Search (13 results)

Applied Filters (Reset)

  • Tags = Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967

Filters

Result Types

Item Types

Tags

Featured

Box 20, Folder 27, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Complete Folder
  • Text: - -oFFICE OF CITY · CLERK -~ITY HALL ATLANTA, GEORGIA p- A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board of Aldermen on March 6, 1967, the City of Atlanta has submitted an application to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Model Cities planning grant under Title I of the Demonstration Cities and M~tropol itan Development Act of 1966 and, WHEREAS, the announcement of those cities which have been chosen to receive such grants was made November 16, 1967 and, WHEREAS, Atlanta is among those cities chosen and, WHEREAS, it is important that the planning phase of this program be started immediate Iy since th is phase is Iim i ted to a one year period and, WHEREAS, in its application the City proposed that the authority and responsibility for administering the planning phase of this program be vested in an Executive Board composed of the Mayor of Atlanta; two members of the Board of Aldermen; the President of the Atlanta School Board; the Chairman of the Fulton County Commission; one member to be appointed by the Governor; and three members to represent the private sector of the community; one from the general public, one from among the City's Negro leadership and one from the Model Neighborhood Area residents. NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen that the Model Neighborhood Executive Board is hereby created for the purpose of admin istering the planning phase of such program which is conducted under Title I of the Demonstration Ci tie~ and Metropolitan Development Act of ~966, commonly known as the Model Cities Program, and for which federal financial assistance is received. THAT the Model Neighborhood Executive Board shall be composed of the Mayor of the City of Atlanta, who shall serve as Chairman; two members of the .._c·c.;:-=-:-:=.::·===-=-:...::-=--=--=-=-====-=- -·----.,------~- ·- - - -- ··- -- --- - -- �,- -2 .. Board of Alde rmen, to be selected by the membership of that body~ one of which sh al I be from among those members representing the first and fourth wards; the President of the Atlanta School Board; the Chairman of the Fulton County Commission; one member to be appointed by the Governor; and three members to represent the private sector of the community, one to be appointed by the Mayor from the . general public, one to be appointed by the Mayor from among the City•s Negro leadership, and one to be selected by and from the membership of a committee to be formed representing the citizens of the Model Neighborhood Area (Model Neighborhood Area Council). THAT the Model Neighborhood Executive Board shall have the authority and responsibility for administering the planning phase of the City's Model Neighbo rhood Program, including the approval of plans and work programs developed by the project staff and the reconciling of conflicting plans, goals, programs, priorities and time schedules of the various participating agencies; and shall have the responsibility for recommending to the Board of Aldermen the allocation of grant funds received for this program from the Federal Government. THAT the Mayor is requested to make such appointments as he 1s authorized to make under the above provisions and is further requested to contact the Fu Iton County Commission, the Atlanta Board of Education and the Governor of Georgia, and to request that they make appoin tments to the Model Neighborhood Executive Board in conformance with the above provisions. ADOPTED BY BOARD OF ALDEPJ-IEN NOVEHB'ER 20, 1967 APPROVED NOVEMBER 20, 1967 -- -- ·-- -··-- -····----- - -- ---- - - - - ---- - - - �r . ~t(/) July 21, 1967 A regu /a;ly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held 9n Friday, July 21, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following Members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman E. Gregory Griggs John Flanigen George Cotsakis Q. V. Williamson Absent: Charles Leftwich Jack Summers Also Present: Collier Gladin, Planning Director Sam Masseli, Vice-Mayor Tom Shuttleworth, Departmental Staff Robert Lyle, Associate City Attorney The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: 1. 0 Public Hearing - Annexation Petition. Chairman Cook explained this annexation involved 47 lots lying to the north of Jett Road, contiguous to the city limits of Atlanta; that the petition for annexation by the residents of the area has qualified for public hearing under the criteria established by law. Mr. Gladin briefly explained that 27.62 acres were involved, totaling 47 lots. Of these 47 lots, 44 are occupied and 3 are vacant. He then stated under the requirements of Section 6 of the Annexation Ordinance, the City is required to make plans for the extension of services to the area proposed to be annexed and shall, prior to the public hearing provided for in Section 3 of said Ordinance, prepare a report setting forth such plans to provide services to such area . Mr. Gladin then submitted said report, stating that the Department's of Fire, Police, Construction, Water and Sanitation have indicated, by letters included in the report, that adequa te services can be provided to the annexed area. He stated that the Department of Planning recommends approval of this petition. show of hands indicated about 10 people were present in favor of the annexation and about 6 in opposition . A The Chairman stated the Committee would hear from those in favor and then the opponents. First, Mr. John Sikes of Bryn Mawr Circle appeared and tendered a signed list of persons wishing to withdraw their names from the petition they previously signed for annexation to the City of Atlanta. He also submitted a separate petition of opposition for the record. The proponents asked that the names on �n Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Page 2 this petition be read aloud, which th e Chairman did, as follows: Barbara S. Newland; Marshall C. Newland; Constance W. Balnis; Henry J. Balnis; W. B. Ray, III; Mrs. W. B. Ray; James M. Robinson; Frank J. Breunig, Jr., and Jane R. Breunig. The Chairman then asked Mr. Glad in to che ck this list against t he original petition to determine if it would still qualify. However, the staff was unable to determine this during the meeting because of the complexity of such calculations. The following persons then spoke in favor of the annexation: 0 MR. C. A. LORENZEN, 4624 JETTRIDGE DRIVE. - I have been a resident of Atlanta for two years and have resided on J ett rid ge all that time. We have bee~ very inter e st ed in becoming a part of the City of Atlanta since moving he r e . My wife submitted a petition in 1965 but at tha t time the annexation issue was coming up and in view of this it was thought advisable that the petition be withheld. I feel there are tremendous advantages for the people in Fulton County and the people living adjacent to Atlanta to being a part of the City. I think Atlanta is a very progressive City. I think that in order for Atlanta to grow that the community surrounding the cities has tribe a part of it. Those of us in Fulton who work in Atlanta have got to help the City grow. We earn our salary here and I think that we are a part of Atlanta, therefore, it is absolutely essential that petitions similar to this be adopted. MR. GEORGE FREER, 4625 BROOKHOLLOW ROAD. - I am a new resident of Atlanta, but I am very interested in this a r e a becoming a part of t he City because we are par t o f the City. We lpartake of the services and the name of the City and we are hopeful of partaking of the government of the City of Atlanta. Thos e of us in the proposed area do not have adequate f ire protection. I believe those of us who have children are very interested in comi ng in the Atlanta School System. We can se e nothing but good, as far as the s e rvices of the government of the City of Atla nta, that would come of us becoming a part. Whe n i t comes time to dispose of our property , it is much more in our favor that this property be within the city limits. I want to go on record as supporting it wholeheartedly. MR. DICK HODGES , 4615 BROOKHOLLOW ROAD, supported the annexation for the basic reasons as previously stated. MR. GENE STELTEN, TWIN SPRINGS ROAD, - From an accompanying map on display, Mr . Stelten pointed out that this area is basically divided into three divisions Mil lbrook and two others, which have been developed a s subdivisions longer than Mi llbrook. He s tated that the s e ntiment f o r annexation in the Millbrook subdivision is about 83% o f the homeowners and 81% of the ele c tors, so they are ovenvhelmingly in favor of it. To the south (Jettridge Fo rest Subdivision) prior to the submittal of the withdrawal petition, the people were 47% in f avor of annexation by homeowners and 40% by electors, so the sentiment here is strong for annexation. In the third subdivision (3 lots on Bryn Mawr Circle cul-de-sac) the sentiment for annexation was less than 50%. The names on that petition fall within this group. If this will make a difference in your deliberation, I wanted to point out this factor. _.J �6-- !'l w fJ} ~ Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Page 3 <'( w a.. cl:5 '"'-" .C:- J ~ 0 0 en There were then random questions and answers from the audience. Q - I have a senior going to Sandy Springs. Will she be able to finish the last year at Sandy Springs"? Mr. Gladin replied affirmatively. "Is there any change anticipated in the sewer arrangement in the whole area; will any additional sewers be needed?" Mr. Gladin stated there are no anticipated new sewers. Q - "Will our homes be reappraised for tax purposes and what experience do you have as far as appraisals goes?" Chairman Cook replied the homes will not be reappraised since there now exists a joint City-County Board which functions for both governments. As to past experience, Mr. Cook cited the case of the Sa ndy Springs Annexation, as . an example, stating there would have been a moderate increase in ad valorem taxes if annexed to the city, however, this would have been largely offset by lower charges in other areas, such as water, fire, sanitation, etc. and he felt this would be typical with the ~ase at h~nd. Q - "In talking with the people, the fears expressed had to do with installation of new service facilities and higher taxes. Can you give us some assurances about this since this is our main fear?" _) 12': ~ !~~ ~ w j ~ ~ J ~ 0 0 CQ In response to this question, Mr . Cook read aloud the letters f from the Water Department, the Construction Department and the Police Department. These letters are on file in the proper Docket. Q - "If this is approved will our children be transferred to other schools in September?" Mr. Cook stated they can be transferred this September, but graduating seniors can elect to remain in the school they _are presently in until graduation. Q - "If this is approved, when would this area become a part of the City 1" Mr. Gladin stated if it is approved by this Committ ee today, it wou ld go to the fo llowing meeting ' of the f ull Board of Aldermen for f ormal action, and woul d become effective on signatu re of the Mayor, which would be sho rtly there- after. Q - "When would the tax es become effective ?" Mr. Cook stated the City of Atlanta taxes would become applicable January 1, 1968 but the City services would become effective immediately. JOHN SIKES, 4575 BRYN MAWR CIRCLE , spoke in opposition. There are three homes on my street seeking to come in. The first basis of my objection is a number of people in the neighborhood appeared t o want to c ome into the City because they feel it wil l affect their house values. They have tried to sell �Minutes Planning and Development Committee Ju l y 21, 1967 ~' ~ ij < -,: j Page 4 and lost buyers because they are not in the city. They feel this is a situation where they can help their property val ues so they can move away and increase our taxes . They are not looking to pay the extra taxes . My sec ond objection is the Dykes High School. If you put one more child in Dykes, the walls will burst out. I understand it will be a couple of years before more spac e would be available. Mo st of the people in the lower end o f Jettridge where the opposition i s coming from have had children in the county school and we like the county schools. Most of the people tal king about going into the City s choo ls are the more re cent residents further out and they have not had the good experience with the County schoo ls we have. We resent being "saddled" with ext ra taxes to set up a number of people beyond us to see this as a added value inducement. ,L w (;') <( w o_ ~ ~ > 0:. 0 0 ) Q) ALICE STROMQUIST , 4540 JETTRIDGE DRIVE, spoke in opposition, stating she had hoped to wait until all of Sa ndy Springs could be brought in . MR . JOHN BURNETT , 4545 JETTRIDGE DRIVE. The proponents mentioned inadequate fire protection~ There is a fire station down at We st Conway and Northside Drive which services this area. I don ' t know what e l se could be done by the way of additional fire protection. We pay an extra mill t ax to use that fire station. I could drive to t his station in about a minute. In response to the question of increased taxes, Mr. Cook stated to Mr . Sikes the staff would be glad to provide him with the differenc e in tax figures on an individual basis if he would like, and he believed the people would be surprised at how little the difference will be, taking into account the reduced cost of services from the increase. Regarding fire rates, Mr. Cook stated, if you come inside the City taxes would be r e duced by one mill, which you are now paying for fire protection, and your fire protection will be increas ed with a likely reduction in f ire ra t e s. J OHN BEAMER , 4525 J ETTRIDGE DRIVE. I don't want to be a nnexed primarily because o f the school situation, until Dykes has additional fa cilit ies . Mr . Cook stated the staff nor the committee had heard any oppos ition until today and all efforts until now has been to get the children in the city schools by September. If you wish to keep your children where they are and try to work it out with the School Depar tment, we will che ck on the schoo l situation . The new Dyke s High School has been f unded; so has the new elementary school on Mt . Pa r a n. Both we r e f unded in 1965. The land has been bought and the money is a vail able . The contract should b e l e t in the Spr ing and cons t ruction st a r ted. It will be about an 18 month building program. From the a udience - "we are not against coming into the City. t he timing is bad." We jus t t hink A young lady, who did no t ide ntify herse l f , sta t e d tha t a schoo l teacher , who has taught in bo th the City a nd County s chools there is a va s t difference in the t wo systems, t he City being t he better one. I w (/) ~ w a... .:::...- ~ �Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Page 5 Q-"Will the new Dykes High School be consolidated ?" Mr. Cook stated he could a s sure everyone there will not be a consolidated school. I think the schools are loc ated with the possibility of annexation in 1mind in relationship to the population. Q later? 11 11 Will there be the possibility of any annexation around th~ new School Mr. Cook stated they could petition for annexation if they elected to. Mr . Sikes stated that since everybody below this line (pointing to · the map) wants to stay out to take this area which is the last and newest of the three subdivision .and l eave the area as it is. Mr . Cook stated the Committee would look into this in Executive Session. Mr~ Cook asked the audience if most o f the ir objections have to do with the schools, to which those in opposition replied yes. Mr . Cook asked them if the school p r ob l ems could be worked out, would this help. 0 Mr . Sikes stated this is actually an over-simplification since some of the . people who withdrew their names do not have c hildren , but this would be desirable. The matter was then referred to Exe cuti ve Session. In Executive Session, f ollowing a discussion period, the Committ ee unanimously agreed t o approve the Or d i nance , sub ject to it qualifying under the 60% elector's requirement and the 60% land a rea requi rement, and f urther, t hat the Planning Department staff wo uld che ck with th e Board o f Education to see if t he children in the area could continue at county school s in c ases where their parents do not wish them to be transfe rred t o city schoo ls. Tre e Or dinance - Public Hearing . Mr . Cook brie f ly expl ai ned the p urpose and intent of the Tree Ordinance, and then called on Mr. Gl adin, Planning Director, who bri ef ly revi ewed the 27 sections of the Ordi nance , emphas izing it covers two major areas , one o f pro tection, t h e other of p l anting and maintenance. Mr. Cook then recognized and expressed appreciation f o~ the large audience in attendance f o r the hearing and opened the meeting t o questions and answers. __j - Q - "Is this restricted t o just scenic routes and main thorough f ares, or .will it be in all neighborhoods"? �Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 196~ Page 6 Mr. Gl a din stated it is res tr icted to the St reet Tree Plant i ng Zone along Major Thoroughfares and Scenic Drives, as defined in the Ordinance, with the Exeception of Section 10, which relates to the stripping of property over the entire City. From the audience - There are other places in the City that should also be protected. Q - "What is the definition of a major and minor street"? Mr. Cook stat ed that a listing of these streets is available; that they are streets, such as Pe achtree, Ponce de Leon, etc. Mr. Gl a din further exp l a ined they are radials f rom the Central Business District that link the expressway to the Central Business District and outlying areas. Mr . Cook stated they are based largely on traffic and width size. Q - "Is there a section alre ady related to ex isting residences or is it applicable to property if there is a house there or not?" 0 Mr. Cook stated it is relat ed to a ny residentially zoned property in so far as the Tree Protective Zone is concerned. The f ollowing p ersons the n spoke in support of t he Tree Ordinance: Mr . Be n Jones, Vice-P r esident of t he Spri ng lake Civic As sociat i on ; Mr s. Wa l l ac e And e rson, in beh a l f o f t he League o f Wome n Vot e rs (A St ate me nt was p r esented f or the r eco rd) ; Mr s . C. R. Brumb l y , Member and Offi c er o f the Fu l ton Co unty Federat io n o f Ga r den Club s; Euge ne Lowry, Ar chi t ect; Ma r y Nikas , 85 Avery Drive , N. E.; Ann Mo ore, Cha i rman o f the Downt own Beauti f ica tion Commit tee o f the Chamber of Commerc e ; Jo e Ha rre l l , J r ., Co ll ier Hi ll s Civic As soc iat ion; Me lba Ciferly , Geo r gi a Co nse rvancy; Joc e l y n Hi ll, Geo rg i a Bo t an t ic al Soci ety; Ed Da ugherty , La ndsc ape Archi te c t and Ha rry Ba ldwi n , At l anta Ci vic Des i gn Commission. Ge ral d Thurman, Att orney , represent ing t h e Geor g i a Power Comp any , pro te s ted c ertain portions o f the Tree Or di na nc e s ay ing i t wou l d i nt erfe r e wi t h Georgia Power' s r ou t ine t opping o f tree s t o prote c t l i nes; that t hey fa vo r t he Ordinan c e itself, but wou l d r e que s t an amendme nt whic h wo u ld ke ep it fr om i nterfer i ng with the company' s wo rk. Mr. Cook explai ned tha t the late s t re vi sed d raft o f t he Ordinanc e r emoved the t ree pl anting and ma i ntena nce standards se c ti ons, which wo uld eliminate mos t of Georgia Power' s obje c tions. C. D. Le bey, Jr . , President o f the At l a nt a Real Estat e Board, said hi s o rganiz a tio n a g r eed wi t h the inte nt o f the Or dinance, but fel t tha t a s pre se ntly drawn it would v es t too much po~er in o ne ma n, namely, t he " City Arbo ri s t". In a nswer t o ques t ioning by Chai rman Cook , he s ugges t ed a better approach would be t hrough s tre ngthe ni ng the Zo ning Ord inances . �Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Page 7 A representative of the Tel ephone Company, who did not submit his name, supported the position of the Georgia Power Company. Warren Coleman, immediate past President of the Men's Garden Club of Atlanta, spoke in support of the Tree Ordinance, as did Wadley Duckworth, resident of North Atlanta; and Edith Henderson, Architect and Member of the Atlanta Civic Design Commission. Mr. Sam Massell, Vice-Mayor, asked Mrs. Henderson if she felt as an architect that sidewalks must follow a straight line; that the Ordinance now prohibits trees within five (5) feet of the sidewalk and that he was opposed to this and would like her opinion. Mrs. Henderson replied that she did not fee l tha t sidewalks should be in a stra ight line; that the last place a tree should be is between the sidewalk and the street. That she felt it would be desirable for the trees to be planted on property off the sidewalk and arch over the street. Mrs. Rascal Vernard, Garden Club of Georgia, and John Mixon of the Georgia Foresty Commission, spoke in support of the Ordinance. The matter was then referred to Executive Session. 0 In Executive Session, the Committee discussed the proposed ordinance which had been re-drafted to delete the tree pl a nt ing program in addition to s eve ral oth er change s as proposed by the staff (s ee draft "C") section by sec t ion suggesting t hat several a dditional changes be made. The maj or change as re commended by Mr . Lyl e of the Ci ty Attorney's Of fice was that the Tree Protective Zone apply to all city streets rather than just major stre ets since he fe lt that under the police powers of the City this would be considered less descrimi natory by the Court s. The Committee gav e tentative approval to the ordinance s ubj e ct to the sugges ted changes b eing made by the staff with the a id o f the City Attor ney 's Offi ce, with the re-drafted o rdinanc e being brought back t o the Committee for their final approval. Mr. Gladin presented each Committee member with a preliminary staff report on the amount of vacant l and in the Ci ty of Atlanta by zoning districts. This information was compiled for and furnished to the Hou s ing Resources Committee. The report recommended a joint meeting o f these two Committees to examine the City's housing policy. There being no further business , the meeting wa s adjourned. C ~':-k �Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Approved: Page 8 Respectfully submitted: /) / Collier Gladin Planning Director mc/jp 0 - (J ';J_/. / J .?/ / / '. - ·_,.,, Joanne Parks Secretary �June 21, 1967 C..,;· .:: ....... c:.: J 0 CQ A regul ,··y scheduled meeting of the Pl a n n ing and Deve lopment Comm ittee o f the Boa rd of Aldermen was held on Friday , June 21 , 1967 at 2: 00 P. M . 1n Com mitte e Room #2 , Second Fl oor , C ity Hall. T e following Members were prese nt: Rod ne y Cook, Chairm an E. Gregory G riggs Jo hn Flanigen J a c k Sum mers Q . V. Williamson C harles Le ftw ic h Absent: G eorge Cotsak · s he Cha irman cal led th e meeting to order and the fol lowing business wa s co nside e d: @- I. lnit ia rev iew of the upda ted La nd Use Plan . I , . . ·,. ~_,I ' -,( - h is p la n was on displa y for viewing . Als o on di sp lay were supporting mcps o f va r· ous studies whic h furnished da ta for th e u pdated Land Use Plan . P"er c e Mahon y of the depa -rmental staff , in presenting the u pdated Pla n to tne Comm ittee , gave a ba c kground talk on th e history of plann ing efforts in At anra , using 1958 as a reference poi nt . Br ie f ly summar ized , he stated tha t th en .J; an -a began to get in to comprehensive p lanni ng , as a resu It of urba n renewa l a .d an .ual re c ertificati on re9uir eme nts of th e Workable Program; in 1963 the Housing Code Comp li an ce P·ogram was initi ated; in 1964 and 1 65 the C ity e ngaged in th e Commun ity Improvemen t Program; al so in 1 65 a s a result of the 1962 Highw ay Ac t and the Atlanta Are a Trcm spo rtat ion Study, an ag reement was made amo ng the C ity , State , Atlanta Reg ion Met opoli tan Pla nn in g Commission and th e fv e cou nty juri sdi c tion s to in i t ia te a stud y _,k now n as P-37. This is a Federally a ssiste d orogram for making po pul ati o n an d economic projections (for the AAT S) throu gh out the me ropolitan area for 1983, includi ng At lanl·a, of what the housi ng ne e ds a re end the number of jobs by three di fferen t c ate gories - commercial, indus t r ia l nd servi c e. Mr . Mahon y th en st a ted th a t al I of these studies and activities have fu ·n ished aata for and have bee n incorpo ra te d into the upd ated Land Use Plen, pro iec ted i"o the yea r ' 983. He bri efly ta lked on pa st la nd use trends and what w e e nvision the fut u,e. Tw o importan t po in ts empha sized by Mr . Maho ny du r in g hi s presentati o n wast e lee k of invol vem ent and a cceptan c e o f th e 1958 Plan a nd w hy, and the need or their (c·ty o fri cials) in vo lv ement e d u nderstand ing of thi s o ne a nd why it should .:,e come :heir p '.::. .-, . As a pa rt o f '-h e u pdated La nd Use Pl an , some e mph as is has been placed u;)C,n inc . eased spac e for industr ia l devel o pm en t and Mr . Mah on y st a ted th e pla nning sta~r is p·epared to recomm e nd that an " Ind us t rial Develo pm en t Program" be insituted �M " 1u tes Planning and Deve lopmen'" Committee une 21, 1967 Page 2 by th e C ity to se c u. industrial sites a nd de velop them to fil l a gap that is not now being met . Also, the u pd te d Plan emphasized th e need for higher resident ia l den sity' be c ause o f limited mounts of spa c e , in effe ct, a pol ic y of prom oting high rise apartme nt bu i ldi ngs . Suc h a poli c y would make mo re la nd availa ble for si ngl e family use. There was i·he, some dis c ussion as to th e status the Plan w ou Id have if adop ted . Mr. Cook stc te II le ' s do n 1 i" ad o pt th is Pla n and th en no t pay any a ttenti o n to it; let's be serious a bout it and make it work 11 • Mr. G ia in stated the Pla n is designed to prevent c ha otic and disorg a n ized deve lopment of the C i·;y; t i" it sh ou ld be used a s a guide , a nd he emphas ized the word guide, in d"stribu i g ant" c ipated growth of the C ity , however , he st ressed th a t every ac t io n take n by a lderman·c committees sh ou ld be in co nsiderati on of and in con iunction with this Land Use Plan . Mr. M ,ony expla ined that afte r adop ti o n of an overal I Land Use Plan, th e planning staff would p oce e to develop detailed plans o n a nei gh borh ood- by - ne ighbo rhood basis . After o th er discussion , ·twas u nanimously a greed that the staff wo ul d make arra ngements fo every member o , th e Board of Ald ermen to rev iew th is Lan d Use Plan, ind iv idual ly o r smal I g ro ups , ar.d mak e any suggestions and re comme ndations the y desired to prior to ar,y offi c ·al a c ti on by the Planning and Development Committee . 2. C l P Status Repor t. George Aldridge reported that al I C l P reports are c ompleted, and/ or a re under comple~·on; that fo ll ow in g re c ent sessio ns o-fthis Committee wi th the co nsul tants, Ca ndeub , Fleiss ig & Associate s, th ey have been advised , by lette r, to su bmit all fin al reports , w ith su ppor t ing do cu mentat ion, as soo n ·as possible, for review by th e staff and th is Committee cs to contrac i· conformity , u tility and soundness o f recommendati o ns and whether the cor.sul r::i ts will have to do add iti o nal work, pr io r to adopt io n of the Final C IP Repor t . Mr. A ld rid ; e stated further it has been estimated an additi o nal three months will be need ed to c lose out the program and HUD offi cial s have approved this extension; that it does not re pr-2sent any in crease in the cost of the pro gram. He also said that al I a cc epted do c uments w· I hGve to be submitted to HUD for approval , after which final co ntra c t payments wou ld be rr.ade; fol lowing th is w ou Id be the federal a udit a nd co nsummation o f the program. As t 0 act ion by th is Committee today, Mr. Aldridge requested adoption of a Resolution co ncu rr ing in the three months• extension. /l/1r. zftw ic h moved that a Res olu tion to th is effe ct be ad opted and prepared for su bmissi on to C o J r.ci o r. Mo .day , July 3; thi s motion was seconded by Mr. Flanigen a nd carried u anim m,sly. �Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 21, 1967 Page 3 3. Set date for pub I ic hearing to consider petition for annexation. Tom Shuttleworth of the departmental staff presented each committee member with background material on this proposed annexation, explaining it involved 47 lots located north of Jett Road. He pinpointed this on a map, and then certified to the committee that the petition for annexation qualified for a public hearing under the provisions for annexation as set forth by the Legislature and city ordinance and requested a date for said hearing. The Committee unanimously voted to hold said public hearing on Friday, July 21, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. 4. Draft revision to Tree Ordinance. 0 Mr. Mahony presented each Committee member with a copy of the latest revisions to the Tree Ordinance. Chairman Cook commented it is substantially changed from the previous draft and Mr. Harkness of the departmental staff has worked closely with the Home Builders Association on the matter and has obtained their support, in principle . After a cursory examination, it was unanimously agreed that the revisions would require further study, but that the Ordinance could be placed on first reading before Council on Monday, July 3 and referred back to the Planning and Developme nt Committee for further study and formal action. It was suggested that if any committee member had any changes they wished to make in the Ordinance to pleas~ give them to the staff prior to the Monday Council meeting. It was also agreed that in the interim, a pub Iic hearing on the Tree Ordinance wou Id be held by the Planning and Development Committee. ' '* . ,· . There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 P. M. Approve d: Collier Gladin, Planning Dire ctor jp Respectfull y submi tted, �7 Lu r.n ~ w June 2, 1967 · a.. q;:S ":E ) 0::: 0 0 m !. A special meeting of the Planning and -Development ColllI!littee was held on Friday, June 2, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. in -Committee Room #1, Second Floor, City Hall. The following members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman E. Gregory Griggs John M. Flanigen Q. V. Williamson Jack Summers Absent: .,,. ,·· .... Charlie Leftwich George Cotsakis Also in attendance were: Collier Gladin William F. Kennedy George Aldridge Izadore Candeub John Brown @ , Also at the meeting were various representatives of the press. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: Mr. Cook stated that the purpose of this meeting is to continue the discussion of the Community Improvement Program, which is to be completed shortly. He then presented Mr. Candeub who stated that the following points, which were raised at the last meeting, would be discussed in detail: 1. 2. 3. Details of individual program sectors. Priority system methodology. Background material on development of land use allocations. He then presented John Brown. Mr. Brown first presented a chart entitled "Residential Construction by 1983". The chart showed the total number of existing housing units in the City, based on a 1965 CIP field survey; total inventory was also shown by standard and substandard units and the number of new units to be constructed by 1983 was indicated. The projected housing inventory for 1983 is 217,370 units - 121,470 white occupied units and 95,900 non-white occupied units. Mr. Flanigen asked Mr. Brown how the housing projections had been derived and did the consultants have a high and low projection of total city population for 1983. Mr. Brown explained that this background information was included fn previous ':co_nomic ·reports. He then presented a second �Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 2 chart entitled "Residential Land Needed by 1983" and stated that his firm has assumed one of the objectives of the City of Atlanta is to continue to provide a large amount of land for detached single family dwellings. He pointed out that one of the alternative program actions that might be followed by the City is to decrease the amount of land that is being used for medium density apartments and to increase the number of high density apartment developments. He stated further that if present low and medium density development trends continue there will not be enough land in the City to accpmmodate the projected number of housing units. He stated this was, of course, a policy decision to be made by the City of Atlanta. Mr. Aldridge asked if these figures assumed any annexation by the City within the time period, to which Mr. Brown stated they did not; that their allocation is based on present land area, which is either vacant or to be redeveloped, within the present corporate limits. Mr. Flanigen asked if it is logical to base the projection on the assumption that no additional area will be annexed to the City. Mr. Brown stated this was the only basis on which they could work; that it is impossible to speculate on future bounds of the City. Mr. Flanigen commented that if the city limits stay the same, instead of getting high density development, people will move out of the city and the population will not grow as much as Candeub has projected. Mr. Brown stated if you propose to cont a in the population growth that is projected a nd also carry out the program that is projected, this ratio, or something similar to it, must be accommodated in the city. Mr. F l anigen said the only way to do this would be to have tenements, which Atlanta doesn't want. Mr. Brown stated this is a policy dec ision for the committee' s consideration; that they have done their program on the assumption that growth will be contained . Mr. Cook asked if there was any basis for the ratio of 40% low density; 40% high density and 20% medium density. Mr. Brown stated there are two bases, one of which is the amount of land available, including vacant land and land to be redeveloped. The total projected units for 1983 were fitted into that land. The other base was the economic study that showed certain types of units to be needed by 1983. He stated these were very rough approximations but indicate a fairly large need for high density units, based on the type of families that will be living in Atlanta - families without children, an aging population and other family characteristics which might require high density units. �Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 3 Mr. Candeub stated they projected Atlanta as a complete regional center, and in connection with that kind of growth in the future, that there would be a substantial increase in the white collar population, the executive category, and a large number of young people coming in, indicating a very definite, strong apartment market; that this is where Atlanta will likely have its major growth in job types in the next decade or more. Mr. Brown exmphasized their projections are not binding; it is just one way of accommodating the city's growth. A small continency of undesignated land (2,700 acres) is available which provides flexibility for growth in any of the three density categories. Mr. Flanigen asked about the population figure per acre for 1983, compared with the data on the map. Mr. Brown stated they had not computed this figure. Mr. Flanigen stated he felt this was the problem; a projection has been made but has not been tied in with the end of the time period; that he did not see Atlanta getting the projected density because it would mean slums, which Atlanta doesn't want. •. Mr. Brown agreed this was a good point of view to bring out and would require a policy decision on the part of the City. Mr. Candeub then made the following comments. t We have made market pro jections of growth and we have been getting a feed-back on a reloc a tion analysis in terms of housing needs. The c i ty had certain land within its boundaries. Certainly we can say these needs can only be met by going beyond its boundaries by going into a policy of aggressive annexation. On th e other hand, let me say that Atlanta will also have a responsibility in meeting its relocation needs in the face of continued growth a nd that i t ha s the resources and a policy to meet the housing needs by ut i li zat i on of i ts r e sources. You have a number of elements to keep in balance. The f a c t or of growth and where it will occur in terms of market consi derat i ons; the fact or of r elocation in terms o f cont inued programs ; a quest i on o f s ize of f amil i es and need in te r ms of what kind of housing can, wi l l and s hou ld be bui lt. The ques t ion of sing le family housing or mult i family, high ris e i s a que st ion t hat has t o be looked a t differently that has been done in the past . I n th e past, the high ri s e was built as a tenement struct ur e t o hous e i mmigrant worke r s who came to the large cities. It was bui l t as a l ow rental form o f trans i e nt housing which was initially, or rapidly , became a slum. This pa tt e rn i s most typical of the northeast and o t her parts o f the central are a of the U. S. What we are talking about today is really entirely diffe rent because the typical high rise is built for a different population and buiit on a different order. It is built for people that can afford to pay a good rent; a low �Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 I 1. Page 4 land coverag e with a high level of fac i lities is incorporated, with a dequ a te setbacks so that one building is not blocking another in terms of li ght, etc. Certainly Atlanta has the power to erect the type res idence s it wants. We are not talking about the old type tenement st r ucture. The new national figures from the census in terms of the effects of the post-wa r birth rate indicate that we are now getting into a period where you will have a lot of new family formations and you will have people seeking apartments because they don't want the burden of free standing housing. We feel the best manner in which Atlanta can maintain its character, and we want Atlanta to have more single family homes, and in order to get more single family homes in face of the total demands, instead of utilizing the land area for g arden apartments exclusively, we are suggesting we want to hold more land for single family homes and the only way to do this is to squeeze down on the garden apartment developments and increase the higher densities under strong controls. Otherwise, you will have little land you are able to hold for single family housing. The housing picture is a changing market picture in terms of population, income and the demand of the kinds of people that Atlanta is drawing. Mr. Gladin asked how to incourage this type of development activity; "what is the route to follow?" Mr . Candeub replied "not to permit a tenement type development". The way to do this, he suggested, might be to go to a design control on high r i se, which they recommended in the Design Report; perhaps establish a minimum size on the lot. Mr . Gladi n then asked "how do you solve the economics of high r i se deve lopme nt?" Mr. Ca ndeub stated they are not trying to do all this at one time ; de nsi ty patterns will have to be revised to allow high rise. You may have to get int o zona l determinations, establ i shing a max imum density i n ce r tain areas. The city has the powe r to draw t he line whe re it want s t o draw it . You might have a hi gh dens i t y i n t he c e nt er a nd a lesse r dens ity on the peripheral areas . The cycle is beginni ng to cha nge because th e population figures are changing . It mi ght t ake time t o pr ove out our proj ections, but they will be. Mr. Cook stated "you mean by 1983 we will have a need for 31, 000 high rise units when today we have 1, 000 which it took five years to fill and some are still vacant". Mr. Brown answered affirmatively, stating the smallest amount of land was left for high rise (69 0 acres). This land will accommodate a large number of housing units, which is another way to look at it. Mr. Cook asked "will the city absorb this and will it be feasible by 1983 and if we do will it be slum development, or should we go on a real strong push for annexation. We would like your recommendations? It is �Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 5 not a question of dividing the acreage on a breakdown of percentages. It is how you think it should be. There is the question of the contingency of 2,700 acres," Mr. Candeub stated if high rise developments become slum tenements, then the City doesn't want any high rise, to which Mr. Cook agreed. Mr. Ca ndeub in turn stated if you accept this as a premise, then we will eliminate all high rise; that he is saying across the country we are getting into higher densities in urban areas and the idea is to provide it in a large building complex. Mr. Cook stated he was not accepting that high rise, per se, is slums but he would like to know the basis of the percentages; that he did question the need for more high rise when we can't fill our present high rise developments. Mr. Candeub st a ted he was not saying it is good or bad. If you control it it ca n be good. If you don't control it, it can be bad. This lies within the power of control. The re is a ce rtain number of units that will have to go into apartments when you project the t otal popula t i on to 1983. We are saying you do have a choice of what density you wa nt it in. This determination will dictate what is left for single family housing. I have a preference f or high rise. I have discussed this probl em wi th many builders who tell me you cannot build quality into a garden apar tme nt , whereas you c a n in high ri se because you have a di fferent leve l of stand ards a nd maintenance. Agai n, th1s is a policy qu estion . We are trying to put it into f ocus. Our obj ectives here is to create op timum sp ace f or single family homes . Within the city's tota l envelope o f need s, we have tried to maximize the amount of land available fo r single family homes. We have also tried to be realistic and leave some l and not categorized because we reali ze some land will not be developed, but for the most part we are saying the city will have to make the decis i on as to whe ther or not it will all be low rise, or will it b e balanced with some high rise. Mr. Gl adin said "you have desc ribe d the reasons why we should start seeking high rise. How do we -start a program of encouraging high rise and how can this committee move in that direction?" Mr. Ca ndeub stated that Atlanta has better builders than most other areas he has seen and he suggested one way is to meet with the builders and discuss problems with them. Mr. Flanigen stated you have to consider the difference in rentals of high rise and garden apartments. Mr. Mahony cited one case in which a ·high rise was competitive with garden apartments. �f t,;-_ _ _ __,.,...,... . ..- -,- -- -- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- -~-- Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 6 Mr. Howland pointed out that the building was a considerable distance from the downtown area. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Candeub "do you think Atlanta can handle 31,000 high rise units by 1983?" Mr. Candeub replied "we see a market for it". Mr. Brown stated that in order to continue land for single family, you will have to change from low density to high density with 20% left over for garden apartments. There was a general discussion of each of the eight improvement sector maps, with considerable emphasis on the Buckhead sector. It was generally agreed that the treatment recommended for this sector was not reflective of the high quality housing existing in the area. Mr. Brown pointed out that factors other than housing conditions were considered in the designation of treatment areas. As an example, he cited traffic and street conditions. Following this discussion, Mr. Brown then explained the priority system methodology. He stated one of the most important features of the CIP program is what should be done first and the only way to determine this was through the development of a priority ·rating system, which he explained as follows: There were five major elements in the rating system, i.e., (1) social implications - areas in which programs for improvement are presently needed to supplement social action agency programs; (2) resource areas - where better utilization of land might relieve pressure for land resources; (3) relation to public programs - the total program should be financed through the building of public facilities which are presently needed by the city, however, when you have a public program for which you do not get any sort of federa l credit, you have a changing economy (example, auditorium complex) and this gives a further sense of urgency for treatment; (4) planning objectives - a tool for carrying out the city's comprehensive plan through the CIP; and (5) areas characterized by change - some areas, regardless of whether they met any of the other criteria, were in need of immediate attention. Mr. Brown then discussed Ansley Park as an example of the priority rating system, stating the neighborhood was measured against each of the five elements and scored from O through 2 points based on each of the five elements. The Chairman thanked Mr. Candeub and Mr. Brown for their presentations, and it was unanimously agreed that the Committee would meet again on Friday, June 9 at 2:00 P. M, to discuss the fiscal and administrative portions of the Community Improvement Program. "'*** There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. �Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 7 Respectfully submitted: Approved: 0143.215.248.55 16:50, 29 December 2017 (EST) Collier Gladin Planning Director me ··,· ,_ �I... I. ~ ..... ;-..l - .-......__... . " ' '-·· . . -- .. _"' OFFICE OF CLERK Of BOARD OF ALDERMEN CITY OF ATLANTA , GEORGIA P~OCEDURE FOR \.PP~ICATION FOR AN1'ffi)~.TION BY PETITION TO THE CITY OF ATLAl~TA OF UNINCOiu>ORATED AREAS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ATL. 1 ':A . I 1 H ,, Ii,,. ii 1 " 'I BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board"of Aldermen of the iiL ,( City of Atlanta as f ollows : ! I •'I Ji SECTION 1. !f i An application for annexat ion to t h e City of ! !!, ) At - anta by petition of unincorp orated are a s contiguous to the Ii !i City Limits of t he City o f Atlanta shall be filed with t he Mayor I l !r Ii j j[ and Board of Aldermen on or before f\ 'i Ji· 1fa y Il 1 of the year dur i ng . whic h said annexati on shall be cons idere.d . l Sue·. applications ! I l I I /J shall contain the written and signed app lic a tion of not less than 1: l H )! Sixty percent (60%) of the electors resident i n the a r ea proposed n '! i for ar.nexation and of t he owners of r.ot l es s than s i xty perc ent . I i( (60%) of the land area, by a creage, i ncluded in such application. 1 ( l; Ji Each such .application shall contain a c omplete legal description lf ,-- ------- Ii. Ji and s hall have attache d thereto a co,npl e te survey by a cor.roe t e nt !! surveyor of the land propose d to be annexed . There also shall be !j ,,;: j! su~1itted with each app lic ation a~ opinion in writing b y a me~ber i Ii li of t he____S. t ate__B_ar of Georg ia s ta-::ing that each appl ic 2.nt ·who h as d ., "··--·--- l1' ) signed said application as an owner a s provided in t his ordi nance. ~f l is th2 r e cord title holder o - the fee ·simple title of the property 11 \!,, c laimed to be owne d by s uch npplic a1 t or is the legal rep~2senta - ,, II !t,, tive of the record title hol 'er of the said pr opercy c l ~i~ed to be !l !I ,! owne~. ii ll ,,/' 0..-:2. Lands to be annexed a t a yon~ time shal l be treated as body , regardless of the n 1r.1 b 'r of O'ivncrs , and all p.2.:cs s'1.2ll I l I I I I I - l --!-- �l _._. ' i !: ' . .. ' ., '• ,I ,; It' 1 i\ l! 11 i!l I1 be considered as adjoining .cie limits of the City of Atlanta when 1i .I any one part of the entire ~ody ab uts such limits. For the purpos~ I li 11 . . . · ' application ,!l 111 or- d eternn.ning t h e percentage o f e 1 ectors signing sucn >1 I [;, t the De partment of Pla nning sha ll obtain a list of electors r ~ sid- ! ,l .! ing in such area from the reg istrars of the county or counties i! 1t ii in which the area lies. !1 ,'t Said list shall be as comp i led by the H I board o f registrars and provided to the City of Atlanta in H· jl ac cordance with Section 34 - 636 o f the Georgia Election Code, and 11 the City of Atlanta shall bear t h e e x pense of the preparation of /I !,I such lists in the manner prescribed by such section . For the 1/ purpose of determining owne rship of the property included within /1 Iil sue h - · · . 1 e h o ld e r ot~ t h e ree ~ simp . 1 e tit . 1 e, application t h e recor d tit J/ or his legal representative shall be considered the ,,.. r 1 rowne r" of ' such property~ ii;j SECTION 2. li The Department o f Planning shall f urnish to if the Planning and Development Committee the infonnation ne cess ary iJ ll to determine whether such app lication complies with the require - )) 11 ments o f this Ordinance . 1 If it determines that such appl ication '. doe s not comply with this Ordinanc , t e Pl anning a,d Development I j I Comm ittee li'1 sha ll notify, in writing, the per sons presenting such happ lication .. ~ 1 wherein the applic at ion is def icient. If it is 111 determine d tha t such application does comply with this Ordinanc e , I. !! I/ 'I the Committee shall proceed to s e t for public hearing said applica 7 I:i/ tion I! H rt se t I! . i n ac cordanc e SECTION 3. · l1. wit . . . 3 l1ereo:i.. c Section Th e Planning and Dev e lopmen t Commit t e e shall a pub lic hearing during he month of July . . f or an a?p 1 ication 1 ' ·I ll which has been determined to meet rl I; Ordinance . Such h earing shall be !I ! t ! I I l 1 - 2 - i i I the requ irements o f this if held by said Com:1i~t2e no ~ less f �,. __ . .. ___.-· I I /j than iif t20.n (15) nor rnor ! t he Committee makes a determin~Lion that such petition i s valid. !I Notice _f t h ~n for t y- f ive (45) da ys fr om the time of the time and place of ::;uch hearin g shall be given , in writing , to the person~·pre~enting t he appli c at i;n and shall be II adverti sed once a ,;..;,eek f.or t:wo cons ecutive week s I ! • l i mmediatel,y I JI preceding such hearing in a newsp aper of general circulation in !• ii the City of Atlanta and in t he area propos e d for annexat ion. 1 At such publ ic hearing all p e rsons resident or owning property in the Ii j, l ~ City o f Atlanta, or in the area proposed for annexation, may be /1 il li h2ard on the qu~stion of annexation of such a~ea by the City of !, it n H Atl anta; provided, however, that any property owner may withdraw " I !I li by !I 1:,1 1 I at \ the time ann exation procedures are initiated, coincides ,vi.th the ...------------- \!dcity I l j of the area proposed for annexation and of the ci t iz en s of the - ~::----·- 1 the City of Atlanta of the area proposed in the application j I and Development Corn:n i ttee, determines th a t the annex2.tion Any a_ ea sep.2rate.d from the city limits boun da~y l a street or street rig ~t - of-way , a creek or river, the ri~ht - of ~ othe r p ~bli c s ervi ce corpora tion, l a nds own · wa,}' ./ ...--0-f --a-ra-i lro.ad , _ or l! i by ,1 t he city; lands owned by a c ounty, or l a nds m, ~ Iof Georgia shall be a rrc ontig uous l area"· within the ~eaning of this ·--- - ,, .) by tl e St .:.1 t e - �,. ti ii .I i !, Ordinance when such area coincides with either the city limits or I l j such l and or both on at le~~t one - eighth of such area's aggregate t! /f external boundary. ,,t! t he Provided the re shall be no annexation across boundary lines of . any political subdivision under the pro- lj visions of this Ordinance. I l SECTION 6. 1!,r !l The City of Atlanta shall make plans for the extension of services to the area proposed to be annexed and shall., j \ l 1 p rior to the public hearing provided for in Section 3 of this ,. Ordinance, prepare a report setting forth such plans to provide services to such area. The report shall include: A. · A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following information: 1. t l ' } V r! f II City. i !f !1 .ir The present and proposed boundaries of , the ...... .. ~ [ 2 • .. The present major trunk water mains and -~· ! sewer interc eptors and outfal ls as required 1 l by this sectiono The above information and such information as listed below shall ij be prepar~~ by the city departm~nt responsible !. for such ser~ice ,1 and such i n f ormation and/ or maps sha ll be forwarded to the Dep art - !ment o~ _P.lanning··-·no . l ater than seven •' 1 II (7) days prior to t h e date ·. / I I i on which the area proposed for annexat ion has been scheduled for · I l.l jf pub lie hearing . '-j B. I A statement shall be prepared setting forth the l I p l ans !I major F of the Ci ty for e x tending to the ar e a to b e anne xed each I I s e rvic e p e rformed within the City a t ,the time o f annexa tion . / d Specif ically, !J !I,, I~ I\ !I I' t 1 s uch plans s hal l : 1. Prov ide for extending pol ic e protection , fire protection, garbage colle c tion and i I l �7, '~, II ,. I .. ,, . . . . . - • - - • · "' 6 • --,.: ... ·~ • . . . • _.;:.,..; ,., a .. • • _' 1• 1 ···· I I . I ! II iiii -~-~~--- s t r eet ma intenance services to -the area to ·-·-----··--- '! l I be . ariqexed on the date of annexation on l' !, · ' subst an tially· the same b as is and in the same 1/( I ii r -- -- --·····~------· manner as such services are provided within l l !. the rest of the City prior to annexation. I If a wate r distribution system is not avail- ! i able in the area to be annexed, the plans shall call for reasonably effective fire protec·tion services until such time as water lines are made available in such area under Il existing City policies for the extension of ll ! water lines . I Provide for the extension of major trunk ! I water mains and sewer outfall lines into I j 2. 11 !t I l I the area to be annexed within twelve (12) I' Il I months of the effective date of annexation I so t hat II when such li· it l' !l I property owners in the area tobe annexed I 11, ll will be able to secure public water and ( , n p sewer service according to the policies in l 1l l l• ---· !! I" ~~ j I! F ,! iifl SECTION 7. effect in the City and sewer lines to l individual lots or subdivisions. lI I i;..Th.en such appl ication is acted upon by t he Mayor an d Board of Aldermen. and the l and is, by ordinan ce, l annexed . j/ to the City, a complete survey by a competent surveyor, not .) lj necess ar ily a county surveyor , shall be filed a s a part of the f; ordinance annexing the territory and a copy certi f ie d to by the L I ! I !· ,I I ' I l l ' If I I - 5 - i I i i , il I _ l_~ �....... ---·-· ,.··--.-.. '1 't -·...·-~-· -- -- -· _..,.. __ ..,, _ ____ .. ....--- 1: I~ if ...-· ·· ··· ····· - - rr ~ . ii {· · !l Ji I ,/ _...--..::::::-- - if City Clerk shiil:T-b·e- filed with the Secretary of State of t he State l, of Georg ia and municipal. · ad\ valorem taxes shall not app ly to i/ property _w ithin it 1 I 1 1 . the annexed terr i to r y until Janua ry l ·of the - - -following year. 'When so ar:1exed, such lands shall con sti t ute a part of the lands within the corporate l imits of t he City as completely and fully as if the limits had been marked and defined ) by sp e cial act of the Gene r al Assembly. l SECTION 8. .! Nothing within this Ordinance shall prohibit !! !! the City .of Atlan~a from requiring the residents of the new annexed l I l area to use City owned utilities when they are availab l e. SECTION 9. ( As provided in Ga. Laws 1966, pp. 409, 413, l ! within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Ordinance I! l { ! I !) annex ing such land to the City of Atlanta, any resident elector l I!·i of ! I·'l h {j the area so annexed or of the City of Atlanta, or any property l l owner of such area or of the City of Atlanta may bring a petition ! l!for I declaratory judgment in the Superior Court of Fulton County ) to determine the validity of the application and the C:ity 1 s l l action 11 thereon. SECTION 10. All Ordinan c es an d parts of Ordinances in fl conflict herewith are hereby r epealed . i ADOPTED AS AMENDED BY THE . BOARD OF ALDE RMEN 11 Se ptember 19, 1966 !i APPROVED ) l Sept ember 20, 1966 H II I I I,),'1 It j ---···-·- . �1.17 ,, GEO RGI A LAWS 1%G SESS IO>.' ' 1:'i \_ J to provid e for th e ca n cell a tion of exec uti on s ; to r ep eal Cod e section 24-3327, r elating to th e exec uti on and fil in g of an ack'nowlecl i rn ent of t he p ay me nt of a ju dg rn e; nt; to provid e th e proc:e; dur e con n ect ed th erewith; t o r epeal conflicting la v:s ; a nd for oth er purpos es. B e it en acte d b y t h<.: Genern l A ss em bl y of Geo r g i,.L: S ect ion 1. Code Ch apter 39- G, r ela tin g t ai:·e collect ion ancl s tre:d lll ,tinlc nanc e servi ces to th e area to !Jc ann exed on lh e cl:ttc of ,rnn cxation on s ul>stantially ll1e sa me li;1 ~is and in th e s am e nrn11n cr a s s uch s er vice::.; arc prn vid (:( l w ithin th e r est (l[ t.li e rnunid p:di( y" ' �, I GEOIZGJA LAWS 196G SESSJO:\' prior to annexation. If a water di s tribution system is not available in the are a to be annexed, the pl a ns mu s t call for reasonably effective fire protection services until s uch time as water lin es are macle ava il a ble in such area und er exi s tinz municipal policies for the extcnsic.,n c.,f water lini:!.:.;. ~- ' 413 ) (2) Prov ide foi· exten s ion of majc.,r trunk water mnins and sewer outfall lin es into the area to be annr::xd v: ithin twelve months cif th e effective d a te of annexation so th at when such lines are con structed property owners in th e c.rea to be annex ed will b e abl e to secure public water and sev:er service, according- to th e policies in effect in such municipality for extending water and sewe r lin es to indi v idu al lo ts or subdivi s ions . Section 7. When su ch application is act ed upon by th e muni cipal auth oriti es ancl th e l?.ncl is, hy ordin a nce , annex::-d to the munic:ipality, a complete s un·ey by a compet en t s urveyor, n ot necessaril y a county su rYey or, ·s h a ll be fil ed as a part of th e ordina nce a nn exing the t errit ory and a copy certifi ed t o b y th e clerk or s imi lar offi cia l of the municipality shall b e filed \\'ith the S ecretary of St ate of th e S tate of Georg ia and muni cipal acl vfdorem t a x es sh ~,11 not Hpply to property within th e annexed t erritory un t il J a n ua ry 1 of th e follo\\'ing year. Wh en so annexed, such land;; shall constitute a pa rt of the Ja nel" within th e corporate li mit;; c,f the muni cipa li ty as completely ancl full y as if th e li mits h ad been mark ed and dcfin ecl by specia l Act of th e Gcn ern l Assembly. "Incorporat ed muni cipality" ns usect in thi s Act shn ll m t' n,1 an i11 coq1oratecl municip:1 lity whi ch ha s a popubtion of ~() 0 I I IL Pbt. t:i::>: C- S , C'tC. f" ( 'i r I n cv :·1 ... :- .. : t-,= 11: L!H j,;,- ;~1:i '.i:y. or more p er so ns ncc0 rdi11 g to th e l 9GO Feclern l D ccc·nni,,l cens us or any future su ch cen s us. i , ._ _1 Secti on 8. Nothin g- within thi s A ct sh:111 p rn hiliit t he municip:1lity fr om r c,1uiri11 g- tJ a, r es id ents of th e n e\\' ann exed art':1 t o use cit)· O\\·ncd utilitic ;: "·h en th ey ,1n' ,1 \·,1il able. S ection 9. Within thirty (:>Cl ) cl ays of th e effrdi\"C cbtc of the ordinan ce ,lllll t'xi ng such Lrnd t o th e m 1111ic ip:1li ty , . UtilitiL' $. l h- c br :-, t, ,:-y j ll 1! }.: ! :l L'I! ~ . �414 GENERAL i\CTS A t\'D RESOLUTIONS, VOL. I any res ident el ector of the area s o annexed or of the municipality, or any property own er of such arc:. or of the municipality, may brin g a p etition for clcclarntory judgment in the superio1· cou rt of the county of the legal situs of the annexing municipality to de termine the validity, in accordance with thi s Act, of the appli cation and the municipal_i t y's action thereon. Wh en ever such a petition is filed with the muni cipa l gove rning body sha ll fil e wi t h the court th e record of their official actions in regard to such application and a certified copy of the annexing ordinance. The judgment of the court on any such petition may decla re th e annexation ordina nce null a nd void upon a finding that the appli cation, and th e rnunici1'la lity's action th ereon, are not in s ubs tanti al compli a n ce with thi s Act. Upon a finding th_at procedura l defects or d efects in the plan for service to the ·ann exed area exist, the court sl-iall, where poss ible, fra m e a judg m e nt t o p erfect s u ch d efect and uphold the ordina n ce. Actions p rovid ed fo r in this s ection sh all b e in a ccordan ce with th e D ecla r a t ory Judg ment Acl, and a ny ag g ri eved party may obbtin a review of a fin al judg ment under thi s section as by law in other cases provided. S ection l 0. All laws and part s of laws in confli ct h e1·ewith arc h er eb y r ep ealed. Approved March 10, 19GG. MEIVTOJU A L TO COMM E MO ll AT E \VA LTE R F'. GEOR GE. No: 1GO (Sc:natc R es oluti on No. GG) . A Hcsolution. Authnri zill i•; a s tHl11 c, lrn s t or o1h(:I' m cnrn r i;t! of Wall er Franlf C e{ll')-';ia ; ;11Hl for ot h e r )lttrpose:,. ~ r l f �March 3, 1 96 7 0 ! • ,! • ' .. ·,1 r egularly sc eduled m e c ing of the Planning and Devel opment Co~.i t tee o i the Board of l dermen ·was held on · _iday, 1arch 3, 196 7 , at 2: 00 P . M. i Committee Roon 11=1 , Secon · Floo r, Ci ty Ha ll. '• •......! T' e foll oP i g mer.ibe·s wer presen t : Rod ey Coo c, Chai r man E. Gregory Grigg s Cha le s Leftwi ch c.:5 Geo ge Cotsakis J a e~ S mi--ne _s Jo hn M. lan i gen Ab s e n t : Q. V. Wil l ia s on Also i n a t te,danc e we . e : Col lier Glad in Les Perse lls William R. Wof fo rd George Al d ri ge Dan Sweat Rober t Biv e s The Chairman c alled t he meeting t o o r der and ·the f ollowing bus i ne s s was considered : 0 Hr . Gladin presented each co,:nittee memb r with a copy of an enabling reso _ution approving a request for financial assistance for the City of Atlanta to plan and develop a comprehensive City Demonstrat i on Program and a lengthy discussion ensued . ..... tn lo ! u c_ -· 0 n-. Hr . Gladin briefly explained that since the last meeting of this cormnittee, staff members of the Planning Department, as well as staffs from other city departments and various publi~ and private agencies, have been working almost full time to put together the Demonstration City application; that the ini ial dra:t was compiled about two weeks ago and around 100 copies were distributed to these various staff members; that it was subsequently critiqued and rewritten, not merely to cha,ge it, but for continuity and to strengthen it and cover the areas which were missed, in that each individual section was written by a group of people or individuals. Regarding the budget phase of the program, Mr . Gladin explained this had not been finalized, but staff members of the Comptroller's Office is working on the ma tter in conjunction with the Finance Committee and the final figu es should be ready by March 6. He specifically noted that the en~bling Resolution did not mention any specific cost figures, but the tentative estim&tions fo the total budget is around $600,000 - approximately $475,000 Federal funds and $120,000 City funds. He explained that the city's local contribution did not represent a cash outlay, but present employee's salaries, including those of participating agencies, will be credited against the city's share. �I io Minutes PlannL,g - Dcve lopment Committee t-!ar ch 3, 1967 I During the cou .. c of other discussion about the nany facets oft e lv~odcl :_,.j"cighbo r; ood P_ograri1, .e com:.itt e (and Chairman Cook in particular) again r~ised the p_a ctical ob'ection as to staff availability to impleDe t the progi:-a:n and expressed rel 1 cta nce ·co ente .. into t he Model City program when othe r i~por~ant and vital p _o grams of the city (such as the Land Use Pla., updating of the Co p _ehens ive Plc:.n and Zoning Ordinance, etc . ) were bei. g "relegate to t e s>.. elf" and that the presen planning staff was being overworl·ed and "spread too in" . 