32 20 10383 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/2327e2cc2473107e800ee94ede15c009.pdf c5e73b659ffd046ba128aadf4958a1bc Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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, � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 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  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 27, Document 3 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 27 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/1e140b4e42bd9646d604bccc20305d6a.pdf f15236f6112ae18b74171d3ccbc8aabf Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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) <t: w 0.. c>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 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 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  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 27, Document 2 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 27 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/d4616490e82bd781bbbb25cf24d8651e.pdf ceb8b94cb3d7c2609d6a47907ca09a2c Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. - -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 -- -- ·-- -··-- -····----- - -- ---- - - - - ---- - - - � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 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  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 27, Document 1 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 27 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/48ffa64ef3abc54c573e4cc5805b6c0d.pdf e792a646311770835246ecfb6122f444 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. - -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) <t: w 0.. c>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 " <! . h ugh t he date of the public hearing. qI! ,nis consent at any time tro l, (t jl Following [lI I said hearing , the Planning an d Developr.ient Committee shalJ l j! prepare and submit a report t o the Board of Aldermen ,vhich shall J include a recommendation as to whether or not the land described I! ! I! i n sai d application shoul d be annexed to the City of Atlanta and; ! I if applicable, the date such proposed annexation should become ! I·effective. SECTION 4o j If after such public hearing the Board of /! Aldermen, after considering t he report and recommenda tion of the !"1 Planning I to I I would be in the best interest of the residents and prop rty owners i ! !I City I I of Atlanta, said a re a may be annexe d to the municip a lity by I the adoption of an annex i ng ordinance. ,l' l SECTION 5. rrcontiguous a re a " shall mean an y area which, II \ I limits line on at l east one - eighth of the a r e~ ' s aggregate ii ! t Jl. external boundary. >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 <J t he: s ~1.ti s fac ti on of exec u t ion s , is h er eby am e nded b y add in g at th e en d th er eof th e foll ov:in g t wo Code secti on s : "39-609. \ Vh e n a pa ymen t on th e e'.'ec uti on s h a ll be mad e whi ch does n ot en t ir ely s a ti s f y th e jud g me nt u pon v:hi c:h the executi on h a s b ee n is s uecl, th e pl a in t iff in fi. fa. ur hi :-; attorn ey s h a ll au th or ize t he cle1·k t o enter th e a mo unt of such p ay m en ts upon t h e ex ecu t ion . "39-610. Up on th e s a ti s fa ct ion of th e ent ir e cl eb! up on whi ch t h e exec u t ion h a s be en is s ue d , th e p b inti ff in fi . fa . or hi s a tt orn ey sh a ll dir ect t h e cl e r k t o ca n cel th e ex e-: ut ion and m a r k th e ju dg m ent snt is fi <: d.?' S ect ion 2 . Cod e sec t ion 2-1-332 7, r elat in g t o th e ex ec uti on and filin g of a n ackn ow lecl g rn e11t of th e p:1 ym e11t of a j ucl g-m ent, is h er eby r ep ea led in it s e nt ir ety . Sect io n 3. All la ,,·:=; an cl pa rt s of laws i n confli ct wi t h thi s A ct ar e h e r eby r ep ea led. Appro,· ed 1\Ta r ch 10, 1% Li . M UN ICIP.-\LIT Jr. S- .- \ :'.'\ :'.'\ f: X .- \Tl ():-; DY P ETITIC' :'.'\ , \ PnocE n r 1rn, ETC. '\ _,I N o. fi 13 (St:11 ;1 fl' Hi ll No. 18 :2 ) . A11 Act to p nn·id l' fr, r :1 nw tlw d , in ,1ddi l i,,11 t o cxi s tin ~: llll' th ocl c:., fo r th e :lllll l' X:t l i ll ll of :ll'l' :1 c:. con t i g th) ll S ll1 in ccw porat ecl rnunil'ip;tl it iL'S u pon t he appli c:it itin of n ot ll'"-"- th:m 409 �410 GENERAL ACTS ANI) RESOLUTIOA'S, VOL. I . . · sixty perment (GO.')& ) of the land area included in such included in ·s ucJ/i1pplication and the owners of at least sixty percent (GO ~c ) of the land area incluclecl in such · applic,1tion ;· to JH'ClYid e for municipal services to such areas; to wovide for public hearings; to provide for the procedure connected th erewith ; to define contigL1ous area; to repeal conflicting laws ; and for other purposes . .·· , ! Be it enacted by the General A ssembly of Georgia: i. ' •. Ann cxn lio n. Appli ca ti,,n :; . Section 1. Authority is h ereby granted to the governing bodi es of the several incorporated rnimicipalities of this State to annex to the existing corporate limits th ereof unincorporated areas which are contiguous to the existing corporate limits at th e time of such annexation, upon the writt e1~ and signed application of not less than sixty percent (GO 'lc ) of th e ej_g_ctors r esid ent in th e area includ ed in any such application and of th e o,vners of not less than sixty percent ( G.Q_Je, ) of th e la nd area, by acreage, included in V su ch application. Th e :1uth ority h er eby g r·a nt ed is in addition to exis ting authorit y, and is int ended to p rovid e a cumula tive method of Hnnex"in g territory to in corporated rnurnc1palili es in addition t o thos e methods provided by present law . Each such a pplica ti;Jn s hall contain a complete d escription of the land proposed t o Le ann exed. Lands to Le ann exed al any one time shall h e trea t ed as one boc1y, reg ardl ess of th e number of o,,·ners, and all p a rts s h a ll b e consiclerecl as adjoinin g th e limi ts of lhc municipa li ty w h en any one p a rt of th e entire body abuts such limits . For th e purpos e of d e t erminin g th e 11er centage of electors signing s uch a pplicati(Jn th e municipal governing lJocl y sh ,tll obtain a lis t of elcc- tors r es idin g in :c; uch area from the lioarcl ~;1cc,.,,,,. of r q•;i s t rars cJf lli c c.:o unty , or counties in whi ch th e area li es. Said lis t s h a ll lie comp il r!d b y th e b oa rcl of r cgis lrars \ / al!d pro v id ed to th e rnunic-ipal gu,·e rnin g b ody in a cco rdan ce witlt sed io11 3-1-G:ic of th e Geo r g ia 1-: 1<:dion Corle, :t11d the muni cipa l g<J\·e rnill l-': body s h :tl l b e.tr th e ex p011 ~:c of th e pre pa rat io11 of s uch lis t s i11 the ma111H·r presc ril ,ed Ly such sce tirJ11. L �' I 411 GEORGJA LA \\'S 19GG SESSJO'.\ I . I For the purpose of c.ktennining o·,.;ncrship of the properly included within such appli cation, the r ecord title holde r of the fee simple title, or hi s leg al re11rcs entali v e, s h a ll !Jc considered the "own er" of such property. 0 Section 2. Whenever the gov ernin g hotly of a mu111c1pality shall recei ve such an ar,plica tion it sh all, after inves tiga tion, dct errnine v;heth er s uch applic,ttion co m pli es with the r equir em ents of thi s Act. If it is d et er m in ed th a t such appli cati on does not comply \\"ilh thi s A ct, the governing bocly shall notify in wri t in1 th e person s prese nti ng s uch applica tion sta tin g wher ein the appli ca ti on · is de:fi ci~nl. lf it is determined that such appli cation does comply ,,.-ith thi .:; Act the municipa l gov ernin g body s hall proceed to act on said applica tion in accord a nce with section 3 her eof. Section 3. Th e muni cipa l goYernin g b ody sh a ll hold a public h ea rin g on an y s uch appli cat ion which h as been d etermin ed t o m ee t th e r eq uireme n t s of thi s Act. Su ch hea rin ~ shall be h eld not less th an fift ee n (1 5 ) nor rn·or e th a n forty five (4 5 ) cl ays from th e ti me the go Yerni ng bod y m ake;; a determin a ti on th at s uch pet ition is ,·,:llicl . '.\ot ice of t h e t ime and place of s uch h ea rin g s h a ll be g iY en in ,,.-rilin g to the pers ons pres entin g th e applic a tion a ncl sh a ll b e ach· erti se cl once a we ek for two con sec uti,·e ,,·eeks imm edia t ely p re ceding su ch h ea rin g in a n e,\·spa per of g enera l cir culati on in t h e municipa lit y a nd in th e a r ea propose d fo r ann exa ti on . At su ch publi c h ea rin g a ll p er sons r esicl en t or o,Yn ing propert y in th e mu nicipa lity or in th e ar et1 p ropos ed for ann exa ti on m ay be h eard on th e q ue s ti on of th e :rn ne x at ion of su ch a r ea by the muni cipality; pro\"id t·cl , h o,\·en' r, th at any pro perty o,,· ner m ay wi t hclra,\· hi,-; conse nt at any tim e throu g h th e el a t e of th e puliliL' h eari ng . I \.._ ) Sec ti on ,1. If aft er s uch publi c h earin g- t h l' gL1n' rn i11 ~· bocly det ermi nes th:1t th e ,llln L'X :lliL1n t o th e nrn ni L'ip:il it y Llf th e a r ea propl1,-;c cl in th e ap plic a l ic111 \1·01il d be i n th e b est int er es t o f th e r l':- iden t,-; and p rop L' rl~- mn wr:=:. of th e a rL' ,t p ro po,-;c cl fo r .i nnexat ion :11 1d tif ll1 e L·ili zcll$ of !h t.: 111 u11 icipalitY, s:1i cl :1r ca m :1y be :1n nt.:XL' d t o th e rn uniL·ip:il ity b y th e ad op tio n o f ;11 1 :111n cx in g onli11,1 m·e. Own e r. J•ri.1ct:rlcre. H t-:: rir. ;;s . r I �412 Con ticuou s nrcn. GENERAL ACTS :\ ND RESOLUTIONS, VOL. I Section G. "Contig uous area" shall mean any area which, at the tim e annexation procedures arc initiated, coincides with the municipal boundary on at least one-eighth of the area'~ arsr;rcgak external bom{dary. Any area separated from th e municipal boundary by a street or street right-ofway, a creek or ri\·er,_t h c right-of-way of a railroad or other public service corporation, lands O\•:ned by the city, lands owned by a county, or Janet:; owned by the State of Georg ia shall be a. "contiguous area" within the meaning of this Act when such area coincides with either the municipai bounda ry or such la nd or both on at lc~st one-eighth of such area's aggreg ate external boundary. Provided there sh all b e no annexation across th e boundary lines of any political subdivis ion und er the provisions of thi s Act. IL Section 6. A municipality exer cising authority under this · Act shall make pla ns for the extension of services to the area proposed t o Le ann exed a nd s hall, pl"ior to th e public hearing provided for in section 3 of t.hi s Ad, prepare a r eport settin g for th such pla ns to provide services to such area. The repo1_-t sha ll incl ude: Report. (a ) A m a p or maps of th e municipality and adj acent territory t o show th e followin g informa tion: · (1) The pres ent and proposed bounda ri es of the munici- pality. (2 ) The . presc 11l ma jor trunk wa_t er mains aml s ev; cr inter ceptors and outfalls, and th e prorJosccl extens ions of such mains and outfalls as r equired by this Section. (L) A s t a t ement se( tin g fo r t h th e pbns of th e municipalily for cx( e11cli11 g- to the area t o Le ann exed each m a jo1· mu nicip:d se: r vice JJc rform cd within th e municip:-ilit y at th e tim e of a1111 exat ion. S pceificall y, s uch pbns shall; (I) Prnvid r: for cx l<:nclin r·: )J(Jlicl' pro t ec tion, fire 1irot ecti(Jn, garl>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 Franl<l ill C eo r ge t u Lie plac<'. d ill th e h a ll s o f illL) C: tpit ol of tl w S1a (c <>f 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<l ~3st ~oi n t c orp o r ot e limits, t herefore , t his a r ea wou ld pr ovi d e one di r e c t i on in wh ich the City of Atl nn t a co ul d e x pa::1d in t he future. Thi s co ns ider a t io n i s important b e c au se i n order to ma int a in a he a lthy rc s io na l c e nt e r AtL:.nta must h a ve t he cap abili t y of g r O'\ Jth . 2. One o f the City of Atlante ' s ma jor water ma ins su ppl yin 3 wat e r to a l arg e pa rt o f un i n c or pora t e d sou th Fulto n County is lo cat ed i n He l c or.~e .i\ J. 1 Ro .:Jd , ,, h i c h r un s nor th 8::1d s outh throu gh t h e are.:i un de r cor:s i dcri:lti o n . App r o.·i mat el y 1600 feet of water mai n , havi ng a n es t i ma t ed v alue o f $3 2,00 0 must continue t o be main ta i ne d o r be r e loca t ed by t he City o f At lan ta in o r der t o provide uninte r r u? t ed s ervic e to So u t h Fulton County. �.' Honorable Charlie Carnes 3. Fcbru.:.:ry 1, 1967 - 2- ,\tl ~int.'.1 , in th e r iJ:; t, lws t ,1 :(e:11 t he position o f l ett ing t: ie c:i. ti:e:cns nff c c ted in :;uch ..i choice r,1.:ll~e th e decision tln·ou~h a re fe rendum. Therefore, t he Ci.ty of Atl.:int.:.: · feels thot rcGar<lless of the p~cceclinc two c onclusions , th.:it no official strini c nt objections wo u ld be ma~e p:::-ovidinb the dcle 6 .:i tior. choose s to take this course, and proviclin3 the City of Atlanta's i nvestment in water mains in the area is prote~te<l. Sincerely, (v •~~ 1) Q 1;Q O ~ ~\.1..v p / 1/\E~~ I Collier B. Gladin Planning Director CBG ; jp Co py to - Hembcrs of the Fulton County House Delegation I �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 uni ts, Probable 1540 units, Being Considered 800 units, Doubtful ~ Total --- (l '! I I I 9311 units Proposed I (Incls, 1206 Public Housing, 66 of which are. being leased) I ·I In addition, 1424 existing units have been proposed for r~habilitation, ,'·Of this number , 1652 units are estimated to be available during 1967 and Total 2. 4075 units are estimated to be available during 1968 i' I I 5727 units in sight In addition to the Chairman and two Co-Chairmen initially appointed to the Housing Resources Corrnnittee, Mayor Allen is now appointing additional prominent community leaders to the Committee to serve on the following panelsi 3. 4, Legal Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Const ~uction and Design Social Problem6 Financing Non Profit Funds Public Housing Bus iness Participation Public Information An organizational meeting of the entire Committee is scheduled to be held February 9, Details will be announced later , The Housing Resources Committee has established a full time office in Room 1204, City Hall, Tel, 522-4463, Ext. 430, 5, Mr. Wm. W, Gates (Retired), f ormer Chief Underwriter for FHA in Atlanta has acce?ted an appointment as Special Adviser to the Housing Resources Committee and will be available in the Committee office in t he City Hall from 9:00 a,m. to 4:00 p.m, each Thursday to ad vise a nd assist Developers a nd Builders interested in FHA programs. q. Malcolm D. Jones , Supervisor of Inspection Services, Building Department, has been designated to devote full time to acquainting Builders and Deve lo?ers with the program and to assist them in its promotion . Mr. Jones would like to keep in touch with de velopments in all proposed projects under this accelerated program; his telephone number is 522-4463 , Ext. 43 0 . .1 I · ' �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 This review was made in response to Representative Lane ' s (of the Point. 126th District) letter of January 12 to Mayor Allen requesting comment on this proposal . 3 7 the 14th District, which consists of c..4 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~ 1. iiv-i;_<\:~- That the area of uyincorporated Fu~ton 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 ~ capability of 2. growth. One of the City of Atlanta ' s major water mains supplying water to a large part of unincorporated 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 esti~ated value of $32,000 must"" continued to $..( ~&-c.J"~ be maintained~by the City of Atlanta in order to provide uninterrupted service ~ o n County. a1cen the posifion af 1l!tt¢tH'\:he citie.o11::::, affected in such a choi cr.: ute"ke "the ae~ision througn a relerendu;, --t¾ ~Jlt~L J..., �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. ()~~J:r ~ (µ~ ~1~ ~cO , . j � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document - -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) <t: w 0.. c>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 " <! . h ugh t he date of the public hearing. qI! ,nis consent at any time tro l, (t jl Following [lI I said hearing , the Planning an d Developr.ient Committee shalJ l j! prepare and submit a report t o the Board of Aldermen ,vhich shall J include a recommendation as to whether or not the land described I! ! I! i n sai d application shoul d be annexed to the City of Atlanta and; ! I if applicable, the date such proposed annexation should become ! I·effective. SECTION 4o j If after such public hearing the Board of /! Aldermen, after considering t he report and recommenda tion of the !"1 Planning I to I I would be in the best interest of the residents and prop rty owners i ! !I City I I of Atlanta, said a re a may be annexe d to the municip a lity by I the adoption of an annex i ng ordinance. ,l' l SECTION 5. rrcontiguous a re a " shall mean an y area which, II \ I limits line on at l east one - eighth of the a r e~ ' s aggregate ii ! t Jl. external boundary. >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 <J t he: s ~1.ti s fac ti on of exec u t ion s , is h er eby am e nded b y add in g at th e en d th er eof th e foll ov:in g t wo Code secti on s : "39-609. \ Vh e n a pa ymen t on th e e'.'ec uti on s h a ll be mad e whi ch does n ot en t ir ely s a ti s f y th e jud g me nt u pon v:hi c:h the executi on h a s b ee n is s uecl, th e pl a in t iff in fi. fa. ur hi :-; attorn ey s h a ll au th or ize t he cle1·k t o enter th e a mo unt of such p ay m en ts upon t h e ex ecu t ion . "39-610. Up on th e s a ti s fa ct ion of th e ent ir e cl eb! up on whi ch t h e exec u t ion h a s be en is s ue d , th e p b inti ff in fi . fa . or hi s a tt orn ey sh a ll dir ect t h e cl e r k t o ca n cel th e ex e-: ut ion and m a r k th e ju dg m ent snt is fi <: d.?' S ect ion 2 . Cod e sec t ion 2-1-332 7, r elat in g t o th e ex ec uti on and filin g of a n ackn ow lecl g rn e11t of th e p:1 ym e11t of a j ucl g-m ent, is h er eby r ep ea led in it s e nt ir ety . Sect io n 3. All la ,,·:=; an cl pa rt s of laws i n confli ct wi t h thi s A ct ar e h e r eby r ep ea led. Appro,· ed 1\Ta r ch 10, 1% Li . M UN ICIP.-\LIT Jr. S- .- \ :'.'\ :'.'\ f: X .- \Tl ():-; DY P ETITIC' :'.'\ , \ PnocE n r 1rn, ETC. '\ _,I N o. fi 13 (St:11 ;1 fl' Hi ll No. 18 :2 ) . A11 Act to p nn·id l' fr, r :1 nw tlw d , in ,1ddi l i,,11 t o cxi s tin ~: llll' th ocl c:., fo r th e :lllll l' X:t l i ll ll of :ll'l' :1 c:. con t i g th) ll S ll1 in ccw porat ecl rnunil'ip;tl it iL'S u pon t he appli c:it itin of n ot ll'"-"- th:m 409 �410 GENERAL ACTS ANI) RESOLUTIOA'S, VOL. I . . · sixty perment (GO.')& ) of the land area included in such included in ·s ucJ/i1pplication and the owners of at least sixty percent (GO ~c ) of the land area incluclecl in such · applic,1tion ;· to JH'ClYid e for municipal services to such areas; to wovide for public hearings; to provide for the procedure connected th erewith ; to define contigL1ous area; to repeal conflicting laws ; and for other purposes . .·· , ! Be it enacted by the General A ssembly of Georgia: i. ' •. Ann cxn lio n. Appli ca ti,,n :; . Section 1. Authority is h ereby granted to the governing bodi es of the several incorporated rnimicipalities of this State to annex to the existing corporate limits th ereof unincorporated areas which are contiguous to the existing corporate limits at th e time of such annexation, upon the writt e1~ and signed application of not less than sixty percent (GO 'lc ) of th e ej_g_ctors r esid ent in th e area includ ed in any such application and of th e o,vners of not less than sixty percent ( G.Q_Je, ) of th e la nd area, by acreage, included in V su ch application. Th e :1uth ority h er eby g r·a nt ed is in addition to exis ting authorit y, and is int ended to p rovid e a cumula tive method of Hnnex"in g territory to in corporated rnurnc1palili es in addition t o thos e methods provided by present law . Each such a pplica ti;Jn s hall contain a complete d escription of the land proposed t o Le ann exed. Lands to Le ann exed al any one time shall h e trea t ed as one boc1y, reg ardl ess of th e number of o,,·ners, and all p a rts s h a ll b e consiclerecl as adjoinin g th e limi ts of lhc municipa li ty w h en any one p a rt of th e entire body abuts such limits . For th e purpos e of d e t erminin g th e 11er centage of electors signing s uch a pplicati(Jn th e municipal governing lJocl y sh ,tll obtain a lis t of elcc- tors r es idin g in :c; uch area from the lioarcl ~;1cc,.,,,,. of r q•;i s t rars cJf lli c c.:o unty , or counties in whi ch th e area li es. Said lis t s h a ll lie comp il r!d b y th e b oa rcl of r cgis lrars \ / al!d pro v id ed to th e rnunic-ipal gu,·e rnin g b ody in a cco rdan ce witlt sed io11 3-1-G:ic of th e Geo r g ia 1-: 1<:dion Corle, :t11d the muni cipa l g<J\·e rnill l-': body s h :tl l b e.tr th e ex p011 ~:c of th e pre pa rat io11 of s uch lis t s i11 the ma111H·r presc ril ,ed Ly such sce tirJ11. L �' I 411 GEORGJA LA \\'S 19GG SESSJO'.\ I . I For the purpose of c.ktennining o·,.;ncrship of the properly included within such appli cation, the r ecord title holde r of the fee simple title, or hi s leg al re11rcs entali v e, s h a ll !Jc considered the "own er" of such property. 0 Section 2. Whenever the gov ernin g hotly of a mu111c1pality shall recei ve such an ar,plica tion it sh all, after inves tiga tion, dct errnine v;heth er s uch applic,ttion co m pli es with the r equir em ents of thi s Act. If it is d et er m in ed th a t such appli cati on does not comply \\"ilh thi s A ct, the governing bocly shall notify in wri t in1 th e person s prese nti ng s uch applica tion sta tin g wher ein the appli ca ti on · is de:fi ci~nl. lf it is determined that such appli cation does comply ,,.-ith thi .:; Act the municipa l gov ernin g body s hall proceed to act on said applica tion in accord a nce with section 3 her eof. Section 3. Th e muni cipa l goYernin g b ody sh a ll hold a public h ea rin g on an y s uch appli cat ion which h as been d etermin ed t o m ee t th e r eq uireme n t s of thi s Act. Su ch hea rin ~ shall be h eld not less th an fift ee n (1 5 ) nor rn·or e th a n forty five (4 5 ) cl ays from th e ti me the go Yerni ng bod y m ake;; a determin a ti on th at s uch pet ition is ,·,:llicl . '.\ot ice of t h e t ime and place of s uch h ea rin g s h a ll be g iY en in ,,.-rilin g to the pers ons pres entin g th e applic a tion a ncl sh a ll b e ach· erti se cl once a we ek for two con sec uti,·e ,,·eeks imm edia t ely p re ceding su ch h ea rin g in a n e,\·spa per of g enera l cir culati on in t h e municipa lit y a nd in th e a r ea propose d fo r ann exa ti on . At su ch publi c h ea rin g a ll p er sons r esicl en t or o,Yn ing propert y in th e mu nicipa lity or in th e ar et1 p ropos ed for ann exa ti on m ay be h eard on th e q ue s ti on of th e :rn ne x at ion of su ch a r ea by the muni cipality; pro\"id t·cl , h o,\·en' r, th at any pro perty o,,· ner m ay wi t hclra,\· hi,-; conse nt at any tim e throu g h th e el a t e of th e puliliL' h eari ng . I \.._ ) Sec ti on ,1. If aft er s uch publi c h earin g- t h l' gL1n' rn i11 ~· bocly det ermi nes th:1t th e ,llln L'X :lliL1n t o th e nrn ni L'ip:il it y Llf th e a r ea propl1,-;c cl in th e ap plic a l ic111 \1·01il d be i n th e b est int er es t o f th e r l':- iden t,-; and p rop L' rl~- mn wr:=:. of th e a rL' ,t p ro po,-;c cl fo r .i nnexat ion :11 1d tif ll1 e L·ili zcll$ of !h t.: 111 u11 icipalitY, s:1i cl :1r ca m :1y be :1n nt.:XL' d t o th e rn uniL·ip:il ity b y th e ad op tio n o f ;11 1 :111n cx in g onli11,1 m·e. Own e r. J•ri.1ct:rlcre. H t-:: rir. ;;s . r I �412 Con ticuou s nrcn. GENERAL ACTS :\ ND RESOLUTIONS, VOL. I Section G. "Contig uous area" shall mean any area which, at the tim e annexation procedures arc initiated, coincides with the municipal boundary on at least one-eighth of the area'~ arsr;rcgak external bom{dary. Any area separated from th e municipal boundary by a street or street right-ofway, a creek or ri\·er,_t h c right-of-way of a railroad or other public service corporation, lands O\•:ned by the city, lands owned by a county, or Janet:; owned by the State of Georg ia shall be a. "contiguous area" within the meaning of this Act when such area coincides with either the municipai bounda ry or such la nd or both on at lc~st one-eighth of such area's aggreg ate external boundary. Provided there sh all b e no annexation across th e boundary lines of any political subdivis ion und er the provisions of thi s Act. IL Section 6. A municipality exer cising authority under this · Act shall make pla ns for the extension of services to the area proposed t o Le ann exed a nd s hall, pl"ior to th e public hearing provided for in section 3 of t.hi s Ad, prepare a r eport settin g for th such pla ns to provide services to such area. The repo1_-t sha ll incl ude: Report. (a ) A m a p or maps of th e municipality and adj acent territory t o show th e followin g informa tion: · (1) The pres ent and proposed bounda ri es of the munici- pality. (2 ) The . presc 11l ma jor trunk wa_t er mains aml s ev; cr inter ceptors and outfalls, and th e prorJosccl extens ions of such mains and outfalls as r equired by this Section. (L) A s t a t ement se( tin g fo r t h th e pbns of th e municipalily for cx( e11cli11 g- to the area t o Le ann exed each m a jo1· mu nicip:d se: r vice JJc rform cd within th e municip:-ilit y at th e tim e of a1111 exat ion. S pceificall y, s uch pbns shall; (I) Prnvid r: for cx l<:nclin r·: )J(Jlicl' pro t ec tion, fire 1irot ecti(Jn, garl>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 Franl<l ill C eo r ge t u Lie plac<'. d ill th e h a ll s o f illL) C: tpit ol of tl w S1a (c <>f 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<l ~3st ~oi n t c orp o r ot e limits, t herefore , t his a r ea wou ld pr ovi d e one di r e c t i on in wh ich the City of Atl nn t a co ul d e x pa::1d in t he future. Thi s co ns ider a t io n i s important b e c au se i n order to ma int a in a he a lthy rc s io na l c e nt e r AtL:.nta must h a ve t he cap abili t y of g r O'\ Jth . 2. One o f the City of Atlante ' s ma jor water ma ins su ppl yin 3 wat e r to a l arg e pa rt o f un i n c or pora t e d sou th Fulto n County is lo cat ed i n He l c or.~e .i\ J. 1 Ro .:Jd , ,, h i c h r un s nor th 8::1d s outh throu gh t h e are.:i un de r cor:s i dcri:lti o n . App r o.·i mat el y 1600 feet of water mai n , havi ng a n es t i ma t ed v alue o f $3 2,00 0 must continue t o be main ta i ne d o r be r e loca t ed by t he City o f At lan ta in o r der t o provide uninte r r u? t ed s ervic e to So u t h Fulton County. �.' Honorable Charlie Carnes 3. Fcbru.:.:ry 1, 1967 - 2- ,\tl ~int.'.1 , in th e r iJ:; t, lws t ,1 :(e:11 t he position o f l ett ing t: ie c:i. ti:e:cns nff c c ted in :;uch ..i choice r,1.:ll~e th e decision tln·ou~h a re fe rendum. Therefore, t he Ci.ty of Atl.:int.:.: · feels thot rcGar<lless of the p~cceclinc two c onclusions , th.:it no official strini c nt objections wo u ld be ma~e p:::-ovidinb the dcle 6 .:i tior. choose s to take this course, and proviclin3 the City of Atlanta's i nvestment in water mains in the area is prote~te<l. Sincerely, (v •~~ 1) Q 1;Q O ~ ~\.1..v p / 1/\E~~ I Collier B. Gladin Planning Director CBG ; jp Co py to - Hembcrs of the Fulton County House Delegation I �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 uni ts, Probable 1540 units, Being Considered 800 units, Doubtful ~ Total --- (l '! I I I 9311 units Proposed I (Incls, 1206 Public Housing, 66 of which are. being leased) I ·I In addition, 1424 existing units have been proposed for r~habilitation, ,'·Of this number , 1652 units are estimated to be available during 1967 and Total 2. 4075 units are estimated to be available during 1968 i' I I 5727 units in sight In addition to the Chairman and two Co-Chairmen initially appointed to the Housing Resources Corrnnittee, Mayor Allen is now appointing additional prominent community leaders to the Committee to serve on the following panelsi 3. 4, Legal Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Const ~uction and Design Social Problem6 Financing Non Profit Funds Public Housing Bus iness Participation Public Information An organizational meeting of the entire Committee is scheduled to be held February 9, Details will be announced later , The Housing Resources Committee has established a full time office in Room 1204, City Hall, Tel, 522-4463, Ext. 430, 5, Mr. Wm. W, Gates (Retired), f ormer Chief Underwriter for FHA in Atlanta has acce?ted an appointment as Special Adviser to the Housing Resources Committee and will be available in the Committee office in t he City Hall from 9:00 a,m. to 4:00 p.m, each Thursday to ad vise a nd assist Developers a nd Builders interested in FHA programs. q. Malcolm D. Jones , Supervisor of Inspection Services, Building Department, has been designated to devote full time to acquainting Builders and Deve lo?ers with the program and to assist them in its promotion . Mr. Jones would like to keep in touch with de velopments in all proposed projects under this accelerated program; his telephone number is 522-4463 , Ext. 43 0 . .1 I · ' �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 This review was made in response to Representative Lane ' s (of the Point. 