot 8, 14th FF District, Fulton County, Georgia. D. E. Norris, Owner E. Lane Brown-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 7 i A te he acre to
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 9
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 9
- Text: AGENDA Meeting: Department of Housing & Urban Development Atlanta Planning Department Atlanta Housing Authority Atlanta Housing Code Division of the Department of Buildings Held: Committee Room #1 , 10:00-10:30 a.m., March 12, 1968 I. Jim Smith - Introduction of Meeting, Introduction of Speakers II. Collier Gladin - Importance ae Susvey to City of Atlanta, Planning Department, Housing Code Division. Responsibility of Planning Department and Housing Code Division, introduction of Planning Department Contact Person (ieyers) . III. HUD representatives - Importance of Survey to Housing Code Compliance Program, to Workable Program to other Cities. _ Les In attendance: J. S. Buchanan Tom Ficht Harold Taylor IV. Questions and Answers
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 11
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 11
- Text: ae ATTENDANCE SHEET NAME Collier Gladin - Planning Dept. W. Buchanan - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Tom Ficht - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Harold Taylor ~ Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Wally Screws - Atlanta Housing Authority Jim Smith - Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings George Aldridge - Planning Department John Watson - Planning Department “Helen Meyers - Planning Department Jack Linville - Planning Department Wallace Edson = Housing Code Division Robert Tipton - Housing Code Division 10 Housing Code Inspectors - Housing Code Division
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 13
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 13
- Text: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM City Planning Department City Hall Atlanta, Ga. January, 1968 OUTLINE INTRODUCTION IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOALS & PROGRAM STRATEGY STATEMENT - GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING (1) Discussion Reports (2) Distribution ef Reperts ATTACHMENTS Discussion Reperts Chart Report #1 - Problem Analysis, Sample Outline IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION If the planning of the Model Neighborhood Program is to be successful, it is absolutely essential that all key participants in the program are well organized. This means that the following organizational matters should be accomplished before planning begins. 1. 3% The Medel Neighborhood Executive Board should be formed to act as the ultimate authority of the program. It should allow representation from all levels of government - city, county, state, and federal; residents of the Model Neighborhood area; and residents of the city-at-large. The Model Neighborhood staff should be formed, including the executive director, the three chief planners and the technical staff. Stable local organizations which adequately represent the residents of the various neighborheods in the area should be in operation. While those organizations should be representative of the interests ef all residents and give everyone a voice in their affairs, they should net be so cumbersome that they cannot work effectively with the planners. In other words, it will be physically impossible fer the planners to carry all of their work directly to the 'grass reets' organizations of the area, This may be necessary for some key issues, but for the most part planners will have to work with a small cemmittee of 10-20 persons if they are to accomplish anything worthwhile, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The Model Neighborhood Program offers an excellent opportunity to bring ahead basic imprevements in one of the most problematic areas of Atlanta. The area selected for the program contains all the varied and complicated forms of urban blight which plague American cities today, from overcrowded, substandard housing te incompatible land use mixtures to poor street conditions and inadequete community facilities to all facets of socio-economic poverty and deprivation. Most of these conditions have deep roots and are so complex and of such a nature that it will take nothing less than a special concentrated long-term effort to eliminate them. ‘So far no major city in the country has been successful in eliminating then, The Model Neighborhood Pregram can bring about the special concentrated effort which is needed to alleviate the conditions of the 'Model Neighborhood! area, It is designed to pool the resources of the city, county, state, and federal governments along with those of private interest groups to make a tetal attack on the serious and widespread preblems of the area for a period of several years. The funds it provides will suppert the pregram through the planning and implementation stages, However, if the Model Neighborhood Program is te avoid the mistakes of many previeus efferts to help slum residents it is very impertant that the program be carefully planned and that local residents be involved threughout all stages of planning. The purpose of this report is te shew hew community participation can be effectively fitted into the planning ef the Medel Neivhborheed Program, Hence the neighborhood groups of the area should be capable of forming such a committee which can work with the planners and relay this work to the 'grass roots' groups. It has been suggested that the steering connittee of the various neighborhood groups in the area serve this function, PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING The federal government has set the procedures for the planning of the Model Neighborhood Program. The period allowed for planning is one year, beginning with the date of the congressional announcement of the program (Nov. 15, 1967 - Novs 15, 1968). During this period the following planning items have to be submitted to the federal government for approval: 1. Problem Analysis, Goals & Progran Strategy Statement 2. Five-Year Plan 