0 Mr. Gladin stated that the planning staff was instructed to put this appli cdtion together and his is w .at they h ave attempted to do ; tat this application will provide the city wi h the financial capability to accomp l ish a particular job; that the majcirity of he planning workload will be borne by ~he project staff, consi sting of per,anent project personnel to be recruited by the ci ty and supporting personne l on loan from other city departments , from other publi c agencies , and in one case from a private agency . Hes ated further he was aware of the ot her city programs and agre d they were v ital and impo tant, however, a problem at the moment is t· e filling of job vacancies i n the Planning Department whi ch were requested and created in the '67 Budget (5 profess ional planning slots now open); that the Planning Department is u~dertaking a major recruiting campaign to fill these jobs but this will take time; that when these vacancies are occupied, it will provide a balanced staff and he felt the department would be able to meet its co1J1Y.1itments in other programs . He emphas ized that the majority of the work the City Planning S aff woul d be doing in connection with the "Nadel City progra would normally be done anyway . In response to specific questioning by Chairman Cook as to when the Land Use Plan would be ready, Mr. Gladin stated he felt the July 1 deadline could be met; he stressed however he did not mean it would be approved by this time, but it woul be in a form that this com:ni ttee could a c t on it and submit it to the Federal Government to substant i ate that the City has met its requirements set forth in the recertification of Atlanta's Workab le Program . In a n swer to further questioning by the con:..'1littec, Hr. Gladin stated that if subnission of this application for financial assistance is approved and submitted to HUD, it will be around June before HUD will submit an answe .. and in the neantime, the staff will have completed recertification of the Workable Program. 0 Nr. Cook stated he agreed the Demonstration Cities prograra was important a nd that he supported it, but he wanted some assurance that the basi c, r egular day-to-day planning is accomplished; that if t h e answer is a ddi~ional staff, then he would support it. Mr . Gladin reiteraced that he felt if the existing staff vacancies could be filled, the departffient could meet its corn:nitnents. Bill Bassett, Program Coordinator, then gave a breakdown of the proposed �r Li:1Utes Pia:min3 6, D velopme.n t Com. -· tte e r-~a _ch 3 , 196 7 Page 3 org.::rii zation of the Dcr:tonst· ation Citi es Program . (Fo·· comp le ~e det2ils, see Pa_ t I, page 13, Adminis rative fa chinery , of A Mod el Nci ~hborhood for Atlanta) . Upon rr.otion by ~1r. Leftw ich, seconded by Mr . Griggs an t '1e follo·,.,ing Reso lution was a anted : II unanimous vot e , RESOLUTION Y PLA.N"NING & DEVELOPMENT CO,frIITTEL APPROVING REQUEST FQ. FINA ' CIAL ASSISTA1"CE TO PLAN AND DEVELOP A CONPRE~ENS I VE CITY DtHONSTRATION PROGRAM . WHEREAS, the City of At l anta desires to undertake a comprehens ·ve program to rebuild or rev·talize large slum and blighted area s and genera lly i mp r ove living conditions for the peop l e who live in 0 such areas; a . d WHE. EAS, t he Secretary of Housing a nd Urb a n Development is authorized to make gra. ts to, and contract with, City Demonstration Agencies to pay 80 percent of the costs of planning and developing such city demonstration programs : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, as follows: Approval is hereby granted (1) for the submission of a reque st for financial assistance for the planning and development of a comp rehensive city demonstration program; (2) for the provision of any information or documentation concerning the p _eparation and content of such program as may be required by the Department 0 of Housing and Urban Development; and (3) for the �-, ·, 0 Hinutes Planning~ Dev lo~ m t Co!il!.i t · e Ma rc 1 3, 1967 Page I., representation by Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. as t . e aut, o ized re, resentai::ive err.po·.;rered to ac on behalf oft e City of At lanta, ulton County, Georgia in connection vith all matters pe taining to the request for finan c ial assista .ce . " 0 u ~r . Gladin sta cd t.at 1e had invited th Building Committee to attend this 1.eeting so that both COIT.mi tee I s could jo intly discuss one problem aspect of the 1967 Housing Code Corapliance Prog r2m - this being the Planning Department 1 s basi c disagreement w"th Pa ·ag raph II. A. 4 and a related Paragraph IV. E . 2 . , whic. pen its ~e abi lita t ion of sub standa rd resident"al structur es in indus~ ially zoned area s. He stated that the Planning Department real i zes substandard houses in industrially zoned areas are a problem, but do not feel this is an acceptable answe r; t hat the present wording of the paragraphs objected to would only postpone solution of ·he problem . M_. Gladin explained that a cco rding to t he Zoning Ordinance, construction of new residences is not permitt ed in the M- 1 and cl-2 Industrial dis ricts and existing residences are classi£ied non-con~orming uses; that to rehabilitate many of t1ese substandard residences would require structural alterations which would be in violation of the non-conforming provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and he is opposed to he City supporting a policy of r ehabilitation i n these areas which is in conflict with a city ordinance. He elabor tcd further that if a st1.- ict interpretz. ion is made of the provisions of the po licy as now written, which stat e s "provided he conmlies in fuil with all codes end ordinance", (and he felt its· ould be e~forced with no dcvi2tion whatsoever) , then in the mejority of the cases tle prop rty owner woul not be allowed to rehabilitate ·at all ; that the Planning Department would like these sections changed to require elimination of structures that have deteriorated over 50 percent and not allow a developer the alternative of repairing it u.dcr these circumstances; furthe , the Department proposes thnt t'.1e non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance should be clarified and strengthened as soon as possible to permit a better resolution of the entire problem. Mr. Gl&din then gave a brief slide presentation of the types of structures which have deteriorated beyond repair. �/ }!in tes Planning & Developmen Yarch 3, 1967 0 Co:nr:i ~tee Page S Mr . Hofford sta· ed that is posi ion is that the Policy and Procedure Guid , as now ~rittcn, is as near right as it can be made and 1- should be epp-oved. v i I .' ...._: ~ c. of the ensui .g discussion cc~tered around prop erties int e general vici ity of Markh- and laynes Street wh re there were considerable dilapidated structures in industrially zo,ed a· eas . ~r . Flanige was of the opinion tha ~ he Ordinance should be c,anged to allow p2ople to r eh~bilitate r es:dential s t ructures in industrial areas, sati ng that is study of o her zoning o _dinanc es in the country reveal cy permit this in most cases . Hr . Fofford st.:!ted a serious nroblem involved in code enforcemen in this instance is a s hortage of ousing and whe r e t o put people who a displa ced from these industrial areas . '.:") r, r . G~iggs expressed concern about razing structures and leaving vacant land; e asked M . Wofford if he had a y personal knowledge of a deman for this type of industrial land. Mr. Woffo rd stated he idn ' t . Mr . Gladin stated in these types of areas you have the problem of assembling land; further, that he idea is to make strong residential areas and strong industrial £.reas; that in order to develop a Land Use Plan, you must hav a strong Zoning Orciinance with a strong non-confo·ming section and maximum enforcement in order to implement this Plan . Mr . Gladin stated further that if the particular vicinity i question is a good residential area , t ,en the zoning should be changed to reflec and encourage residential developmen , but if it is a good industrial area, then residential construction and rehabilitction should be prohibited; that no industry will locate in the midst of slum co ditions - they have to be attracted to clea , nice-looking areas; that he personally felt there was certain industries in this area whic1 would poss::.bly expand if a house or wo were torn dmm and land mode available; that he felt this was a good po ential industrial area and its development as such should be made stron 0 , but to co1tinue repairing these dilapidated houses 1vill nerely prolong the situation. ,_ 0 Hr. Wofford stated that the areas in uhich he has had the most vigorous co,~laints about dilapidated and substandard housing have been within these industrial areas. Bob Bivens, Executive Director of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. stated that the developrrent of the air rights property in the vicinity of the Techwood and Hunter Viaducts area is arriving and will have a profound affect on this area and in his opinion, it would be a mista~e to prolong this low type of residential housing. �Him:tcs P _ann i g & Devclo ment Commi t tee M~r c 1 3, 1967 Page 6 Mr . Cook stated that he objected to blanke t au hority for rehabilitation, oi1d would favor strict code enfo,.cemc ,-;: in not allowing rehabilit at ion in the ~ark1a a nd Hayne3 Stree~s a_ea, however, south of Hunter Street and L the o · lyi ng .:Jreas, he would like for the Planning and 3uild i ng Depa r tm nts to loo: furthe _ at hese areas and have some meeting of the ~i~ds; that in his opin io n, t ese a eas c ould be considered in a differen light . Nr . 7 lanigen _obje c ted top o·. ibitin:; n~habilitat ion . Tnc _e wa s then a bri f discussion about the t ime l i mitat io n in t he Zon i ng Ord inance on non - confor mi ng u s es a, [J oints of weaknes s e s and how t hey co~ld be strengthened . There was also ab ief dis cussion about code enfo rc ement, and Chairman Cook, wi~h the cornmittee's concu:..rence, reque sted that the Planning Department provide the Building Inspector with a prin t - ou t o f information from t e CIP da a file; this will enable the Building In spect or to ma e determina·ions c oncerning the lo cation of non- c onformi ng u ses throughout the City and the development of a strategy for the i r r emoval . Notion was then made by Mr. Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Griggs and carr i ed by majority vote that he following wording be deleted f r om Paragraph II A.4 . - 11 Should the owner elect to reh ab ilitate a struc ture he will be permitted to do so provided he co . p lies in full with all codes and ordinances; also, by simul aneous motions and a c tio n , t he same wo r ding was deleted from a related Paragraph IV E.2 . Mr . Flanigen voted adversely to bo th actions. The re being no further business, the meeting was adjourned . Approved: Rodn~ Cook Chairman jp Respectfully submitted: jl Joanne Parks Secretary �- - ------- ---- --·- --.... ··--··· -~.-· -·· - "-- ---· ----- ·-·-- - --,_::-,-: _ --- ~ - 1 January 27, 1967 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held in Committee Room #1, Second Floor, City Hall, Friday, January 27, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. The following members were present: @ .~ e:. r I m zs w Rodney Cook, Chairman E. Gregory Griggs Charles Leftwich George Cotsakis Jack Summers Q. V. Williamson John M. Flanigen Also in attendance were : iJ) <( w Q_ &j ?::) c~ 0 -· 0 ro Robert Sommerville Earl Landers Collier Gladin George Aldridge Malcolm Jones Pierce Mahony Dan Sweat Bob Bivens Ray Nixon Darwin Womack William Howland M. B. Satterfield Elmer Moon George Berry Howard Openshaw Les Persells The Chairman called the meeting to o r de r and the followin g business was considered: ® ~ _,,I i ? w (/) <{ w a.. ix:s Regarding t he minutes of the De cember 14, 1966 meeting ( see page 3) Alderman Flanigen reques t ed (by l etter o f J a nuar y 6 , 1967) that the f o l lowing clarification be added regarding the di s cuss ion o f the $450 , 000 allocated for the study of add iti onal housing units: He raised the question of who was to guarantee this loan from the Federal Government and Mr. Satterfield advised that when, as, and if a project was approved this amount would be added t o the cost of that project, but he was rather evasive on what would happen if no project was approved, but inferred that it would not be charged to the City; in seconding the motion to adopt the Resolution, Mr. Flanigen made it clear that this would not be charged to the City. Mr. Gladin gave a brief 35 mm slide presentation on the Demonstration Cities Program and what Atlanta has done thus far to take advantage of it. �Minutes Planning & Development Committee January 27, 1967 /. Page 2 He stated it has been under consideration for the past six to eight months and represents a logical extension of the Community Improvement Program - the Demonstration City project being one of the first phases of implementation. He also explained that the City had received the official guide lines from the Federal Government and is now proceeding with the preparation of an application for planning funds and it is anticipated it will be completed and submitted to Washington by March l; that if these planning funds are granted, it would then entail some nine to twelve months to complete a final application for implementation funds and would eventually require five years to complete the program. There was a brief discussion about funds and it was pointed out that ther e had be en no actual appropriation beyond the initial allocation o f twelve million dollars for planning grants for fiscal '67. '· ./ Mr . Gladin said that this program places major emphasis on citizen participation and as a result, two neighborhood meetings have been scheduled f or the purpose of presenting this program to the residents of the proj ect are as; tha t Mayo r Allen will be conducting thes e presentations, explaining the program to the people and seeking their support. Fur ther, he stated that Mr. Johnny Robinson, under a Sterne Foundation Grant, is working out of Dan Sweat's office and has the responsibility of publicizing the program . This is in addition to cons i derable press and t e levis i on cove r age. Mr . Gladin commented thi s progr am will a lso p lace more emphasis on socia l rehabilitation than ha s eve r been done before a nd major effo r ts made to rehou se t he people as they a r e d i spl aced by staging t he developments (on a block-by- block basis i f necessary) so as to avoid wholesa le relocation , a s has been exper ienced in the past. Mr. Sonnnervi lle stated he s upported the s ubmis sion of t he a pplication, bu t he questioned the abi lity of the c ity planning staff , which he stated is too slight as it is, t o submit an application within a six weeks period that would meet the Federal guide lines - particu larly "innovation", on which so much emphasi s is being pl a ced . He also made t he ob servation that this program has been oversold na t i ona lly and he fea red it was in danger of being oversold l oca lly; that he questioned great l y some of the statistics shown on the slides and the choice of some wo rding being used in connection with the program, particularly that Atlanta "expects" to be a model city. He stated we have no basis on which to "expect" Atlanta will be one. He reiterated his support of the application submission but again warned that it was very dangerous f or the City to oversell what it was capable of producing in so short a time. l .,J Mr. Gladin explained that the preparation of this planning application is not restricted to just the city planning staff, but involves many agencies whose staffs have been working on the matter for a year and the results at this point do not merely represent a six weeks effort, but actually about a year and a half to two years. He also explained that it is not contemplated there will be an additional large staff to implement this particular project, �Minutes Planning & Development Committee January 27, 1967 I;,- Page 3 but rather a smaller coordinating staff (5 to 6 people) working directly out of the Mayor's office under a program coordinator who will be responsible for coordination of all activities of the responsible agencies involved, The Committee agreed with the principle but raised the practical objection as to staff availability. Mr. Gladin e xplained that in developing the application, proposals will be made for administering the program but at this point all of these questions have not been answered. Mr. Sweat r e- emphasized that it is only being requested at this point to file an application for planning funds; that a massive amount of research material has resulted from the CIP study and Atlanta has more information from which to put together an application than any other city, except perhaps those who have a completed CIP study. He suggested that a copy of the complete program guide lines should be furnish ed to the Committee members as soon as possible. J .. .J . Mr. Cook concluded by requesting that Mr. Gladin inform the neighborhood residents that this program is still in the preliminary stages and that funds were not yet available for executi on. Colonel Mal colm Jones gave the f ollowing r eport in be ha l f of the Housing Resour c es Commi ttee : The respons e to t he Mayor's Housing Conference o f November 15 , 1966, calling for 16,800 additional low a nd med i um cost standard housing units in Atla nta during t he nex t five years (9,800 by De cember , 1968 ) has f ar exceeded the expect ations o f the Housing Resour ces Committee. It has been announced by Mr . Cec i l Al exander , Chairman, that 51 separate proj ects have been propo sed or are i n execu tion, or completed; 9,311 units are completed , under construction , and / or proposed since the Mayor's Conference. A breakdown of thi s t o tal was then given in three categories as f ol l ows: 3, 963 units - probable; 1,540 units - being considered; and 800 uni t s - doubtful . The 9, 311 t o tal includes 1,206 public housing units, 66 of which are being leased. In addition, 1,424 existing units are proposed for rehabilitation and of the 9,311 total, 1,652 units are estimated to be available during 1 67 and 4,075 available during '68 so that there is now a total of 5,727 units in sight for the next two· years. Colonel Jones then stated that in addition to the Chairman and Co-Chairman initially appointed to the Housing Resources Committee, Mayor Allen is now appointing additional prominent community leaders to the Committee to serve on nine different panels - Legal, Construction & Design, Financing, Non-Profit Funds, Public Housing, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation , Social Problems, Business Participation, and Public Information; that an organizational meeting of the entire Committee is scheduled to be held February 9 and details will be announced later • Colonel Jones concluded by informing the Committee that Mr. William W. ··---- �1··. ' .......... Minutes Planning & Development Committee January 27, 1967 Page 4 Gates, . retired former Chief Underwriter for FHA in Atlanta, has accepted an appointment as Special Advisor to the Housing Resources Committee and will be available in the committee office in the City Hall each Thursday to advise and assist builders and developers interested in FHA programs; further, their Committee is trying to keep an inventory of the different projects and proposals coming up and would appreciate receiving any information on such matters. (Copy of Report attached). Mr. Cook asked how many of the 5,727 units would be public housing, to which Colonel Jones replied 2,406. Mr. Sommerville asked how many units in Rockdale were included in the three categories, to which Colonel Jones stated roughly 250. Mr. Satterfield gave a brief resume of the time schedules on various projects with statistics (Thomasville, McDaniel, Rockdale, etc.) and Mr. Cook subsequently requested of Mr. Satterfield a chronological listing of these projects with time schedules and that each member of the Planning & Development Committee be furnished with a copy. (_; Mr. Gladin then gave each Committee member a Fact Sheet of the Nash-Washington Urban Renewal Area, along with a letter from Mayor Allen, requesting that the Pla nning & Development Committee r econsider its previous r e j e ction o f a nd approve the submission of a Survey a nd Planning Applica t i on f o r the Na s h-Wa shington Area in view of the progress t hat ha s been made in providing housing and the future outlook. (Mayor Allen's letter contained supporting sta t i s tics , as outlined by Colonel Jones' housing report). At this po int , Mr. Gladin pointed out the need to select a name for the pro jec t. Referring to the Fac t Sheet, Pierce Mahony of t he departmental staff briefed the Committee on t he Survey a nd Pla nni ng Ap pl i ca tion, covering the fo l lowing ma j or points - Des c r iption, Goal s , Proposed Reuses and Improvements; Methods and Pro cedures , Financ i ng , Op tion on Sewe r s , a nd Possibl e Sources of Money. He then stated the recommendations of the planning staff, a s outlined in a memorandum to Chairman Cook, dated January 27, 1966. (See copy attached) . _,I There was a lengthy discussion of the Nash-Washington Project, including the controversial location of the new junior high school and the major problem of relocation. It was the tenor of the conversation that the Committee members were very frustrated and disillusioned over time schedules that are continually not met because of any number of delay s; that they were tired of dealing with the people on promises and unless some better assurances could be given the Committee (than had been done in the past) that housing �[' . . ~ .~' Minutes Planning & Development Committee January 27, 1967 Page 5 would be available to the people in this area, then they would be -reluctant to approve the Survey and Planning Application. It was generally felt that there was, however, a favorable trend in providing adequate housing and this Committee would certainly not want to reverse or slow down this trend. Mr. Charles Hart, 807 Commodore Drive, speaking as a layman, expressed his disappointment at ~ast efforts in this regard, but stated he too felt the trend was favorable. The Committee then gave tentative approval to the project, with the tentative name - "Nash-Bans Project Area" - pending further discussion of the project with area residents. The Committee stressed that evidence of neighborhood support of the program will have to precede final approval of the planning application request. The Committee discussed a Bill to incorporate certain land adjacent to the City of East Point. This review was made in response to Representative Dick Lane's (of the 126th District) letter of J?nuary 12 to Mayor Allen requesting comment on the proposal. Mr. Bill Bush was present in behalf of the City of Atlanta Water Department. In reviewing maps o f Land Lot's 1 and 37 of the 14th District (consisting of 24 parcels) and noting their relatio nship to the corporate limits o f both Atlanta and East Point, the Commit t ee observed (1) that this area would provide one direction in which the City of Atlanta might expand in the future; (2) one of the City o f Atlanta's maj or water mains (approximately 1600 feet valued at $32,000) supplying water to a large part of South Fulton County is located in Welcome All Road which runs north and south through the area under consideration and must continue to be maintained or be relocated by the City of Atlanta in orde r to provide uninterrupted service to Fulton County. Mr. Leftwich t hen moved that the Committee take a stand against passage of the Annexation Bill. This motion was unanimously approved by the Conunittee and Mr. Gladin was requested that this information be conveyed to the Fulton County Delegation. (See attached sheet for additional action taken on this matter). There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: jp Respectfully submitted, �,.--.__ /• ' January 30, 1967 Re: @ t: ~~-:.:)i1. d l,,' J 6t~ ,.-;./ w EAST POINT ANNEXATION BILL Subsequent to the January 27 meeting of the Planning & Development Committee, Mr. Landers and Mr. Cook discussed further the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Gladin was asked to draft a letter to the Fulton Delegation setting forth the following conclusion: (See Item 3 of attached letter). Mr. Landers then contacted each of the Committee members, with the exception of Alderman Leftwich, who was out of town, to review this draft letter which needed to be forwarded to the delegation prior to their scheduled meeting on February 3, 1967. This letter was approved by each of th~ Committee members, with the exception of Mr, Leftwich. iJ) <( w CL ~ Collier Gladin Planning Director ~:::) ~ CY- 0 0 m jp Complete copy of letter attached. �. CITY I-IALL ATLA1""TA, GA, 30303 Tel. 522 -4463 Aroa Code 404 Df~I'/\Iff~I E NT OF PLA:\r-,'.I:\G COI.LIEH B. GLADI:-,/, Director February 1, 196 7 · Ho ;,o n, b l e Ch<1 rl ie Carnes, Cha i:c;;1an Fulto n Co unt y Hou s e Dele ga tion 1 }~un:: -2 r Str e et, W. Atlan ta , Georgia s·. Dc ~r Rep re s entative Ca rnes: The Pla nnin g and De velo c)mc n t Com.11i ttce o f the Boord of .1\ldcr;;-:c n, a t it s Jan ua ry 27 me eting , d i s c u ss e d a Bill Xo incorpor a t e cer t a i n land c1 d ja c cnt to t he City of E a st Po i nt . Thi s revi ew was rnad 2 in ~e s ?on s e t o Repres entativ e La ne ' s (of · t h e 126th District) l e t t er of January 1 2 t o :Mayor Allen r equ e s tin :; comme nt on this p ro po sal . ? • i\ ft e r ~cvi ew ing map s of L.::ind Lo t 1 and 37 o f the lLft h vi st r ic t, wh ich c ons i s ts of 2L, pn rcels o f l and a nd no t i n~ th e ir relation si1i ? t o the co rp o r a t e li mits of both Atla n ta an d Eas t Point, I was aske d to rel ay to yo u th e follo wing three ma jo r obse r vations of the Pl a n ni ng and Dev e l opme nt Committee: 1. Ihat the area of unin co rpora t ed Fu lt on Co u nt y u nde r ~onsidt t j tio n WJS eont f guous to At l anta ~h
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 3