126th District) letter of January 12 to Mayor Allen requesting comment on this proposal . 3 7 the 14th District, which consists of c..4 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~ 1. iiv-i;_<\:~- That the area of uyincorporated Fu~ton 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 ~ capability of 2. growth. One of the City of Atlanta ' s major water mains supplying water to a large part of unincorporated 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 esti~ated value of $32,000 must"" continued to $..( ~&-c.J"~ be maintained~by the City of Atlanta in order to provide uninterrupted service ~ o n County. a1cen the posifion af 1l!tt¢tH'\:he citie.o11::::, affected in such a choi cr.: ute"ke "the ae~ision througn a relerendu;, --t¾ ~Jlt~L J..., �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. ()~~J:r ~ (µ~ ~1~ ~cO , . j � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 27, Complete Folder Box 20 Box 20 Folder 27 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Planning and Development | 1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/a2d5263d6fdeb34527c6afb5f3b684a8.pdf 828132bbe9c581dc39ddd83909cc2120 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. .~. - . , Board - December 13-14, 1966 The Connnittee on Buildings and Grounds reported that for several years a study of a campus plan to show the outermost limits for Georgia State College has been in process; that recent adjustments have been completed as a result of obtaining the Atlantic Company property; that the approval of t he Master Campus Plan will facilitate a rapid decision in final clearance of urban renewal properties now in process with the Atlanta Housing Authority; and that this plan would provide for ultimate expansion of the campus to include approximately 60 acres. The Connnittee reported further that in President Langdale's reconnnendation for approval of the proposed Master Campus Plan for Georgia State College, he pointed out c~rtain items which are necessary to satisfy the Urban Renewal Policy Conunittee on the block of property bounded by Piedmont Avenue, Gilmer Street, and Decatur Street. Mr. Andre Steiner of the architectural firm of Robert and Company presented the preliminary outline of the amended campus plan for the future development of Georgia State College which would provide the necessary physical facilities for this fast growing institution. He was assisted by President Noah Langdale, Jr., in this presentation, and by Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller of the College. Following a discussion of the Master Campus Plan as outlined and of the conditions to be met in satisfying the requirements of the Department of Planning of t he City of Atlanta, upon reconunendation by Chancellor George L. Simpson, Jr., and the Connnittee on Buildings and Grounds, with motion properly made, variously seconded, and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia shall and it does approve in principle, the Master Campus Plan a s prepared by consultants for the Georgia State College. RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board of Regents shall and it does hereby declare its intention to support the devetopment of the Master Campus Plan o f the Georgia State College to the extent that funds are made available for this purpose . RES OLVED FURTHER; That the general approval of the Master Campus Plan includes the intention of the Board to comply with the conditions required t o meet the policy of the Department of Planning of the City �~ : . . : . . . : ..... . .... .. . . . ...... JI, --- . of Atlanta, as stated in a letter, dated June 3, 1966, from Mr. G. Eric Harkness, of the Department of Planning, Cilty of Atlanta,to Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller, Georgia State College. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, and compared excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia held in Atlanta, Georgia, on December 13-14, 1966. This twenty-second day of December, 1966. / · -Q ~ rJ "77 · /1 /J--11--1~ M6J.' ~ubert L. Harris Assistant Executive Secretary Regents, University System of Georgia � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Board = December 13-14, 1966 The Committee on Buildings and Grounds reported that for several years a study of a campus plan to show the outermost limits for Georgia State College has been in process; that recent adjustments have been com- pleted as a result of obtaining the Atlantic Company property; that the approval of the Master Campus Plan will facilitate a rapid decision in final clearance of urban renewal properties now in process with the Atlanta Housing Authority; and that this plan would provide for ultimate expansion of the campus to include approximately 60 acres, The Committee reported further that in President Langdale's recommendation for approval of the proposed Master Campus Plan for Georgia State College, he pointed out certain items which are necessary to satisfy the Urban Renewal Policy Committee on the block of property bounded by Piedmont Avenue, Gilmer Street, and Decatur Street. Mr. André Steiner of the architectural firm of Robert and Company presented the preliminary outline of the amended campus plan for the future development of Georgia State College which would provide the necessary physical facilities for this fast growing institution. He was assisted by President Noah Langdale, Jr., in this presentation, and by Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller of the College. Following a discussion of the Master Campus Plan as outlined and of the conditions to be met in satisfying the requirements of the Department of Planning of the City of Atlanta, upon recommendation by Chancellor George L. Simpson, Jr., and the Committee on Buildings and Grounds, with motion properly made, variously seconded, and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia shall and it does approve in principle, the Master Campus Plan as prepared by consultants for the Georgia State College. RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board of Regents shall and it does hereby declare its intention to support the devalopment of the Master Campus Plan of the Georgia State College to the extent that funds are made available for this purpose. RESOLVED FURTHER; That the general approval of the Master Campus Plan includes the intention of the Board to comply with the conditions required to meet the policy of the Department of Planning of the City —— SS ee Lt e — = ee of Atlanta, as stated in a letter, dated June 3, 1966, from Mr. G. Eric Harkness, of the Department of Planning, Cilty of Atlanta,to Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller, Georgia State College. Toke This is to certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, and compared excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia held in Atlanta, Georgia, on December 13-14, 1966. This twenty-second day of December, 1966. | z ( * Cows Ly Base Ms/ Hubert L. Harris Assistant Executive Secretary Regents, University System of Georgia  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 15 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/b7f891e89e5c077c9ee47597a422046f.pdf 7fd458de4ea95a960e54f54d7de0d943 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. THE FULTON-DEl<ALB HOSPITAL AUTHORITY SO BUTLER STREET, S. E. J . W. PINKSTON. JR. ATLANTA, G E0RG1IA 30303 SECRETARY-TREASU RER ROBERT E. SLEIGHT ASST. SECRETARY-TREASURER FRED M. WALKER November 28, 1966 GRADY MEMOR I AL HOSPITAL HUGHES SPALDING P/<VILION ISOLATION HOSPITAL CLAY MEMORIAL EYE CLINIC CONSULTANT Dr. Noah Langdale, Jr. President Georgia State College 33 Gilmer St~, S. E. Atlanta, Ga. 30303 Dear President Langdale: We have examined with interest the preliminary outline of your Master Campus Plan being prepared by Robert and Company for the future develop1nent of the College. To all appearances the plan is excellent from your standpoint and will provide the necessary physical facilities for your fast growing institution. Included in the proposed Master Campus Plan are some areas now owned by the Grady Memorial Hospital and so1ne areas that we are considering in connection with our future growth. It is our understanding th at it has not b een anticipated by the planner or by th e Colle ge tha t these properti e _s n ow belonging to the hospital or considered in connection with its future pl ans are finally dealt with or that they are necessarily to be acquired from the hospita l or that the hospital is a greeing that it would sell same. In favorably considering the Master Camp us Plan we are considering th e possibility in future years for agreement with respect to joint developm.ent for mutually advant ageous hospital and academic programs or other agree1nent or equitable exchang e of c onti guo u s properties deemed to be in th e best interests of both institutions and desirable with r espe ct to the developrnent of an architectural unity for the area of the hospital a nd the College. W e a gre e with the general philosophy of your Maste r Campus Plan and expr e ss our willingness to consider mutually advantageous develop1nent of the total a r ea . mk � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document THE FULTON-DEKALB HOSPITAL AUTHORITY 80 BUTLER STREET, S. E. J. W. PINKSTON, JR. ATLANTA, GEORGIA Bo303 GRADY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - Ss —-—- = o« FECRETANIETREASUBER : HUGHES SPALDING PAVILION ROBERT E.SLEIGHT November 28, 1966 | ISOLATION HOSPITAL ASST. SECRETARY-TREASURER en FRED M. WALKER CLAY MEMORIAL EYE CLINIC CONSULTANT Dr. Noah Langdale, Jr. President Georgia State College 33. Gilmer St.,'S. E. Atlanta, Ga. 30303 Dear President Langdale: We have examined with interest the preliminary outline of your Master Campus Plan being prepared by Robert and Company for the future de- velopment of the College, To all appearances the plan is excellent from your standpoint and will provide the necessary physical facilities for your fast growing institution, Included in the proposed Master Campus Plan are some areas now owned by the Grady Memorial Hospital and some areas that we are considering in connection with our future growth, It is our understanding that it has not been anticipated by the planner or by the College that these properties now belonging to the hospital or considered in connection with its future plans are finally dealt with or that they are necessarily to be acquired from the hospital or that the hospital is agreeing that it would sell same, In favor- ably considering the Master Campus Plan we are considering the possibility in future years for agreement with respect to joint development for mutually advantageous hospital and academic programs or other agreement or equit+ able exchange of contiguous properties deemed to be in the best interests of both institutions and desirable with respect to the development of an architectural unity for the area of the hospital and the College, We agree with the general philosophy of your Master Campus Plan and ex- press our willingness to consider mutually advantageous development of the total area, Sincerely yours,—-—., ‘ ae > s LE pp Mitek Edgar J,Forio Chairman _-  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 14 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/f416a49c659d59c20f1c9cda4e02d254.pdf f3f5d1e81d2d72698a3ebe8d898282cc Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. January 13, 1967 A meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, January 13, 1967 at 10:00 A.M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following members were present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne George Cotsakis John Flanigen Hugh Pierce Absent: Mr. Frank Etheridge Mr . E. Gregory Griggs Also present were : ,/".', - @ ~ i , M r • M • B • S a t t e r f i e. I d , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , · Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr. Les Persells, Directo r of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr. Howard Op e nshaw , Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Colli e r Gladin , Planning Enginee r , Ci t y of Atlanta . Mr. Elme r Moon, Assistant Building Official . Mr. Geo r ge Berry, Comptroller ' s Office . w (/) <{ w Q.. Se v era l m e mbe r s of the City Planning Staff w e re pr ese nt ; also , se v er al representat i ves of other City departments we r e 1n atten d a nce . ~ ~ J ~ 0 0 co Chairman Co ok i n tr odu ce d Dean Will i am Su t tl es of Ge o rgia State C ol lege wh o , in t u rn, intr odu ced se v era l oth er rep r esentatives of Georgia State w h o w ere pre s e n t, i.e., M r. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller; M r. J am i so n, Ar c h itect i n c h ar g e of physical plants and Andrew Steiner, Georgia S tate Consu l tant. Mr. Steiner distrib u ted copies of Georgia State College's M aster Campus P l an, prepare d by Robert an d Company Associates, and gave a brief resume of t h e Report, with major emphasis on implementation. He commented the purpose of the Plan is to provide a guide to the physical development of Georgia State �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 2 College in an urban environment. To satisfy four specific questions raised by the Policy Committee on April 22, 1966, Messrs. Lavroff and Steiner submitted the following: (I) Certified original of minutes, including a resolution therein, of the Board of Regents meeting in which they accepted the Georgia State Master Campus Plan (original attached hereto and made a part of these minutes by reference); (2) Copy of letter from the Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, under signature of Edgar J. Forio, Chairman, dated November 28, 1966, agreeing with the general philosophy of the Master Plan and expressing Grady Hospital's willingness to consider mutually advantageous development of the total area (letter attached hereto and made a part of these minutes by reference); (3) Eliminated all proposed classroom facilities north of Edgewood a n d ( 4 ) I n c o r p o r a t e d t h e b I o c k p r e s e n t I y o c c. u p i e d b y t h e P o I i c e Station into the Master Plan for possible future expansion. Mr. Gladin explained the Housing Authority has prepared an a me n d m e n t to th e Ge o r g i a S ta t e U r b a n R e d e v e I o pm e n t Ar e a i ncorporating the block bounded by Gilmer Street, Butler Street, Decatur Street and Piedmont Avenue (containing 4.6 acres of land) and approval of this additional block by the Policy Committee is necessary i n order to facilitate final clearance of this amendment . At this point , Chairman Cook excused himself from the meeting , stating he was due at the Legislature . Mr. Persells then offered the following comments and suggestions, stating they were not related to the approval of the project amendment , but to the Master Plan as a whole : (I) Since the individual buildings in the total complex are bein g designed by various arch it ects , he suggested that some c on tr ols should be written into the Maste r Plan to i n s u r e a n d e f f e c t u a t e m a x i m u m c oo r d i n a t i o n a n d c o r r e I a t i o n of bui ld i ngs , pedestrian malls, etc . (2) Scheduling of parki ng should be given further consideration since it appears off-hand that it is programmed late 1n the plan, rather than as early as it will actually be needed. .[ I �~ ~-- ----·-..._ _____ ·~---- - ----- Minutes Urban ~enewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 3 (3) Suggested that copies of the Master Plan be transmitted to the various city departments, city u t ilities, private utilities and the Rapid Transit Authority, with a request for their written comments and/or recommendations so that in the future implementation of Plan recommendations, Georgia State would have the benefit of their findings . (4) Suggested that within the Plan there should be a clarifying statement as to the uses contemplated west of Ivy ar:id why it is important that the Campus extend into this area. (5) Because of the proximity of the prope r ty across Edgewood to the Central Business District and its potential tax producing capabilities, there should be a clarifying statement as to why it is important that the housing contemplated north of Edgewood be directly across the street from the Campus, as opposed to say a few blocks away convenient to public transportation. (6) Noted there was no indication in the Plan as to how the s t u d e n t s w o u I d m o v e f r o m t h e g r o u .n d I e v e I t o a n o t h e r I e v e I (escalato r s , elevators , etc.) Mr . Lavroff s tated this will be a part of the de t ailed design planning . ( 7) Noted that on Page 20 of the Master Plan, there is a s tat e men t" •. . • . storm arid sanitary sew er s ar e comb i n e d i n th is area . . . •• " and sta t ed that since F e de r a l f u nds ar e i nvolved the r e i s a necessity · fo r separating t he s t o rm a nd sa n ita r y sewers , t herefore , th e Housing Autho rity w o ul d li k e s ome r ecommendat i ons on t he pa r t o f the C oll ege as we l l as t h e Ci t y wi th r espe c t to ut i l i ties i n t h e ar e a. In reference to Ite m (3) , M r . Stei n er sta te d t h ey d o p r opose t o mail c o pies o f t h e P l an to a l l memb ers o f t h e Board o f Alde r men a nd w ill be happy to co m p l y w i t h M r . Per s e l ls suggest i o n . Mo ti o n was t h en ma d e b y M r . Sterne , seconded by M r . Pi e rc e and carri ed unanimous l y as fo l lows : ( I) J Th e C om m ittee to o k the G eo r g ia Sta te M a s t e r Campus Plan und e r a d vi se m en t. �Minutes U r b a n R·e n e w a I P o I i c y C o m m i t t e e · · January 13, 1967 Page 4 (2) Approved the additional block (bounded by Gilmer Street, Butler Street, Decatur Street and Piedmont Avenue) as an amendment to the Georg'ia State Urban Redevelopment Area; in so doing, it was the Committee's understanding from Mr. Persells that this approval would, in no way, represent an approval of the Master Plan, per se, and would not commit any member to any future urban renewal projects in this area. (3) Set a public hearing (as required by law) on the one block amendment to be held at the next regular meeting of the Policy Committee on February 17, 1967. Mr. Openshaw presented for action the following requ e sted plan changes in the · West End Urban Renewal Area: I. Pa r cel 1.... 15, John C. Theisen 751 Park Street, S. W. Requests plan change to 11 Not T o Be Acquired" to p ermi t continued operation of supermarket. Agrees to sell contiguous parcel 1-4 to Housing Authority . (M-1 zoning district) . Rec omm e ndation of West End Local Citizens Commission appointed a sub-committee to study this request and determine if the present op era tion could be upgrad e d . The Policy Committ ee withh 1 1d any action , .pending a r e p o r t f r o·m t h i s s u b - c o m m i t t e e . 2. Parcel 11 - 39, H. 541 Lee Street L. DeF o or, et a l Requests p l an change to 11 Not To Be Acqu ire d" t o remove existing two-story frame residence in poor condition to a ll ow expansion of Gu l f Station on adjoining Parcel 11 - 1. (M-1 to C-2 zoning district). Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission Rejection. �[ ---143.215.248.55---c.;-.-.:-: ._ -."JC.=-. ., -=-~-= = = ==--- -----· ·- ----·4·- ~ . - -- -· -...._. . ____ ,..______ _ ___ _ _ _ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 2. Page 5 (Continued from Page 4) Mr. Openshaw stated this would be · the only piece of prope.rty in a two b Io ck are a (between Lee Street and Se a rs) that w o u Id not be acquired. Mr. Persells thought it pertinent to state that originally the Plan contemplated acquisition of this property, however, the G u I f S t a t i o n w a s e r e c t e d -u n d e r a Bu i I d i n g P e r m i t i s s u e d a f t e r the Plan had been developed, but before it was approved, therefore, i t could no t be prevented - this relates to t h e land owner and not the lessor. Mr. Sommerville felt any action at this time would be premature and not in the best interest of the West End Plan . Motion was then mad e , seconded and duly c arried, that this request be rejected. · I\ \...J 3. Block 27 ~.:~.!-143.215.248.55 Boy s 1 _ C I u b , Inc • Re qu es ts plan chang e to designat e Parc e ls I thru 8 11 To Be Acqui r ed 11 , and r eclassify Block 27 f or institutional use (Boy s C I u b) . Re comme n dation of Wes t End Local Citi z ens Co m mi s sion App r ov a l , a lthough not unanimous . F ollo w ing a brief d i scussion , this r equ e s t w a s defe rr ed fo r f u rt h er s tudy . 4. Parce l 5 7 -2 , F ulton Coun ty 1368 Luci l e A v e nu e Req u ests p l an c h an g e to p e rmit this parc e l to be developed by a major oil compa n y . ( R-6 zo n in g district). Mr. Openshaw stated this property is scheduled for re siden tial rehabilitation. Upon motion by Mr. Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Sterne and unanimous vote this request was rejected. Mr. Gladin stated it �Minutes . Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 6 might be in order to offer to the County the idea of a higher density residential use of this property but he was not prepared to make any specific recommendations at this time. 5. Paree I 44-24 Mrs ._Berry_Blackwood Requests permit to operate day nursery in R-6 zoning district. Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission Approval. Motion was made, seconded and duly carried that this request be approved. 6. Westview Drive City owned remnants City proposes to sell remnants for apartment development. Requires plan change from R-6 to A-I zoning district. Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission r ejection . Because of the uncertainty of exactly what the City owned along Westview Drive and other factors, this matter was de f e r red fo r furthe r study and Mr . Openshaw was requested to have a map a t the next meeting ind i cating city - owned remnants along We s tview . ********** M r . Pe r s e l l s e xpla i ned that w i thin t he Bedfo r d -Pine Ar e a, the Eco n omic Opp o rt un i ty Atl a n ta Org a ni za t i on des ire s t o temporarily uti l ize a vaca n t r e s ident ia l s truc t u re at 365 L i n den Avenue in c o njunction wi th the ir n e i g h b o r hood s erv i ce s ce n ter program . Specifically, they wa n t t o u s e it f o r pre-sc hoo l age and mentally retarded children u nde r a day-care t y p e of program. Mr . Persells stated the matter had not come before the Local Citizens Commission but he felt they would approve it. In r es ponse to a question, Mr. Satterfield stated that EOA•s urgency is they presently have a tutorial �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 7 program underway in this area and they don't want to break this continued activity. The question of temporary use was discussed by the Committee, and with the understanding that use of the premises would be temporary, the matter was . approved. As a matter of information, Mr. Gladin e x plained that the official guide lines for preparation of a Demonstration Cities Application for Planning Funds has been received from HUD and that the City anticipated completion and submission to Washington by March I; that this will result in a considerable step-up of activities in t h e P I a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t a n d i t m i g h1t b e c o m e d e s i r a b I e a n d n e c e s s a r y to call additional meetings of the Policy Committee to keep abreast of the situation. There being no further business to discus s, the meeting was adjourned. **** * **** App r ov e d : Ro dney Chairman jp Respectfully submit t ed , r . ,-. Coo K !l'kl l I / / (/ /1" ' , . LJ,(1 , /~ ;_, / ~ L _ i...L/_ - - ,-L 143.215.248.55-. _1/ ---J oan n e P ar Ks S e cr e tary ' /, � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Si BOORUM & PEASE “ BOORUM & PEASE “NsSIigAR” ® ye ; January 13, 1967 A meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, January 13, 1967 at 10:00 A.M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following members were present: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. Edwin L. Sterne Mr. George Cotsakis Mr. John Flanigen Mr. Hugh Pierce Absent: Mr. Frank Etheridge Mr. E. Gregory Griggs Also present were: Mr. M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority. Mr. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority. Mr. Howard Openshaw, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Collier Gladin, Planning Engineer, City of Atlanta. Mr. Elmer Moon, Assistant Building Official. Mr. George Berry, Comptroller's Office. Several members of the City Planning Staff were present; also, several representatives of other City departments were in attendance. Chairman Cook introduced Dean William Suttles of Georgia State College who, in turn, introduced several other representatives of Georgia State who were present, i.e., Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller; Mr. Jamison, Architect in charge of physical plants and Andrew Steiner, Georgia State Consultant. Mr. Steiner distributed copies of Georgia State College's Master Campus Plan, prepared by Robert and Company Associates, and gave a brief resume of the Report, with major emphasis on implementation, He commented the purpose of the Plan is to provide a guide to the physical development of Georgia State os Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 2 College in an urban environment. To satisfy four specific questions raised by the Policy Committee on April 22, 1966, Messrs. Lavroff and Steiner submitted the following: (lI) Certified original of minutes, including a resolution therein, of the Board of Regents meeting in which they accepted the Georgia State Master Campus Plan (original attached hereto and made a part of these minutes by reference); (2) Copy of letter from the Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, under signature of Edgar J. Forio, Chairman, dated November 28, 1966, agreeing with the general philosophy of the Master Plan and expressing Grady Hospital's willingness to consider mutually advantageous development of the total area (letter attached hereto and made a part of these minutes by reference); (3) Eliminated all proposed classroom facilities north of Edgewood and (4) Incorporated the block presently occupied by the Police Station into the Master Plan for possible future expansion. Mr. Gladin explained the Housing Authority has prepared an ame ndment to the Georgia State Urban Redevelopment Area incorporating the block bounded by Gilmer Street, Butler Street, Decatur Street and Piedmont Avenue (containing 4.6 acres of land) and approval of this additional block by the Policy Committee is necessary in order to facilitate final clearance of this amendment. At this point, Chairman Cook excused himself from the meeting, stating he was due at the Legislature. Mr. Persells then offered the following comments and suggestions, stating they were not related to the approval of the project amendment, but to the Master Plan as a whole: (1) Since the individual buildings in the total complex are being designed by various architects, he suggested that some controls should be written into the Master Plan to insure and effectuate maximum coordination and correlation of buildings, pedestrian malls, etc. (2) Scheduling of parking should be given further consideration since it appears off-hand that it is programmed late in the plan, rather than as early as it will actually be needed. mr me a re i i ee Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 3 (3) Suggested that copies of the Master Plan be transmitted to the various city departments, city utilities, private utilities and the Rapid Transit Authority, with a request for their written comments and/or recommendations so that in the future implementation of Plan recommendations, Georgia State would have the benefit of their findings. (4) Suggested that within the Plan there should be a clarifying statement as to the uses contemplated west of Ivy and why it is important that the Campus extend into this area. (5) Because of the proximity of the property across Edgewood to the Central Business District and its potential tax producing capabilities, there should be a clarifying statement as to why it is important that the housing contemplated north of Edgewood be directly across the street from the Campus, as opposed to say a few blocks away convenient to public transportation. (6) Noted there was no indication in the Plan as to how the students would move from the ground level to another level (escalators, elevators, etc.) Mr. Lavroff stated this will be a part of the detailed design planning. (7) Noted that on Page 20 of the Master Plan, there is a statement ".....storm and sanitary sewers are combined in this area....." and stated that since Federal funds are involved there is a necessity:for separating the storm and sanitary sewers, therefore, the Housing Authority would like some recommendations on the part of the College as well as the City with respect to utilities in the area. In reference to Item (3), Mr. Steiner stated they do propose to mail copies of the Plan to all members of the Board of Aldermen and will be happy to comply with Mr. Persells suggestion. Motion was then made by Mr. Sterne, seconded by Mr. Pierce and carried unanimously as follows: (1) The Committee took the Georgia State Master Campus Plan under advisement. fons Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee (2) (3) Mr. “January 13, 1967 Page 4 Approved the additional block (bounded by Gilmer Street, Butler Street, Decatur Street and Piedmont Avenue) as an amendment to the Georgia State Urban Redevelopment Area; in so doing, it was the Committee's understanding from Mr. Persells that this approval would, in no way, represent an approval of the Master Plan, per se, and would not commit any member to any future urban renewal projects in this area. Set a public hearing (as required by law) on the one block amendment to be held at the next regular meeting of the Policy Committee on February |7, 1967. REKRKRKKKRKEK SE Openshaw presented for action the following requested plan changes in the West End Urban Renewal Area: Parcel I-15, John C. Theisen 75| Park Street, S. W. Requests plan change to "Not To Be Acquired" to permit continued operation of supermarket. Agrees to sell contiguous parcel |l-4 to Housing Authority. (M-=Il zoning district). Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission = appointed a sub-committee to study this request and determine if the present operation could be upgraded. The Policy Committee withheld any action, pending a report from this sub-committee. Parcel 11-39, H. L. DeFoor, et al 54| Lee Street Requests plan change to "Not To Be Acquired" to remove existing two-story frame residence in poor condition to allow expansion of Gulf Station on adjoining Parcel Il-l. (M=| to C=2 zoning district). Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission = Rejection. Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 5 2. (Continued from Page 4) Mr. Openshaw stated this would be‘the only piece of property in a two block area (between Lee Street and Sears) that would not be acquired. Mr. Persells thought it pertinent to state that originally the Plan contemplated acquisition of this property, however, the Gulf Station was erected under a Building Permit issued after the Plan had been developed, but before it was approved, therefore, it could not be prevented - this relates to the land owner and not the lessor. Mr. Sommerville felt any action at this time would be premature and not in the best interest of the West End Plan. Motion was then made, seconded and duly carried, that this request be rejected. 3. Block 27 West End Boys' Club, Inc. Requests plan change to designate Parcels | thru 8 "To Be Acquired", and reclassify Block 27 for institutional use (Boys Club). Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission - Approval, although not unanimous. Following a brief discussion, this request was deferred for further study. | 4. Parcel 57-2, Fulton County 1368 Lucile Avenue Requests plan change to permit this parcel to be developed by a major oil company. (R=-6 zoning district). Mr. Openshaw stated this property is scheduled for residential rehabilitation. Upon motion by Mr. Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Sterne and unanimous vote this request was rejected. Mr. Gladin stated it Minutes . Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 6 might be in order to offer to the County the idea of a higher density residential use of this property but he was not prepared to make any specific recommendations at this time. 5. Parcel 44-24 Mrs. Berry Blackwood Requests permit to operate day nursery in R-6 zoning district. Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission - Approval. Motion was made, seconded and duly carried that this request be approved. 6. Westview Drive City owned remnants City proposes to sell remnants for apartment development. Requires plan change from R=6 to A-I zoning district. Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission - rejection. Because of the uncertainty of exactly what the City owned along Westview Drive and other factors, this matter was deferred for further study and Mr. Openshaw was requested to have a map at the next meeting indicating city-owned remnants along Westview. RREKKEKKAEEKEEE Mr. Persells explained that within the Bedford=Pine Area, the Economic Opportunity Atlanta Organization desires to temporarily utilize a vacant residential structure at 365 Linden Avenue in conjunction with their neighborhood services center program. Specifically, they want to use it for pre=school age and mentally retarded children under a day=care type of program. Mr. Persells stated the matter had not come before the Local Citizens Commission but he felt they would approve it. In response to a question, Mr. Satterfield stated that EOA's urgency is they presently have a tutorial Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 7 program underway in this area and they don't want to break this continued activity. The question of temporary use was discussed by the Committee, and with the understanding that use of the premises would be temporary, the matter was-approved. RRREKKRK KEKE As a matter of information, Mr. Gladin explained that the official guide lines for preparation of a Demonstration Cities Application for Planning Funds has been received from HUD and that the City anticipated completion and submission to Washington by March l; that this will result in a considerable step-up of activities in the Planning Department and it might become desirable and necessary to call additional meetings of the Policy Committee to keep abreast of the situation. RRERERKERE EE There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. REEKRKREKREKE SK Approved: Respectfully submitted, me é 9 a ; nak NM ZZ. Wit fs\ LLC fA Rodney (M. Cook // a Parks i) ecretary Chairman  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 13 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/cca8ebbfed69889cf8d2678b76d232fd.pdf 45d7e658ccdbec004abe2832c66d9c53 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ro February 17, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, February 17, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following Members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne George Cotsakis Hugh Pierce Gregory Griggs ,~ l ~} t <t ~ ., Absent: John Flanigen · Frank Etheridge Also present were: I!:~ LJJ ti) ~ w 0 Q_ ~ ~ > M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority. Les Persel Is, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority. Howard Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atlanta Housing Authority. . Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta. George Berry, Comptroller's Office. Robert L. Sommerville, Atlanta Transit Company. ~ 0 0 ro Representatives of various City departments were present; also, several representatives of Georgia State College were present, i.e., Dean William Suttles; Andrew Steiner; V. V. Lavroff and Jesse Draper, Member of the Board of Regents. The Chairman cal led the meeting to order and the fol lowing business was considered: Public Hearing on one block amendment to Georgia State Urban Redevelopment Plan, said block being immediately north of the Atlanta Police Station and bounded on the north by Gilmer Street, on the east by Butler Street, on the south by Decatur Street and the west by Piedmont Avenue . @ Mr. Howard Openshaw gave the fol low ing pertinent information relative to th is amendment: The original Urban Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the Board of Alde rmen on March 19, 1962 . Notice of today's public hearing was adve rt ised in Th e Atlanta Constitution on February 3 and February 10 in accordance w ith Federal regu lati ons . The plan c ons ists of a ten pa ge narrat ive and two ma ps , indicating the project boundary , prope rties to be a cq u ired a nd proposed land use. Al I urban redevelopmen t ac t ivi ties have been completed in the ori gina l proje ct area - acquisition, relocation, demo lition, and disposal of land to the Board of Regents. The proposed addition involves a total of 6.6 acres, comprising 13 properties which are proposed �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 2 for acquisition. The properties will be appraised by two competent appraisers and every effort made to acquire the property through negotiation but if necessary, the property will be acqui red through the power of eminent domain. All fifteen existing structures will be demolished. There are no families to be relocated. Relocation assistance will be made available to the existing thirteen businesses in the area. An information statement describing the financial assistance available was distributed to the business concerns on February 10 . The actual moving expense for any one business concern to be paid by the Federal Government cannot exceed $25·, 000; under certain conditions a smal I business displacement payment may also be available. The area to be added is presently zoned M-1 and no change in zoning is proposed, however, certain controls will be placed on the land restricting its use to college and college-related uses; 4.5 net acres will be sold to the Board of Regents for redevelopment in accordance with the Comprehensive Master Campus Plan. The amendment will increase the net project cost $1,147,072. The local share, one-third of the net project cost, will be provided by the Board of Regents. The City of Atlanta will provide an estimated $77,647 for street, sidewalk, sewer and traffic improvements. Dr. Suttles briefly explained how this additional block would fit into Georgia State's Comprehensive Campus Master Plan . And rew Steiner, Georgia State Consultant, briefly explained the composition of the proposed buildings and using perspective maps, gave a visual concept of this proposal as related to the entire Plan. In response to an expression of concern by Mr. Cotsakis that the overal I Plan shou Id be approved prior to the piece- meal addition of a sing.le block, and that some members of the Board of Aldermen were not familiar with the Georgia State Campus Plan, Mr . Cook explain e d that th is was the reason the Pol icy Committee reques ted the Master Campus Plan . He commented further that he fe It Georgia State had progressed far enough to indicate that any additions would follow the guidelines as set forth in the ir Maste r Plan . Cha irman Coo k was requested to alert the Board of Aldermen about the Plan as a ma tter · of communication (at their next meeting of February 20, 1967) and ask them to re vi ew the copy wh ich had been forwarded to them . Mr. G ladin note d tha t there was cons iderable private development a ct iv it ies w ithin the Ce ntra l Bus iness District and that he felt it is in order tha t th is Comm ittee a nd other Alderma nic Committe e s re cogni z e and support the need fo r the de ve lopme nt o f a Central Downtown Plan, designed to coordina te and re late a l I these vari ous activiti es. He cited several examples of both public and private p lanning be ing done on a spot basi s, such as the Nasher property, Portman's Peachtree Center, Georgia Plaza and rapid transit . Mr . Cook then read into the record two communiques. One from Alderman Cecil Turner endorsing the Georgia State Campus Plan, stating he hoped it would be approved and �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 3 sent to the Board of Aldermen on February 20, 1967; a second from the Atlanta Civic Design Commission, stating 11 it is the consensus of opinion of members present at the February 9 meeting that the Atlanta Civic Design Commission strongly endorses, on the Georgia State College Master Plan, the concept of the Plaza system, which includes the separation of vehicles from pedestrian traffic by different levels 11 • No one from the public appeared to be heard, and upon motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Cotsakis and unanimous vote, the one block amendment to the Georgia State Redevelopment Plan was approved. Ebenezer Church - Proposed Expansion. 0 Mr. Openshaw pointed out, on an accompanying map, the existing property of the Church on Auburn Avenue and stated that the property in question Iies adjace nt th e reto to the east; that he understands from the Church members the City Building Inspector has required them to remove a back portion of their building to allow for a fire escape and this eliminates a great deal of their parking; that this request is to purchase an additional 150 feet along Auburn Avenue, extending through to Jackson Place, to be used for church parking. He exhibited a second map illustrating the property on a larger scale. The Committee noted that this property and the adjoining properties extending to the intersection of Auburn Avenue and Boulevard were designated for commercial use and the ensuing discussion centered around the existence of a liquor store situated on the southwest corner of the intersection and whether or not th is owner's rights would be abridged by extending the Church property 150 feet, thereby placing his bu siness in such a proximity to the Church so as to prohibit him from ever selling his business unde r the State statute relative to required distances from Churches for such uses . Alderman Pierce felt the liquor store owner's rights should prevail should he decide to se ll his business since it existed prior to this request. Mr. Cook was of the opinion, and the other committee members generally agreed, that the question of the store owner 's rights is immaterial in considering the merits of a llowing the Church to expand and that the remedy to his problem, if and when it arose, would lie elsewhere, perhaps within the courts. 0 h,,.._____ Mr. Sterne raised a question as to how the commercial development of the remaining properties might be affected by the use of this 150 feet for church purposes. �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 4 Mr. Satterfield stated it was his opinion the remaining 1.63 acres would be just as saleable, if not more so, than if it were a part of the whole parcel. In response to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Openshaw stated the Butler Street Project originated in 1959. A brief discussion then ensued about the type of problems prohibiting consumation of the project. Mr. Openshaw explained there have been no expressions of interest in the remaining properties to date and it has not been previously advertised, but preparations are being made to offer the property for sale. Mr. Persells explained that because there had always been a demand for property in the Butler Street Project, the general policy pursued by the Housing Authority had been to advertise the property after there had been a specific expression of interest in a particular piece of property so there would be competition; that the project had now reached the stage of a few remaining 11 tag ends 11 and the Authority is working on a general proposal to place these on the market. 0 Chairman Cook concurred, stating he would Iike to see a concentrated effort to complete th is project. The Committee then unanimously approved the Church expansion as requested. Rockdale Urban Renewal Project - Fulton County Property. Mr. Openshaw pointed out, on an accompanying map, the property owned by Fu Iton County, lying generally to the east of Grove Park Place, and he stated that he would like some direction from this Committee as to how to acquire the County's interest a.nd a clear title to this property. He explained that another individual is claiming an interest in the lots, therefore clouding the title and prohibiting clear acquisition of it; that Mr. Sheats is wi II ing to give a quit- claim deed for the County's interest at the approved price of $7,300. However , Mr . Persel Is explained the County is not wi 11 ing to take the necessary steps to clear the title because of the cost involved and that the Federal Government will not participate as it would be an ineligible cost. After other discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the Housing Authority should take this matter up with the County Commissioners with a minimum of delay and that Chairman Cook would furnish the Housing Authority with a supporting letter in behalf of the Policy Committee, urging the Commissioners to undertake to resolve this problem as soon as possible. ' "'---------- . �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 5 With further reference to the Rockdale Project, there was a brief discussion as to FHA policy relative to allocation of units within the Area. The Housing Authority maintained their previous position on the matter - that the initial allocation of 150 units for the first project was impractical (see minutes of November 18, 1966, Page 4) but Mr. Satterfield, in response to questioning by the Committee, stated that he had not received any indication on the part of an proposer that they were withdrawing from the competition because of the restrictions being imposed by FHA, but they have voiced some objections. Mr. Persells stated he understood the Mayor's Housing Resources Committee is go ing to urge FHA to increase the allocation of units and he felt it would not be amiss for this Committee to direct a letter to FHA suggesting that every consideration be given to a larger allocation of units. It was the unanimous decision of the Committee that Chairman Cook would direct such letter to FHA • 0 . Rawson-Washington Urban Renewal Project - Industrial land adjacent to public housing. Mr . Ope nshaw pointed out on a map of th e project area Parcel N - 3, owned by Swift and Company and the adjoining small parcel (B-4) being offered for sale by the Housing Authority. Parce l N-3 is presently occupied by a small office building for Swift and a hydrogen gas ta nk; parce I B- 4 is vacant . Both tracts are z oned M- 2 and I ie adjacent to proposed public housing . Mr. Openshaw explained that a bid ($6,300) has be en submitted on Parcel B- 4 and the proposal is for a motorcycle repair shop by Atlanta Motorcycle Sal es; that he would li ke a n expression of th e Committee' s fee lings about th is proposa l . He commented further he a lso discussed with Sw ift the ir plans for the ir property but was advised that he woul d have to write the company in Ch icago . Mr. Sterne commented tha t the Haus ing Authori ty's Board of Commissi oners was strongly opposed to it, fee ling it would not be desirable to place such a use in the midst of public housing where it is presumed there wi ll be a concentration of children. 0 Messrs. Satterfield and Persells stated that it may well be the Housing Authority would want to acquire both tracts and include them in the project in the future, but in the �Minutes Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 6 interim, they did not feel the use of the property for a motorcycle repair shop would be conducive to the surrounding neighborhood. The Committee unanimously denied the bid and requested that the Housing Authority determine from Swift (by writing the Chicago headquarters) their future proposal for Parcel N-3. The Committee then considered the following unfinished business: Citizens Trust Property, Parcel A-5, Butler Street Project. Mr. Openshaw was requested to report at the next meeting whether or not a building permit had been obtained by Citizens Trust. Status of request for up-to-date appraisal from Walt Sullivan on cost of moving public housing building from Hilliard Street. 0 The latest appraisal from Mr. Sul I ivan, obtained by George Berry of the Comptroller• s Office, was in the amount of $62,000. The Policy Committee felt this was entirely out of the question and agreed that the Housing Authority would pursue the idea of placing pub Iic housing on the property. Motel proposal, Parcel D-9, Rawson-Washington Project. Mr. Persells stated the proponents are continuing to pursue this matter; that they requested and was granted an extension of time by paying an additional earnest fee in excess of $50,000, which will not be refunded should the project not materialize. Block 27, West End Boys• Club, Inc. Requests plan change to designate parcels I thru 8 11 To Be Acquired", and re - classify Block 27 for institutional use. (A- I zoning district). Deferred from January 13, 1967 me eting . The Committee unan imously approved this plan change , subject to verification by Keri Byers, Chai rman of the C itiz ens Advisory Committee for West End . Status of study of traffic probl ems around a u ditorium c omplex~ 0 '------ Mr. Gladin stated the City has acquired land on Forrest Avenue and is ready to begin the street widening. �\ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 7 The remaining unfinished business of the Committee was postponed until the next regular meeting with a request that the Housing Authority be prepared to submit status reports on all items. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: <2W(irman 0 jp 0 _________ ,.,.,._ Respectfully submitted, f ~oanne Parks, Secretary � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document am oy 4 Si fe Some z in} Y << Lu Oi: as = —_ Oo © O ao February |7, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, February |7, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following Members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne George Cotsakis Hugh Pierce Gregory Griggs Absent: John Flanigen Frank Etheridge Also present were: M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority. Howard Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atlanta Housing Authority. . Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta. George Berry, Comptroller's Office. Robert L. Sommerville, Atlanta Transit Company. Representatives of various City departments were present; also, several representatives of Georgia State College were present, i.e., Dean William Suttles; Andrew Steiner; V. V. Lavroff and Jesse Draper, Member of the Board of Regents. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: Public Hearing on one block amendment to Georgia State Urban Redevelopment Plan, said block being immediately north of the Atlanta Police Station and bounded on the north by Gilmer Street, on the east by Butler Street, on the south by Decatur Street and the west by Piedmont Avenue. Mr. Howard Openshaw gave the following pertinent information relative to this amendment: The original Urban Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the Board of Aldermen on March 19, 1962. Notice of today's public hearing was advertised in The Atlanta Constitution on February 3 and February 10 in accordance with Federal regulations. The plan consists of a ten page narrative and two maps, indicating the project boundary, properties to be acquired and proposed land use. All| urban redevelopment activities have been completed in the original project area - acquisition, relocation, demolition, and disposal of land to the Board of Regents. The proposed addition involves a total of 6.6 acres, comprising |3 properties which are proposed X Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February |7, 1967 Page 2 for acquisition. The properties will be appraised by two competent appraisers and every effort made to acquire the property through negotiation but if necessary, the property will be acquired through the power of eminent domain. All fifteen existing structures will be demolished. There are no families to be relocated. Relocation assistance will be made available to the existing thirteen businesses in the area. An information statement describing the financial assistance available was distributed to the business concerns on February 10. The actual moving expense for any one business concern to be paid by the Federal Government cannot exceed $25,000; under certain conditions a small business displacement payment may also be available. The area to be added is presently zoned M-lI and no change in zoning is proposed, however, certain controls will be placed on the land restricting its use to college and college-related uses; 4.5 net acres will be sold to the Board of Regents for redevelopment in accordance with the Comprehensive Master Campus Plan. The amendment will increase the net project cost $1,147,072. The local share, one-third of the net project cost, will be provided by the Board of Regents. The City of Atlanta will provide an estimated $77,647 for street, sidewalk, sewer and traffic improvements. Dr. Suttles briefly explained how this additional block would fit into Georgia State's Comprehensive Campus Master Plan. : Andrew Steiner, Georgia State Consultant, briefly explained the composition of the proposed buildings and using perspective maps, gave a visual concept of this proposal as related to the entire Plan, In response to an expression of concern by Mr. Cotsakis that the overall Plan should be approved prior to the piece-meal addition of a single block, and that some members of the Board of Aldermen were not familiar with the Georgia State Campus Plan, Mr. Cook explained that this was the reason the Policy Committee requested the Master Campus Plan. He commented further that he felt Georgia State had progressed far enough to indicate that any additions would follow the guidelines as set forth in their Master Plan. Chairman Cook was requested to alert the Board of Aldermen about the Plan as a matter of communication (at their next meeting of February 20, 1967) and ask them to review the copy which had been forwarded to them. Mr. Gladin noted that there was considerable private development activities within the Central Business District and that he felt it is in order that this Committee and other Aldermanic Committees recognize and support the need for the development of a Central Downtown Plan, designed to coordinate and relate all these various activities. He cited several examples of both public and private planning being done on a spot basis, such as the Nasher property, Portman's Peachtree Center, Georgia Plaza and rapid transit. Mr. Cook then read into the record two communiques. One from Alderman Cecil Turner endorsing the Georgia State Campus Plan, stating he hoped it would be approved and — Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February |7, 1967 Page 3 sent to the Board of Aldermen on February 20, 1967; a second from the Atlanta Civic Design Commission, stating "it is the consensus of opinion of members present at the February 9 meeting that the Atlanta Civic Design Commission strongly endorses, on the Georgia State College Master Plan, the concept of the Plaza system, which includes the separation of vehicles from pedestrian traffic by different levels". No one from the public appeared to be heard, and upon motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Cotsakis and unanimous vote, the one block amendment to the Georgia State Redevelopment Plan was approved. RREKKEKEREREEKRE Ebenezer Church - Proposed Expansion. Mr. Openshaw pointed out, on an accompanying map, the existing property of the Church on Auburn Avenue and stated that the property in question lies adjacent thereto to the east; that he understands from the Church members the City Building Inspector has required them to remove a back portion of their building to allow for a fire escape and this eliminates a great deal of their parking; that this request is to purchase an additional 150 feet along Auburn Avenue, extending through to Jackson Place, to be used for church parking. He exhibited a second map illustrating the property on a larger scale. The Committee noted that this property and the adjoining properties extending to the intersection of Auburn Avenue and Boulevard were designated for commercial use and the ensuing discussion centered around the existence of a liquor store situated on the southwest corner of the intersection and whether or not this owner's rights would be abridged by extending the Church property 150 feet, thereby placing his business in such a proximity to the Church so as to prohibit him from ever selling his business under the State statute relative to required distances from Churches for such uses. Alderman Pierce felt the liquor store owner's rights should prevail should he decide to sell his business since it existed prior to this request. Mr. Cook was of the opinion, and the other committee members generally agreed, that the question of the store owner's rights is immaterial in considering the merits of allowing the Church to expand and that the remedy to his problem, if and when it arose, would lie elsewhere, perhaps within the courts. Mr. Sterne raised a question as to how the commercial development of the remaining properties might be affected by the use of this 150 feet for church purposes. ) Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 4 Mr. Satterfield stated it was his opinion the remaining |.63 acres would be just as saleable, if not more