3. First-Year Action Program 4, Planning and Evaluation Pregran 5. Statement of Administrative Structure for Implementation Of these planning submission requirements, the first one - the Problem Analysis, Goals and Pregram Strategy Statement - is probably the most important, as it will set the stage for the rest of the planning effert. It will establish the general orientation of the Five-Year Plan and the First- Year Action Pregram and will initiate the gencral precedures for community participation in planning. Thus, it can serve as a guide as to how the lecal residents will be involved in planning. PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOALS AND PROGRAM STRATEGY STATSMENT-GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING The preparation of the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program Strategy is divided into three stages or milestones: Problem Analysis; Goals; and Strategy. It is intended that the Model Neighborhood planning staff and the community will be working closely together in this preparation so that the best of their ideas will go into the final statement submitted to HUD. (1) DISCUSSION REPORTS The basis of the working relationship between the Model Neischborhood planning staff and community will center around discussion reports to cover each milestone: Problems; Goals; and Strategy. These reports will be done by the planning staff and designed to stimulate discussion among the residents, They will not be the final word on anything, but merely present the information available to the planning staff so as to initiate community involvement and discussion on the significant planning issues. The community will be able to criticize, add to and/or subtract from the reports, For example, the first report will cover the subject: Problem Analysis and attempt te identify and survey the major conditions and preblems of the Model Neighborhood area which justify treatment. It will: a. define and decument the major conditions «nd problems as far as available data will allow and according to follewing categories: empleyment; housing; scheels; recreation; land use; health services; family, legal services; police protection; and ‘ether, b. present the information in a simple and concise manner so thet lay citizens will have a minimum amount of trouble in reading it. C. provide a brief questionnaire on which residents can rate the priority of problems in their comunity according to the above categories in (a). d. provide space in which residents can criticize the contents of the report, i.e., redefine problems, reorganize data, contribute additional ideas, etc. (2) DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS The reports are to be distributed to each of the six communicities in the Model Neighborhood area. They will include information on the area as a whole and on the particular community to which it is distributed. It probably will not be feasible to get written responses from all residents of the area. But perhaps certain people from each community could be responsible fer surveying the responses of the residents, summarizing them, and writing them down to be returned to the planning staff, The reports will be allewed to circulate for a maximum period of two weeks. This should give enough time for residents to gather up their written responses te the report. Also during this time it would be desirable to have a general meeting in each community, where residents can freely express their own ideas about the subject matter ef the repert. After this circulation period which hopefully will bring about fruitful dialogue and exchanges between the planners and the community, the planning staff should then be in a position to draw up final reports en Preblems, Goals and Strategy which fully incorporate the ideas of the residents, These reports would then make up the final Problem Analysis, Goals, and Program Strategy Statement. ATTACHMENTS Attached to this report are: 1, a chart which shows how the deadline dates and circulation periods of the discussion reports fit into the work program for the Problem Analysis, Goals, and Program Strategy Statement. 2. a sample outline of Report #1, Problem Analysis, y Milestone DISCUSSION REPORTS CHART PLANNING ACTIVITY Work Tasks Jan, Feb. Mar. Apr. May al 2 3-8 123) 1.2.3) 1) Problem Analysis Goals and Strategy A) Problem Analysis Report #1 Legend Deadline for distributing reports to cemnunity y Circulation period = - = = = Deadline fer collection reperts from community w Summary of Tasks 1) Citizen orientation 2) Problem Analysis 3) Goals Development h) Strategy 5) Preparation of Report 1) Assemble Available Data 2) Decision on Additional Data Required 3) Gather Additional Data Required ) Citizen Analysis of Problems 5) Summarize and Analyze 6) Prepare Report 1234 12 3 - hep ~ — Jan, Feb. Mar. Apr. May Miltestone Work Tasks ————— 123h 123) 1234 123) 1234 Summary of Tasks B) Goals Report #2 1) Document Existing Goals C) Strategy Report #3 2) Citizen Goals Setting 3) Synthesis and Report Preparation 1) Develop Program Approach 2) Establish Program Priority 3) Identify Critical Changes Required h) Report Preparation 4 pe I. Tt, rid « IV. Ve REPORT #1 = PROBLEM ANALYSIS SAMPLE OUTLINE Introduction A. Purpose of report - to identify and document major conditions and problems of area B, Brief description of Model Neighborhood Area and its six communities Problems of Model Neighborhood Area as a Whole 1. Housing 6, Health services 2. Employment 7. Family, legal services 3. Schools 8. Police protection and community h. Recreation relations 5. Land Use 9. Other Problems Which Are Especially Acute In Particular Community (e.g. Grant Park) While Grant Park contains all of the problems affecting the Model Neighborheod areas as a whole, it is especially hardpressed with the following problems, 1. Employment 2. Family, legal services Questionnaire: How Do You Rate Your Comunity? Schools Housing Etc. good fair poor good fair poor Comments 1. De yeu think this repert adequately covered the main problems ef your neighborhood? 2. What problems de you find not mentioned in the repert?