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_003.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 3
  • Text: vt MORI Me a Bs i @® June 21, 1967 A regulariy scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, June 21, 1967 ai 2:00 P. M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following Members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman E. Gregory Griggs John Flanigen Jack Summers Q. V. Williamson Charles Leftwich Absent: George Coisakis The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: 1. initial review of the updated Land Use Plan. This plan was on display for viewing. Also on display were supporting maps of various studies which furnished data for the updated Land Use Plan. Pierce Mahony of the departmental staff, in presenting the updated Plan to ine Commitiee, gave a background talk on the history of planning efforts in Atlanta, using 1958 as a reference point. Briefly summarized, he stated that then Atlanta began to get into comprehensive planning, as a result of urban renewal and aanual recertification requirements of the Workable Program; in 1963 the Housing Code Compliance Program was initiated; in 1964 and '65 the City engaged in the Community Improvement Program; also in '65 as a result of the 1962 Highway Act and the Ailanta Area Transportation Study, an agreement was made among the City, State, Atlanta Region Metropetitan Planning Commission and the five county jurisdictions to initiate a study known as P-37, This is a Federally assisted program for making population and economic projections (for the AATS) throughout the metropoliran area for 1983, including Atlanta, of what the housing needs are and the number of jobs by three different categories - commercial, industrial and ervice. Mr. Manony then stated that all of these studies and activities have furnished dita F or and nave been incorporated into the updated Land Use Plan, projected to the year 1983. He briefly talked on past land use trends and what we envision in the future. Two important points emphasized by Mr. Mahony during his presentation was the lack of involvement and Seer ee of the 1958 Plan and why, and the need for their (city off eee involvement and understanding of this one and why if should sscome meir picen. Asa part of the ipdated Land Use Plan, some emphasis nas been placed upon increased space for industrial development and Mr. Mahony stated the planning staff is orepared to recommend that an "industrial Development Program" be insituted Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 21, !967 Page 2 by the City to secure industrial sites and develop them to fill a gap that is not now being met. Also, the updated Plan emphasized the need for higher residential density because of limited amounts of space, in effect, a policy of promoting high rise apartment cuildings. Such a policy would make more land available for single family use. There was then some discussion as to the status the Plan would have if adopied. Mr. Cook stated “let's don't adopi this Plan and then not pay any atiention jo it; let's be serious about it and make if work", Mr. Gladin stated the Plan is designed to prevent chaotic and disorganized development of the City; that it should be used as a guide, and he emphasized the word guide, in distributing anticipated growth of the City, however, he stressed that every action taken by aldermanic committees should be in consideration of and in conjunction with this Land Use Plan. Mr. Mahony explained that after adoption of an overall Land Use Plan, the planning siaff would proceed io develop detailed plans on a neighborhood=by-neighborhood basis. as to contract conformity, utility and soundness of recommendations and whether the consuliants will have to do additional work, prior to adoption of the Final CIP Report. Mr. icce stated further it has been estimated an additional three months will be needed to close out the program and HUD officials have approved this extension; that it does not represent any increase in the cost of the program. He also said that all accepted documents will have to be submitted to HUD for approval, after which final contract payments would bé made; following this would be the federal audit and consummation of the program. As to action by this Committee today, Mr. Aldridge requested adoption of a Resolution concurring in the three months! extension. Mr. Leftwich moved that a Resolution to inis effect be adopted and prepared for submission re Council on Monday, July 3; this motion was seconded by Mr. Flanigen and carried unanimously, ~ — Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 21, 1967 Page 3 3. Set date for public hearing to consider petition for annexation. + Tom Shuttleworth of the departmental staff presented each committee member with background material on this proposed annexation, explaining it involved 47 lots located north of Jett Road. He pinpointed this on a map, and then certified to the committee that the petition for annexation qualified for a public hearing under the provisions for annexation as set forth by the Legislature and city ordinance and requested a date for said hearing. The Committee unanimously voted to hold said public hearing on Friday, July 2l, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. 4, Draft revision to Tree Ordinance. Mr. Mahony presented each Committee member with a copy of the latest revisions to the Tree Ordinance. Chairman Cook commented it is substantially changed from the previous draft and Mr. Harkness of the departmental staff has worked closely with the Home Builders Association on the matter and has obtained their support, in principle. After a cursory examination, it was unanimously agreed that the revisions would require further study, but that the Ordinance could be placed on first reading before Council on Monday, July 3 and referred back to the Planning and Development Committee for further study and formal action. It was suggested that if any committee member had any changes they wished to make in the Ordinance to please give them to the staff prior to the Monday Council meeting. It was also agreed that in the interim, a public hearing on the Tree Ordinance would be held by the Planning and Development Committee. 7 HREKAKERERKREEEE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 P. M. REAKKRKKAKKEERERER Approved: Respectfully submitted, CMe, OSLO. | [KOCH Duk g7 Collier Gladin, Planning Director ye Parks, Secretary
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 10