so, than if it were a part of the whole parcel. In response to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Openshaw stated the Butler Street Project originated in 1959. A brief discussion then ensued about the type of problems prohibiting consumation of the project. Mr. Openshaw explained there have been no expressions of interest in the remaining properties to date and it has not been previously advertised, but preparations are being made to offer the property for sale. Mr. Persells explained that because there had always been a demand for property in the Butler Street Project, the general policy pursued by the Housing Authority had been to advertise the property after there had been a specific expression of interest in a particular piece of property so there would be competition; that the project had now reached the stage of a few remaining "tag ends" and the Authority is working on a general proposal to place these on the market. Chairman Cook concurred, stating he would like to see a concentrated effort to complete this project. ; The Committee then unanimously approved the Church expansion as requested. KREKKEKKKEEKERERE Rockdale Urban Renewal Project - Fulton County Property. Mr. Openshaw pointed out, on an accompanying map, the property owned by Fulton County, lying generally to the east of Grove Park Place, and he stated that he would like some direction from this Committee as to how to acquire the County's interest and a clear title to this property. He explained that another individual is claiming an interest in the lots, therefore clouding the title and prohibiting clear acquisition of it; that Mr. Sheats is willing to give a quit-claim deed for the County's interest at the approved price of $7,300. However, Mr. Persells explained the County is not willing to take the necessary steps to clear the title because of the cost involved and that the Federal Government will not participate as it would be an ineligible cost. After other discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the Housing Authority should take this matter up with the County Commissioners with a minimum of delay and that Chairman Cook would furnish the Housing Authority with a supporting letter in behalf of the Policy Committee, urging the Commissioners to undertake to resolve this problem as soon as possible, RHEKEKRKREKERERERE i) Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February |7, 1967 Page 5 With further reference to the Rockdale Project, there was a brief discussion as to FHA policy relative to allocation of units within the Area, The Housing Authority maintained their previous position on the matter - that the initial allocation of 150 units for the first project was impractical (see minutes of November 18, 1966, Page 4) but Mr. Satterfield, in response to questioning by the Committee, stated that he had not received any indication on the part of an proposer that they were withdrawing from the competition because of the restrictions being imposed by FHA, but they have voiced some objections. Mr. Persells stated he understood the Mayor's Housing Resources Committee is going to urge FHA to increase the allocation of units and he felt it would not be amiss for this Committee to direct a letter to FHA suggesting that every consideration be given to a larger allocation of units. It was the unanimous decision of the Committee that Chairman Cook would direct such letter to FHA. RREKKEKRKEKRKEKKEKRE Rawson-Washington Urban Renewal Project - Industrial land adjacent to public housing. Mr. Openshaw pointed out on a map of the project area Parcel N=3, owned by Swift and Company and the adjoining small parcel (B-4) being offered for sale by the Housing Authority. Parcel N-3 is presently occupied by a small office building for Swift and a hydrogen gas tank; parcel B-4 is vacant. Both tracts are zoned M=2 and lie adjacent to proposed public housing. Mr. Openshaw explained that a bid ($6,300) has been submitted on Parcel B-4 and the proposal is for a motorcycle repair shop by Atlanta Motorcycle Sales; that he would like an expression of the Committee's feelings about this proposal. He commented further he also discussed with Swift their plans for their property but was advised that he would have to write the company in Chicago. Mr. Sterne commented that the Hous ing Authority's Board of Commissioners was strongly opposed to it, feeling it would not be desirable to place such a use in the midst of public housing where it is presumed there will be a concentration of children. Messrs. Satterfield and Persells stated that it may well be the Housing Authority would want to acquire both tracts and include them in the project in the future, but in the © Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 6 interim, they did not feel the use of the property for a motorcycle repair shop would be conducive to the surrounding neighborhood. The Committee unanimously denied the bid and requested that the Housing Authority determine from Swift (by writing the Chicago headquarters) their future proposal for Parcel N=-3. KREREKKEREREREE The Committee then considered the following unfinished business: Citizens Trust Property, Parcel A-5, Butler Street Project. Mr. Openshaw was requested to report at the next meeting whether or not a building permit had been obtained by Citizens Trust. Status of request for up-to-date appraisal from Walt Sullivan on cost of moving public housing building from Hilliard Street. The latest appraisal from Mr. Sullivan, obtained by George Berry of the Comptroller's Office, was in the amount of $62,000. The Policy Committee felt this was entirely out of the question and agreed that the Housing Authority would pursue the idea of placing public housing on the property. Motel proposal, Parcel D-9, Rawson-Washington Project. Mr. Persells stated the proponents are continuing to pursue this matter; that they requested and was granted an extension of time by paying an additional earnest fee in excess of $50,000, which will not be refunded should the project not materialize. Block 27, West End Boys' Club, Inc. Requests plan change to designate parcels | thru 8 "To Be Acquired", and re=classify Block 27 for institutional use. (A-I zoning district). Deferred from January 13, 1967 meeting. The Committee unanimously approved this plan change, subject to verification by Ken Byers, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for West End. Status of study of traffic problems around auditorium complex. Mr. Gladin stated the City has acquired land on Forrest Avenue and is ready to begin the street widening. : Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 7 The remaining unfinished business of the Committee was postponed until the next regular meeting with a request that the Housing Authority be prepared to submit status reports on all items. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: Respectfully submitted, >< same. ‘Dil eo Rodn ook, Chairman UV Joanne Parks, Secretary JP  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 12 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/a2b37119220c4a96473c08a4a9d3af8e.pdf a0eaf37a7bb8fc4ebabc37584ca6ad9a Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. April 21 , 196 7 A reg ular mee ting o f the Urban Re newa l Policy Committee was he ld on Frid ay , April 21, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room # 2, Second Floor, City Hall, The f ollowing membe rs we r e pr es ent: Ro dney Cook , Chairman Edwi n Sterne Gr ego r y Gri gg s Geo rg e Cotsakis Frank Etheridge Absent: Hugh Pi erc e John F lanigen Also p resent were: George Aldridge J im Kl u t t z George Berr y John I zard Hugh Pe ter son Robert Somme rville Howard Open shaw Colli er Gl adin Le s Perse lls Bob Biv ens The Chairman c a ll ed the meet ing to o r der and the following bus iness wa s considered : Mr . Gla din introdu ced t o the Committee and other s pres ent , Mr . J immy Kl utt z , a new additio n to the City' s planning s taff. He stated that Mr . Klu t tz comes to the City hi ghly rec ommended with impressive qu ali fi c a t i ons; that he has several yea r s e xperience in the housing f i eld and will serv e as the City's coo rdinat o r of urba n renewal. In b eha l f of t he Committee, Cha irma n Cook re cognized and welcomed Mr . Kluttz, s tating t hey look f o r ward t o working with him. Submis s ion of Re v ised Applicat io n t o Combi ne the Bu t t ermi l k Bottoms and Bedford Pine Pro ject Area. Mr, Persells exh i bited a comb ined map of the two e xi s ting project areas and stated that at the time this was initi ally discussed with the re newal assi s tance administrati on , the Hou s ing Authority was advised that the neces s ary right-of-way f o r the wi dening of Bedford Place could be dedicated to the City and that the City could proceed , --- �~~ nutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 2 with the widening project, however, when Part I of the Buttermilk Bottoms Application was presented for their review and approval, a change of policy at the Federal level was made, necessitating that the City purchase the right-of-way for the street widening, which will require a cash outlay of a quarter of a million dollars. Mr. Persells stated further that inasmuch as the City is not in a position to make this cash outlay, the only solution to the problem s e ems to be to combine the two projects. He then cited the advantages to such a combination: First, the proximity of the projects to each other dictate a tying together of the street alignments; since there is a change in street grades as much as 20 feet at some points, considerable regrading of the street system will be required. Secondly, there is a Federal restriction on relocating people outside o f a project proper, and combination of the two projects would permit the temporary on-site relocation of people from one project to the other. Thirdly, if the projects aren't combined, the City stands to lose approximately $125,000 in credits for the widening of Bedford. Mr. Openshaw explained the existing project boundary line is on the east side of Bedford; the City is i mmedia tely widening on the west side of Bedf ord to 3 lanes ( a ll within the Buttermilk Bottoms project) and this being the boundary line , only 50 percent credit will be , 'eligible, both in the cost of the right-of-way and street improvements, unless the projects are combined so as to include the east side of Bedford, making it an interior street; this would then per mit a 100 percent credit f or t he widening that the City had hoped ~o rece ive . Mr . Pers el ls sta t ed als o the coor di nation , a cqui sition , demol ition and reloca tion wil l be much simpl er a s a sin-. gle pr o jec t , r ather than two. Dur ing ensuing discussion, Mr . Cook expres s ed concern about the a dditiona l del ay in acquisition of propert ies i n t he Bu ttermilk Bottoms projec t since the people in this area have been t old it would begin within t he next six week s. The Commi ttee was a l s o doub t f ul tha t i t woul d involve jus t a six months de lay, and Mr . Cook f urther expr essed parti cular concern about known har ds hip cases al ong Forres t Avenue . Mr . Persells explained that he did not believe there would be t hat much delay i n the pr oj e c ts actually ; that as s oon as the Survey and Planning App l i cati on i s submitted t o combine the proj e c ts, t he Housing Au thority can immedi ately proceed with preparation of Part I of the app l ication and would expect t o have it r e ady by the time the Survey and Pl anning Application is approved; that since about 60% of the Buttermilk Bottoms project has been acquired under the Letter of Consent method the Authority has agreed that it would not make any such additional request after the Federal people h ad called to their attention that you cannot execu te a ~roject under the guise of Letters of Consent. However, in order to facilitate a cquisition of hardship cases, Mr. Persells stated Mr. Davis (City Comptroller) has agreed to make available up to $250,000 to purchase bona f ide hardship cases in the 40% balance of the project; that based on a preli minary survey of the types of hardship cases existing and �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 196 7 Page 3 potential numbers, it is felt this amount will take care of the situation during the additional delay involved in submitting the revised Survey and Planning Application. In addition to this, Mr. Persells stated the Authority also proposes to request an amendment to the last Letter of Consent to include the acquisition of three pieces of property at the corner of Piedmont and Forrest which are among the priority hardship cases; that the advance acquisition of these three tracts will solidify the area and facilitate development of the entrance to the auditorium. In response to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Persells stated that through two bond issues, three and one quarter million dollars in urban renewal funds have been allocated, most of which are committed; that present estimates indicate when all credits in all of the urban renewal areas the City now has are pooled, the City's total cash requirement (the actual cash amount the City will have in the projects)' will be about $900,000. It was mentioned that this figure was dependent upon all of the non-cash credits currently scheduled in the projects being built. Mr. Somme rville felt any delays which are not absolutely necQssary should be avoided. He stated delays of this sort imperil the entire urban renewal process and creates an attitude of bitterness toward the City on the part of people living in these areas. After other discussion, it was the general consensus of the Committee that combining of the two projects would be desirable and beneficial t o the City if the matter of acquisition of hardship cases could be assured, In answer to questioning by Chairman Cook, George Berry of the Comptroller's Office stated he felt additional funds, beyond the $250,000, could be provided, within reason, for bona fide hardship cases. A motion wa s t hen made by Mr. Griggs and seconded by Mr, Et heridge tha t t he Commi ttee approve t he combining of the two projects and accept t he lo an of $250,000 from the City to permit advance acquisition of p r op e r t ies de t e rmined to be hardship cases. Messrs. Sterne and Sommerville rel uctan tl y concurred with the motion. There was then a l engthy di scus s i on relative t o the t h ir t een acre s of property l y ing withi n the University Center Proje c t which the Policy Committee had allocated f o r 221-D-3 housing. (See Mi nutes o f March 4, 1966, Pages 2 & 3). This entire area, inclqding the ten acres awarded . to the colleges, was originall y scheduled for 221-D-3 housing, with the ten acres being excluded for college utilization. Mr, Persells stated the thirteen acres was offered for sale on April 12 and that he would like to discuss a �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 4 0 schedule of dates for presentations by the proposed developers - seven at the present time. He explained that in an amendment to the offering, each proposer has been advised he will be given an opportunity to be heard for thirty minutes, with an additional thirty minutes for questions and answers; that it might be advisable to divide the proposals and hear them on two successive days; that he would like to arrange these meetings so that as many members of the committee as possible could attend. In addition to the oral presentations, Mr. Persells stated he hoped to have available, prior to the hearings, written comments on each proposal, highlighting points of interest. Chairman Cook then stated he was greatly disturbed about the offering price of this property ($74,000) stating he felt it was entirely too low a nd unreasonable; that while a specific write-down figure was never mentioned in the discussion of this property for 221-D-3 housing, . the Committee anticipated the property would be sold at a reduced cost for this type development, but not for $74,000 which amounts to about $5,000 an acre. I \. Mr. Cook stated he felt this type of question was a real policy decision matter and the offering at this price should have been b~ought back to the Corrnnittee, Mr. Openshaw stated the Authority appraised the property on the basis of 221-D-3 housing, which they were instructed to do. Mr . Cook ag reed with this, but reiterated no specific write-down figure was mentioned and the Committee had no idea it would be so low; that he did not want to get into this situation again. Mr. Etheridge stated the Housing Authority's Board of Commi ssioners had approved the offering on the assumption that proper steps had been taken; that he, quite frankly, was surpri sed at the low appraisal. It was pointed out that thi s area has been designated for low-cost housing from t he beginning o f the project and it was recognized that this would result in a below market price. The only action taken by the Committee was t o exclude the ten acres for the Universities, resulting in a substantial increase t o the City. After other discussion, it was felt by eve ryone, however, that renewed emphasis should be placed on communication between the Policy Committee and the Authority in such matters and that in the f utu re , they would be brought back to the Committee. Also, Mr . Persells was asked to continue to study the situation at hand so see what steps could be taken to get a higher appraisal of the land without jeopardizing t he steps already taken. The Committee then expressed delight at a nd after a discussion of various dates was unanimously agreed as follows: The P. M. to hear 4 of the 7 proposals; and remaining three. the submission of multiple proposals for presentations by the developers, it Committee would meet on May 9 at 4:00 on May 10 at 9:00 A. M. to hearing the �r w <J) <( w Q_ a:5 0~ 0 0 ro Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee Ap ril 21, 1967 Page 5 Following a brief discussion, the Committee unanimously concurred _ that the Housing Authority would proceed with the selling of properties (prior to actual acquisition by the Housing Authority) between Oak and Gordon Street s, east of Sear s, designated for shopping center development in t he reuse plans. Mr . Persells explained the Authority could sell the properties prior to acquisition, although they could not convey the title. As a ma tt e r of information, Mr . Persells exp lained that Parcels C-1 , 3 and 4 of the Raws on-Washingto n Urban Redevelopment Area had been offered for 22 1-D- 3 development. The area is comprised of 7.6 acres , and wil l permit a maximum of 152 units. The property lies near the Sta t e office building complex , a cro ss from Cap itol Homes, right on Interstate 20 at the on and off ramps a nd has frontage on both Rawson and Logan Streets. Mr . Persells stated the prop osals will be op ened at the Housing Authori ty on May 1, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. He presented each Committee memb er with a copy o f the brochure prepared for the offering. w . (/) <.{ w Q.. ~ ~ ) u::: 0 0 ca The Committee discussed a request by the GeorgiQ Hospital Association, Inc . for a change in the preliminary plans submit.ted by them in conne ction with a proposal to purchase Parcel D-lOb in the Butler Street Urban Redevelopment Area . Mr . Perse lls stated the proposal of the Hospital Ass oc iation has bee n a ccepted but the agreement f or disposition of the land has not b een consummated; that the As sociation has now requested permission to reduce the size o f the proposed building to two stories (3 were originally proposed with first f loor parking ) with parking space provid ed outside o f the building, rather than undernea t h as indicated orig inally; a lso, · this would reduce the estimated c o s t of construction from $235,000.00 to approximately $140,000 . 00. He _f urther stated no other proposal to buy a nd r e dev e lop this property h~d been received. The Committee unanimously rejected the Hos p ital Association's substantial decrease in their improvements, but asked that Mr . Persell s write them and give them the option o f s ubmitting plan s substantially in conformance with their ori ginal proposa l, or provide the Committee with sufficient si te elevat ions and details as to how the amended proposal would enhance the surrounding neighborhood. b rief presentation was made on the four proposals for development of the Rockdale Urban Redevelopment Area . Mr. Persells commented that the financial solvency o f each developer and their ability to carry out A �r ...r .. I Page 6 ' ,. I Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 .. '. I•" their proposal had been verified by a special department of the Trust Company of Georgia. l, . r- , I I It was unanimously decided that a special meeting would be held Tuesday, April . 25, at 4:00 P. M. to discuss these four proposals, and that the Housing Authority's Board of Connnissioners would be invited to attend. (See Minutes of April 25, 1967). ~ I I r Parcel D-19 - Rawson-Washington Urban Renewal Project. Mr. Persells gave the status of this property as being the same as reported at the meeting of February 17, 1967. (See Minutes, page 6). i r. Butler Street Project Area - Mr. Persells reported that all remaining properties within this area will be advertised within the next three to four weeks. The Policy Committee again expressed the hope that this project would be finalized as quickly as possible and requested the Authority to contact the Board of Education and advise them of this and get some firm commitment on the Butler Street School. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Approved : ( Respectfully submitted, \ I Rodney ' ciJ efhairmn i � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document April 21, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, April 21, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman Edwin Sterne Gregory Griggs George Cotsakis Frank Etheridge Absent: Hugh Pierce John Flanigen Also present were: George Aldridge ‘ Jim Kluttz George Berry John Izard Hugh Peterson Robert Sommerville Howard Openshaw Collier Gladin Les Persells Bob Bivens The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: Mr. Gladin introduced to the Committee and others present, Mr. Jimmy Kluttz, a new addition to the City's planning staff. He stated that Mr. Kluttz comes to the City highly recommended with impressive qualifications; that he has several years experience in the housing field and will serve as the City's coordinator of urban renewal. In behalf of the Committee, Chairman Cook recognized and welcomed Mr. Kluttz, stating they look forward to working with him, KRRREKEERER Submission of Revised Application to Combine the Buttermilk Bottoms and Bedford Pine Project Area, Mr. Persells exhibited a combined map of the two existing project areas and stated that at the time this was initially discussed with the renewal assistance administration, the Housing Authority was advised that the necessary right-of-way for the widening of Bedford Place could be dedicated to the City and that the City could proceed Ta neat Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 2 with the widening project, however, when Part I of the Buttermilk Bottoms Application was presented for their review and approval, a change of policy at the Federal level was made, necessitating that the City purchase the right-of-way for the street widening, which will require a cash outlay of a quarter of a million dollars. Mr. Persells stated further that inasmuch as the City is not in a posi-= tion to make this cash outlay, the only solution to the problem seems to be to combine the two projects. He then cited the advan- tages to such a combination: First, the proximity of the projects to each other dictate a tying together of the street alignments; since there is a change in street grades as much as 20 feet at some points, considerable regrading of the street system will be required. Secondly, there is a Federal restriction on relocating people outside of a project proper, and combination of the two projects would per- mit the temporary on-site relocation of people from one project to the other. Thirdly, if the projects aren't combined, the City stands to lose approximately $125,000 in credits for the widening of Bedford. Mr. Openshaw explained the existing project boundary line is on the east side of Bedford; the City is immediately widening on the west side of Bedford to 3 lanes (all within the Buttermilk Bottoms project) and this being the boundary line, only 50 percent credit will be , eligible, both in the cost of the right-of-way and street improve- ments, unless the projects are combined so as to include the east side of Bedford, making it an interior street; this would then permit a 100 percent credit for the widening that the City had hoped to receive. Mr. Persells stated also the coordination, ac- quisition, demolition and relocation will be much simpler as a sine. gle project, rather than two. During ensuing discussion, Mr. Cook expressed concern about the additional delay in acquisition of proper-= ties in the Buttermilk Bottoms project since the people in this area have been told it would begin within the next six weeks. The Committee was also doubtful that it would involve just a six months delay, and Mr. Cook further expressed particular concern about known hardship cases along Forrest Avenue. Mr. Persells explained that he did not believe there would be that much delay in the projects actually; that as soon as the Survey and Planning Application is submitted to com- bine the projects, the Housing Authority can immediately proceed with preparation of Part I of the application and would expect to have it ready by the time the Survey and Planning Application is approved; that since about 60% of the Buttermilk Bottoms project has been acquired under the Letter of Consent method the Authority has agreed that it would not make any such additional request after the Federal people had called to their attention that you cannot execute a project under the guise of Letters of Consent. However, in order to facilitate acquisition of hardship cases, Mr. Persells stated Mr. Davis (City Comptroller) has agreed to make available up to $250,000 to purchase bona fide hardship cases in the 40% balance of the project; that based on a preliminary survey of the types of hardship cases existing and  Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 3 potential numbers, it is felt this amount will take care of the situation during the additional delay involved in submitting the revised Survey and Planning Application. In addition to this, Mr. Persells stated the Authority also proposes to request an amend- ment to the last Letter of Consent to include the acquisition of three pieces of property at the corner of Piedmont and Forrest which are among the priority hardship cases; that the advance acquisition of these three tracts will solidify the area and facilitate development of the entrance to the auditorium, In response to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Persells stated that through two bond issues, three and one quarter million dollars in urban renewal funds have been allocated, most of which are committed; that present estimates indicate when all credits in all of the urban renewal areas the City now has are pooled, the City's total cash requirement (the actual cash amount the City will have in the projects) will be about $900,000. It was mentioned that this figure was dependent upon all of the non-cash credits currently scheduled in the projects being built. Mr. Sommerville felt any delays which are not absolutely necessary should be avoided, He stated delays of this sort imperil the entire urban renewal process and creates an attitude of bitterness toward the City on the part of people living in these areas. After other discussion, it was the general consensus of the Committee that combining of the two projects would be desirable and beneficial to the City if the matter of acquisition of hardship cases could be assured, In answer to questioning by Chairman Cook, George Berry of the Comptroller's Office stated he felt additional funds, beyond the $250,000, could be provided, within reason, for bona fide hardship cases. A motion was then made by Mr. Griggs and seconded by Mr. Etheridge that the Committee approve the combining of the two projects and accept the loan of $250,000 from the City to permit advance acquisition of properties determined to be hardship cases. Messrs. Sterne and Sommerville reluctantly concurred with the motion. RERIKEKREKRKKRKKEKE There was then a lengthy discussion relative to the thirteen acres of property lying within the University Center Project which the Policy Committee had allocated for 221-D-3 housing, (See Minutes of March 4, 1966, Pages 2 & 3). This entire area, including the ten acres awarded to the colleges, was originally scheduled for 221-D-3 housing, with the ten acres being excluded for college utilization. Mr. Persells stated the thirteen acres was offered for sale on April 12 and