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 5
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 5
- Text: \": 7 RHA 7100.1 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT October 1968 A HUD HANDBOOK U. §. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410 PREFACE FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM HANDBOOK This Handbook sets forth a new approach and revised requirements to guide localities that are carrying out a Workable Program for Community Improvement. It represents the first major revision of the Workable Program proce- dures since enactment of the statutory provision in 195). We have several objectives which we hope will be achieved by the re- vision. One is to respond to the many changes that have taken place in our urban areas over the years. Another is to ensure that our requirements for the Workable Program are focused on performance by localities in dealing with the problem of slums and blight--not just on compliance with operational procedures. Above all, the purpose is to give local communities both flexibility and the responsibility to develop effective programs to achieve the objectives of the statute in light of the particular nature of problems and conditions existing in each locality. The substitution of performance standards for certain formal elements of the Workable Program does not represent any easing in current sub- stantive requirements. Nor does the Handbook envision any reduction in efforts by communities now participating in the program. The intro- duction of a performance-oriented approach hopefully will result in a more effective attack on the major problems facing the community. I am confident that, after more than a decade of experience with the Workable Program, the Federal-local partnership has the maturity to operate effectively under the new approach of this Handbook and thereby we can make more meaningful progress toward overcoming the urgent problems facing our cities and towns today. Robert C. Weaver Secretary i 11/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 FOREWORD This Handbook sets forth revised policies, requirements, and procedures for communities required to carry out a Workable Program for Community Improvement in connection with the use of certain Departmental housing and renewal programs to help overcome problems of slums and blight. Workable Program Guides containing illustrative and advisory information will be issued to supplement this Handbook. The revised policies and requirements set forth herein are effective upon issuance of this Handbook. Those communities which already have submitted or have substantially completed documentation in support of an application for certification or recertification of a Workable Program need not revise the material. However, communities may use the revised forms described in this Handbook immediately. After March 31, 1969, all applications for certification or recertification of a Work- able Program must be in conformance with the revised policies and requirements. The primary objective of the revision is to provide a flexible and performance-oriented framework within which communities may demon- strate reasonable continuing progress toward achieving the goals sought by the statutory requirement for a Workable Program and those estab- lished by the community to implement them. The revision also modifies reporting and documentation requirements and provides new criteria for evaluating community performance. The revised Workable Program concentrates on four essential areas: a. The adoption and enforcement of housing, building, and related codes. b. The establishment of an effective action-oriented planning * and programming process. c. The development of programs to meet low- and moderate-income housing needs and to meet relocation needs of families, individuals, and business concerns displaced by governmental action. ii 11/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 d. The involvement of citizens, including poor and minority groups, in Workable Program activities and in related HUD- assisted housing and renewal programs. The intent of this Handbook is to strengthén the Workable Program as a flexible and meaningful tool to help communities organize and carry out its community improvement programs. The Handbook envisions no lessen- ing of effort by communities which have been participating under previous Workable Program guidelines. Rather, it is anticipated that communities will make greater progress toward achieving the objectives of the statute with the increased flexibility provided by the Handbook to concentrate local efforts and tailor specific needs and problems facing the community. Applications for certification in accordance with the requirements of this Handbook which propose a program with an overall level of effort below that made in the past, will not be acceptable. Certifications and recertifications of Workable Programs will be effec- tive for two years. Field reviews of progress will be made as necessary by HUD Regional Office staff midway through the certification period to provide advice and technical assistance. ; HUD-assisted programs to which the Workable Program applies are listed in Chapter 1, paragraph 5. A community intending to make application for financial assistance under any of these programs should become familiar with the policies and requirements set forth in this Handbook. An understanding of these policies and requirements will facilitate the preparation of the application for certification or recertification of the community's Workable Program and thus help to expedite the process- ing of applications for financial assistance for specific programs. 10/68 iii AT g9/0T HUD REGIONAL OFFICES ; REGIONAL ADDRESS AND GENERAL REGION ADMINISTRATOR TELEPHONE NUMBER JURISDICTIONAL AREA I Judah Gribetz 26 Federal Plaza, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, N.Y. 10007 New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Area Code 212 26)-8068 Tsland, Vermont TI Warren P. Phelan Widener Bldg., 1339 Chest- Delaware, District of Columbia, nut St., Philadelphia, Pa. Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania} 19107 Virginia, West Virginia Area Code 215 597-2560 ee Edward H. Baxter Peachtree-Seventh Bldg., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Atlanta, Ga. 30323 Kentucky, Mississippi, North Area Code Oh 526-5585 Carolina, South Carolina, “ Tennessee IV Francis D. Fisher 360 North Michigan Ave., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Chicago, Ill. 60601 Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Area Code 312 353-5680 Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin Vv WW. Collins Federal Office Bldg., 819 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Taylor St., Fort Worth, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas 76102 Oklahoma, Texas Area Code 817 33-2867 VI Robert B. Pitts 450 Golden Gate Ave., Post Alaska, Arizona, California, Office Box 36003, San Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Francisco, Calif. 