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_010.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 10
  • Text: Naieaistt salen eg ttoe sen “CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director February 1, 1967 ‘Honorable Charlie Carnes, Chairman Fulton County House Delegaticn 1 Hunter Street, S. oW. Atlanta, Georgia Dear Representative Carnes: Tne Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Alde a S January 27 meeting, discussed a Bill to incorporate certa jand adjacent to the City of East Point. ‘This review was made sponse to Representative Lance's (of the 126th District) letter of nuary 12 to Mayor Allen requesting comment on this proposal. rmen, in in After reviewing maps of Land Lot 1 and 37 of the 14th District, which consists of 24 parcels of land and noting their relationship to the corporate limits of both Atlanta and East Point, I was asked to relay to you the following three major observations of the Planning and Development Committee: ‘l. That the area of unincorporated Fulton County under dénsidevatioa Wag Gontiguous to Atlanta and East Point corporate limits, therefore, this area would provide one direction in which the City of Atlanta could expand in the future. This considerstion is important because in order to maintain a healthy regional center Atlanta must have the capability of growth. 2. One of the City of Atlanta's major water mains supplying water to a large part of unincorporated south Fulton County is located in Welcome All Road, which runs north and south through the area under consideration. Approximately 1600 feet of water main, having an estimated value of $32,000 must continue to be maintained or be relocated by the City of Atlanta in order to provide uninterrupted service to South Fulton County. Honorable Charlie Carnes ‘oan . February 1, 1967 3. Atianta, in the past, has taken the position of letting the citizens affected in such a choice make the decision through a referendum, ‘Therefore, the City of Atlanta -feels that regardless of the preceding two conclusions, chat no official stringent objections would be made _ providing the delegation chooses to take this course, and providing the City of Atlanta's investment in water mains in the area is protected, Sincerely, AY Ge PR QA Lous fo 7 Collier B. Gladin Planning Director CBG: jp f Copy to - Members of the Fulton County House Delegation
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 2

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_002.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 2
  • Text: sd fe July 21, 1967 A regu bis scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, July 21, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following Members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman E. Gregory Griggs John Flanigen George Cotsakis Q. V. Williamson Absent: Charles Leftwich Jack Summers Also Present: Collier Gladin, Planning Director Sam Massell, Vice-Mayor Tom Shuttleworth, Departmental Staff Robert Lyle, Associate City Attorney The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: 1. Public Hearing - Annexation Petition. Chairman Cook explained this annexation involved 47 lots lying to the north of Jett Road, contiguous to the city limits of Atlanta; that the petition for annexation by the residents of the area has qualified for public hearing under the criteria established by law. Mr. Gladin briefly explained that 27.62 acres were involved, totaling 47 lots. Of these 47 lots, 44 are occupied and 3 are vacant. He then stated under the requirements of Section 6 of the Annexation Ordinance, the City is required to make plans for the extension of services to the area proposed to be annexed and shall, prior to the public hearing provided for in Section 3 of said Ordinance, prepare a report setting forth such plans to provide services to such area, Mr. Gladin then submitted said report, stating that the Department's of Fire, Police, Construction, Water and Sanitation have indicated, by letters included in the report, that adequate services can be provided to the annexed area, He stated that the Department of Planning recommends approval of this petition. A show of hands indicated about 10 people were present in favor of the annexation and about 6 in opposition. The Chairman stated the Committee would hear from those in favor and then the opponents. First, Mr. John Sikes of Bryn Mawr Circle appeared and tendered a signed list of persons wishing to withdraw their names from the petition they previously signed for annexation to the City of Atlanta, He also submitted a separate petition of opposition for the record, The proponents asked that the names on Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 i Page 2 this petition be read aloud, which the Chairman did, as follows: Barbara S. Newland; Marshall C. Newland; Constance W. Balnis; Henry J. Balnis; W. B. Ray, III; Mrs. W. B. Ray; James M. Robinson; Frank J. Breunig, Jr., and Jane R. Breunig. The Chairman then asked Mr. Gladin to check this list against the original petition to determine if it would still qualify. However, the staff was unable to determine this during the meeting because of the complexity of such calculations. The following persons then spoke in favor of the annexation: MR. C. A. LORENZEN, 4624 JETTRIDGE DRIVE. - I have been a resident of Atlanta for two years and have resided on Jettridge all that time. We have been very interested in becoming a part of the City of Atlanta since moving here. My wife submitted a petition in 1965 but-at that time the annexation issue was coming up and in view of this it was thought advisable that the petition be withheld. I feel there are tremendous advantages for the people in Fulton County and the people living adjacent to Atlanta to being a part of the City. I think Atlanta is a very progressive City. I think that in order for Atlanta to grow that the community surrounding the cities has to be a part of it. Those of us in Fulton who work in Atlanta have got to help the City grow. We earn our salary here and I think that we are a part of Atlanta, therefore, it is absolutely essential that petitions similar to this be adopted. MR. GEORGE FREER, 4625 BROOKHOLLOW ROAD. - I am a new resident of Atlanta, but I am very interested in this area becoming a part of the City because we are part of the City. We partake of the services and the name of the City and we are hopeful of partaking of the government of the City of Atlanta. Those of us in the proposed area do not have adequate fire protection. I believe those of us who have children are very interested in coming in the Atlanta School System. We can see nothing but good, as far as the services of the government of the City of Atlanta, that would come of us becoming a part. When it comes time to dispose of our property, it is much more in our favor that this property be within the city limits. I want to go on record as supporting it wholeheartedly. MR. DICK HODGES, 4615 BROOKHOLLOW ROAD, supported the annexation for the basic reasons as previously stated. MR. GENE STELTEN, TWIN SPRINGS ROAD, - From an accompanying map on display, Mr. Stelten pointed out that this area is basically divided into three divisions - Millbrook and two others, which have been developed as subdivisions longer than Millbrook. He stated that the sentiment for annexation in the Millbrook subdivision is about 83% of the homeowners and 81% of the electors, so they are overwhelmingly in favor of it. To the south (Jettridge Forest Subdivision) prior to the submittal of the withdrawal petition, the people were 47% in favor of annexation by homeown- ers and 40% by electors, so the sentiment here is strong for annexation. In the third subdivision (3 lots on Bryn Mawr Circle cul-de-sac) the sentiment for annex- ation was less than 50%. The names on that petition fall within this group. If this will make a difference in your deliberation, I wanted to point out this factor. Cal rs * ~ BOORUM & PEASE “T a ta 3? ® E; E hl es rae Nix BOORUM & PEASE ' Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Page 3 There were then random questions and answers from the audience. Q - "I have a senior going to Sandy Springs. Will she be able to finish the last year at Sandy Springs"? Mr. Gladin replied affirmatively. "Is there any change anticipated in the sewer arrangement in the whole area; will any additional sewers be needed?" Mr. Gladin stated there are no anti- cipated new sewers. Q - "Will our homes be reappraised for tax purposes and what experience do you have as far as appraisals goes?" Chairman Cook replied the homes will not be reappraised since theré now exists a joint City-County Board which functions for both governments. As to past experience, Mr. Cook cited the case of the Sandy Springs Annexation, as an example, stating there would have been a moderate increase in ad valorem taxes if annexed to the city, however, this would have been largely offset by lower charges in other areas, such as water, fire, sanitation, etc. and he felt this would be typical with the case at hand. Q - "In talking with the people, the fears expressed had to do with install- ation of new service facilities and higher taxes. Can you give us some assurances about this since this is our main fear?" In response to this question, Mr. Cook read aloud the letters:from the Water Department, the Construction Department and the Police Department. These letters are on file in the proper Docket. Q - "If this is approved will our children be transferred to other schools in September?" Mr. Cook stated they can be transferred this September, but graduating seniors can elect to remain in the school they are presently in until graduation. Q - "If this is approved, when would this area become a part of the City?" Mr. Gladin stated if it is approved by this Committee today, it would go to the following meeting’of the full Board of Aldermen for formal action, and would become effective on signature of the Mayor, which would be shortly there- after. Q - "When would the taxes become effective?" Mr. Cook stated the City of Atlanta taxes would become applicable January 1, 1968 but the City services would become effective immediately. JOHN SIKES, 4575 BRYN MAWR CIRCLE, spoke in opposition, There are three homes on my street seeking to come in. The first basis of my objection is a number of people in the neighborhood appeared to want to come into the City because they feel it will affect their house values. They have tried to sell ) BOORUM & PEASE “M&IEAR” ® K it) mR" G : \ QIRAR Nic & PEASE “T Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Page 4 and lost buyers because they are not in the city. They feel this is a situation where they can help their property values so they can move away and increase our taxes. They are not looking to pay the extra taxes. My second objection is the Dykes High School. If you put one more child in Dykes, the walls will burst out. I understand it will be a couple of years before more space would be available. Most of the people in the lower end of Jettridge where the opposition is coming from have had children in the county school and we like the county schools. Most of the people talking about going into the City schools are the more recent residents further out and they have not had the good experience with the County schools we have. We resent being "saddled" with extra taxes to set up a number of people beyond us to see this as a added value inducement. . ALICE STROMQUIST, 4540 JETTRIDGE DRIVE, spoke in opposition, stating she had hoped to wait until all of Sandy Springs could be brought in. MR. JOHN BURNETT, 4545 JETTRIDGE DRIVE, The proponents mentioned in- adequate fire protection. There is a fire station down at West Conway and Northside Drive which services this area. I don't know what else could be done by the way of additional fire protection. We pay an extra mill tax to use that fire station. I could drive to this station in about a minute. In response to the question of increased taxes, Mr. Cook stated to Mr. Sikes the staff would be glad to provide him with the difference in tax figures on an individual basis if he would like, and he believed the people would be surprised at how little the difference will be, taking into account the reduced cost of services from the increase. Regarding fire rates, Mr. Cook stated, if you come inside the City taxes would be reduced by one mill, which you are now paying for fire protection, and your fire protection will be increased with a likely reduction in fire rates. JOHN BEAMER, 4525 JETTRIDGE DRIVE. I don't want to be annexed primarily because of the school situation, until Dykes has additional facilities. Mr. Cook stated the staff nor the committee had heard any opposition until today and all efforts until now has been to get the children in the city schools by September. If you wish to keep your children where they are and try to work it out with the School Department, we will check on the school situation, The new Dykes High School has been funded; so has the new elementary school on Mt. Paran. Both were funded in 1965. The land has been bought and the money is available. The contract should be let in the Spring and construction started. It will be about an 18 month building program. From the audience - "we are not against coming into the City. We just think the timing is bad." A young lady, who did not identify herself, stated that a school teacher, who has taught in both the City and County schools there is a vast difference in the two systems, the City being the better one. Fe Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Page 5 Q-"Will the new Dykes High School be consolidated?" Mr. Cook stated he could assure everyone there will not be a consolidated school. I think the schools are located with the possibility of annexation in mind in relationship to the population. Q - "Will there be the possibility of any annexation around the new School later?" Mr. Cook stated they could petition for annexation if they elected to. Mr. Sikes stated that since everybody below this line (pointing to’ the map) wants to stay out to take this area which is the last and newest of the three subdivision .and leave the area as it is. Mr. Cook stated the Committee would look into this in Executive Session. Mr. Cook asked the audience if most of their objections have to do with the schools, to which those in opposition replied yes. Mr. Cook asked them if the school problems could be worked out, would this help. Mr. Sikes stated this is actually an over-simplification since some of the. people who withdrew their names do not have children, but this would be desirable. The matter was then referred to Executive Session. In Executive Session, following a discussion period, the Committee unanimously agreed to approve the Ordinance, subject to it qualifying under the 60% elector's requirement and the 60% land area requirement, and further, that the Planning Department staff would check with the Board of Education to see if the children in the area could continue at county schools in cases where their parents do not wish them to be transferred to city schools. tekekkikikecick Tree Ordinance - Public Hearing. Mr. Cook briefly explained the purpose and intent of the Tree Ordinance, and then called on Mr. Gladin, Planning Director, who briefly reviewed the 27 sections of the Ordinance, emphasizing it covers two major areas, one of protection, the other of planting and maintenance, Mr. Cook then recognized and expressed appreciation for the large audience in attendance for the hearing and opened the meeting to questions and answers. Q - "Is this restricted to just scenic routes and main thoroughfares, or will it be in all neighborhoods"? Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Page 6 Mr. Gladin stated it is restricted to the Street Tree Planting Zone along Major Thoroughfares and Scenic Drives, as defined in the Ordinance, with the Exeception of Section 10, which relates to the stripping of property over the entire City. From the audience - There are other places in the City that should also be protected. Q - "What is the definition of a major and minor street"? Mr. Cook stated that a listing of these streets is available; that they are streets, such as Peachtree, Ponce de Leon, etc. Mr. Gladin further explained they are radials from the Central Business District that link the expressway to the Central Business District and outlying areas. Mr. Cook stated they are based largely on traffic and width size. Q - "Is there a section already related to existing residences or is it applicable to property if there is a house there or not?" Mr. Cook stated it is related to any residentially zoned property in so far as the Tree Protective Zone is concerned. The following persons then spoke in support of the Tree Ordinance: Mr. Ben Jones, Vice-President of the Springlake Civic Association; Mrs. Wallace Anderson, in behalf of the League of Women Voters (A Statement was presented for the record); Mrs. C. R. Brumbly, Member and Officer of the Fulton County Federation of Garden Clubs; Eugene Lowry, Architect; Mary Nikas, 85 Avery Drive, N. E.3; Ann Moore, Chairman of the Downtown Beautification Committee of the Chamber of Commerce; Joe Harrell, Jr., Collier Hills Civic Association; Melba Ciferly, Georgia Conservancy; Jocelyn Hill, Georgia Botantical Society; Ed Daugherty, Landscape Architect and Harry Baldwin, Atlanta Civic Design Commission. Gerald Thurman, Attorney, representing the Georgia Power Company, protested certain portions of the Tree Ordinance saying it would interfere with Georgia Power's routine topping of trees to protect lines; that they favor the Ordinance itself, but would request an amendment which would keep it from interfering with the company's work. Mr. Cook explained that the latest revised draft of the Ordinance removed the tree planting and maintenance standards sections, which would eliminate most of Georgia Power's objections. Ge Ds Lebey;. Irs; President of the Atlanta Real Estate Board, said his organization agreed with the intent of the Ordinance, but felt that as presently drawn it would vest too much power in one man, namely, the "City Arborist". In answer to questioning by Chairman Cook, he suggested a better approach would be through strengthening the Zoning Ordinances. Minutes Planning and Development Committee > July 21, 1967 Page 7 A representative of the Telephone Company, who did not submit his name, supported the position of the Georgia Power Company. Warren Coleman, immediate past President of the Men's Garden Club of Atlanta, spoke in support of the Tree Ordinance, as did Wadley Duckworth, resident of North Atlanta; and Edith Henderson, Architect and Member of the Atlanta Civic Design Commission. Mr. Sam Massell, Vice-Mayor, asked Mrs. Henderson if she felt as an architect that sidewalks must follow a straight line; that the Ordinance now prohibits trees within five (5) feet of the sidewalk and that he was opposed to this and would like her opinion. ; Mrs. Henderson replied that she did not feel that sidewalks should be in a straight line; that the last place a tree should be is between the sidewalk and the street. That she felt it would be desirable for the trees to be planted on property off the sidewalk and arch over the street. Mrs. Hascal Vernard, Garden Club of Georgia, and John Mixon of the Georgia Foresty Commission, spoke in support of the Ordinance. The matter was then referred to Executive Session. In Executive Session, the Committee discussed the proposed ordinance which had been re-drafted to delete the tree planting program in addition to several other changes as proposed by the staff (see draft "C") section by section suggest- ing that several additional changes be made. The major change as recommended by Mr. Lyle of the City Attorney's Office was that the Tree Protective Zone apply to all city streets rather than just major streets since he felt that under the police powers of the City this would be considered less descriminatory by the Courts. The Committee gave tentative approval to the ordinance subject to the sugg- ested changes being made by the staff with the aid of the City Attorney's Office, with the re-drafted ordinance being brought back to the Committee for their final approval. PITT I Mr. Gladin presented each Committee member with a preliminary staff report on the amount of vacant land in the City of Atlanta by zoning districts. This information was compiled for and furnished to the Housing Resources Committee. The report recommended a joint meeting of these two Committees to examine the City's housing policy. ieiekiekickick There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. PRRERIRERR EK ) ( Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 21, 1967 Approved: C00 BIOs Collier ee Planning Director mc/ jp Respectfully submitted: ft ye if Joanne Parks Secretary Page 8
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 4