that he would like to discuss a Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 4 schedule of dates for presentations by the proposed developers - seven at the present time. He explained that in an amendment to the offering, each proposer has been advised he will be given an opportunity to be heard for thirty minutes, with an additional thirty minutes for questions and answers; that it might be advisable to divide the proposals and hear them on two successive days; that he would like to arrange these meetings so that as many members of the committee as possible could attend. In addition to the oral presentations, Mr. Persells stated he hoped to have available, prior to the hearings, written comments on each proposal, highlighting points of interest. Chairman Cook then stated he was greatly disturbed about the offering price of this property ($74,000) stating he felt it was entirely too low and unreasonable; that while a specific write-down figure was never mentioned in the discussion of this property for 221-D-3 housing, the Committee anticipated the property would be sold at a reduced cost for this type development, but not for $74,000 which amounts to about $5,000 an acre, Mr. Cook stated he felt this type of question was a real policy decision matter and the offering at this price should have been brought back to the Committee, Mr. Openshaw stated the Authority appraised the property on the basis of 221-D-3 housing, which they were instructed to do, Mr. Cook agreed with this, but reiterated no specific write-down figure was mentioned and the Committee had no idea it would be so low; that he did not want to get into this situation again. Mr. Etheridge stated the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners had approved the offering on the assumption that proper steps had been taken; that he, quite frankly, was surprised at the low appraisal. It was pointed out that this area has been designated for low-cost housing from the beginning of the project and it was recognized that this would result in a below market price. The only action taken by the Committee was to exclude the ten acres for the Universities, resulting in a substantial increase to the City. After other discussion, it was felt by everyone, however, that renewed emphasis should be placed on communication between the Policy Committee and the Authority in such matters and that in the future, they would be brought back to the Committee. Also, Mr. Persells was asked to continue to study the situation at hand so see what steps could be taken to get a higher appraisal of the land without jeopardizing the steps already taken. The Committee then expressed delight at the submission of multiple proposals and after a discussion of various dates for presentations by the developers, it was unanimously agreed as follows: The Committee would meet on May 9 at 4:00 P. M. to hear 4 of the 7 proposals; and on May 10 at 9:00 A. M. to hearing the remaining three, RERERRRREREEEER  O BOORUM & PEASE ° =, F277 ®) a [Ste BOORUM & PEASE “Noi —_— Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 5 Following a brief discussion, the Committee unanimously concurred | that the Housing Authority would proceed with the selling of proper- ties (prior to actual acquisition by the Housing Authority) between Oak and Gordon Streets, east of Sears, designated for shopping center development in the reuse plans. Mr. Persells explained the Authority could sell the properties prior to acquisition, although they could not convey the title. Tiewkiccikk As a matter of information, Mr. Persells explained that Parcels C-1, 3 and 4 of the Rawson-Washington Urban Redevelopment Area had been offered for 221-D-3 development, The area is comprised of 7.6 acres, and will permit a maximum of 152 units. The property lies near the State office building complex, across from Capitol Homes, right on Interstate 20 at the on and off ramps and has frontage on both Rawson and Logan Streets. Mr, Persells stated the proposals will be opened at the Housing Authority on May 1, 1967 at 10:00 A. M, He presented each Committee member with a copy of the brochure prepared for the offering. RRA EE The Committee discussed a request by the Georgia Hospital Association, Inc. for a change in the preliminary plans submitted by them in connection with a proposal to purchase Parcel D-10b in the Butler Street Urban Redevelopment Area. Mr. Persells stated the proposal of the Hospital Association has been accepted but the agreement for disposition of the land has not been consummated; that the Association has now requested permission to reduce the size of the proposed building to two stories (3 were originally proposed with first floor parking) with parking space provided outside of the building, rather than under- neath as indicated originally; also, this would reduce the estimated cost of construction from $235,000.00 to approximately $140,000.00. He further stated no other proposal to buy and redevelop this property had been received. The Committee unanimously rejected the Hospital Association's substantial decrease in their improvements, but asked that Mr. Persells write them and give them the option of submitting plans substantially in conformance with their original proposal, or provide the Committee with sufficient site elevations and details as to how the amended proposal would enhance . the surrounding neighborhood, kikkiikkik A brief presentation was made on the four proposals for development of the Rockdale Urban Redevelopment Area. Mr. Persells commented that the financial solvency of each developer and their ability to carry out 4 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 6 their proposal had been verified by a special department of the Trust Company of Georgia. It was unanimously decided that a special meeting would be held Tuesday, April.25, at 4:00 P. M. to discuss these four proposals, and that the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners would be invited to attend. (See Minutes of April 25, 1967). FIKRTKKRTAKIRERER Parcel D-19 = Rawson-Washington Urban Renewal Project. Mr. Persells gave the status of this property as being the same as reported at the meeting of February 17, 1967. (See Minutes, page 6). KRKEEKEREREEREER Butler Street Project Area - Mr. Persells reported that all remaining properties within this area will be advertised within the next three to four weeks. The Policy Committee again expressed the hope that this project would be finalized as quickly as possible and requested the Authority to contact the Board of Education and advise them of this and get O ' some firm commitment on the Butler Street School. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: Respectfully submitted, ¢ Ayh.) fA 2 a E CIPLIDL LS (KAA Joanne Parks, Secretary  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 11 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/d5118653e0dd8837a896a69b499ef4b7.pdf 6750066f6a2e692f8bd33e9dce8c4c2b Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. JJ . 1~ 2 called meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee wos h::~n :~e::::, April 25, 1967, at 4:00 P.M., at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt Bui ldin g. Al I members were present as fol lows: Mr . Mr. Mr. Mr . Mr . Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne Hugh Pierce E. Gregory Griggs John M. Flanigen George Cotsakis Fra nk Etheridge Also pre se nt were : L!J .,.., V. <( w Q.. ,.:.j 0 0 f') Mr . Collier B. Gladin, Plan n ing Direc tor, C ity of At lanta Mr . M . B. Satterfield, Executive Direc tor, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr . Howard O penshaw, Ch ief , Planning- Engineering Department, At lanta Housin g Au th o r ity Mr. Hugh Pe terson, King and Spalding, Attorneys Mr. Les Persel Is, Dire c tor of Redevelopm e nt , At lanta Housing Au th o rity Mr. John Hopkins, Atlanta Housing Au tho rity Th e Chairman cal led the meeting to order and th e fo l lowing business was co nsidered : N o te : For th e pur poses of these minu te s and in o rd er to mai ntain clari ty a nd correlat ion of fa c ts, eac h proposa l is w r itten as a s ing le e ntity. How e ve r , al I four pro posals we re jo intl y discusse d, weig h ing th e meri ts of each a ga inst th e o ther. At rhe ou tset o f the meet in g , each com mittee membe r was pre sented with the foll owing materi al : An individua l apprai sal of the fou r Roc kda le proposal s by: Ro bert L. Sommerv i lle; G rac e Ha mi lto n; T. M . A lexa nder and A. B. Padgett , a ll members of the C it ize n' s Ad visory Commi ttee for Urba n Re newal; a re vi ewer 's ra ting shee t of the redevel opme nt pro posa ls , prepared by the At lanta Ho using Au th o rity . Included in th is appra isa l shee t were ratings by the At lan ta Hou sing Auth ority , the Atlan ta Planning Departm en t , the Ameri c an Insti tu te of Plan ners , th e Mayor 's Committee on Housing Resource s and the Ci tizen's Ad v iso ry Commi t tee for Urban Renewa l. These ratings were o n the bas is of fr om 1 to 4 poi nts, 1 being the most de sira bl e for the de velopm en'" a nd 4 the least. Mr. Persel Is stated the Housing Au th ori ty would prefer to tak e the position meeting o f o nl y answering questions and making c larifi cations . t '"hi s It was agreed that the following format w ould be f?llowed: The committee would evaluate �r··. - I ! Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Commi ttee Apr i I 25, 1967 Page 2 the aspec ts of each proposal, pro and con , and by th e proc ess of e limi nati on , based o n the merits of design criteria, narrow the consi derati on to the two top proposa ls o fferi ng the grea test possibi Iity for development for the objectives wh ich Ro c kdale shou Id seek to serve . The proposal by Marv in Warner was discussed at length. During this d iscussion, the comm ittee exa mined closely a rchi te c tural si te plans and pe rspec t iv es presented by the proposer a nd made t.he fol lowing observations and comments - A summarization of these o bservations, Iisted be low , led to the subsequent disqualification of th is proposal from consideration: Flood probl ems and the apparen t placing of some buildings wi th in the fl ood pl ai n . Severe grad ing problems and building co nstruc tion because of th e tremendous variation in grades . Dou btfu I that the si te cou Id be graded to comp ly wi th the site plans presented . The land would have to be tailored to the building arrangeme nt, as opposed to the buil ding to the land. The severe grad ing would destroy all trees. The entire site is covered with buildings, som e to within 25 feet of the property line . A commendab le feature of the plan was the coopera t ive housing approac h (76% co-o p) wh ich wou Id provide for eventual purchase of the uni ts by the resident. The proposal by Chruc krow Construction Company was then conside red , with the following observations and comments - again, a summarization o f these observa tions, I isted below, led to th e disq ualification of th is proposal from considerat ion: Proposal embraces the 11 villa·ge 11 concept , which is desirab le in princ.iple. The vehicu lar street pattern (circular dr ives) was designed in su c h a way that. i ' separated e ach 11 vil lage 11 and actually cu t off pedestrian traffic from one vi I Iage to another . The plans proposed do not fit the topography of the property, and the land would have to be conformed to the bui ldings. The develo pment wou Id be difficult to achieve without costly, extensiv e gn;1ding which wou Id create problems. �Minutes Urban Renewa l Pol icy Committee Apr i I 25, 1967 Page 3 There is reasona ble doubt tha t the si te could even be grade d to con form to the plan because o f so many un kn owns , such as rock deposits , e tc. Only one smal I recreation bui Iding is proposed in the entire developmen t . The developer states that und er 221 (d)(3) developments, swimming pools are not feasible. The archi tectural rend er ings g ive a concept of flatness, with no di ffer ence in grades. A desirabl e fe atu re of the plan was the f lexibili ty of uni ts and varia t ion in des ign . It was the opi ni on of the Policy Committee th a t th e pro posa ls by The Douglas-Arlen G roup and David L. Rose n were the better of the four proposa ls. The se two proposals were co nsidered in terms of advantages and disadvantages and va rious site plans, fl oor elevatio ns , etc. , were examined through ou t the discussion. Douglas- Arlen Pro posal Adva ntages: Proposal embra ces the 11 village 11 or 11 clus ter 11 a rrangement o f buildings . The build ings conform to the site, ra th er than the site being con formed to th e build ings. More community fa ci lities are proposed tha n i~ any of the oth er de vel opmen ts. Appropro to all o f the pro posals , the com munity fa c ilities th a t are o therwise available in th is area were then poin ted out, th e se being a pro posed Ci ty park fa ci lity , ex is ting and proposed elementary sch oo l , the Gun Club Park and the existing health ce nter, which are to serve the proposed 1500 uni ts . It was noted tha t a swimming pool cou ld be pl aced within the Ci ty park fa ci lity if it was not provided elsewhere in the development . Devel opment provides for convenien t access fr om one part of the project t o an other . Ha s local sponsor. �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 25, 1967 Page 4 Provides for church sites as cal led for by th e p lan. It was po inted out that the developer has sta ted he wo uld not be able to f inan ce all the proposed communi ty fo ci Iities , however , the land wou Id be availab le for that purpose if and when f inancing becomes ava ilable - either from the developer or o ther groups . Comp lete separati on of pedestrian and vehicu lar traffic eliminating the danger of c hildren playing near c ars . Central garbage pick-up is pro posed . A des irable feature was the fl e xib ili ty in unit a rrangements - 5% I bed rooms; 5 0 % 2 bedrooms; 35% bedrooms. Site plan fol lows the contour of the land. Entire concept of development mini mizes the grading , keeps the cost down and preserves some of the natural foliage. Disadvantages: Serious question of finan cin g maior portion o f proposed community fac i lities; yet th is is the founda t ion around which the entire proiec t is bu i lt . Over-emphas is on the Community Cen te r concept , espe cially since similar fac il it ie s will be in the nearby park . The large size of the ·swimming pool , the paved area and the build ings a re u nrea l istic. Financing of the communi ty faci lities is not an FHA guaran tee . The vas t amount of paving propose d could c rea te flood and heat reflec ti o n prob lems. Devel o per proposes underpasses (5) a nd overpa sse s (2), wh ich it is fe lt are ge nerally und es irabl e. Exc essi ve wa lking d istance from the park ing areas to the dw e lling units. The conc e pt of buildin g arra ngements ut il izes some unde si rable bu i lding areas and leaves bu ildab le areas va ca nt (Example - sou theast sh o pping area). A qu est ionable feature is the four-story bu i ldings. The grouping of all comm un ity fa c ilities in the v ery center creates a self-contained atmosphere , unre lated to its surround ings, particu larly the existing community facilities - health c e nter and school. · �L - () (' m Minutes Urban Renewal Po l ic y Comm ittee Ap ri I 25 , 1967 The developer proposes to se l I the proiect, in its entirety , to a non- profit sponsor wh o has had no prev ious experience in operating or manag ing parti c ularl y a development of this enormity a nd , hopefu lly , th ey wou ld get some experien ced people to w ork w ith them o n th is. Servi ce side of the bui ld ings a re o r iented to the inter ior c ou rts, making a ccess to service v ehicles (f ire truc ks, etc .) d iff icu It . David L. Rosen Proposa l Advantages: Dwell ing un its are further removed from the rock q uarry than the o ther three proposa ls . ,, I,.~_;.. l t'J Access galler ies to eac h u ni t , permitt ing c_ross ventilation . ~ i ,1 .., _i "t No effort has been made to grade the interior Court concept, leaving the area fa irly natural . Th is wou Id avoid heat reflection problems and red uce cost. ! ,..: (J) <( LiJ Q_ The parking is recessed so th a t it is low er th an the dwelling units. This would eliminate visibility o f parking lots from the dwelling uni ts. (I t was noted thi s was listed as a disadvanta ge by one of the proposers). De velope r is investing maximum money in the units. The perspect iv es presented indicate a cl ear understand ing of the rough grades. Pedestr ian streets are pro posed throughout the pro jec t. The service sides of the buil dings are oriented to the outside, providing better access for serv ice vehicl es; and the I ivi ng rooms of the units face grassed areas and walks, rather than paving. A more complete separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffi c. G rouping of the proposed c hurch, health center and community cente r will prov ide for convenience and joint use of parking areas. Page 5 �Minutes Urban Re newal Policy Commi ttee April 25, 1967 Page 6 Two swimming pools are guaran teed by the devel oper, one for c h il dren and one for adu Its , with smal I recreati on areas arou nd the pools. In every instance the parking is adiacen t to the buildings a nd re cessed so as not to be visib le from the u nits . Devel o per will utilize FCH foun.dation coopera t ive housi ng , a very substantial sponsor who w i ll a ssist in the finan cing a nd w i ll conduct th e advertising and sales program for the development . Des ign o f the uni ts provides bu il t-i n f lexibility, allowing contract ing o r exparding of uni ts wi th the same ou ts ide walls; this will permit developer to compete with th e market, and meet tena nts I needs. Five church sites are proposed . The developer proposes to retain a maior persona l investmen t in the ' projec t and operate it personally. Di sadva ntages: The prov iding -o f 1386 units, rather than 1500, is q uesti o nable since it prov ides that much less housi ng for peo ple . Som e ad justment shoul d be made in the secondary entrance road to the projec t so t hat it woul d not funnel traff ic throu gh the roc k q ua rry e ntrance , and vice -versa . This would ne cessita te ad justment of a few bui ldings . 85 % of the uni ts are 3-story garden a partments located on the contours; ho pefu lly th ey would be adjusted to minimiz e th e !e v e ls and steps to t he units . Re c apitu lo tion o f the recomm e ndations of the var io us organ iz ations and grou ps: City of Atlanta Planning Departme nt - Da v id L. Rosen proposal . Atlanta Housing Au thori.ty - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. Citi z en 's Adv isory Committee fo r Urban Renewa l - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. - 3 to l . American Institu te of .Planners - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. I •; ' . · ·: . , · . ', I• ~ I 'J. ,, ' ' �Page 7 M i nutes Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee Apr i I 25, 1967 Am e r ic an Inst i tu te of Arc hite c ts - No spe c ific ·e commenda t io n , buL favored the Dou glas- -Arlen proposal: · · Mayo r' s Comm ittee on Hou sing Resou rc es - Do uglas- Ar le n proposal . Tfie 'Urban Renewa l Po lic y Comm i ttee, withal! bu t one member present , Ond aft~r evaluafion o f' each o f the p roposals' and wr itten c omments ·su bmitted by the organi zatio ns listed above , u pon. mo t ion by Mr . Flan igen , seco nded by Messrs . Ether idge .·and Cotsakis, unan imously recommended to Lhe Boord of Commissioners of the Housin g Auth o rity o f the Ci ty o f Atf o nta , G eorg ia, the ac c eptanc e of the David L. Rose n proposal; Alderman Pierc e had to leave the mee t ing before its co ne lusion and based on facts presented up to th.e time of his departure sta ted he fav o red the · .Rosen proposal and asked th a t the Chairman so reg ister his vote in Execu ti ~e Session . ·k*-A· ·k * *·J.:·),: * ·k ** *"k There °be ing no fu rther busi~ess, the meeti ng was adjourned.. . ' ' . '*·k*******·k***** Respe c tfo I ly su bmitted , APPROVED: · ,- ·' .. · .r:/_. I I I . - ·- , ·. . ··.: J /. _J_o_a_n_n_e-Pa-rk_s_1_S_ e_c-re_ t_a_r_y_ _- . v' JP /Im ,' � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document tet FP EA Coe ere 7 / Acalled meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Tuesday, f April 25, 1967 April 25, 1967, at 4:00 P.M., at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt Building. All members were present as follows: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. Edwin L. Sterne Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. E. Gregory Griggs Mr. John M. Flanigen Mr. George Cotsakis Mr. Frank Etheridge Also present were: Mr. Collier B. Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta Mr. M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howard Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Hugh Peterson, King and Spalding, Attorneys Mr. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. John Hopkins, Atlanta Housing Authority The Chairman called the meeting io order and the following business was considered: Note: For the purposes of these minutes and in order to maintain clarity and correlation of facts, each proposal is written as a single entity. However, all four proposals were jointly discussed, weighing the merits of each against the other. At the outset of the meeting, each committee member was presented with the following material: An individual appraisal of the four Rockdale proposals by: Robert L. Sommerville; Grace Hamilton; T. M. Alexander and A. B. Padgett, all members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal; a reviewer's rating sheet of the redevelopment proposals, prepared by the Atlanta Housing Authority. Included in this appraisal sheet were ratings by the Atlanta Housing Authority, the Atlanta Planning Department, the American Institute of Planners, the Mayor's Committee on Housing Resources and the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal. These ratings were on the basis of from 1 to 4 points, 1 being the most desirable for the development and 4 the least. Mr. Persells stated the Housing Authority would prefer to take the position at this meeting of only answering questions and making clarifications. lt was agreed that the following format would be followed: The committee would evaluate Minutes Page 2 Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 25, 1967 the aspecis of each proposal, pro and con, and by the process of elimination, based on the merits of design criteria, narrow the consideration to the two top proposals offering the greatest possibility for development for the objectives which Rockdale should seek jo serve. The proposal by Marvin Warner was discussed at length. During this discussion, the commitiee examined closely architectural site plans and perspectives presented by the proposer and made the following observations and comments - A summarization of these observations, listed below, led to the subsequeni disqualification of this proposal from consideration: Flood problems and the apparent placing of some buildings within the flood plain. Severe grading problems and building construction because of the tremendous variation in grades. Doubtful that the site could be graded to comply with the site plans presented. The land would have to be tailored to the building arrangement, as opposed to the building to the land. The severe grading would destroy all trees. The entire site is covered with buildings, some to within 25 feet of the property line. A commendable feature of the plan was the cooperative housing approach (76% co-op) which would provide for eventual purchase of the units by the resident. The proposal by Chruckrow Construction Company was then considered, with the following observations and comments = again, a summarization of these observations, listed below, led to the disqualification of this proposal from consideration: Proposal embraces the "village" concept, which is desirable in principle. The vehicular street pattern (circular drives) was designed in such a way that it separated each "village" and actually cut off pedestrian traffic from one village to another. : The plans proposed do not fit the topography of the property, and the land would have to be conformed to the buildings. The development would be difficult to achieve without costly, extensive . grading which would create problems. Minutes Page 3 Urban Renewal Policy Commiitee April 25, 1967 There is reasonable doubt that the site could even be graded to conform to the plan because of so many unknowns, such as rock deposits, etc. Only one small recreation building is proposed in the entire development. The developer states that under 221(d)(3) developments, swimming pools are not feasible. The architectural renderings give a concept of flatness, with no difference in grades. A desirable feature of the plan was the flexibility of units and variation in design. lt was the opinion of the Policy Committee that the proposals by The Douglas—Arlen Group and David L. Rosen were the better of the four proposals. These two proposals were considered in terms of advantages and disadvantages and various sife plans, floor elevations, efc., were examined throughout the discussion. Douglas~Arlen Proposal Advantages: Proposal embraces the "village" or "cluster" arrangement of buildings. The buildings conform to the site, rather than the site being conformed to the buildings. More community facilities are proposed than in any of the other developments. Appropro to all of the proposals, the community facilities that are otherwise available in this area were then pointed out, these being a proposed City park facility, existing and proposed elementary school, the Gun Club Park and the existing health center, which are to serve the proposed 1500 units. lt was noted that a swimming pool could be placed within the City park facility if it was not provided elsewhere in the development. Development provides for convenient access from one part of the project to another. Has local sponsor. Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 25, 1967 Page 4 Provides for church sites as called for by the plan. It was pointed out thai the developer has stated he would not be able to finance all the proposed community facilities, however, the land would be available for that purpose if and when financing becomes available - either from ithe developer or other groups. Complete separation of pedesirian and vehicular traffic eliminating the danger of children playing near cars. Ceniral garbage pick-up is proposed. A desirable feature was the flexibility in unit arrangemenis - 5% | bedrooms; 50% 2 bedrooms; 35% bedrooms. Site plan follows the contour of the land. Entire concept of development minimizes the grading, keeps the cost down and preserves some of the natural foliage. Disadvantages: Serious question of financing major portion of proposed community facilities; yet this is the foundation around which the entire project is built. Over-emphasis on the Community Center concept, especially since similar facilities will be in the nearby park, The large size of the swimming pool, the paved area and the buildings are unrealistic. Financing of the community facilities is not an FHA guarantee. The vast amount of paving proposed could create flood and heat reflection problems. Developer proposes underpasses (5) and overpasses (2), which it is felt are generally undesirable. Excessive walking distance from the parking areas to the dwelling units. The concept of building arrangemenis utilizes some undesirable building areas and leaves buildable areas vacant (Example - southeast shopping area). A questionable feature is the four-story buildings. The grouping of all community facilities in the very center creates a self-contained aimosphere, unrelated to its surroundings, particularly the existing community facilities - health center and school. Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 25, 1967 Page 5 The developer proposes to sell the project, in its entirety, to G non-profit sponsor who has had no previous experience in operating or managing particularly a development of this enormity and, hopefully, they would get some experienced people to work with them on this. Service side of the buildings are oriented to the interior courts, making access to service vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) difficult. David L. Rosen Proposal Advantages: Dwelling units are further removed from the rock quarry than the other three proposals. Access galleries to each unit, permitting cross ventilation. No effort has been made to grade the interior Court concept, leaving the area fairly natural. This would avoid heat reflection problems and reduce cost. The parking is recessed so that it is lower than the dwelling units. This would eliminate visibility of parking lots from the dwelling units. (It was noted this was listed as a disadvantage by one of the proposers). Developer is investing maximum money in the units. The perspectives presented indicate a clear understanding of the rough grades. Pedesirian streets are proposed throughout the project. The service sides of the buildings are oriented to the outside, providing better access for service vehicles; and the living rooms of the units face grassed areas and walks, rather than paving. A more complete separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Grouping of the proposed church, health center and community center will provide for convenience and joint use of parking areas. Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Commiiiee April 25, 1967 Page 6 Two swimming pools are guaranteed by the developer, one for children and one for adults, with small recreation areas around the pools. In every instance the parking is adjacent to the buildings and recessed so as not to be visible from the units. Developer will utilize FCH foundation cooperative housing, a very substantial sponsor who will assist in the financing and will conduct the advertising and sales program for the develop- meni. Design of the units provides built-in flexibility, allowing con- tracting or expanding of units with the same outside walls; this will permit developer to compete with the market, and meet tenants' needs. Five church sites are proposed. The developer proposes to retain a major personal investment in the project and operate it personally. Disadvantages: The providing of 1386 units, rather than 1500, is questionable since it provides that much less housing for people. Some adjustment should be made in the secondary entrance road to the project so that it would not funnel traffic through the rock quarry entrance, and vice-versa. This would necessi- tate adjustment of a few buildings. 85% of the units are 3-story garden apartments located on the contours; hopefully they would be adjusted to minimize the levels and steps to the units. Recapitulation of the recommendations of the various organizations and groups: City of Atlanta Planning Department - David L. Rosen proposal. Atlanta Housing Authority - David L. Rosen proposal. Citizen's Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal = David L. Rosen proposal = 3 ito 1. American Institute of Planners - David L. Rosen proposal. Minutes Page 7 Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 25, 1967 American Institute of Architects - No specific recommendation, but favored the Douglas-Arlen proposal. Mayor's Committee on Housing Resources - Douglas—Arlen proposal . The Urban Renewal Policy Committee, with all but one member present, and after © ' .evaluation of each of the proposals and written comments ‘submited by the organi- zations listed above, upon motion by Mr. Flanigen, seconded by Messrs. Etheridge and Coisakis, unanimously recommended to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, the acceptance of the David L. Rosen proposal. Alderman Pierce had to leave the meeting before its conclusion _and based on facts presented up to the time of his departure stated he favored the Rosen proposal and asked that the Chairman so register his vote in Executive Session. RRR EERE KER EEE There being no further business, the meeting was. adjourned. REKKRREKERE KEK KE ie os Sig 4 - Cats Respectfully submitted, as Cook, Chairman Rak! Ro) gh AT ot Joanne Parks, Secretary OS JSP /|m  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 10 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/90bbbdb5177ab97c77ddb86dbc55d6f8.pdf ba7f43a3b2582ef17051e8bb18ada170 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. April 28, 1967 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Conunittee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, April 28, 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 Charles Leftwich George Cotsakis John M. Flanigen Q. V. Williamson Absent: Jack Summers Also in attendance were: Collier Gladin William F. Kennedy Pierce Mahony Earl Landers Howard Openshaw Les Persells \. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was consiqered: Mr. Gladin explained that the Planning Department, with assistance from other city departments and agencies, have been preparing the annual request for recertification of the Workable Program, which is necessary in order for the city to continue participation in a variety of federal programs; that it is hoped to submit the recertification to the Board of Aldermen for approval on May 15 and to HUD immediately thereafter in order to allow them two additional weeks of review time. He stated further that prior to today's meeting, a draft copy o f each of seven sections were . forwarded to each member for review and he then asked for any questions o r suggested changes in any of t he individual draf t sec ~ions . Mr. Kennedy of the departmental staff briefly commented on each draft and the foll owing is a listing of them and the recommendations of the committee: 1. Codes and Ordinances - Under Item 4, relative to the number of appeals filed during the past twelve months as a result of code enforcement, it was requested that the figure reflecting the number of cases resolved by the committee be changed to accurately show that the commit tee itself had resolved all the cases which had been brought before it, even though some of the cases might be pending before another governing board. 2. Comprehensive Community Plan - No changes. �Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 2 3. Neighborhood Analyses - No changes, 4. Administrative Organization - No changes. 5. Financing - No changes. 6. Hou s ing For Displ aced Famili e s - The committee asked that the total number of families displaced during 1966 (shown as 162) be verified; that it seemed rather low. Mr. Persells stated the Housing Authority could document this figure. 7, Citizen Participation - No changes. The committee then unanimously adopted the following resolution: "A RESOLUTION BY PLANNI NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ' \. WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta is constantly . working to solve the problems of urban blight and decay and, WHEREAS , the City of Atlanta is committed to a positive working relationship with the national government in an attempt to solve urban problems of mutual concern and, WHEREAS, recertification of the City of Atlanta's Workable Pr ogram for Community Improvement i s necessary in order to cont inue to r ece i ve gran ts-in-aid under a va riety of federal aid programs and , WHEREAS , t he ·city of Atlanta ha s made out standing pr ogress in 1966 in meeting its goals f or t o ta l community i mprovemen t . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor a nd Board o f Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, as f ol l ows: l. That the attached report, A Review of Progress under the Workable Program for Community Improvement, is hereby adopted. 2. That said report be forwarded to the Regional Office of the �r Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 3 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for their review no later than June 1, 1967." "'("k-k* Mr. Mahony of the departmental staff gave a brief status report on the Land Use Plan, ~tating it is expected to have it in a final draft form by July so as to begin consultations with the committee with a view toward final adoption. Revision of Zoning Ordinance \ Mr. Gladin briefly commented that the staff feels it would be desirable, as a n initial step in updating the entire ordinance, to rev~ew it for certa in kinds of deficiencies which should, in turn, give.a clearer under~ st a nding of where the ordinance is lacking in its basic approach to both development and enforcement; tha t while most of these deficiencies are obvious to the admin{strative sta ff , it was felt it would be desirable to have an outside review of the ordinance from a more objective standpoint, point i ng o.ut both the kinds of deficiencies and the areas where it may substanti a lly differ from other ordinances employing similar concepts . and accord i ngly, the American Society of Pl a nning Officials has been employed to do such · a review. Mr. Gladin stated also that he anticipated b r inging this matter before the committee a round the middle of May for discussion. Survey and Planning App lic a tion for Na sh- Bans Area Mr. Gladin exp la ined tha t an in i ti a l mee ting had been schedul ed with representatives from all the a r ea civi c c lubs, chur che s a nd other groups ; the purpose o f thi s meet ing , a nd ot her s i milar one s t o f ol l ow, will be t o acquaint the s e area repre senta tives with the c ity ' s plans f or their area; to hear their problems and s o l u tions; t o ascertain their fee l i ngs about an urban renewal pro j e c t f or t heir area , and t o s o licit thei r support; in turn, it is hoped the s e repre senta tives will keep thei r r espec tive neighborhood informed of all the s e activities . • Combi ning of Buttermi l k Bottoms - Bedford Pine Projects Mr. Persells brought this matter to the committee's attention, explaining �Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 4 that HUD has stated that since we are simply adding the areas and budgets together, no new resolution is required and the documents can be presented to the Regional Office and unless this committee wishes to restate the position taken by the Urban Renewal Policy Connnittee in approving the combination, no further action is required. ·I The conunittee felt no further action was needed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: I Respectfully submitted: ' \. Col lier Gladin Planning Director jp Joanne Parks Secretary � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document FN ¥ ; 2 , FS A a April 28, 1967 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, April 28, 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 Charles Leftwich George Cotsakis John M. Flanigen Q. V. Williamson Absent: Jack Summers + Also in attendance were: Collier Gladin William F, Kennedy Pierce Mahony Earl Landers . Howard Openshaw Les Persells © The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: Mr. Gladin explained that the Planning Department, with assistance from other city departments and agencies, have been preparing the annual request for recertification of the Workable Program, which is necessary in order for the city to continue participation in a variety of federal programs; that it is hoped to submit the recertification to the Board of Aldermen for approval on May 15 and to HUD immediately thereafter in order to allow them two additional weeks of review time. He stated further that prior to today's meeting, a draft copy of each of seven sections were forwarded to each member for review and he then asked for any questions or suggested changes in any of the individual draft sections. Mr, Kennedy of the departmental staff briefly commented on each draft and the following is a listing of them and the recommendations of the committee: 1. Codes and Ordinances - Under Item 4, relative to the number of appeals filed during the past twelve months as a result of code enforcement, it was requested that the figure reflecting the number of cases resolved by the committee be changed to accurately show that the committee itself had resolved all the cases which had been brought before it, even though some of the cases might be pending before another governing board, 2. Comprehensive Community Plan - No changes. Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 2 3. Neighborhood Analyses - No changes, 4. Administrative Organization - No changes, 5. Financing - No changes. 6. Housing For Displaced Families - The committee asked that the total number of families displaced during 1966 (shown as 162) be verified; that it seemed rather low. Mr. Persells stated the Housing Authority could document this figure, 7. Citizen Participation - No changes. The committee then unanimously adopted the following resolution: "A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta is constantly. working to solve the problems of urban blight and decay and, WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta is committed to a positive working relationship with the national government in an attempt to solve urban problems of mutual concern and, WHEREAS, recertification of the City of Atlanta's Workable Program for Community Improvement is necessary in order to continue to receive grants-in-aid under a variety of federal aid programs and, WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta has made outstanding progress in 1966 in meeting its goals for total community improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, as follows: 1. That the attached report, A Review of Progress under the Workable Program for Community Improvement, is hereby adopted, 2. That said report be forwarded to the Regional Office of the O Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 ‘ Page 3 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for their review no later than June 1, 1967." RKERERERER Mr. Mahony of the departmental staff gave a brief status report on the Land Use Plan, stating it is expected to have it in a final draft form by July so as to begin consultations with the committee with a view toward final adoption. RERKRRERRRIEE Revision of Zoning Ordinance Mr. Gladin briefly commented that the staff feels it would be desirable, as an initial step in updating the entire ordinance, to review it for certain kinds of deficiencies which should, in turn, give,a clearer under= standing of where the ordinance is lacking in its basic approach to both development and enforcement; that while most of these deficiencies are obvious to the administrative staff, it was felt it would be desirable to have an outside review of the ordinance from a more objective standpoint, pointing out both the kinds of deficiencies and the areas where it may substantially differ from other ordinances employing similar concepts _ and accordingly, the American Society of Planning Officials has been employed to do such a review. Mr. Gladin stated also that he anticipated bringing this matter before the committee around the middle of May for discussion. RRERERRERE Survey and Planning Application for Nash-Bans Area Mr. Gladin explained that an initial meeting had been scheduled with representatives from all the area civic clubs, churches and other groups; the purpose of this meeting, and other similar ones to follow, will be to acquaint these area representatives with the city's plans for their area; to hear their problems and solutions; to ascertain their feelings about an urban renewal project for their area, and to solicit their support; in turn, it is hoped these representatives will keep their respective neighborhood informed of all these activities. } RRR ERERR Combining of Buttermilk Bottoms - Bedford Pine Projects Mr. Persells brought this matter to the committee's attention, explaining | Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 4 that HUD has stated that since we are simply adding the areas and budgets together, no new resolution is required and the documents can be presented to the Regional Office and unless this committee wishes to restate the position taken by the Urban Renewal Policy Committee in approving the combination, no further action is required. The committee felt no further action was needed. KRRERRRERERE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned, eekkkikkek : Approved: Respectfully submitted: v =) nh () : iy) fv f | 1 2 \ . f A s [(Y fy Ee OA LU > / { CEAW Y ILA LDS OA Dg) Collier Gladin / Joanne Parks Planning Director Secretary jp  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 9 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/ed6c4baa0a7678563ff4642d395e726f.pdf fe5af8502d1dfa2e74cca033e50fdce4 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. May 12, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, May 12, 1967, at 10:00 A. M. at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt Building. All members were present as follows: Mr . Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne Hugh Pierce E. Gr egory Griggs John M. Flanigen George Cotsakis Frank Etheridge Also present were: @) w iJ) <( w 0.. «:S ~ J n:: 0 0 co Mr. Collier Gladin, Planning Direc t or, City of Atlanta Mr . George Aldridge, Direc t or, Community Improvement Program Mr. Jim Kluttz, Atlanta Planning Department Mr . Robert Sommerville, Executive Director, Atlanta Transi t Company Mr . M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Au t ho rity Mr. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howa rd Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atl a n ta Housing Authority Mr. J ame s Henley, At lanta Housing Authority Mr . By r on Attridge and Mr. Lynn Hewes, King & Spalding, At t orneys Mr . J a ck Glenn and Mr. J. B. Blayton, Members, Board of Commiss i oner s , At lant a Housing Authority Chairman Cook cal l ed t he me eting to or der a nd expl ai ned the purpo se o f this meeting is t o hear a p re s entation from Al derman Q. V. Wi lliamson relative to the Rockda le Ur ban Renewa l Project Area . While awa iting his arrival, the committee conside red schedu l ing o f dates f or the deve lo per's presentations on 7.6 a c re s in the Raws on-Washington Proj ec t Area, scheduled for 22l(d) (3 ) development. It was unanimou sly de cid ed t o hear from all developers who had s ubmi tted bid s on Wed nesday , May 31, 196 7 , beginning at 3:00 P. M. It was al so a gr eed that each developer would be given a fifteen minute presentation period, with f i fteen mi nutes al lowed f o r questions and an swers. Each committe e member was presented wit h a synopsis o f each proposal for revi ew. Mr . Perse l l s also rep o rted that developer's presentations had been held on Parcel 73 in the University Center Pro ject Area . At this time, Alderman Williamson arrived at the meeting along with Senator Leroy R. Johnson and representatives of various Negro organiza ti ons. Chairma n Cook stated that a few days ago certain charges were made t o him concerning the Rockdale Project which he felt was of a serious natu r e and shou ld be presented to this com:nittee for consideration and disposition as it sees fit. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Williamson. Alderman Williamson stated he had discussed this matter with the Mayor on �r Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 2 Wednesday; that he had also met with membe r s of the Atlanta Summit Leadership Conference, the NAACP, Op e ration Breadb a s ke t, Atlanta Voters Lea gue and other organizations that are terribly concerned about urban renewal in Atlanta because "Negroes have gotten nothing but the brunt of being kicked off the land"; that they have not been allowed to participate in urban renewal at any level and have not been allowed jobs nor investments in urban renewal property; that the only land Negroes have gotten out of urban renewal was land the colleges bought which "they paid for out of the nose and paid more than anyone else paid for similar urban renewal land"; that the Wheat Street Baptist Church is a prime example - they paid twice what the land was worth for the (d)(3) development they erected on it, to the extent that the project was almost economically unfeasible. Mr. Cook stated that some statements already made by Aldennan Williamson do not coincide with the facts and he asked Mr. Persells if he cared to respond. Senator Johnson asked that they be allowe d to state their position, after which they would be happy to answer any questions or clarify any statements, but to interrupt with questions during the presentation breaks the continuity of thought. Mr. Williamson continued to state that after analyzing urban renewal in At l anta f or the past ten to twelve years, taking into account "what goes on" at the Atlanta Housing Authority, particularly in public housing, these org ani zations wonder if Atlanta shouldn't get out of the urban renewal business; tha t Atla nta mu st let Negroes participate and become a part of urban renewal i f i t is t o survive. He s t ated t hat Negroes a l so have serious problems wi t h e xisting public hous i ng a nd these organizations a l so wonder if Negroes wou l dn' t be better o f f living in slums on the ir own land than in some of the public hou s ing in At la nta. He cited the Ea gan Homes as an example and brief l y d i scussed some of the deplorable conditions e xisting in this p r ojec t , su ch a s r oach and r odent infesta tions and t he Au t hority's refusal to e x te nninate the premise s and de nying the tenants t he ri gh t t o do so at their own expense. He empha s i z ed t he city requires private owne rs t o do this. Other problems he mentioned were t hat t e nant s we r e not a l l owed to have a te l e phone extension upstairs and e ntry ways to the a pa rtmen ts are rec e s s ed and do no t have adequate lighting ; a case of r a pe was cit ed a s be i ng a t tributab le t o this. He stated further that t e n an t s a r e r eluc tant t o compl ain f o r f ear of being ev icted by the manageme nt; that these tenants , in many i ns tances , rather than live in this proje c t under bondage , would be better o ff in s l ums with freedom. He went on to say that the c a se at po i n t is that thi s is the type of thing urban renewal and public hous ing is producing in Atlanta and it must be stopped. As to the question of Rockda l e, he stated that two years ago a group of Negroes began ini tia l efforts t o organize this community and devel op support of area resident s for a plan f or Rockda l e; subsequently, a community organization was formed and working with the Atlanta Housing Authority, assembled a proposed plan for Rockdale according to their rules and regula t io ns. He stated that propo s als by three other developers were also submitted, t wo of which were later disqualified because they did not abide by the rules o f bidding; however, two weeks later, following a meeting of the Housing Authori t y's �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 3 Board of Commissioners and passage of a resolution by them, these same two plans were reinstated, notwithstanding their previous disqualifications, and that this is the basis of their complaint. After this, Mr. Williamson stated it is his understanding from sources that he can secure information from that the Housing Authority narrowed the consideration to two top plans - the Douglas-Arlen and Rosen proposals - and he was told by staff membersof the Authority that both of them were about equal, but when he receives information that somehow plans can be reinstated that do not meet the bid proposals of the Authority, then the Douglas-Arlen group knows they are at a disadvantage; that it is the same old routine of urban renewal - Negroes aren't allowed to participate because the Douglas-Arlen group has Negro participation, even though Rockdale is a Negro community and will serve Negroes. He stated all they are asking is that the plans be judged on merit and where the Douglas-Arlen plan is as meritorious as any of the others, and Rockdale being a Negro community, it should be given to Negroes; that if Negroes can't participate in urban renewal at all levels, then the City Fathers should leave them in the slums, rather than uproot them and take their property; that the time has come when he felt this needed to be said publicly. In reply to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Williamson named the Rosen and Chruckrow proposals as being the two which were disqualified and then reinstated. He then called on Senator Johnson to speak. Mr. Johnson stated he felt this matter was of enough importance and seriousness tha t he had interrupted a speaking engagement in California to return to Atlanta today for this meeting; that because of his absence from the city he had no t had an opportunity to prepare for the meeting as he should have. He then st at ed "I bel ieve with all my heart and soul that we have been discriminated against be c ause we are Negroes and that if we were not black, we would have been awarded the Rockdale Project". He then explained that he drew the charter of the Rockdale community organization and they began working on a plan for the area long before the bidding was opened; that they were successful in securing a sponsor, builder and archit ect and eventually a plan was submitted t o the Housing Authority according to the bid pr oposals. He stated furt her that after so doing and while waiting on a de cision , and believing in the operation of democracy, they were info rmed that po litic al influence was being used to get the Rosen plan approved; tha t he immediately began to investigate and pose questions, among o thers, as to why the two proposa ls which were disqualified were reinstated; that the foremost thought in the Negroes ' mind s at this time was "you folks happen to be of the wrong hue and you are not going to get it"; that they were told by the Housing Authority, as stated by Alderman Williamson, both proposals were good and a ssuming this is so, then he felt it incumbent on the City Fathers t o " bend over backwards" t o award the development to a Negro group, compos ed of Negro architec t s, lawyers, real estate brokers and builders, who are loc al ly based and have a vested interest in the heart of a Negro community and will represent Negro people who were moved from the area and will probably move back whe n housing is available. He also noted that Rockdale is in the heart of his senatorial district and Alderman Williamson's third ward. Senator Johnson stated further that it greatly disturbs them that on the one hand they have been told by members of this connnittee that no decision has been made and �- ---· . . ··- - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - ~ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 4 on the other hand he gets a call in California saying the Rosen plan had already been sent to FHA by the Ho using Authority and he submitted this is a serious matter. He further commented that after talking with member s of FHA and persons alrea dy engaged in 221 programs, it is his understanding that even if their pla n was submitted to FHA, it would be altered before bein g returned; that you never get plans back from FHA exactly like they are submitted. He cit ed as an example the Allen Temp le Project. He went on t o say they had also been told Negroes had nev e r built anything this big; t hat the ti me wasn't right and there was a question of the ability of the Union Baptist Church to administei the project since they had no previous experience. Senator John s on stated their position here in the 196O's, whether it is i mmediately managing or selling, is to do ri ght; that most of the reasons cited agains t their proposal are not meritorious arguments since the project would be Federally regulated anyway. He again ci ted Allen Temple as an example. He the n concluded by ·stating t hat all they are seeking is "a fair shake of the dice and don't deny us because we are black"; that they feel there is rank discrimination somewhere in the Rockdale project and they are asking this committee to right it. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Johnson who told him they would not get this project because they were Neg roes. Mr . Johnson rep lied "Mr. Cook you know that I cannot reveal my source of information anymore than you could, but as surely as there is a God in Heaven I, and we, have been t old we would not get this project because we are black". Mr. Johnson did say that hi s source of information had the contacts to know whereof he speaks. At . this time, Chairman Cook and Mr. Gladin excused themselves from the meeting t o keep a previous appointment in the Mayor's office. They did no t return during the remainder of the meeting, although they had hoped to. Mr. Griggs presided as Chairman during the rest of the me eting. Reverend Sam Williams then addressed the committee briefly on three points: (1) that so much time has to be spent by Negro es keeping vigil to see that even token justice is done; (2) the c ruelty of denying Negroes because of historic disabilities imposed upon them whi ch they themselves did not p l a ce upon their shoulders; and (3) the fact that Negroes should be al lowed to share in the financial rewards flowing from urban renewal. Reverend Williams also s tated he was personally familiar with the Eagan Homes situation because a member of his congregation lived there and he agreed these things must be corrected. Reverend Grier, representing Operation Breadbasket and a group of ministers, and Reverend Dorsey of Operation Breadbasket , both endorsed the remarks of Alderman Williamson, Senator Johnson and Reverend Williams . Mr. Griggs assured Messrs. Williamson and Johnson that it is of great concern to membersof this committee that the charge of racial discrimination in Rockdale ha s been made. Mr. Cotsakis then stated he had to leave the meeting on a previous commitment, but before departing he stated for the record that in all the meetings of the �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 5 Policy Commi ttee he had par t icip ated in he had never heard the word Negro mentioned, nor had he received any indication of racial discrimination as far as any particular proj ect is concerned. Senator Johnson commented "you don't have to say the word to do the act". Mr . Persells then responded to the charge s as follows: As to no participation on the part of Negroes in planning, he s tated there was a cons iderable period of time whe n there wa s little, if any, par ti cipation in urban renewal planning by whites or Negroe s; that the planning and action that went on took place at the off icia l level and the participati on of the cornmunity at large was extremely limited; that only within the last two to fo ur years were people outsid e o f o ff icials really brought into planning in urban renewal to the extent of actual participation. The first effort at involving parti cipation on the part of persons living in the project area t ook place in the West End Project through a Ci tizen s Advisory Corranittee, whic still functions. The second effort t ook pla ce when the Buttermilk Bo ttoms North Avenue Project (which was combi ned wi th Bedford-Pine) was initiated ; the c itizens residing in the project area fo rmed an organization ca lled "URESCUE" whi ch, from that day f o rward, actively and fully participated in every planning decision affecting the area; that this organizat ion has had a profound effect on the urban renewal plan f or this area and he expected it to continue to do so. Mr . , Persells commented further t h at at some point you have to d evelop a basis f or discussion; in the case of Rockdale the people were moved, the land cleared and then came the question o f utilizati on of the l and; that it was determined many years ago that Rockdale would be used f or schools, playgrounds and residences, with an incidental po ssibility o f furnis hing a service shopping area for the 1500 families that would live in the are a . The allocation of 1500 units was based on a limitation on sewers, documented by the Sewer Departme nt. Mr. Persel l s stated further the initial concept was f or single family r esidences, however, this was never possible, t opographically or financia l ly. Mr . Perse lls said further that for a long time prior t o this there wa s, in Atlan ta, a gr ow ing consciousness of t he importance of good urban desi gn , one reason being there ha d been several i llust r a tions of awards made on a flat do ll ar s ystem whe re t he redevelopmen t s had not been too good, so i t wa s ult i mate ly determi ned tha t in multi-fami l y developments it would be de s irable to make the offe ri ng s at a f i xed land pri ce and awa rd t he b i d base d on compet i tive design c rit e r i a ; t hat a pri me reason f or this change in policy was to avoid the type o f pr ob lem mentioned by Mr . Wi lliamson whe re Wheat Street Baptist Church overbid on the land . He s tated t hi s was a very unfo rtunate situation but could no t have be en avoid ed at that t i me wi th the existing laws . I n adopting the fixed land price s y s tem, Mr. Perse ll s s tated an elaborate procedure was e s tabl i shed to insure that awards wo uld be on the basis of design criteri a a nd not po litical or o ther f acto r s . This procedure involved staff reviews and recommendations, ora l presentat ions by developers and recommendations from e xperts in th e fi eld of planning, architecture and housing. �Minu te s Urban Renewa l Policy Commit tee May 12, 19 67 Page 6 Th is procedu re wa s f ollowed i n the case of Rockda l e . The se r ecommenda t i on s were then presented t o t he Urban Renewal Poli cy Commi tte e who s pen t in e xc e ss o f f ive hours ev a l uating the f our proposa l s . The pr opos a ls we r e t hen pre sented t o t he Board o f Commi ssioners o f the Ho using Autho r i t y a nd t h ey discussed t hem v ery c arefu l l y, howev er , no de c i sion ha s been made by t hem. At thi s point , Mr . Per s ell s com.~ ented t hat no on e had a tt emp t ed to infl uence him in thi s matte r o r con t ac ted him ab out it exc ept Mr. Wi ll iamson an d Mr . J ohnson; that whe n the y visited his o ffi c e he a dvis ed them a t t hat t ime that he wa s a s ta ff member , no t a de c i s i on o r po li cy make r , and he woul d be remi s s in hi s duty if the s t a ff had i nfl uence on policy t o the exten t t hat it was . an overr id ing fa c t o r , ra t her t han a r e commendat ion, and such was no t the ca se wit h Rockdale . Mr . Per s e l ls commented on the s tatement that Ne groes do not hold re sp onsible j obs i n urb an renewal , or t hey hold l ow type j ob s. He s t a t ed this is s imply no t an a c curate s tatement ; that there are a number o f Negro peop le involved in urban renewal a t h i gh and l ow l eve ls and their jobs are open f o r inspection ; that there are v acan t j ob s wh i ch are yet to be fi lled and when quali fie d Neg r o peo p l e ca n be f ound , who a re will i ng t o a cc ept t he job at the salary it c arri es , he would per so na l ly re commend them f o r empl oyme nt. As to the allegation , by imp l i cat i on o r dire c t statement, tha t there ha d bee n no previous la nd purchases invo lving Negroe s and t he que s tion o f t he Ne gro colle ges pa ying more f o r uban re new al land t ha n anyone el s e, Mr. Per se l ls s a id t ha t p r i o r to Ro ckdale, awa rds were stric t l y on t he ba s i s o f the h ighest bidde r, wi t h some c on siderat i on g i ven t o des ign f acto rs, and he could r ec all onl y two ins ta nces when awa r ds we r e made o ther than t o the high b idder and these ha d c lear-cu t re ason s which h ad no thing to do with the qu e s tio n o f ra c e ; that t he re hav e be e n seve ra l ins tanc e s whe r e Neg r oes hav e been s ucc es s f u l bidder s , f or e xamp le, Ci t iz ens Tr us t Company; f urther, at the t ime the Unive r si ty Cent er Urb an Renewal Proj e c t was being planned, it ap pe are d that it wo uld be impo ss ib l e t o f inanc e a proj e c t of t he size des i r e d by t he co l l e ges and so the col le ge s , i n o r der t o make t he project fe a s i ble and se cure t he land, ag reed to pay $40 , 000 an a cre; t ha t h e had neve r heard them comp la in ab out this ; that Whe a t Str eet Ga rde n s , again, wa s a n unfortuna t e se t o f circumstances, but t hey related t o the t i me and s ituation as i t was t hen; t ha t bas ed on his exp e r ience, t he Negro co llege s would have pai d more f o r t he l and wi thout the be nef it of the urb an renewal project. Mr . Pe rsells did no t comment on the pub l i c hou s i ng , except t o s ay the things mentioned in regard t o Eaga n Horne s ar e not who lly accurat e and do no t fairly repre sent the si t uation a s i t i s. He then made brief concluding commen ts on s everal othe r po ints rais ed by Messr s. Williams on and J ohnson. He s t a ted th er e had b een an ass umption made that the two proposals me ntioned (Douglas-Ar len and Ro s en) were equal , but he could assure everyo ne tha t whe n a decision is reached, it will be bec au s e the two were not equal. They had a l so assumed that the Rosen pr opos al doe s not involve Negro pa r t icipa t io n , but Mr . Per sells stated t hey might well include local Negro participat ion , j u s t as Douglas-Ar len does; t h at t h e Ro sen group has agree d to "spin o f f" po rt ions of the t ota l development, in the same manne r a s �- 0 -~-- -- - - - - - Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 7 the Douglas- Arlen group anticipated spinning off the whole of the projec t , to a non-pro f it organiza t ion , however, Rosen was explicit in his desire to retain control of the development. As to t he capability of the Union Baptist Church t o c arry out a project of t h is magnitude, Mr. Persells state d that t o let thi s be t he gove rning factor in the de cision would be wrong; tha t t he assump tion has to be ma de .that such an organization would employ pro f essionally skilled peop l e who could assist them in ma nagement activities. As t o the Rose n propo sal be ing submitted to FHA , Mr. Persells stated it was submitted to FHA f or a preliminary review to determine i f it was acceptable to FHA without having t o make major ch anges; i f i t had been r eturned, another proposal would have been s ubmi tted to them; furth e r, it is not accurate to say that pla ns will not be deve l ope d a s submitted to FHA becaus e they will change them; that i f this were t r ue, compe ti tions would not be he ld; t hat while minor changes might be sugge s ted becau s e of topographic cond itions or other reasons, it doe s not mean the basic concept or layout of the developme nt would be altered. As to Negroes sharing in the financial rewards of urban renewal, Mr. Persel l s stated the bu lk of the f inancial rewards which would accrue to Negroes or whites would be in the development stage; after the structures are built, it lies with the continuing ma nagement. Mr. Persells conc l uded by saying t hat he hoped they could continue to opera te without rega rd to race , creed or color and involve the community as a who l e in planning a c t iviti es oriented to urban renewa l projects; that we shou l d no t condemn ourselves by past mistake s, but pro fi t f rom them and move f orward. There we r e then ques t i ons a nd ans wers . Mr . Glenn st a ted he was the n ewe st member o f t h e Bo a rd of Commiss ione rs and in the meeti ngs he had attended race had never been me ntioned and to h is knowledge no dec ision had been made on Rockdale. He pointedly asked "has a dec i s i on been ma de and was r a ce an issue?" Mr. Griggs stated the Po l icy Committee had ma de a recommenda t i on to t he At lanta Housing Authority a nd rac e was not a n is sue; tha t no decis i on has been made yet by the Authori ty. Mr . Pierc e s t ated he would like it clarified about the charge of reinsta t ing disqualif ied plan s. Mr . Persells explained that at no t i me were any o f the f ou r pr opo sals set aside; that in thei r initia l r eview o f the propos al s, which is to determi ne if they are in proper order t o be accepted, t hey did discover minor t echni calities in the Rosen and Chruckrow p ropo sa l s . The Rosen proposal did not submit a bid bond , nor a total dev elopment cost, although suffic ient information was available to arrive at this figure . The Chruckrow proposal failed to meet the exact specifications with respect to their drawings, however, after consultations with the Authority ' s legal counsel, it was felt these were merely minor irregularities and not sufficient reasons f o r rejecting the propo sals since the s e irregularities did not affect any of the design criteria ; consequently, the Board of Commissioners, �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 8 under the provisions of t he o ffering, waived the se irregularities, but up to this point there was no cons id eration given t o the proposals on the basis o f merit and they were under cons tant review and still are. As a result of this situation Mr . Persells stated it wa s determined that the wording in the offering was too ambiguous and subsequently an addendum to the offering was ma de, setting forth in greater detail the speci fi cations for bidding. Mr . Pierce asked i f any of these exceptions were ever mentioned at the Policy meetings, t o which Mr . Persells answered negative ly, explaining that it was felt this was a re sponsibility of the Board of Commissioners, whose meet ings are a matter of public reco r d. Mr . Wi lliamson con tended that if the Douglas-Arlen group had not "dotted every 'i' and cross ed every 't' t hey would be ou t of the ball game". Mr . Johns on stated it was their understand ing the Policy Corrnnittee wou ld make a re corrnnendation to the Housing Authority , who would be responsible f or making the final decision, but since a re commendation fr om the Policy Corrnnittee is tantamount to approval by the Authority, they felt it was their responsibi li ty t o dis cuss the matter with the Pol i cy Committee and they are here today because they thought no deci sion had been made. Mr. J ohnson stated furth er that he and Mr . Williams on vis ited Mr . Cook in hi s o ffi ce and were told that a decision had been made by t h e Po li cy Corrrrnittee and Mr . Cook suggested they s ee Mr. Persells; that they did visit with Mr . Persel ls who, in turn, suggested they take the matter up with the o ther members of the Policy Committee, resulting in today's meeting . He also mentioned that when Alderman Cotsakis le ft the meeting, he said he would not return to the meeting to vote because thi s Committee had already ma de a recommendation; that if this is the c a s e , then everything said today has been to no avail. He said further that the Ho using Authority permi ts a laxity of rules for some and requires o thers to "toe the mark" and this is where discrimination begins. He submitted that if the Douglas-Arlen group had not submitted a performance bond, they would have been eliminated. Mr. Williamson asked when must the Housing Authority publicize its decision. Mr . Persells stated not later than Monday. There being no further discussion , Mr . Griggs thanked everyone for appearing and the Committee then went into Executive Session. In Executive Session, Mr. Sterne commented that the Policy Connnittee, after studying the four proposals very carefully, and after having the benefit of written recorrnnendations from the experts, did make a recommendation and the final decision rests with the Hou sing Authority; that there is some merit to the statement that generally speaking the Board of Commissioners tends to follow the recommendation of the Policy Corrnnittee; that while he is aware of the Senator's explanation of the insidious way the race issue comes up, he could truthfully say it never entered his mind at any of the briefings or meetings he attended. �..,._ w (/) ~ -· • ... .,.J. - -- -· i'~-- . - - ------ _________ _______________ Minute s Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 ...._ Page 9 LrJ 0 a.. ~ "S'. ~ J a: 0 0 m Mr . Griggs stated he was "dumfounded" when Mr. Wil liamson and Senator Johnson came to his office and made the charges they did; that he was completely unaware o f any racial prejudice connec ted with Rockdale. Mr. Persells stated the bids were opened legally on March 15 and the Housing Authori ty is obligated to reach a decision and notify the successful bidder within 60 days, after which they have 10 days to sign the contract documents. In answer to questioning by Mr. Griggs, Hr. Persells stated the Board of Commissioners will have all four proposals before them at the meeting, with a favo rable recommendation from the Policy Committee on the Rosen proposal. Mr . Pierce recalled that he had to leave the meeting of April 25, 1967, at whi ch the four proposals were discussed, prior to its conclusion and at the time of his departure, advis e d the Chairman that up to t h at point, he favored the Rosen plan, based on the plans he had seen and the recommendations that had been given it by the va rious experts; however, he stated that at that time he was not aware of the exceptions which were made, o r the questio n of the race issue, and he requested that if the Chairman did vote favorable for him, that it be stricken from the record. @ Mr. Sterne, a l so being a member of the Board of Commissioners, sta ted he wanted to make it clear that the waivers which were granted took place pr ior to any hearings and it was afterwards that the detailed presentations were made on all four proposals. After other brief discussion, the Acting Chairman stated that if today's presentations had altered the position of any committee member, he would entert ain a motion to reconsider the matter. Mr. Pierce so moved and simultaneously moved that the Douglas-Arlen pr opo sa l be a pproved. These motions died for the lack of a second. The Acting Cha irman then entertained a motion to reaffirm the previous de cis i on o f the -commi t t ee. Moti on was made a nd seconded by Messrs. Sterne and Flanigen that acc e p t ance o f the Ro sen p r oposal be reaffirmed, s aid motion being adopted by majori ty vote, with Ald e rma n Pierce voting a dversely. Approved: jp Respectfully submitted : � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ul W) << Ll o. & = aa) fr OQ O co SIEAR” ® BOORUM & PEASE “NM x aa May 12, 1967 WW C A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, May 12, 1967, at 10:00 A. M. at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt Building. All members were present as follows: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. Edwin L. Sterne Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. E. Gregory Griggs Mr. John M, Flanigen Mr. George Cotsakis Mr. Frank Etheridge Also present were: Mr. Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta Mr. George Aldridge, Director, Community Improvement Program Mr. Jim Kluttz, Atlanta Planning Department Mr. Robert Sommerville, Executive Director, Atlanta Transit Company Mr. M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howard Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. James Henley, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Byron Attridge and Mr. Lynn Hewes, King & Spalding, Attorneys Mr. Jack Glenn and Mr, J. B. Blayton, Members, Board of Commissioners, Atlanta Housing Authority Chairman Cook called the meeting to order and explained the purpose of this meeting is to hear a presentation from Alderman Q. V. Williamson relative to the Rockdale Urban Renewal Project Area, While awaiting his arrival, the committee considered scheduling of dates for the developer's presentations on 7.6 acres in the Rawson-Washington Project Area, scheduled for 221(d)(3) development. It was unanimously decided to hear from all developers who had submitted bids on Wednesday, May 31, 1967, beginning at 3:00 P. M. It was also agreed that each developer would be given a fifteen minute presentation period, with fifteen minutes allowed for questions and answers, Each committee member was presented with a synopsis of each proposal for review. Mr. Persells also reported that developer's presentations had been held on Parcel 73 in the University Center Project Area, At this time, Alderman Williamson arrived at the meeting along with Senator Leroy R. Johnson and representatives of various Negro organizations, Chairman Cook stated that a few days ago certain charges were made to him concerning the Rockdale Project which he felt was of a serious nature and should be presented to this committee for consideration and disposition as it sees fit. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Williamson. Alderman Williamson stated he had discussed this matter with the Mayor on Y Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 2 Wednesday; that he had also met with members of the Atlanta Summit Leadership Conference, the NAACP, Operation Breadbasket, Atlanta Voters League and other organizations that are terribly concerned about urban renewal in Atlanta because "Negroes have gotten nothing but the brunt of being kicked off the land"; that they have not been allowed to participate in urban renewal at any level and have not been allowed jobs nor investments in urban renewal property; that the only land Negroes have gotten out of urban renewal was land the colleges bought which "they paid for out of the nose and paid more than anyone else paid for similar urban renewal land"; that the Wheat Street Baptist Church is a prime example - they paid twice what the land was worth for the (d) (3) development they erected on it, to the extent that the project was almost economically unfeasible. Mr. Cook stated that some statements already made by Alderman Williamson do not coincide with the facts and he asked Mr. Persells if he cared to respond. Senator Johnson asked that they be allowed to state their position, after which they would be happy to answer any questions or clarify any statements, but to interrupt with questions during the presentation breaks the continuity of thought. Mr. Williamson continued to state that after analyzing urban renewal in Atlanta for the past ten to twelve years, taking into account "what goes on" at the Atlanta Housing Authority, particularly in public housing, these organizations wonder if Atlanta shouldn't get out of the urban renewal business; that Atlanta must let Negroes participate and become a part of urban renewal if it is to survive. He stated that Negroes also have serious problems with existing public housing and these organizations also wonder if Negroes wouldn't be better off living in slums on their own land than in some of the public housing in Atlanta. He cited the Eagan Homes as an example and briefly discussed some of the deplorable conditions existing in this project, such as roach and rodent infestations and the Authority's refusal to exterminate the premises and denying the tenants the right to do so at their own expense. He emphasized the city requires private owners to do this. Other problems he mentioned were that tenants were not allowed to have a telephone extension upstairs and entry ways to the apartments are recessed and do not have adequate lighting; a case of rape was cited as being attributable to this. le stated further that tenants are reluctant to complain for fear of being evicted by the management; that these tenants, in many instances, rather than live in this project under bondage, would be better off in slums with freedom. He went on to say that the case at point is that this is the type of thing urban renewal and public housing is producing in Atlanta and it must be stopped. As to the question of Rockdale, he stated that two years ago a group of Negroes began initial efforts to organize this community and develop support of area residents for a plan for Rockdale; subsequently, a community organization was formed and working with the Atlanta Housing Authority, assembled a proposed plan for Rockdale according to their rules and regulations. He stated that proposals by three other developers were also submitted, two of which were later disqualified because they did not abide by the rules of bidding; however, two weeks later, following a meeting of the Housing Authority's  Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 3 Board of Commissioners and passage of a resolution by them, these same two plans were reinstated, notwithstanding their previous disqualifications, and that this is the basis of their complaint. After this, Mr. Williamson stated it is his understanding from sources that he can secure information from that the Housing Authority narrowed the consideration to two top plans - the Douglias-Arlen and Rosen proposals - and he was told by staff membersof the Authority that both of them were about equal, but when he receives information that somehow plans can be reinstated that do not meet the bid proposals of the Authority, then the Douglas-Arlen group knows they are at a disadvantage; that it is the same old routine of urban renewal - Negroes aren't allowed to participate because the Douglas-Arlen group has Negro participation, even though Rockdale is a Negro community and will serve Negroes. He stated all they are asking is that the plans be judged on merit and where the Douglas-Arlen plan is as meritorious as any of the others, and Rockdale being a Negro community, it should be given to Negroes; that if Negroes can't participate in urban renewal at all levels, then the City Fathers should leave them in the slums, rather than uproot them and take their property; that the time has come when he felt this needed to be said publicly. In reply to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Williamson named the Rosen and Chruckrow proposals as being the two which were disqualified and then reinstated. He then called on Senator Johnson to speak. Mr. Johnson stated he felt this matter was of enough importance and seriousness that he had interrupted a speaking engagement in California to return to Atlanta today for this meeting; that because of his absence from the city he had not had an opportunity to prepare for the meeting as he should have. He then stated "TI believe with all my heart and soul that we have been discriminated against because we are Negroes and that if we were not black, we would have been awarded the Rockdale Project", He then explained that he drew the charter of the Rockdale community organization and they began working on a plan for the area long before the bidding was opened; that they were successful in securing a sponsor, builder and architect and eventually a plan was submitted to the Housing Authority according to the bid proposals. He stated further that after so doing and while waiting on a decision, and believing in the operation of democracy, they were informed that political influence was being used to get the Rosen plan approved; that he immediately began to investigate and pose questions, among others, as to why the two proposals which were disqualified were reinstated; that the foremost thought in the Negroes' minds at this time was "you folks happen to be of the wrong hue and you are not going to get it"; that they were told by the Housing Authority, as stated by Alderman Williamson, both proposals were good and assuming this is so, then he felt it incumbent on the City Fathers to "bend over backwards" to award the development to a Negro group, composed of Negro architects, lawyers, real estate brokers and builders, who are locally based and have a vested interest in the heart of a Negro community and will represent Negro people who were moved from the area and will probably move back when housing is available, He also noted that Rockdale is in the heart of his senatorial district and Alderman Williamson's third ward. Senator Johnson stated further that it greatly disturbs them that on the one hand they have been told by members of this committee that no decision has been made and  Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 4 on the other hand he gets a call in California saying the Rosen plan had already been sent to FHA by the Housing Authority and he submitted this is a serious matter. He further commented that after talking with members of FHA and persons already engaged in 221 programs, it is his understanding that even if their plan was submitted to FHA, it would be altered before being returned; that you never get plans back from FHA exactly like they are submitted. He cited as an example the Allen Temple Project. He went on to say they had also been told Negroes had never built anything this big; that the time wasn't right and there was a question of the ability of the Union Baptist Church to administer the project since they had no previous experience. Senator Johnson stated their position here in the 1960's, whether it is immediately managing or selling, is to do right; that most of the reasons cited against their proposal are not meritorious arguments since the project would be Federally regulated anyway. He again cited Allen Temple as an example. He then concluded by stating that all they are seeking is "a fair shake of the dice and don't deny us because we are black"; that they feel there is rank discrimination somewhere in the Rockdale project and they are asking this committee to right it. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Johnson who told him they would not get this project because they were Negroes. Mr. Johnson replied "Mr. Cook you know that I cannot reveal my source of information anymore than you could, but as surely as there is a God in Heaven I, and we, have been told we would not get this project because we are black"", Mr. Johnson did say that his source of information had the contacts to know whereof he speaks. At.this time, Chairman Cook and Mr. Gladin excused themselves from the meeting to keep a previous appointment in the Mayor's office, They did not return during the remainder of the meeting, although they had hoped to. Mr. Griggs presided as Chairman during the rest of the meeting. Reverend Sam Williams then addressed the committee briefly on three points: (1) that so much time has to be spent by Negroes keeping vigil to see that even token justice is done; (2) the cruelty of denying Negroes because of historic disabilities imposed upon them which they themselves did not place upon their shoulders; and (3) the fact that Negroes should be allowed to share in the financial rewards flowing from urban renewal. Reverend Williams also stated he was personally familiar with the Eagan Homes situation because a member of his congregation lived there and he agreed these things must be corrected, Reverend Grier, representing Operation Breadbasket and a group of ministers, and Reverend Dorsey of Operation Breadbasket, both endorsed the remarks of Alderman Williamson, Senator Johnson and Reverend Williams. Mr. Griggs assured Messrs. Williamson and Johnson that it is of great concern to membersof this committee that the charge of racial discrimination in Rockdale has been made, Mr. Cotsakis then stated he had to leave the meeting on a previous commitment, but before departing he stated for the record that in all the meetings of the  Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 5 Policy Committee he had participated in he had never heard the word Negro mentioned, nor had he received any indication of racial discrimination as far as any particular project is concerned. Senator Johnson commented "you don't have to say the word to do the act". Mr. Persells then responded to the charges as follows: As to no participation on the part of Negroes in planning, he stated there was a considerable period of time when there was little, if any, participation in urban renewal planning by whites or Negroes; that the planning and action that went on took place at the official level and the participation of the community at large was extremely limited; that only within the last two to four years were people outside of officials really brought into planning in urban renewal to the extent of actual participation. The first effort at involving participation on the part of persons living in the project area took place in the West End Project through a Citizens Advisory Committee, which still functions. The second effort took place when the Buttermilk Bottoms - North Avenue Project (which was combined with Bedford-Pine) was initiated; the citizens residing in the project area formed an organization called "URESCUE" which, from that day forward, actively and fully participated in every planning decision affecting the area; that this organization has had a profound effect on the urban renewal plan for this area and he expected it to continue to do so. Mr.