9102 Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Area Code 15 556-752 Wyoming VII Jose E. Febres-Silva Nea! Post Office Box 3869, GPO, San Juan, P.R. 00936 (Dial Long Distance Operator) 767-1515 Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands T°O00TL VHY INANAAOUGNI ALINONWOO YOd WVADONd TIAVAYOM WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 PREFACE FOREWORD TABLE OF CONTENTS HUD REGIONAL OFFICES CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENT Statutory Provision Basic Purpose of Statutory Provision Summary Of Workable Program Requirements Local Administrative Requirements HUD-Assisted Programs for Which Workable Program Is A Requirement CHAPTER 2. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATIONS General Principles of Administration Requirements for Application Content Criteria for Evaluation of Workable Program Appli- cation Basis for Determining Acceptability CHAPTER 3. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCE- DURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION Filing of Application for Certification Governing Body Approval of the Workable Program Notification of Approval or Disapproval. Certification Period Certification Lapse Technical Assistance to Communities Vv 11/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 Paragraph Wi Relationship of Workable Program and Urban Renewal ; Requirements 8, Availability of Workable Program as Public Document 9. Guides CHAPTER 4, CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT lis Statutory Provision 2. Requirements for Code Adoption 5s Rehabilitation Standards 4 Requirements for Code Enforcement Me Examples of Priority Areas 6. Considerations Related to Code Enforcement * CHAPTER 5. PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING 1:5 Planning and Programming Objectives * 2. Comprehensive Planning Requirements 3% : Programming Requirements hu, Characteristics of Planning Process 5; Summary CHAPTER 6. HOUSING AND RELOCATION is General Provisions : 2. Relocation Requirements 3 Housing Requirements h, Criteria for Evaluation of Applications CHAPTER 7. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ds Requirements for Citizen Involvement J 11/68 vi = WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 Principles and Purposes of Citizen Involvement Examples of Citizen Involvement Activities Criteria for Evaluation of Applications CHAPTER 8. GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINIS- TRATION FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES General Provisions Special Provisions Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Workable Program Application CHAPTER 9. GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINIS- TRATION FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS General Provisions, Special Objectives General Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Applications Provision for Code Adoption and Enforcement Planning Provisions Housing and Relocation Provisions Citizen Involvement Provisions 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENTS Le STATUTORY PROVISION. The Housing Act of 1949, as amended, requires as a condition of certain financial assistance, the following: ". . . a workable program for community improvement (which shall include an official plan of action, as it exists from time to time, for effectively dealing with the problem of urban slums and blight within the community and for the establishment and preservation of a well-planned community with well-organized environment for adequate family life) for utilizing appropriate private and public resources to eliminate and prevent the development or spread of slums and urban blight, to encourage needed urban rehabilitation, to provide for redevelopment of blighted, deteriorated, or slum areas, or to undertake such of the aforesaid activi- ties or other feasible community activities as may be suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such a program." The statute also requires the adoption and effective enforcement of a minimum standards housing code, as described in Chapter 4. In addition to the Workable Program requirements contained herein, communities are advised that various HUD-assistance programs may contain additional separate requirements tailored to meet specific program needs (e.g. relocation requirements of the urban renewal program, general planning requirements for water and sewer, or open space land grants). See Chapter 3, paragraph 7, for further information. 2. BASIC PURPOSE OF STATUTORY PROVISION. The basic purpose of the Workable Program requirement is to ensure that communities desir- ing to utilize funds for renewal and housing programs understand the array of forces that create slums and blight and are willing to recognize and take the steps within their power to prevent and overcome urban blight. The Workable Program is based on recognition that the Federal and local relationship is one of partnership in the task, and that Federal funds for renewal and housing projects cannot, by them- selves, be effective unless localities exercise the full range of their powers in community efforts on a sustained and coordinated basis to the objective of preventing and eradicating slums and blight. 3. | SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. The specific require- ments of the Workable Program are based on the statutory objectives described above and are designed to provide a flexible framework Page 1 11/63 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 1 for organizing community efforts to eliminate and prevent slums and blight. The Workable Program calls for progress in the follow- ~ ing four areas: a. Code Adoption and Enforcement. The adoption of housing, build- ing, and related codes, and development of an effective code enforcement program which is at least adequate to deal with areas having high priority need for enforcement, including both blighted areas and basically sound but deteriorating neighbor- hoods, and which is geared toward eventual community-wide compliance with such codes, * b. Planning and Programming. The establishment of a continuing public planning and programming process which develops action ¥* programs within a comprehensive planning framework for over- coming the major physical, social, and economic problems related to the slum and blighted areas of the community, and for establishing and preserving a well-planned community with suitable living environment for family life. c. Housing and Relocation, The development of a centralized or coordinated program for assisting in the relocation of all persons and business concerns displaced by public action in the community and the development of a proz> m to expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-inccuwe families on the basis of equal opportunity. ad. Citizen Involvement. The establishment of programs designed to achieve meaningful involvement of citizens, including poor and minority groups, in planning and carrying out HUD-assisted programs related to the Workable Program. A detailed explanation of the policies and requirements for each of the above four areas is set forth in subsequent chapters of this Handbook. 4, LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, In carrying out Workable Program responsibilities, many different local agencies and offices will necessarily be involved, together with various public and private institutions, organizations, and individuals. For example, building departments, planning agencies, health offices, housing authorities, urban renewal agencies, neighborhood organizations, private builders and developers may be involved to provide the wide range of resources needed to meet Workable Program objectives. While no specific. administrative structure is required by the Workable Program, a community will be expected to meet the general - requirement for establishment of an administrative mechanism 11/68 Page 2 ~ WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 1 responsible to the chief executive for the purpose of providing leadership, supervision, and coordination of Workable Program activities. HUD-ASSISTED PROGRAMS FOR WHICH WORKABLE PROGRAM IS A REQUIREMENT Qe Dd. _Urban Renewal Program Neighborhood Development Program Concentrated Code Enforcement Program Interim Assistance for Blighted Areas Demolition Grant Program Community Renewal Program General Neighborhood Renewal Plan Rehabilitation loans and grants in urban renewal and concen- trated code enforcement areas and in other than urban renewal or concentrated code enforcement areas assisted under the provision of Sec, 115(a)(2) and Sec. 312(a)(1). Low-Rent Housing Program, estept for Section 23, Short Term Leased Housing. Mortgage insurance under FHA Sec. 220 for housing construction and rehabilitation in urban renewal project areas. Mortgage insurance under FHA 221(da)(3) at market or below- market interest rate projects for low- and moderate- -income families. Rent Supplement Projects under Sec. 221(a)(3) for low-income families, with certain exceptions. 338-597 O- 69-2 Page 3 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 2. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATIONS 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION. Workable Program applica- tions will be evaluated in light of the varying conditions, backgrounds, problems, and traditions of the particular community. In view of the difficulty of establishing predetermined standards of compliance having equal applicability to all communities throughout the nation, the Department's review and determination will be guided by the statutory requirements, the adequacy of the community's proposed effort as measured against the magnitude of the job to be done, and the constraints of available Federal State, and local resources. A second major consideration governing the evaluation of application for recertification will be evidence of reasonable continuing progress toward meeting the statutory goals and objectives and those set forth by the community. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLIGATION CONTENT. The Workable Program is the locality's program, and it is the responsibility of the locality to establish goals, action programs, and timetables for accomplish- ment in each of the four elements discussed in subsequent chapters. The goals, action programs, and timetables must be approved by the Department, except where otherwise indicated in Chapter 5, para- graph 3. Because the emphasis is on the locality's responsibility to develop its own program tailored to its own needs and abilities rather than on complying with specific Departmental requirements, the community's application must contain sufficient evidence and detail to permit an objective basis for review and evaluation. Therefore, the application must clearly and specifically describe what the community intends to do during the next certification period in each of the four Workable Program elements. When apply- ing for recertification, the application must also clearly describe what steps the community took in the last period, in order to provide a basis for measurement of the community's continuing progress toward meeting the agreed-upon goals and objectives. In developing its "work program" in each of the four elements for the next certification period, the community must also show how the proposed activities are related to an analysis of the problems or needs, and to longer-range targets for accomplishment. For example , in developing a program to meet the requirement of Chapter 6 to expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-income families, the application should show the relationship of its proposed program and timetables to an analysis of needs in the community and to its longer-range goals or targets for expansion of such supply. The questions included in Application Form 1081 are designed to elicit the information and evidence required to provide a reasonable basis for approving or disapproving the community's Workable Program Application. Page 1 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 2 Se CRITERTA FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATION. In re- viewing a community's application for certification or recertifi- cation of a Workable Program, the Department's assessment will be based on the following factors: a. Problem Analysis. Adequacy of the community's analysis of the problems and needs where required by the Workable Program elements. b. Long-Range Goals. Adequacy and reasonableness of the long- range goals and targets for accomplishment proposed by the community for overcoming such problems. ec. Action Programs. Adequacy of the specific actions and time- tables proposed to be taken by the community during the next period of certification to deal with the problems identified, in light of available resources and the magnitude of the problems. d. Progress. Demonstration of reasonable continuing progress toward meeting goals and objectives specified by the community. h, BASIS FOR DETERMINING ACCEPTABILITY, The acceptability of a com- munity's initial application for certification will be based on the adequacy of the problem or need analysis in each of the elements, the extent to which longer-range goals or targets have been identified in relation to need, and the adequacy of the pro- posed action programs, in light of both need and available resources. The acceptability of an application for recertification will be based on the performance of the community in meeting the goals, targets, and timetables agreed to at the last certification, as well as on the extent to which the proposed level of effort represents continuing progress from the last period toward meeting its longer-range targets. When unexpected developments or changed conditions prevent a community from meeting its agreed-to objec- tives and timetables, the application for recertification must include a detailed explanation of the reasons. 