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_004.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 4
  • Text: 4 { BOORUM & PEASE “N 0 SIEAR” ® BOORUM & PEASE “ ef June 2, 1967 ye A special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held on Friday, June 2, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. in Committee Room #1, Second Floor, City Hall. The following members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman E. Gregory Griggs John M. Flanigen Q. V. Williamson Jack Summers Absent: Charlie Leftwich George Cotsakis Also in attendance were: Collier Gladin William F. Kennedy George Aldridge Izadore Candeub John Brown Also at the meeting were various representatives of the press. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: Mr. Cook stated that the purpose of this meeting is to continue the dis- cussion of the Community Improvement Program, which is to be completed shortly. He then presented Mr. Candeub who stated that the following points, which were raised at the last meeting, would be discussed in detail: 1. Details of individual program sectors. 2. Priority system methodology. 3. Background material on development of land use allocations. He then presented John Brown. Mr. Brown first presented a chart entitled "Residential Construction by 1983". The chart showed the total number of existing housing units in the City, based on a 1965 CIP field survey; total inventory was also shown by standard and substandard units and the number of new units to be constructed by 1983 was indicated. The projected housing inventory for 1983 is 217,370 units - 121,470 white occupied units and 95,900 non-white occupied units. Mr. Flanigen asked Mr. Brown how the housing projections had been derived and did the consultants have a high and low projection of total city population for 1983. Mr. Brown explained that this background information was included in previous economic reports. He then presented a second Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 2 chart entitled "Residential Land Needed by 1983" and stated that his firm has assumed one of the objectives of the City of Atlanta is to continue to provide a large amount of land for detached single family dwellings. He pointed out that one of the alternative program actions that might be followed by the City is to decrease the amount of land that is being used for medium density apartments and to increase the number of high density apartment developments. He stated further that if present low and medium density development trends continue there will not be enough land in the City to accommodate the projected number of housing units. He stated this was, of course, a policy decision to be made by the City of Atlanta. Mr. Aldridge asked if these figures assumed any annexation by the City within the time period, to which Mr. Brown stated they did not; that their allocation is based on present land area, which is either vacant or to be re- developed, within the present corporate limits. Mr. Flanigen asked if it is logical to base the projection on the assumption that no additional area will be annexed to the City. Mr. Brown stated this was the only basis on which they could work; that it is impossible to speculate on future bounds of the City. Mr. Flanigen commented that if the city limits stay the same, instead of getting high density development, people will move out of the city and the population will not grow as much as Candeub has projected. Mr. Brown stated if you propose to contain the population growth that is projected and also carry out the program that is projected, this ratio, or something similar to it, must be accommodated in the city. Mr. Flanigen said the only way to do this would be to have tenements, which Atlanta doesn't want. Mr. Brown stated this is a policy decision for the committee's consideration; that they have done their program on the assumption that growth will be contained. Mr. Cook asked if there was any basis for the ratio of 40% low density; 40% high density and 20% medium density. Mr. Brown stated there are two bases, one of which is the amount of land available, including vacant land and land to be redeveloped. The total projected units for 1983 were fitted into that land. The other base was the economic study that showed certain types of units to be needed by 1983, He stated these were very rough approximations but indicate a fairly large need for high density units, based on the type of families that will be living in Atlanta - families without children, an aging population and other family characteristics which might require high density units. Minutes . Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 3 Mr. Candeub stated they projected Atlanta as a complete regional center, and in connection with that kind of growth in the future, that there would be a substantial increase in the white collar population, the executive category, and a large number of young people coming in, in- dicating a very definite, strong apartment market; that this is where Atlanta will likely have its major growth in job types in the next decade or more. Mr. Brown exmphasized their projections are not binding; it is just one way of accommodating the city's growth. A small continency of undesignated land (2,700 acres) is available which provides flexibility for growth in any of the three density categories. Mr. Flanigen asked about the population figure per acre for 1983, com- pared with the data on the map. Mr. Brown stated they had not computed this figure. Mr. Flanigen stated he felt this was the problem; a projection has been made but has not been tied in with the end of the time period; that he did not see Atlanta getting the projected density because it would mean slums, which Atlanta doesn't want, Mr. Brown agreed this was a good point of view to bring out and would require a policy decision on the part of the City. Mr. Candeub then made the following comments. We have made market pro- jections of growth and we have been getting a feed-back on a relocation analysis in terms of housing needs. The city had certain land within its boundaries. Certainly we can say these needs can only be met by going beyond its boundaries by going into a policy of aggressive annexation. On the other hand, let me say that Atlanta will also have a responsibility in meeting its relocation needs in the face of continued growth and that it has the resources and a policy to meet the housing needs by utilization of its resources. You have a number of elements to keep in balance. The factor of growth and where it will occur in terms of market considerations; the factor of relocation in terms of continued programs; a question of size of families and need in terms of what kind of housing can, will and should be built. The question of single family housing or multi- family, high rise is a question that has to be looked at differently that has been done in the past. In the past, the high rise was built as a tenement structure to house immigrant workers who came to the large cities. It was built as a low rental form of transient housing which was initially, or rapidly, became a slum. This pattern is most typical of the northeast and other parts of the central area of the U. S. What we are talking about today is really entirely different because the typical high rise is built for a different population and built on a different order. It is built for people that can afford to pay a good rent; a low Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 4 land coverage with a high level of facilities is incorporated, with adequate setbacks so that one building is not blocking another in terms of light, etc. Certainly Atlanta has the power to erect the type re- sidences it wants. We are not talking about the old type tenement structure. The new national figures from the census in terms of the effects of the post-war birth rate indicate that we are now getting into a period where you will have a lot of new family formations and you will have people seeking apartments because they don't want the burden of free standing housing. We feel the best manner in which Atlanta can maintain its character, and we want Atlanta to have more single family homes, and in order to get more single family homes in face of the total demands, instead of utilizing the land area for garden apartments exclusively, we are suggest- ing we want to hold more land for single family homes and the only way : to do this is to squeeze down on the garden apartment developments and in- crease the higher densities under strong controls. Otherwise, you will have little land you are able to hold for single family housing. The housing picture is a changing market picture in terms of population, income and the demand of the kinds of people that Atlanta is drawing. Mr. Gladin asked how to incourage this type of development activity; "what is the route to follow?" Mr. Candeub replied "not to permit a tenement type development". The way to do this, he suggested, might be to go to a design control on high rise, which they recommended in the Design Report; perhaps establish a aiindantin size on the lot. Mr. Gladin then asked "how do you solve the economics of high rise deve- lopment?" Mr. Candeub stated they are not trying to do all this at one time; density patterns will have to be revised to allow high rise. You may have to get into zonal determinations, establishing a maximum density in certain areas. The city has the power to draw the line where it wants to draw it. You might have a high density in the center and a lesser density on the | peripheral areas. The cycle is beginning to change because the population figures are changing. It might take time to prove out our projections, but they will be. Mr. Cook stated "you mean by 1983 we will have a need for 31,000 high rise units when today we have 1,000 which it took five years to fill and some are still vacant". Mr. Brown answered affirmatively, stating the smallest amount of land was left for high rise (690 acres). This land will accommodate a large number of housing units, which is another way to look at it. Mr. Cook asked "will the city absorb this and will it be feasible by 1983 and if we do will it be slum development, or should we go on a real strong push for annexation. We would like your recommendations? It is Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 5 not a question of dividing the acreage on a breakdown of percentages. It is how you think it should be. There is the question of the contin- gency of 2,700 acres." Mr. Candeub stated if high rise developments become slum tenements, then the City doesn't want any high rise, to which Mr. Cook agreed. Mr. Candeub in turn stated if you accept this as a premise, then we will eliminate all high rise; that he is saying across the country we are getting into higher densities in urban areas and the idea is to provide it in a large building complex. Mr. Cook stated he was not accepting that high rise, per se, is slums but he would like to know the basis of the percentages; that he did question the need for more high rise when we can't fill our present high rise developments. Mr. Candeub stated he was not saying it is good or bad. If you control it it can be good. If you don't control it, it can be bad. This lies within the power of control. There is a certain number of units that will have to go into apartments when you project the total population to 1983. We are saying you do have a choice of what density you want it in. This determination will dictate what is left for single family housing. I have a preference for high rise. I have discussed this pro- blem with many builders who tell me you cannot build quality into a garden apartment, whereas you can in high rise because you have a different level of standards and maintenance. Again, this is a policy question. We are trying to put it into focus. Our objectives here is to create optimum space for single family homes. Within the city's total envelope of needs, we have tried to maximize the amount of land available for single family homes. We have also tried to be realistic and leave some land not categorized hecause we realize some land will not be developed, but for the most part we are saying the city will have to make the decision as to whether or not it will all be low rise, or will it be balanced with some high rise. Mr. Gladin said "you have described the reasons why we should start seek- ing high rise. How do we-start a program of encouraging high rise and how can this committee move in that direction?" Mr. Candeub stated that Atlanta has better builders than most other areas he has seen and he suggested one way is to meet with the builders and discuss problems with them. Mr. Flanigen stated you have to consider the difference in rentals of high rise and garden apartments. Mr. Mahony cited one case in which a high rise was competitive with garden apartments. Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Page 6 Mr. Howland pointed out that the building was a considerable distance from the downtown area. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Candeub "do you think Atlanta can handle 31,000 high rise units by 19837?" Mr. Candeub replied "we see a market for it". Mr. Brown stated that in order to continue land for single family, you will have to change from low density to high density with 20% left over for garden apartments. : There was a general discussion of each of the eight improvement sector maps, with considerable emphasis on the Buckhead sector. It was generally agreed that the treatment recommended for this sector was not reflective of the high quality housing existing in the area. Mr. Brown pointed out that factors other than housing conditions were considered in the designation of treatment areas. As an example, he cited traffic and street conditions. Following this discussion, Mr. Brown then explained the priority system methodology. He stated one of the most important features of the CIP program is what should be done first and the only way to determine this was through the development of a priority ‘rating system, which he explained as follows: There were five major elements in the rating system, i.e., (1) social implications - areas in which programs for improvement are presently needed to supplement social action agency programs; (2) resource areas - where better utili- zation of land might relieve pressure for land resources; (3) relation to public programs - the total program should be financed through the building of public facilities which are presently needed by the city, however, when you have a public program for which you do not get any sort of federal credit, you have a changing economy (example, auditorium com- plex) and this gives a further sense of urgency for treatment; (4) planning objectives - a tool for carrying out the city's comprehensive plan through the CIP; and (5) areas characterized by change - some areas, regardless of whether they met any of the other criteria, were in need of immediate attention. Mr. Brown then discussed Ansley Park as an example of the priority rating system, stating the neighborhood was measured against each of the five elements and scored from 0 through 2 points based on each of the five elements. The Chairman thanked Mr. Candeub and Mr. Brown for their presentations, and it was unanimously agreed that the Committee would meet again on Friday, June 9 at 2:00 P. M. to discuss the fiscal and administrative portions of the Community Improvement Program. KRKEKREREKRER There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. eek Minutes Planning and Development Committee June 2, 1967 Approved: Oro. RINOs Collier Gladin Planning Director mc Page 7 Respectfully submitted: Joanne Parks Secretary
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 7

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_007.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 7
  • Text: a eR? , a ee ~ OE ct — ate AC “ r i re 2 E , a hw March 3, 1967 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, March 3, 1967, at 2:00 P. 4M. in Committee Room #1, Second-Floor, City Hall. The following members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman E. Gregory Griggs Charles Leftwich George Cotsakis Jack Summers John M. Flanigen Absent: Q. V. Williamson Also in attendance were: Collier Gladin Les Persells William R. Wofford George Aldridge Dan Sweat Robert Bivens The Chairman called the meeting to order and -the following business was considered: Mr. Gladin presented each committee member with a copy of an enabling resolution approving a request for financial assistance for the City of Atlanta to plan and develop a comprehensive City Demonstration Program and a lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Gladin briefly explained that since the last meeting of this committee, staff members of the Planning Department, as well as staffs from other city departments and various public and private agencies, have been working almost full time to put together the Demonstration City application; that the initial draft was compiled about two weeks ago and around 100 copies were distributed to these various staff members; that it was subsequently critiqued and rewritten, not merely to change it, but for continuity and to strengthen it and cover the areas which were missed, in that each individual section was written by a group of people or individuals. Regarding the budget phase of the program, Mr, Gladin explained this had ‘not been finalized, but staff members of the Comptroller's Office is working on the matter in conjunction with the Finance Committee and the finai figures should be ready by March 6, He specifically noted that the enabling Resolution did not mention any specific cost figures, but the tentative estimations for the total budget is around $600,000 - approximately $475,000 ¥ederal funds and $120,000 City funds. He explained that the city's local contribution did not represent a cash outlay, but present employee's salaries, including those of participating agencies, will be credited against the city’s share, anning & Development Committee 1967 During the course of other discussion about the many facets of the Model Neighborhood Program, the committee (and Chairman Cook in particular) again raised the practical objection as to staff availability to implement the program and expressed reluctance to enter into the Model City program when other important and vital programs of the city (such as the Land Use Plan, updating of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, etc.) were being "relegated to the shelf and that the present planning staff was being overworked and “spread too thin". Mr, Gladin stated that the planning staff was instructed to put this application together and this is what they have attempted to do; that this application will provide the city with the financial capability to accomplish a particular job; that the majority of the planning workload will be borne by the project staff, consisting of permanent project personnel to be recruited by the city and supporting personnel on loan from other city departments, from other public agencies, and in one case from a private agency. He stated-further he was aware of the other city programs and agreed they were vital and important, however, a problem at the moment is the filling of job vacancies in the Planning Department which were requested and created in the '67 Budget (5 professional planning slots now open); that the Planning Department is undertaking a major recruiting campaign to fill these jobs but this will take time; that when these vacancies are occupied, it will provide a balanced staff and he felt the department would be able to meet its commitments in other programs. He emphasized that the majority of the work the City Planning Staff would be doing in connection with the Model City program would normally be done anyway. In response to specific questioning by Chairman Cook as to when the Land Use Plan would be ready, Mr, Gladin stated he felt the July 1 deadline could be met; he stressed however he did not mean it would be approved by this time, but it would be in a form that this committee could act on it and submit it to the Federal Government to substantiate that the City has met its requirements set forth in the recertification of Atlanta's Workable Program. In answer to further questioning by the committee, Mr. Gladin stated that if submission of this application for financial assistance is approved and submitted to HUD, it will be around June before HUD will submit an answer and in the meantime, the staff will have completed recertification of the Workable Program, Mr. Cook stated he agreed the Demonstration Cities program was important and that he supported it, but he wanted some assurance that the basic, tegular day-to-day planning is accomplished; that if the answer is additional staff, then he would support it. Mr. Gladin reiterated that he felt if the existing staff vacancies could be filled, the department could meet its commitments, Bill Bassett, Program Coordinator, then gave a breakdown of the proposed J Minutes Planning & Development Committee March 3, 1967 Page 3 organization of the Demonstration Cities Program. (For complete details, see Part I, page 13, Administrative Machinery, of A Model Neighborhood for Atlanta). Upon motion by Mr. Leftwich, seconded by Mr. Griggs and unanimous vote, the following Resolution was adopted: "A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING & DEVELOPHENT COMMITTEE APPROVING REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAN AND DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE CITY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta desires to undertake a comprehensive program to rebuild or revitalize large slum and blighted areas and generally improve living conditions for the people who live in such areas; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is authorized to make grants to, and contract with, City Demonstration Agencies to pay 80 percent of the costs of planning and developing such city demonstration programs: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, as follows: Approval is hereby granted (1) for the submission of a request for financial assistance for the planning and development of a comprehensive city demonstration program; (2) for the provision of any information or documentation concerning the preparation and content of such program as may be required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and (3) for the ee Mees anning & Development Committee reh3). 1967 Page 4 ad _ L Pe E hg we representation by Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. és the authorized representative empowered to act on behalf of the City of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia in connection with all matters pertaining to the request for financial assistance," Teatent soles! tanta ct RRR afeal. 7” eevee ved Mr. Gladin stated that he had invited the Building Committee to attend this meeting so that both committee's could jointly discuss one problem aspect of the 1967 Housing Code Compliance Program - this being the Planning Department's basic disagreement with Paragraph II. A.4 and a related Paragraph IV, E.2., which permits rehabilitation of substandard residential structures in industrially zoned areas, He stated that the Planning Department realizes substandard houses in industrially zoned areas are a problem, but do not feel this is an acceptable answer; that the present wording of the paragraphs objected to would only postpone solution of the problem. Mr. Gladin explained that according to the Zoning Ordinance, construction of new residences is not permitted in the M-1 and M-2 Industrial districts and existing residences are classified non-conforming uses; that to rehabilitate many of these substandard residences would require structural alterations which would be in violation of the non-conforming provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and he is opposed to the City supporting a policy of rehabilitation in these areas which is in conflict with a city ordinance, He elaborated further that if a strict interpretation is made of the provisions of the policy as now written, which states "provided he complies in full with all codes and ordinance", (and he felt it should be enforced with no deviation whatsoever), then in the majority of the cases the property owner would not be allowed to rehabilitate at all; that the Planning Department would like these sections changed to require elimination of structures that have deteriorated over 50 percent and not allow a developer the alternative of repairing it under these circumstances; further, the Department proposes that the non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance should be clarified and strengthened as soon as possible to permit a better resolution of the entire problem, Mr. Gladin then gave a brief slide presentation of the types of structures which have deteriorated beyond repair, O ; Planning & Development Committee March 3, 1967 Page 5 Mr. Wofford stated that his position is that the Policy and Procedure Guide, as now written, is as near right as it can be made and it should be approved. Much of the ensuing discussion centered around properties in the general vicinity of Markham and Haynes Street where there were considerable dilapidated structures in industrially zoned areas, Mr. Flanigen was of the opinion that the Ordinance should be changed to allow people to rehabilitate residential structures in industrial areas, stating that his study of other zoning ordinances in the country reveal they permit this in most cases, Mr, Wofford stated a serious problem involved in code enforcement in this instance is a shortage of housing and where to put people who are displaced from these industrial areas, Mr. Griggs expressed concern about razing structures and leaving vacant land; he asked Mr. Wofford if he had any personal knowledge of a demand for this type of industrial land. Mr. Wofford stated he didn't, Mr. Gladin stated in these types of areas you have the problem of assembling land; further, that the idea is to make strong residential areas and strong industrial areas; that in order to develop a Land Use Plan, you must have a strong Zoning Ordinance with a strong non-conforming section and maximum enforcement in order to implement this Plan. Mr. Gladin stated further that if the particular vicinity in question is a good residential area, then the zoning should be changed to reflect and encourage residential development, but if it is a good industrial area, then residential construction and rehabilitation should be prohibited; that no industry will locate in the midst of sium conditions - they have to be attracted to clean, nice-looking areas; that he personally felt there was certain industries in this area which would possibly expand if a house or two were torn down and land made available; that he felt this was a good potential industrial area and its development as such should be made strong, but to continue repairing these dilapidated houses will merely prolong the situation. Mr. Wofford stated that the areas in which he has had the most vigorous complaints about dilapidated and substandard housing have been within these industrial areas, Bob Bivens, Executive Director of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. stated that the development of the air rights property in the vicinity | of the Techwood and Hunter Viaducts area is arriving and will have a profound affect on this area and in his opinion, it would be a mistake to prolong this low type of residential housing, Minutes Planning & Development Committee March 3, 1967 Page 6 Mr. Cook stated that he objected to blanket authority for rehabilitation, and would favor strict code enforcement in not allowing rehabilitation in the Markham and Haynes Streets area, however, south of Hunter Street and in the outlying areas, he would like for the Planning and Building HEDIGHES to look further at these areas and have some meeting of the s; that in his opinion, these areas could be considered © ina erent light Mr. Flanigen objected to prohibiting rehabilitation. Thére was then @ brief discussion about the time limitation in the Zoning Ordinance on non-conforming uses and points of weaknesses and how they could be strengthened. There was also a brief discussion about code enforcement, and Chairman Cook, with the committee's concurrence, requested that the Planning Department provide the Building Inspector with a print-out of information from the CIP data file; this will enable the Building Inspector to make determinations concerning the location of non-conforming uses throughout the City and the development of a strategy for their removal, Motion was then made by Mr, Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Griggs and carried by majority vote that the following wording be deleted from Paragraph II A.4, - "Should the owner elect to rehabilitate a structure he will be permitted to do so provided he complies in full with all codes and ordinances; also, by simultaneous motions and action, the same wording was deleted from a related Paragraph IV E.2. Mr. Flanigen voted adversely to both actions. Jeune There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. SRNR RE Approved: Respectfully submitted: 20 Pal L Of . ok NU Pts 4 \ PE ee Ue! Rodney Cook /f Joanne Parks Chairman L Secretary ip
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 8

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_008.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 8
  • Text: "® Ak ag NEE a BOORUM & PEASE * SEAR” ® YEE ro 66 hk ‘ c . cK ae & PEAS La a ee eh le ee be le elle ee Ee i EY SS LS | LTT January 27, 1967 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held in Committee Room #1, Second Floor, City Hall, Friday, January 27, 1967 at 2:00 P, M. The following members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman E. Gregory Griggs Charles Leftwich George Cotsakis Jack Summers Q. V. Williamson John M. Flanigen Also in attendance were: Robert Sommerville Earl Landers Collier Gladin George Aldridge Malcolm Jones Pierce Mahony Dan Sweat Bob Bivens Ray Nixon Darwin Womack William Howland M, B. Satterfield Elmer Moon George Berry Howard Openshaw Les Persells The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: Regarding the minutes of the December 14, 1966 meeting (see page 3) Alderman Flanigen requested (by letter of January 6, 1967) that the following clarification be added regarding the discussion of the $450,000 allocated for the study of additional housing units: He raised the question of who was to guarantee this loan from the Federal Government and Mr. Satterfield advised that when, as, and if a project was approved this amount would be added to the cost of that project, but he was rather evasive on what would happen if no project was approved, but inferred that it would not be charged to the City; in seconding the motion to adopt the Resolution, Mr. Flanigen made it clear that this would not be charged to the City. Mr. Gladin gave a brief 35 mm slide presentation on the Demonstration Cities Program and what Atlanta has done thus far to take advantage of it. Minutes Planning & Development Committee January 27, 1967 Page 2 He stated it has been under consideration for the past six to eight months and represents a logical extension of the Community Improvement Program — the Demonstration City project being one of the first phases of implementation. He also explained that the City had received the official guide lines from the Federal Government and is now proceeding with the preparation of an application for planning funds and it is anticipated it will be completed and submitted to Washington by March 1; that if these planning funds are granted, it would then entail some nine to twelve months to complete a final application for implementation funds and would eventually require five years to complete the program, There was a brief discussion about funds and it was pointed out that there had been no actual appropriation beyond the initial allocation of twelve million dollars for planning grants for fiscal '67. Mr. Gladin said that this program places major emphasis on citizen participation and as a result, two neighborhood meetings have been scheduled for the purpose of presenting this program to the residents of the project areas; that Mayor Allen will be conducting these presentations, explaining the program to the people and seeking their support. Further, he stated that Mr. Johnny Robinson, under a Sterne Foundation Grant, is working out of Dan Sweat's office and has the responsibility of publicizing the program. This is in addition to considerable press and television coverage. Mr. Gladin commented this program will also place more emphasis on social rehabilitation than has ever been done before and major efforts made to rehouse the people as they are displaced by staging the developments (on a block-by-block basis if necessary) so as to avoid wholesale relocation, as has been experienced in the past. Mr. Sommerville stated he supported the submission of the application, but he questioned the ability of the city planning staff, which he stated is too slight as it is, to submit an application within a six weeks period that would meet the Federal guide lines - particularly "innovation", on which so much emphasis is being placed. He also made the observation that this program has been oversold nationally and he feared it was in danger of being oversold locally; that he questioned greatly some of the statistics shown on the slides and the choice of some wording being used in connection with the program, particularly that Atlanta "expects" to be a model city. He stated we have no basis on which to "expect" Atlanta will be one, He reiterated his support of the application submission but again warned that it was very dangerous for the City to oversell what it was capable of producing in so short a time. Mr. Gladin explained that the preparation of this planning application is not restricted to just the city planning staff, but involves many agencies whose staffs have been working on the matter for a year and the results at this point do not merely represent a six weeks effort, but actually about - a year and a half to two years, He also explained that it is not contemplated there will be an additional large staff to implement this particular project, Minutes Planning & Development Committee January 27, 1967 Page 3 but rather a smaller coordinating staff (5 to 6 people) working directly out of the Mayor's office under a program coordinator who will be responsible for coordination of all activities of the responsible agencies involved. The Committee agreed with the principle but raised the practical objection as to staff availability. Mr. Gladin explained that in developing the application, proposals will be made for administering the program but at this point all of these questions have not been answered. Mr. Sweat re-emphasized that it is only being requested at this point to file an application for planning funds; that a massive amount of research material has resulted from the CIP study and Atlanta has more information from which to put together an application than any other city, except perhaps those who have a completed CIP study. He suggested that a copy of the complete program guide lines should be furnished to the Committee members as soon as possible, Mr. Cook concluded by requesting that Mr. Gladin inform the neighborhood residents that this program is still in the preliminary stages and that funds were not yet available for execution. Colonel Malcolm Jones gave the following report in behalf of the Housing Resources Committee: The response to the Mayor's Housing Conference of November 15, 1966, calling for 16,800 additional low and medium cost standard housing units in Atlanta during the next five years (9,800 by December, 1968) has far exceeded the expectations of the Housing Resources Committee. It has been announced by Mr. Cecil Alexander, Chairman, that 51 separate projects have been proposed or are in execution, or completed; 9,311 units are completed, under construction, and/or proposed since the Mayor's Conference. A breakdown of this total was then given in three categories as follows: 3,963 units ~ probable; 1,540 units - being considered; and 800 units - doubtful. The 9,311 total includes 1,206 public housing units, 66 of which are being leased. In addition, 1,424 existing units are proposed for rehabilitation and of the 9,311 total, 1,652 units are estimated to be available during '67 and 4,075 available during '68 so that there is now a total of 5,727 units in sight for the next two years. Colonel Jones then stated that in addition to the Chairman and Co-Chairman initially appointed to the Housing Resources Committee, Mayor Allen is now appointing additional prominent community leaders to the Committee to serve on nine different panels — Legal, Construction & Design, Financing, Non-Profit Funds, Public Housing, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Social Problems, Business Participation, and Public Information; that an organizational meeting of the entire Committee is scheduled to be held February 9 and details will be announced later, Colonel Jones concluded by informing the Committee that Mr. William W. Minutes Planning & Development Committee January 27, 1967 Page 4 Gates, retired former Chief Underwriter for FHA in Atlanta, has accepted an appointment as Special Advisor to the Housing Resources Committee and will be available in the committee office in the City Hall each Thursday to advise and assist builders and developers interested in FHA programs; further, their Committee is trying to keep an inventory of the different projects and proposals coming up and would appreciate receiving any information on such matters. (Copy of Report attached). Mr. Cook asked how many of the 5,727 units would be public housing, to which Colonel Jones replied 2,406. Mr. Sommerville asked how many units in Rockdale were included in the three categories, to which Colonel Jones stated roughly 250. Mr. Satterfield gave a brief resume of the time schedules on various projects with statistics (Thomasville, McDaniel, Rockdale, etc.) and Mr. Cook subsequently requested of Mr. Satterfield a chronological listing of these projects with time schedules and that each member of the Planning & Development Committee be furnished with a copy. Mr. Gladin then gave each Committee member a Fact Sheet of the Nash-Washington Urban Renewal Area, along with a letter from Mayor Allen, requesting that the Planning & Development Committee reconsider its previous rejection of and approve the submission of a Survey and Planning Application for the Nash-Washington Area in view of the progress that has been made in providing housing and the future outlook. (Mayor Allen's letter contained supporting statistics, as outlined by Colonel Jones' housing report). At this point, Mr. Gladin pointed out the need to select a name for the project, Referring to the Fact Sheet, Pierce Mahony of the departmental staff briefed the Committee on the Survey and Planning Application, covering the following major points — Description, Goals, Proposed Reuses and Improvements; Methods and Procedures, Financing, Option on Sewers, and Possible Sources of Money. He then stated the recommendations of the planning staff, as outlined in a memorandum to Chairman Cook, dated January 27, 1966. (See copy attached). There was a lengthy discussion of the Nash-Washington Project, including the controversial location of the new junior high school and the major problem of relocation. It was the tenor of the conversation that the Committee members were very frustrated and disillusioned over time schedules that are continually not met because of any number of delays; that they were tired of dealing with the people on promises and unless some better assurances could be given the Committee (than had been done in the past) that housing Minutes Planning & Development Committee January 27, 1967 Page 5 would be available to the people in this area, then they would be-reluctant to approve the Survey and Planning Application, It was generally felt that there was, however, a favorable trend in providing adequate housing and this Committee would certainly not want to reverse or slow down this trend. Mr. Charles Hart, 807 Commodore Drive, speaking as a layman, expressed his disappointment at past efforts in this regard, but stated he too felt the trend was favorable. The Committee then gave tentative approval to the project, with the tentative name - "Nash-Bans Project Area" - pending further discussion of the project with area residents. The Committee stressed that evidence of neighborhood support of the program will have to precede final approval of the planning application request. The Committee discussed a Bill to incorporate certain land adjacent to the City of East Point. This review was made in response to Representative Dick Lane's (of the 126th District) letter of January 12 to Mayor Allen requesting comment on the proposal. Mr. Bill Bush was present in behalf of the City of Atlanta Water Department, In reviewing maps of Land Lot's 1 and 37 of the 14th District (consisting of 24 parcels) and noting their relationship to the corporate limits of both Atlanta and East Point, the Committee observed (1) that this area would provide one direction in which the City of Atlanta might expand in the future; (2) one of the City of Atlanta's major water mains (approximately 1600 feet valued at $32,000) supplying water to a large part of South Fulton County is located in Welcome All Road which runs north and south through the area under consideration and must continue to be maintained or be relocated by the City of Atlanta in order to provide uninterrupted service to Fulton County. Mr, Leftwich then moved that the Committee take a stand against passage of the Annexation Bill. This motion was unanimously approved by the Committee and Mr, Gladin was requested that this information be conveyed to the Fulton County Delegation. (See attached sheet for additional action taken on this matter), There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: Respectfully submitted, ip
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 6