10/68 Page 2 ee ; WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CRAPTER 3 CHAPTER 3. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION FILING OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION, Form HUD-1081 is to be used by the community to apply for certification or recertifica- tion of its Workable Program. Careful attention to the prepara- tion of format and content will obviate the need for correspondence with the community and thus help to expedite the review and evaluation of the application and its approval. An original and three copies of Form HUD-1081 are to be submitted to the appropriate HUD Regional Office. An application for recertification should be submitted at least 60 days prior to expiration of the community's current Workable Program certifica- tion. A community desiring to discuss Workable Program policies and requirements or to obtain assistance and guidance in the prepara- tion of the required Form 1081 should communicate with the HUD Regional Office. GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL OF THE WORKABLE PROGRAM. Before being submitted to the Regional Office, the application for certifica- tion and recertification on Form HUD-1081 must be approved by the executive head and the governing body of the community. NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. The HUD Regional Office will advise the applicant community of approval or disapproval of the Workable Program application for certification. a. Reasons for Disapproval or Conditional Approval. Applications may be disapproved or conditionally approved for either of two reasons listed below; an explanation of the basis for such action will be provided to the community. (1) Failure by the community to carry out the plan of action and timetable it proposed for the last certification period. In the event of disapproval or conditional approval for this reason, the community will be advised of the actions it must take to carry out the plans or steps it initially proposed but did not take and did not provide justification for not taking. (2) Inadequacy of plans, programs, and timetables: proposed by the community for the next certification period. In the event of disapproval or conditional approval for this reason, the community will be informed of the nature of Page 1 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 3 the inadequacy of its proposed plans and programs, and will be requested to submit additional information needed to remedy such inadequacies. Time Limit. Applications that are conditionally approved will provide a reasonable, definite time limit for accomplishment of required actions. In the event of a conditional approval, applications for financial assistance under the applicable HUD programs will be processed, but final approvals will be with- held until the Workable Program is fully approved. (Once a community's application is approved, no further requirements will be imposed during the period of certification. ) 4, CERTIFICATION PERIOD. All Workable Program certifications are for a two-year period. If certification of a Workable Program has expired, the execution of contracts for assistance is precluded with respect to the applicable programs listed in Chapter l, paragraph 5. Certification is deemed not to expire, however, but rather to continue in effect for the following purposes: a. To provide Federal assistance under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 for any urban project in the locality with respect to which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the ex- piration date. sem To provide Federal assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 for any low-rent public housing being undertaken by the locality with respect to which a contract for annual contributions or capital grant is executed prior to the ex- piration date. To provide mortgage and home improvement loan insurance under Section 220 of the National Housing Act with respect to prop- erty in the locality situated in: (1) The area of any urban renewal project for which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date, or (2) Any urban renewal area not involving Federal aid under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 respecting which prior to the expiration date the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has certified that he has approved the urban renewal plan for the area, that such plan conforms to the general plan for the locality as a whole, and that there exist the necessary authority and financial capacity to ensure the completion of such urban renewal plan. 10/68 Page 2 % wai? WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY JMFROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 3 a. To provide mortgage insurance under Section 221(da)(3) of the National Housing Act with respect to property in the locality for which a pre-application analysis has been made by the Federal Housing Administration and it has agreed in writing to accept a formal application prior to the expiration date, or located in the area of any urban renewal project for which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date. CERTIFICATION LAPSE, Where a Workable Program certification has expired and a lapse has occurred, the community will be required to show the progress made in meeting Workable Program requirements not only during the period in which the Workable Program was in effect, but also during the lapsed period. Thus, it is important that a community anticipate the expiration date and initiate the actions necessary to prepare an application for recertification sufficiently in advance of this dat so that lapse may be avoided. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES. In accordance with Section 101(d) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, the Department will endeavor to the maximum extent possible, to assist communities in meeting their Workable Program objectives. Field reviews of progress will be made as necessary midway through the period of certification and Regional Office staff will be available to the extent resources permit to provide consultation, advice, and technical assistance. RELATIONSHIP OF WORKABLE PROGRAM AND URBAN RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS, Communities intending to apply for urban renewal assistance should be aware of the following statutory requirements: a. No loan or grant contract may be entered into for an urban renewal project unless the Workable Program "is of sufficient scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the urban renewal project, and such project is in accord with the program." b. The plan for an urban renewal project must “conform to the general plan of the locality as a whole and to the Workable Program..." ec. In entering into any contract for advances for surveys, plans, and other preliminary urban renewal work, the Secretary must “sive consideration to the extent to which appropriate local public bodies have undertaken positive programs (through the adoption, modernization, administration, and enforcement of housing, zoning, building and other local laws, codes, and regulations . . .) for (1) preventing the spread or recurrence Page 3 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 3 in the community of slums and blighted areas, and (2) encour- aging housing cost reductions through the use of appropriate new materials, techniques, and methods in land and residential planning, design, and construction, the increase of efficiency in residential construction, and the elimination of restric- tive practices which unnecessarily increase housing costs." HUD will not authorize a Federal aid contract for a Neighbor- hood Development Program (NDP) unless there is in existence a certified Workable Program which is of sufficient scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the proposed NDP activities and such activities are in accord with the Workable Program. Communities are advised that because of the above statutory pro- visions, requirements for urban renewal assistance may differ from those necessary for Workable Program certification purposes in the following ways: a. Evaluation of Urban Renewal Need. With respect to subpara- graphs a. and d., above, a community intending to apply for urban renewal or NDP assistance should ensure that the studies undertaken in connection with the planning and programming re- quirement described in Chapter, 5 are of sufficient scope and quality to provide a basis for evaluation of the need for the urban renewal project or NDP activities. In general, the studies carried out under the Workable Program should be adequate to determine that the area is sufficiently blighted or deteriorated to qualify for an urban renewal or NDP program, Information should be included to illustrate both building and environmental deficiencies, such as overcrowded conditions, excessive densities, and so forth. For further information on urban renewal eligibility requirements see RHA 7205.1 of the Urban Renewal Handbook, Chapter 1, General Eligibility Require- ments. A community may, if it so wishes, supplement its' Workable Program submission with other related studies having a bearing, such as a Community Renewal Program, General Neighbor- hood Renewal Program, or other similar studies. Renewal Plans. With respect to b., above, the Urban Renewal Handbook sets forth the following minimum elements of a general plan: land use plan, thoroughfare plan, community facilities plan, public improvements program, zoning ordinance and map and subdivision regulations. The preparation of such plans (except for a zoning ordinance or other comparable memo for guiding land usage) is not a prerequisite to the approval of the Workable Program, though many communities may find the prepara- of them helpful in the development of general plans to guide 10/68 Page 4 YA WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 3 community growth and development, which is a Workable Program requirement described in Chapter 5. In addition, for purposes of approving specific urban renewal projects, a greater degree of planning completion may be required than would be necessary for Workable Program purposes, especially in smaller communi- ties and others seeking initial certification or recertifica- tion. c. Codes. With respect to c., above, a community intending to apply for urban renewal assistance is advised that approval of the housing, building, and other code requirements of the Workable Program will constitute compliance for urban renewal purposes with Section 101(a) of the Housing Act of 1949, and no additional information will be required for that purpose. AVAILABILITY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM AS PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Since the Workable Program is a public document, it must be made available for public perusal and examination. At their request, copies should be made available by the locality to citizen groups and organizations which should be encouraged to participate in the development and implementation of the Workable Program. GUIDES. Supplementary guides will be issued to provide communities with advice and illustrations in connection with carrying out the Workable Program, including description of the scope and content of comprehensive planning programs, ways of organizing and carrying out effective relocation and code enforcement programs, and means for encouraging and developing citizen involvement. Pending issu- ance of the Guides, questions and requests for technical assistance should be directed to the Regional Office. Page 5 10/68
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 3
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 3
- Text: #Z2-69-154-N #U-69-68-N #U-69-65-N #2-69-172-C AGENDA ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Meeting, Wednesday, November 12,1969 Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall, 2:00 P.M. An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to C-l (Commercial) District property located at 1265 BOULDERCREST DRIVE, S.E., fronting 231 feet on the West side of Bouldercrest Drive, beginning 175 feet from the northwest corner of Eastland Road. Depth 175 feet. Area 40,425 square feet. Land Lot 143, 15th District, DeKalb County, Georgia. Alford M. Williams & Ellis A. Maloof, Owner Ellis A. Maloof, Applicant Proposed Use - Foor store & dry cleaners WARD 2 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Church to be located at 1323 S. PONCE DE LEON AVENUE, N.E., front- ing 182 feet on the south side of Ponce de Leon Ave., N.E. beginning 0 feet east from the corner of Springdale Road, N.E. Depth 240.4 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District DeKabl County, Georgia. Elmer D. Lilley, Owner Church of God of Prophecy, Applicant Proposed Use - Church WARD 2 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Dental Frater- nity-Boarding House, to be located at 1315 PONCE DE LEON AVENUE N.E.,frenting 152.4 feet on the south side cf Ponce de Leon Avenue, beginning 170 feet west from the corner of Springdale Road. Depth 220 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District, DeKalb County, Georgia. Delta Sigma Delta House, Inc., Owner Clifford Oxford, Applicant Proposed Use - Dental Fraternity-Boarding House WARD 2 An Ordinance to rezone from A=2 (Apartment) District to C-1 (Commercial) District property located at _ 493,497, 503,507 EAST AVENUE and 298,302,304 MACKENZIE, fronting 180 feet on the south side of East Avenue, beginning 210 feet from the southeast corner of Boulevard. Depth 30.5 feet. Area 1.30 acres, Land Lot 46, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Caduceus Properties, Owner Carl Cofer, Applicant Proposed Use = Parking Lot WARD 6 ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12,1969 - Page 2 #U-69-66-C #U-69-69-C #Z-69-174-N #Z-69-183-N #Z-69-169-S An Application for a Special Use Permit for an Apartment above a store, to be located at 979 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E. fronting 45 feet on the easterly side of Piedmont Avenue, N.E., beginning 92.8 feet southwest from the corner of Tenth Street, N.E. Depth 175 feet. Land Lot 106, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Augusto Silva, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartment WARD 5 An Application for a Special Use Permit for Parking to be located at 1230 & 1236 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E., fronting 236.7 feet on the northwest side of Piedmont Avenue, be- ginning 250.5 feet southwest from-the corner of South Prado. Depth approximately 160 feet. Land Lot 55, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Morton Realty Company, Owner,Applicant Proposed Use - Parking WARD 5 An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to O-I (Office-Institutional) District, property located at 3783 ROSWELL ROAD, N.E., fronting 202 feet on the east side of Roswell Road, N.E., beginning 2,257.5 feet form the northeast corner of Ivy Road. Depth 835 feet. Area 70,700 square feet. Land Lot 97, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Jeannette M. Prince, Owner,Applicant Proposed Use - Office & Apartments WARD 8 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2114 thru 2126 DEFOORS FERRY ROAD, fronting 633 feet on the south side of DeFoors Ferry Road, beginning 698 feet from the northwest corner of Collier Road. Depth 422 feet. Area 174.428 square feet. Land Lots 185,186,&194, 17th District Fulton County, Georgia. H.W. Dunn, et al, Owner Initiated by Alderman G, Everett Millican Proposed Use - Service Station/Retail Uses WARD 3 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 2905 SPRING DALE ROAD, fronting 206 feet on the west side of Springdale Road, beginning 990.7 feet from the southwest corner of S. Fredell Circle. Depth 665 feet. Area 3.7 acres. Land Lot 100, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. William H. Cook, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use ~ Apartments WARD 4 ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOLNT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 3 #Z-69-175-C #Z-69-176-C #Z-69-171-C #Z-69-180-C #Z-69-178-S An Ordinance to rezoné from R-9 (Townhouse) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at PEYTON ROAD, fronting 325.0 feet on the east side of Peyton Road, beginning 340 feet from the southeast corner of Gordon Road. Depth 165.8 feet. Area 1.265+ acres. Land Lot 205, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. _ Peyton Center, Inc., Owner - Applicant Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to A-L (Apartment-Limited) District, property located at LYN- HURST DRIVE, fronting 381.09 feet on the west side of Lyn- hurst Drive, beginning 595.9 feet from the northwest corner of Hiawasee Drive. Depth 1,485+ feet. Area 22.72 acres. Land Lot 236, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. R.T. Griffith, Owner - Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone form R-5 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 3335 & 3401 SCOTT ST., S.W., fronting 497.3 feet on the North side of Scott Street, beginning O feet from the northeast corner of Brownlee Road. Depth 100 feet. Area 1.01 acres. Land Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Theron & Jackie Bolton, Owner Theron Bolton, Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at SEWELL ROAD S.W., fronting 570.2 feet on the north side of Sewell Road, beginning 1450 feet from the northeast corner of Fairburn Road, Depth 1,930 feet. Area 74.3 acres. Land Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Blaclock Machinery, Owner Thornton Properties, Inc., Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from A-1-C (Apartment-Conditional) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2440 FAIRBURN ROAD, S.W., fronting 60 feet on the east side of Fairburn Road, S.W., beginning 1049 feet from the south- east corner of Campbellton Road, S.W., Depth 792 feet. Area 4 acres. Land Lot 5, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Maude H. Waits, Owner David D. Warren, Applicant Proposed Use - Office Building WARD 7 ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 4 #2-69-170-C #2-69-177-C #U-69-67-C #Z-69-179-C An Ordinance to rezone for R=3 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.W.,fronting 100 feet on the south side of Adams- ville Drive, beginning 152 feet from the southwest corner of Gordon Road. Depth 197 feet. Area 25,672 square feet. Land Lot 14, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. J.1. Kingloff & Mildred L. Kingloff, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to A-l (Apartment) District, property located at 125 FAIRBURN ROAD, N.W., fronting 102.8 feet on the east side of Fair- burn Road, beginning 811.9 feet from the northeast corner of Gordon Road. Depth 838.2 feet. Area 3.611 acres. Land Lot 243, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Rosa G. Washington, Owner King & Spalding, Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Care Center to be located at 633 HIGHTOWER ROAD, N.E., fronting 50 feet on the east side of Hightower Road, beginning 515 feet north from the corner of Oldknow Drive. Depth 196.4 feet . Land Lot 208, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Mrs. Julie C. Ogletree, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Day Care Center “WARD 3 An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2138, 2098 & 2094 BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, fronting 75 & 133 feet on the south side of Bankhead Highway, beginning 0 & 330 feet from the southeast corner of Alta Place. Depth 243 feet. Area 50,544 square feet, Land Lot 176, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Initiated by Zoning Committee Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 3
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021
Box 2, Folder 1, Document 7
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 2, Folder 1, Document 7
- Text: CITY OF ATLANTA May 30, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel, 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Johnny Robinson FROM: C ie LE? SUBJECT: Summer Program '69 Our contacts with the Summer Program for all matters except zoning will be George Aldridge and for zoning, Tom Shuttleworth. CG/jp
- Tags: Box 2, Box 2 Folder 1, Folder topic: Planning department | 1969
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 29, 2021