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_006.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 6
  • Text: oe WV GEORGIA LAWS 1966 SESSION HIT 409 to provide for the cancellation of executions; to repeal Code section 24-3327, relating to the execution and filing of an acknowledgment of the payment of a judgment; to provide the procedure connected therewith; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Gencral Assembly of Georgia: Section 1. Code Chapter 39-6, relating to the satisfaction of executions, is hereby arnended by adding at the end thereof the following two Code sections: “39-609. When a payment on the execution shall be made which does not entirely satisfy the judgment upon which the execution has been issued, the plaintiff in fi. fa. or his attorney shall authorize the clerk to enter the amount of such payments upon the execution. “39-610. Upon the satisfaction of the entire debt upon which the execution has been issued, the plaintiff in fi. fa. or his attorney shall direct the clerk to cancel the execution and mark the judgment satisfied.” Section 2. Code section 24-3327, relating to the execution and filing of an acknowledgment of the payment of a judg- ment, is hereby repealed in its entirety, Section 8. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed, Approved March 10, 1966. MUNICIPALITIPFS—ANNEXATION BY PETITION, PROCEDURE, ETC. No. 513 (Senate Bill No. 182). An Act to provide for a method, in addition te existing meth- ods, for the annexition of areas contiguous to incorpo- rated municipalities upon the application of not less than ee i oo } 4 » Annexation. Applicativns. Electors. GENERAL ACTS ANID RESOLUTIONS, VOL. 1 sixty perment (60%) of the Jand area included in such ~ included in such application and the owners of at least sixty percent (60%) of the land area included in such - “application; to provide for municipal services to such areas; to provide for public hearings; to provide for the procedure connected therewith; to define contiguous area; to repeal conflicting Jaws; and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia: Section J. Authority is hercby granted to the governing bodies of the several incorporated municipalities of this State to annex to the existing corporate limits thereof un- incorporated areas which are contiguous to the existing corporate limits at the time of such annexation, upon the written and signed application of not less than sixty percent (60%) of the electors resident in the area included in any such application and of the owners of not less than sixty percent (60%) of the land area, by acreage, included in such application, The authority hereby granted is in addition to existing authority, and is intended to provide a cumula- tive method of annexing territory to incorporated munici- palities in addition to those methods provided by present law. Fach such application shall contain a complete descrip- tion of the land proposed to be annexed. Lands to be annexed at any one time shall be treated as one body, regardless of the number of owners, and all parts shall be considered as adjoining the limits of the municipality when any one part of the entire body abuts such limits. lor the purpose of determining the percentage of electors signing such application the municipal yoverning body shall obtain alist of electors residing in such area from the bonrd of registrars of the county, or counties in which the area lies. Said list shall he compiled by the board of registrars and provided to the municipal governing body in accordance with section 84-636 of the Georgia Mleetion Code, and the municipal governinge body shall bear the expeuse of the preparation of such lists in the manner prescribed by such section, ‘anes | GEORGIA LAWS 1966 SESSION 41] For the purpose of determining ownership of the property included within such application, the record title holder of the fee simple title, or his legal representative, shall be con- - sidered the “owner” of such property, Section 2. Whenever the governing body of a munici- pality shall receive such an application it shall, after in- vestigation, delermine whether such application complies with the requirements of this Act. If it is determined that such application does not comply with this Act, the govern- ing body shall notify in writing the persons presenting such application stating wherein the application is deficient. If it is determined that such application does comply with this Act the municipal governing body shall proceed to act on said application in accordance with section 3 hereof. Section 8. The municipal governing body shall hold a public hearing on any such application which has been de- termined to meet the requirements of this Act. Such hearing shall be held not less than fifteen (15) nor more than foriy- Owner, Procedure. five (45) days from the time the governing body makes a | determination that such petition is valid. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be given in writing to the persons presenting the application and shall be advertised once a week for two consecutive weeks immediately preced- ing such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality and in the area proposed for annexation, At such public hearing all persons resident or owning property in the municipality or in the area proposed for annexation may be heard on the question of the annexation of such area by the municipality; provided, however, that any property owner may withdraw his consent at any time through the date of the public hearing. Section 4. If after such public hearing the governing body determines that the annexation to the municipalily of the area proposed in the application would be in the best interest of the residents and property owners of the area proposed for immexation and of the citizens of the munici- pality, said area may be annexed to the municipality by the adoption of an annexing ordinance. Same. 412 GENERAL ACTS AND RESOLUTIONS, VOL. I Contiguous arca. Report. Section 5. “Contiguous area” shall mean any area which, at the time annexation procedures are initiated, coincides with the municipal boundary on at least one-eighth of the area’s aggregate external boundary. Any area separated from the municipal boundary by a street or street right-of- way, a creek or river, the right-of-way of a railroad or other public service corporation, Jands owned by the city, Jands owned by a county, or lands owned by the State of Georgia shall be a. “contiguous area” within the meaning of this Act when such area coincides with either the municipal boundary or such land or both on at least one-eighth of such area’s aggregate external boundary, Provided there shall be no annexation across the boundary lines of any political sub- division under the provisions of this Act. Section 6. A municipality exercising authority under this - Act shall make plans for the extension of services to the area proposed to be annexed and shall, prior te the public hearing provided for in section 3 of this Act, prepare a re- port setting forth such plans to provide services to such area. The report shall include: (a) A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following information: (1) The present and proposed boundaries of the munici- pality. (2) The present major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, and the proposed extensions of such mains and outfalls as required by this Section, (b) A statement setting forth the plans of the munici- pality for extending to the area tu be annexed each major municipal serviee performed within the municipality at the time of anuexation. Specifically, such plans shall; (1) Provide for extending: police protection, fire protee- lion, garbage collection and street midntenance services to the aren to be annexed on the date of annexation on swh- stantially the same basis and in the same manner as such services are provided within the rest of the municipality * — GEORGIA LAWS 1966 SESSION prior to annexation. Jf a water distribution systern is not available in the area to be annexed, the plans must call for reasonably effective fire protection services until such tirne as water lines are mide available in such area under existing municipal policies for the extension of water lines. : (2) Provide for extension of major trunk water mains and sewer outfall lincs into the area to be annexed within twelve roonths of the effective date of annexation so that when such lines are constructed property owners in the area to he annexed will be able to secure public water and sewer service, according to the policies in effect in such munici- pality for extending water and sewer lines to individual Jots or subdivisions. Section 7. When such application is acted upon by the municipal authorities and the land is, by ordinance, annexec to the municipality, a complete survey by a competent sur- veyor, not necessarily a county surveyor, ‘shall be filed as a part of the ordinance annexing the territory and a copy certified to by the elerk or similur official of the munici- pality shall be filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Georgia and municipsl ad valorem taxes shall not apply to property within the annexed territory until January 1 of the following year. When so annexed, such lands shall con- stitute a part of the lands within the corporate limits of the municipality as completely and fully as if the limits had been marked and defined by special Act of the General Assembly. ; “Tneorporated municipality” as used in this Act shall mean an incorporated municipality which has a population of 200 or more persons according to the 1960 Federal Decennial census or any future such census. Section 8. Nothing within this Act shall prohibit the municipality from requiring the residents of the new an- nexed area to use city owned utilities when they are avail able. Section 9. Within thirty (80) days of the effective date of the ordinance annexing such Jand to the municipality, Plat, taxes, otc. 413 Incory orate: municipatiov. Utilities. — - 414 GENERAL, ACTS ANID RESOLUTIONS, VOL. I any resident elector of the area so annexed or of the munici- pality, or any property owner of such area or of the munici- pality, may bring a petition for declaratory judgment in the superior court of the county of the legal situs of the annex- ing municipality to determine the validity, in accordance with this Act, of the application and the municipality’s ac- tion thereon, Whenever such a petition is filed with the municipal governing body shall file with the court the record of their official actions in regard to such application and a certified copy of the annexing ordinance. The judgment of the court on any such petition may de- clare the annexation ordinance null and void upon a finding that the application, and the municipality’s action thereon, are not in substantial compliance with this Act, Upon a find- ing that procedural defects or defects in the plan for service to the annexed area exist, the court shall, where possible, - frame a judgment to perfect such defect and uphold the ordinance. Actions provided for in this section shall be in accord- ance with the Declaratory Judgment Act, and any aggrieved party may obtain a review of a final judyment under this section as by law in other cases provided. Section 10. All laws and parts of laws in conflict here- with are hereby repealed. Approved March 10, 1966. MEMORIAL TO COMMEMORATE WALTER F. GEORGI. No, 160 (Senate Resolution No. 55). A Resolution. Authorizing a statue, bust or other memorial of Waller Franklin George to be pluced in the halls of the Capitol of the State of Gearpias and for other purposes. — a4
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 5

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_005.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 5
  • Text: : OFFICE OF CLERK OF BOARD OF ALDERMEN CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA I ax ORDINANCE eer \ BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION BY PETITION TO THE CITY OF ATLANTA OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS F THE CITY OF ATLANTA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board’ of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as follows: SECTION 1. An application for annexation to the City of ; Atlanta by petition of unincorporated areas contiguous to the ity Limits of the City of Atlanta shall be filed with the Mayor © | H and Board of Aldermen on or before May 1 of the year during (which said annexation shall be considered. Suct Sndiicartons {shall contain the written and signed application of not less than | sixty percent (60%) of the electors resident in the area proposed li for annexation and of the owners of not less than sixty percent | (60%) of the land area, by acreage, included in such application. Each such .application shall contain a complete legal description jand shall have attached thereto a complete survey by a competent ;surveyor of the land proposed to be annexed. There aiso shall be Submitted with each application an opinion in writing by a member < the_State Bar of Georg that each applicant who has oO k +i, 7 aA AS igned said application as an owner as provided in this ordinance 4 - His the record title holder of the fee Simple title of the property l elatmed to be owned by such applicant or is the legal representa- tive of the record title holder of the said property claimed to be | owned. Lands to be annexed at any one time shall be treated as one body, regardless of the number of owners, and all parts shall ee ee are eg ne Re a Sing Ae ae a a er a ee ee ee Se a be considered as adjoining .the limits of the City of Atlanta when \ any one part of the entire body abuts such limits. For the purpose oi determining the percentage of electors signing such application, the Department of Planning shall obtain a list of electors resid- ing in such area from the registrars of the county or counties os in which the area lies. Said list shall be as compiled by the : board of registrars and provided to the City of Atlanta in accordance with Section 34-636 of the Georgia Election Code, and the City of Atlanta shall bear the expense of the preparation of such lists in the manner prescribed by such section. For the purpose of determining ownership of the property included within such application the record title holder of the fee simple title, or his legal representative shall be considered the “owner™ of such property. SECTION 2. The Department of Planning shall furnish to the Planning and Development Committee the information necessary to determine ehotkce such application complies with the require- ments of this Ordinance. I£ it determines that such application does not comply with this Ordinance, the Planning and Development Committee shall notify, in writing, the persons presenting such application wherein the application is deficient. If it is determined that such application does comply with this Ordinance, the Committee shall proceed to set for public hearing said applica tion in accordance with Sedtion 3 hereof. SECTION 3. The Planning and Development Committee shall set a public hearing during the month of Jaly for an application LLS ro which has been determined to meet the requirements of t Ordinance. Such hearing shall be held by said Committee not less a gs ieee peamerhneenan ———— 1 (than fifteen (15) nor more than forty-five (45) days from Ee: tine ! the Committee makes a determination that such petition is valid. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be given, in |writing, to the persons ‘presenting the application and shall be i advertised once a week for ‘zWwo consecutive weeks immediately | preceding such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in i; the City of Atlanta and in the area proposed for annexation. At Hsueh public hearing all persons resident or owning property in the , i i i City of Atlanta, or in the area proposed for annexation, may be iiheard on the question of annexation of such area by the City of i Atleatar. pueyiaed: however, that any property owner may withdraw |his consent at any time through the date of the public hearing. } Following said hearing, the Planning and Development Committee shall | prepare and adbute: a report to the Board of Aldermen which shall include a recommendation as to whether or not the land described n said application should be annexed to the City of Atlanta and, aa bs £ applicable, the date such proposed annexation should become |} effective. SECTION 4. If after such public hearing the Board of ‘Aldermen, after considering the report and recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee, determines that the annexation os ‘to the City of Atlanta of the area proposed in the application li would be in the best interest of the residents and property owner |} of the area proposed for annexation and of the citizens of the City of Atlanta, said area may be annexed to the municipality by | ll the adoption of an annexing ordinance. { SECTION 5. "Contiguous area” shall mean any area which, at 'che time annexation procedures are initiated, coincides with the | city limits line on at least one-eighth of the area's aggregate . | external boundary. Any area separated from the city limits boundary | by a street or street right-of-way, a creek or river, the right~-or- | ii way-of-a-vailroad, or other public service corporation, lands ‘by the city, lands owned by a county, or lands owned by | of Georgia shall be a “contiguous area'' within the meaning of this inance when such area coincides with either the city limits or QD. Or such land or both on at least one-eighth of such area's aggregate cr Ba ernal boundary. Provided there shall be no annexation across the boundary lines of any political subdivision under the pro- visions of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. The City of Atlanta shall make plans for the + - Gd clor to the public hearing provided for in Section 3 of this a _ Ordinance, prepare a report setting forth such plans to provide lela ecininlamenial anne gel aa rgaieea services to such area. The report shall include A.’ A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following information: 1. The present and proposed boundaries of:the City. sei nereceap al yale ante Dime ppeies deel nbd tp oe ten me we _— 2.. The present major trunk water mains and 5 sewer interceptors and outfalls as required ats by this section. The above information and such information as listed below shall be prepared by the city department responsible for such service th heme pee oe iy 4 ann erent, ment of Planning’ no later than seven (7) days prior to the date on which the area proposed for annexation has been scheduled for public hearing. B. A statement shall be prepared setting forth the plans of the City for extending to the area to be annexed each major service performed within the City at the time of annexation Specifically, such plans shall: lL. Provide for extending police protection, I fire protection, garbage collection and extension of services to the area proposed to be annexed and shall; and such information and/or maps shall be forwarded to the Depart- tt tn ety ae ee ne penn i ye ge et een street maintenance services to.the area to be, annexed on the date of annexation on \ substantially the same basis and in the same a manner as such services are provided within the rest of the City prior to annexation. If a water distribution system is not avail- able in the area to be annexed, the plans shall call for reasonably effective fire protection services until such time as water ; made available in such area under | a fe 3 © n © KH @ existing City policies for the extension of water lines. 2 ni arene rencmnninnineneere 2. Provide for the extension of major trunk | water mains and sewer outfall lines into the area to be annexed within twelve (12) tere Ae a iter ere eentens: A Se SE A Ae a eee gare oeasae ya eae months of the effective date of annexation ; so that when such lines are constructed, property owners in the area tobe annexed will be able to secure public water and Pg ir i fi tlie nad rama a pie pyreincios sewer service according to the policies in effect in the City and sewer lines to individual lots or subdivisions. t ) } _ SECTION 7. When such application is acted upon by the | ‘ (bp fo a} o vA ) Q ‘Mayor and Board of Aldermen, and the land is, by ordinanc } elo | to the City, a complete survey. by a competent surveyor, not i necessarily a county surveyor, shall be filed as a part of the ordinance annexing the territory and a copy certified to by the , City Clerk shall”™be filed with the Secretary of State of the State o£ Georgia and municipal: ad walorem taxes shall not apply to property within the annexed territory until January 1-of the following year. When so annexed, such lands shall constitute a part of the lands within the corporate limits of the City as i completely and fully as if the limits had been marked and defined |; by special act of the General Assembly. SECTION 8. Nothing within this Ordinance shall prohibit the City of Atlanta from requiring the residents of the new annexed { t I | area to use City owned utilities when they are available. SECTION 9. As provided in Ga. Laws 1966, pp. 409, 413, nll ‘within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Ordinance ! annexing such land to the City of Atlanta, any resident elector : + j } i {of the area so annexed or of the City of Atlanta, or any property ? ‘) ss ‘ p 7 8 i ar towner of such area or of the City of Atlanta may bring a petition ; i | (for declaratory judgment in the Superior Court of Fulton County a to determine the validity of the application and the City's t | | action thereon, | SECTION 10. All Ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. ADOPTED AS AMENDED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN September 19, 1966 APPROVED September 20, 1966 | it aosniste
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 1

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_001.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 1
  • Text: OFFICE OF CITY CLERK” ~ r CITY HALL ; ATLANTA, GEORGIA ~ A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board of Aldermen on March 6, 1967, the City of Atlanta has submitted an application to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Model Cities planning grant ae Title | of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and, WHEREAS, the announcement of those cities which have been chosen to receive such grants was made November 16, 1967 and, WHEREAS, Atlanta is among those cities chosen and, WHEREAS, it is important that the planning phase of this program be started immediately since this phase is limited to a one year period and, WHEREAS, in its application the City proposed that the authority and responsibility for administering the planning phase of this program be vested in an Executive Board composed of the Mayor of Atlanta; two members of the Board of Aldermen; the President of the Atlanta School Board; the Chairman of the Fulton County Commission; one member to be appointed by the Governor; and three members to represent the private sector of the community; one from the general public, one from among the City's Negro leadership and one from the Model Neighborhood Area residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen that the Model Neighborhood Executive Board is hereby created for the purpose of administering the planning phase of such program which is conducted under Title | of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, commonly known as the Model Cities Program, and for which federal financial assistance is received. | THAT the Model Neighborhood Executive Board shall be composed of the Mayor of the City of Atlanta, who shall serve as Chairman; two members of the Board of Aldermen, to be selected by the membership of that body, one of which shall be from among those members representing the first and fourth wards; the President of the Atlanta School Board; the Chairman of the Fulton County Commission; one member to be appointed by the Governor; and three members to represent the private sector of the community, one to be appointed by the Mayor from the _general public, one to be appointed by the Mayor from among the City's Negro leadership, and one to be selected by and from the membership of a committee to be formed representing the citizens of the Model Neighborhood pi (Model Neighborhood Area Council). THAT the Model Neighborhood Executive Board shall have the authority and responsibility for administering the planning phase of the City's Model Neighborhood Program, tnelodivig the approval of plans and work programs developed by the project staff and the reconciling of conflicting plans, goals, programs, priorities and time schedules of the various participating agencies; and shall have the responsibility for recommending to the Board of Aldermen the allocation of grant funds received for this program from the Federal Government. THAT the Mayor is requested to make such appointments as he is authorized to make under the above provisions and is further requested to contact the Fulton County Commission, the Atlanta Board of Education and the Governor of Georgia, and to request that they make appointments to the Model Neighborhood Executive Board in conformance with the above provisions. ‘ ADOPTED BY BOARD OF ALDERNEN NOVEMBER 20, 1967 APPROVED NOVEMBER 20, 1967
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 11

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_011.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 11
  • Text: HOUSING RESOURCES COMMITTEE ‘ Room 1204 City Hall Tel, 522-4463 Ext. 430 1. In response to Mayor Allen's Housing Conference, November 15, 1966, calling for 16,800 additional low and medium cost standard housing units, in Atlanta during the next five years (9,800 by December, 1968), Cecil A. Alexander, Chairman of the Housing Resources Committee, announced today that 51 separate projects have been proposed, are in development or recently completed, These include 3008 units in the Relatively Firm category 3963 units, Probable —_ 1540 units, Being Considered 800 units, Doubtful LU Total *9311 units Proposed (Incls. 1206 Public Housing, 66 of which are. being leased) In addition, 1424 existing units have been proposed for rehabilitation, “Of this number, 1652 units are estimated to be available during 1967 and 4075 units are estimated to be available during 1966 Total 5727 units in sight 2. In addition to the Chairman and two Co-Chairmen initially appointed to the Housing Resources Committee, Mayor Allen is now appointing additional prominent community leaders to the Committee to serve on the following panels: Legal Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation — = Construction and Design Social Problems Financing Business Participation Non Profit Funds Public Information Public Housing 3. An organizational meeting of the entire Committee is scheduled to be held February 9, Details will be announced later, 4, The Housing Resources Committee has established a full time office in Room 1204, City Hall, Tel. 522-4463, Ext. 430, ‘ 5. Mr. Wn. We Gates (Retired), former Chief Underwriter for FHA in Atlanta has accepted an appointment as Special Adviser to the Housing Resources Committee and will be available in the Committee office in the City Hall from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 pom. each Thursday to advise and assist Developers and Builders interested in FHA programs. 6. Malcolm D. Jones, Supervisor of Inspection Services, Building Department, has been designated to devote full time to acquainting Builders and Developers with the program and to assist them in its promotion. Mr. Jones would like to keep in touch with developments in all proposed projects under this accelerated program; his telephone number is 522-4463, Ext. 430.
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 12

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_012.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 12
  • Text: DRAFT Chairman of the Fulton County Delegation Dear Sir: The Planning and Development Committee, at its January 27th meeting, discussed a Bill to incorporate certain land adjacent to the City of East Point. This review was made in response to Representative Lane's (of the 126th District) letter of January 12 to Mayor Allen requesting comment on this proposal. met 34) After reviewing maps of Land Lot @#eof the 14th District, which consists of 24 parcels of land and noting their relationship to the corporate limits of both Atlanta and East Point, I was asked to relay to you Pe Dd the following three major observations th Caren 1. That the area of uaeaeoupe rated Fulton County under consideration was contiguous to Atlanta and East Point corporate limits, therefore, this area would provide one direction in which the City of Atlanta could expand in the future. This consideration is important because in order to maintain a healthy regional center Atlanta must have spe of growth. 2. One of the City of Atlanta's major water mains supplying water to a large part of iaanderoonated south Fulton County is located in Welcolm All Road, which runs north and south through the area under consideration. Approximately 1600 feet of water main, having-an ia value of $32,000 must be, continued to a be maintained*by the City of Atlanta in order to provide uninterrupted service to!Fulton County. oP . Atlanta, Tn the: y — Sie affected in such a baie ee ie through a referendum. Pai ce il Ea | 7 oat ol i bs a as | a DRAFT (continued) 3. Atlanta, in the past, has taken the position of letting the citizens affected in such a choice make the decision through a referendum. Therefore, the City of Atlanta feels that regardless of the preceeding two conclusions, that no official stringent objections would be made providing the delegation choses to take this course. ParinSetis pode. on vols —— “ae % pi Qiin reithod .
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 20, Folder 27, Document 9

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_027_009.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 20, Folder 27, Document 9
  • Text: ep) vy R 30h PussiSAR (OR CEs Ae BOORUM & PEASE January 30, 1967 Re: EAST POINT ANNEXATION BILL Subsequent to the January 27 meeting of the Planning & Development Committee, Mr. Landers and Mr. Cook discussed further the , Committee's recommendation. Mr. Gladin was asked to draft a letter to the Fulton Delegation setting forth the following conclusion: (See Item 3 of attached letter). Mr. Landers then contacted each of the Committee members, with the exception of Alderman Leftwich, who was out of town, to review this draft letter which needed to be forwarded to the delegation prior to their scheduled meeting on February 3, 1967. This letter was approved by each of the Committee members, with the exception of Mr. Leftwich. Collier Gladin Joanne Parks Planning Director Secretary ip Complete copy of letter attached.
  • Tags: Box 20, Box 20 Folder 27, Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021