-Persells commented further that at some point you have to develop a basis for discussion; in the case of Rockdale the people were moved, the land cleared and then came the question of utilization of the land; that it was determined many years ago that Rockdale would be used for schools, playgrounds and residences, with an incidental possibility of furnishing a service shopping area for the 1500 families that would live in the area, The allocation of 1500 units was based on a limitation on sewers, documented by the Sewer Department. Mr. Persells stated further the initial concept was for single family residences, however, this was never possible, topographically or financially. Mr. Persells said further that for a long time prior to this there was, in Atlanta, a growing consciousness of the importance of good urban design, one reason being there had been several illustrations of awards made on a flat dollar system where the redevelopments had not been too good, so it was ultimately determined that in multi-family developments it would be desirable to make the offerings at a fixed land price and award the bid based on competitive design criteria; that a prime reason for this change in policy was to avoid the type of problem mentioned by Mr. Williamson where Wheat Street Baptist Church overbid on the land. He stated this was a very unfortunate situation but could not have been avoided at that time with the existing laws. In adopting the fixed land price system, Mr. Persells stated an elaborate procedure was established to insure that awards would be on the basis of design criteria and not political or other factors. This procedure involved staff reviews and recommendations, oral presentations by developers and recommendations from experts in the field of planning, architecture and housing. Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 6 This procedure was followed in the case of Rockdale, These recommendations were then presented to the Urban Renewal Policy Committee who spent in excess of five hours evaluating the four proposals. The proposals were then presented to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority and they discussed them very carefully, however, no decision has been made by them. At this point, Mr. Persells commented that no one had attempted to influence him in this matter or contacted him about it except Mr. Williamson and Mr. Johnson; that when they visited his office he advised them at that time that he was a staff member, not a decision or policy maker, and he would be remiss in his duty if the staff had influence on policy to the extent that it was. an overriding factor, rather than a recommendation, and such was not the case with Rockdale, Mr. Persells commented on the statement that Negroes do not hold responsible jobs in urban renewal, or they hold low type jobs. He stated this is simply not an accurate statement; that there are a number of Negro people involved in urban renewal at high and low levels and their jobs are open for inspection; that there are vacant jobs which are yet to be filled and when qualified Negro people can be found, who are willing to accept the job at the salary it carries, he would personally recommend them for employment. As to the allegation, by implication or direct statement, that there had been no previous land purchases involving Negroes and the question of the Negro colleges paying more for uban renewal land than anyone else, Mr. Persells said that prior to Rockdale, awards were strictly on the basis of the highest bidder, with some consideration given to design factors, and he could recall only two instances when awards were made other than to the high bidder and these had clear-cut reasons which had nothing to do with the question of race; that there have been several instances where Negroes have been successful bidders, for example, Citizens Trust Company; further, at the time the University Center Urban Renewal Project was being planned, it appeared that it would be impossible to finance a project of the size desired by the colleges and so the colleges, in order to make the project feasible and secure the land, agreed to pay $40,000 an acre; that he had never heard them complain about this; that Wheat Street Gardens, again, was an unfortunate set of circumstances, but they related to the time and situation as it was then; that based on his experience, the Negro colleges would have paid more for the land without the benefit of the urban renewal project. Mr. Persells did not comment on the public housing, except to say the things mentioned in regard to Eagan Homes are not wholly accurate and do not fairly represent the situation as it is. He then made brief concluding comments on several other points raised by Messrs. Williamson and Johnson. He stated there had been an assumption made that the two proposals mentioned (Douglas-Arlen and Rosen) were equal, but he could assure everyone that when a decision is reached, it will be because the two were not equal. They had also assumed that the Rosen proposal does not involve Negro participation, but Mr. Persells stated they might well include local Negro participation, just as Douglas-Arlen does; that the Rosen group has agreed to "spin off" portions of the total development, in the same manner as  Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 7 the Douglas-Arlen group anticipated spinning off the whole of the project, to a non-profit organization, however, Rosen was explicit in his desire to retain control of the development. As to the capability of the Union Baptist Church to carry out a project of this magnitude, Mr. Persells stated that to let this be the governing factor in the decision would be wrong; that the assumption has to be made that such an organization would employ professionally skilled people who could assist them in management activities. As to the Rosen proposal being submitted to FHA, Mr. Persells stated it was submitted to FHA for a preliminary review to determine if it was acceptable to FHA without having to make major changes; if it had been returned, another proposal would have been submitted to them; further, it is not accurate to say that plans will not be developed as submitted to FHA because they will change them; that if this were true, competitions would not be held; that while minor changes might be suggested because of topographic conditions or other reasons, it does not mean the basic concept or layout of the development would be altered. As to Negroes sharing in the financial rewards of urban renewal, Mr. Persells stated the bulk of the financial rewards which would accrue to Negroes or whites would be in the development stage; after the structures are built, it lies with the continuing management. Mr. Persells concluded by saying that he hoped they could continue to operate without regard to race, creed or color and involve the community as a whole in planning activities oriented to urban renewal projects; that we should not condemn ourselves by past mistakes, but profit from them and move forward. There were then questions and answers. Mr. Glenn stated he was the newest member of the Board of Commissioners and in the meetings he had attended race had never been mentioned and to his knowledge no decision had been made on Rockdale. He pointedly asked "has a decision been made and was race an issue?" , Mr. Griggs stated the Policy Committee had made a recommendation to the Atlanta Housing Authority and race was not an issue; that no decision has been made yet by the Authority, Mr. Pierce stated he would like it clarified about the charge of reinstating disqualified plans. Mr. Perselis explained that at no time were any of the four proposals set aside; that in their initial review of the proposals, which is to determine if they are in proper order to be accepted, they did discover minor technicalities in the Rosen and Chruckrow proposals. The Rosen proposal did not submit a bid bond, nor a total development cost, although sufficient information was available to arrive at this figure, The Chruckrow proposal failed to meet the exact specifications with respect to their drawings, however, after consultations with the Authority's legal counsel, it was felt these were merely minor irregularities and not sufficient reasons for rejecting the proposals since these irregularities | did not affect any of the design criteria; consequently, the Board of Commissioners,  Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 8 under the provisions of the offering, waived these irregularities, but up to this point there was no consideration given to the proposals on the basis of merit and they were under constant review and still are, As a result of this situation Mr. Persells stated it was determined that the wording in the offering was too ambiguous and subsequently an addendum to the offering was made, setting forth in greater detail the specifications for bidding. Mr. Pierce asked if any of these exceptions were ever mentioned at the Policy meetings, to which Mr. Persells answered negatively, explaining that it was felt this was a responsibility of the Board of Commissioners, whose meetings are a matter of public record. , Mr. Williamson contended that if the Douglas-Arlen group had not "dotted every "i' and crossed every 't' they would be out of the ball game", Mr. Johnson stated it was their understanding the Policy Committee would make a recommendation to the Housing Authority, who would be responsible for making the final decision, but since a recommendation from the Policy Committee is tantamount to approval by the Authority, they felt it was their responsibility to discuss the matter with the Policy Committee and they are here today because they thought no decision had been made. Mr. Johnson stated further that he and Mr. Williamson visited Mr. Cook in his office and were told that a decision had been made by the Policy Committee and Mr. Cook suggested they see Mr, Persells; that they did visit with Mr. Persells who, in turn, suggested they take the matter up with the other members of the Policy Committee, resulting in today's meeting. He also mentioned that when Alderman Cotsakis left the meeting, he said he would not return to the meeting to vote because this Committee had already made a recommendation; that if this is the case, then everything said today has been to no avail. He said further that the Housing Authority permits a laxity of rules for some and requires others to “toe the mark" and this is where discrimination begins, He submitted that if the Douglas-Arien group had not submitted a performance bond, they would have been eliminated, Mr. Williamson asked when must the Housing Authority publicize its decision. Mr. Persells stated not later than Monday. There being no further discussion, Mr. Griggs thanked everyone for appearing and the Committee then went into Executive Session. In Executive Session, Mr, Sterne commented that the Policy Committee, after studying the four proposals very carefully, and after having the benefit of written recommendations from the experts, did make a recommendation and the final decision rests with the Housing Authority; that there is some merit to the statement that generally speaking the Board of Commissioners tends to follow the recommendation of the Policy Committee; that while he is aware of the Senator's explanation of the insidious way the race issue comes up, he could truthfully say it never entered his mind at any of the briefings or meetings he attended, tenor t BOORUM & PEASE fas tt uy) et tl a. a = = of Oo © co Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 9 Mr. Griggs stated he was "dumfounded" when Mr. Williamson and Senator Johnson came to his office and made the charges they did; that he was completely unaware of any racial prejudice connected with Rockdale, Mr. Persells stated the bids were opened legally on March 15 and the Housing Authority is obligated to reach a decision and notify the successful bidder within 60 days, after which they have 10 days to sign the contract documents. In answer to questioning by Mr. Griggs, Mr. Persells stated the Board of Commissioners will have all four proposals before them at the meeting, with a favorable recommendation from the Policy Committee on the Rosen proposal. Mr. Pierce recalled that he had to leave the meeting of April 25, 1967, at which the four proposals were discussed, prior to its conclusion and at the time of his departure, advised the Chairman that up to that point, he favored the Rosen plan, based on the plans he had seen and the recommendations that had been given it by the various experts; however, he stated that at that time he was not aware of the exceptions which were made, or the question of the race issue, and he requested that if the Chairman did vote favorable for him, that it be stricken from the record. Mr. Sterne, also being a member of the Board of Commissioners, stated he wanted to make it clear that the waivers which were granted took place prior to any hearings and it was afterwards that the detailed presentations were made on all four proposals. After other brief discussion, the Acting Chairman stated that if today's presentations had altered the position of any committee member, he would entertain a motion to reconsider the matter, Mr. Pierce so moved and simultaneously moved that the Douglas-Arlen proposal be approved, These motions died for the lack of a second. The Acting Chairman then entertained a motion to reaffirm the previous decision of the committee. Motion was made and seconded by Messrs. Sterne and Flanigen that acceptance of the Rosen proposal be reaffirmed, said motion being adopted by majority vote, with Alderman Pierce voting adversely. ERIK RE RRRERERR Approved; Respectfully submitted: (28). A \ ee, / r EG? 2 Fie Ne We b A) y Rodney fepk: Chairman [/ Joanne Parks, Secretary jp  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 8 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/ccad9f445e2dfeeb1e469d3dcdeab8e1.pdf 66001b2224d20a747a6adfe8fb0c5aa5 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. --··:~~ng of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners of the At lanta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 19, 1967, at 8:00 A. M. i n the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriott Motor Hotel. The following .members of the Policy Committee were present: Mr. Rodney M, Cook, Chair.man Mr. E. Gregory Griggs The follo wing members of the Board. of Commissioners were present: Mr. Edwin L. Sterne, Chair.man Mr. Frank Etheridge Also present were: Mr. M. B. Satterfield., Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Lester H, Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Collier Gladin, Chief Planning Engineer, City of Atlanta The purpose of this joint meeting of the Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners is to recommend. and decide which will be the successful redeveloper for Parcels C-1, 3 and 4 in the Rawson-Washington Street Urban Redevelopment Area. Mr . Cook asked Mr. Attridge if there are any irregularities present in any of t he proposals that would. require a waiver. Mr. Attridge replied there are s o.me irregularities, and cited as an example the use of 202 as well as 221 f i nancing in t he Ebenezer Baptist Church proposal. Their proposed high-rise, cons i s ti ng of efficiencies and. one-bedroom apartments would be financed under 202 wi th t he gar den apartments financed. under 221. The developer has been contacted regarding this and has indicated. his willingness to go entirely 221. Mr. Attridge f oresees no difficulty, however, with a waiver of this nature. A di s cu s sion continued between Mr. Cook and Mr. Attridge regarding the restr ic t i venes s of 202 to elderly. It was noted, however, that certain of the other proposals, as Wesley Woods, could. also restrict their rentals to elderly since they cons ist of efficiencies and. one-bedroom apartments. Therefore, this does not seem to be a major factor, There being no further discussions at this point, Mr, Persells introduced Mr . Lou i s Orosz who summarized each proposal as to type of structure, number of uni ts, parki ng spaces , community facilities, and. good and bad features. Mr. Persell s mentioned. that some question was raised regarding the t welve-story buildi ng propo s ed by Ebenezer Baptist Church conforming to the 100 foot height l imi t ation . The architects and engineers have assured the Authority in wr iting that t he bu i lding will be built within this limitation. �As a background for now and. later, Mr. Persells stated that FHA has looked over t he proposals and. in giving .mortgage insurance they would prefer having a great d.ifference in appearance between the public housing and this development. A distinction would work to create a different clientele. Mr. Etheridge stated. that his objection to the Ebenezer proposal is t hat it provides for large family residence; aad with this being a seven ·acre downtown site, he does not feel it is appropriate for this use. Mr. Sterne commented t hat 2/3 of the development is for elderly, leaving a small percentage for larger families. In response to Mr. Sterne's question regarding the demand for larger units in public housing projects, Mr. Satterfield replied. that at this time there is a demand. f or larger uni ts, and there has been so.me remodeling to pro vi de these. Mr. Cook asked for a decision from the Committee and Board. asked that Mr. Pierce be informed of the waiver and racial issue. He also With the entire Committee not being present, Mr. Cook suggested that everyone pres ent vote, then ask those absent to register their vote with him as Chairman of the Policy Committee. Messrs. Cook, Griggs, and Sterne voted for Ebenezer Baptist Church with Wesley Woods as a second choice. Mr. Etheridge voted for Wesley Woods with Ebenezer Baptis t Church as a second choice. With there being a descenting vote, Mr. Sterne su ggested. the decision be left open. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Gl~din to contact the r emai ning members of the Policy Committee today informing them to contact Mr. Cook regarding their recommendation. Mr. Persells stated. that he would like everything completed 10 days prior to July 1st to allow for adequate public notice prior to the closing date. This concluding the business, Mr. Griggs moved the meeting be adjourned. Approved : � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document “4 y A joift meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners of the Atlanta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 19, 1967, at 8:00 A. M. in the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriott Motor Hotel. The following members of the Policy Committee were present: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. E. Gregory Griggs The following members of the Board of Commissioners were present: Mr. Edwin L. Sterne, Chairman Mr. Frank Etheridge Also present were: Mr. M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Lester H. Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Collier Gladin, Chief Planning Ingineer, City of Atlanta The purpose of this joint meeting of the Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners is to recommend and decide which will be the successful redeveloper for Parcels C-1, 3 and 4 in the Rawson-Washington Street Urban Redevelopment Area. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Attridge if there are any irregularities present in any of the proposals that would require a waiver. Mr. Attridge replied there are some irregularities, and cited as an example the use of 202 as well as 221 financing in the Ebenezer Baptist Church proposal. Their proposed high-rise, consisting of efficiencies and one-bedroom apartments would be financed under 202 with the garden apartments financed under 221. The developer has been contacted regarding this and has indicated his willingness to go entirely 221. Mr. Attridge foresees no difficulty, however, with a waiver of this nature. A discussion continued between Mr. Cook and Mr. Attridge regarding the restrictiveness of 202 to elderly. It was noted, however, that certain of the other proposals, as Wesley Woods, could also restrict their rentals to elderly since they consist of efficiencies and one-bedroom apartments. Therefore, this does not seem to be a major factor. There being no further discussions at this point, Mr. Persells introduced Mr. Louis Orosz who summarized each proposal as to type of structure, number of units, parking spaces, community facilities, and good and bad features. Mr. Persells mentioned that some question was raised regarding the twelve-story building proposed by Ebenezer Baptist Church conforming to the 100 foot height limitation. The architects and engineers have assured the Authority in writing that the building will be built within this limitation.  As a background for now and later, Mr. Persells stated that FHA has looked over the proposals and in giving mortgage insurance they would prefer hav- ‘ing a great difference in appearance between the public housing and this develop- ment. <A distinction would work to create a different clientele. Mr. Etheridge stated that his objection to the Ebenezer proposal is that it provides for large family residence; and with this being a seven acre downtown site, he does not feel it is appropriate for this use. Mr. Sterne commented that 2/3 of the development is for elderly, leaving a small percentage for larger families. In response to Mr. Sterne's question regarding the demand for larger units in public housing projects, Mr. Satterfield replied that at this time there is a demand for larger units, and there has been some remodeling to provide these. Mr. Cook asked for a decision from the Committee and Board. He also asked that Mr. Pierce be informed of the waiver and racial issue. With the entire Committee not being present, Mr. Cook suggested that everyone present vote, then ask those absent to register their vote with him as Chairman of the Policy Committee. Messrs. Cook, Griggs, and Sterne voted for Ebenezer Baptist Church with Wesley Woods as a second choice. Mr. Etheridge voted for Wesley Woods with Ebenezer Baptist Church as a second choice. With there being a descenting vote, Mr. Sterne suggested the decision be left open. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Gladin to contact the remaining members of the Policy Committee today informing them to contact Mr. Cook regarding their recommendation. Mr. Persells stated that he would like everything completed 10 days prior to July lst to allow for adequate public notice prior to the closing date. This concluding the business, Mr. Griggs moved the meeting be adjourned. Approved: Py Ae es Rodney M.( Zook, Chairman  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 7 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/f792f3afe3e318d55f52933e1c2ce9ae.pdf 446a2fa357985c71fba816d242fe07a1 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. I .r June 12, 1967 0 A j oint meet i ng of the Ur ba n Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of Commi s sio ners of t he At l a nta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 12, 1967 at 11: 15 A. M. in the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriot to discuss t he awarding o f the bid in the University Center Urban Redevelopment Area. The f ollowing Members we re pres e nt: w (/) ~ w CL dj ~ J c::: 0 0 ro Mr . Mr. Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Rodney Cook , Chairman E . . Gregor y Griggs John M. Fl anigen Hugh Pi e rce Frank Etherid ge Edwin L. Sterne Mr . George Cotsakis Also pre se nt were : Mr . M. B. Sat t erfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr . Le s Pers el l s , Director of Redevelopment, AHA. Mr . Howard Opens haw, Chief , Pl anning-Engineering Depa rtment, At l a n ta Housing Author ity. Mr . J . B. Blayton , Membe r, Boa rd of Commissioner s, Atlanta Housing Au t ho r i t y. Mr . Collie r Glad in, Planning Director, City of Atlanta, Seve n redevelopers submit t e d propos al s , lis ted below, consisting of nar rative st a teme nt s , a ccompanied by drawings showing site plans, floor plans, elevat i o ns and pe rspe ctives , which we r e on display for discussion and examinati on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pri nc e Ha ll Mas onic Lodge # 1 Pri nce Hall Mas oni c Lodge # 2 Civic Ho usi ng As s ociate s, I nc . Atl a nt a Bui lding & Deve lopme nt Corporat io n Ce lotex Co r poration Department o f Minimum Salari e s , AME Chur ch Diamond & Kaye Prop erties Mr . Perse lls explained tha t the various reviewers ha d rat e d each proposal f airly equa l ins ofar a s t he i r cla iber of development is conc erned. @) =he committee p r oc e eded to di s cuss each propos a l, pr o and con. ~he question o f modifi cation of plans by FHA ( r e gardless of who the dev e loper is) and what constitu te s a mi nor a nd ma jor change of plans wa s discuss ed at length . Mr . Pe rsell s s a id that in dis cussions wi t h FHA abo ut t hi s particu lar point , the Housing Au t ho ri ty wa s ass ured that any changes requested would be within the or i ginal concept of d eve lopment . Mr . Cotsakis raised the ques t i on of providi ng ai r-conditioning in t he units , stating he felt it would be highly de sirab l e. �Minutes Urba n Renewal Policy Committee J une 12, 1967 Page 2 0 ~rr . Pers e ll s s tated that in 22l(d)(3) developments this is not an FHA requirement a nd the re is no way of subjecting a developer to it; that some co ns i derat ion is being given to this in a development in the RawsonWashi ngt on proj ect area; in the case of the 7 proposals at hand, one propo se s air-condi t ioning and the other six can supply unit conditioners later. Incidentally, Mr. Persells stated this would be considered a minor plan change . Mr . Etheridge st at ed that keeping in mind this property forms the entrance way t o At l anta 's Negro college complex, his concept of development would be t o go h i gh-rise, in order to allow more open space, and orient it to the col lege comp l ex , rather than to the overall housing problem. He · suggested the h i gh-ris e could be placed in the interior of the development with the l ow- r is e structu re s a round it, at the entrance way to the col l ege complex . Thi s concept would tie in with the colleges' proposal to place low- r ise buildings for faculty and students in a fourth of their property. There was f urthe r discussion as to whether or not it would be ethical for the c ommittee t o negot iate with a developer on a plan change after the award was made . Mr . Persells stated tha t minor changes vs. major changes gets to be a matter of opinion , but he fe lt you could negotiate with the winning develop e r within the conc ept of the original development, but as to the question o f hi gh rise, pe r se , he fel t if this was deemed advisable for the area , each developer wou ld have to be given an opportunity to submit plans based on a high- rise concept s inc e , in his opinion, this would constitute a ma jor cha nge . He also ment ioned that no wa ivers were granted in any of the propos a ls. The Chairman then called f or a decision . The Committ ee adopted, by unanimous co nsent, p r oposal number 5 by t h e Celo tex Corporation with proposal number 1 by Prince Ha l l Masonic Lodge 1 a s a second c hoi c e . There be i ng no f urther business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: me Respectfully submitted, � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document O mR) — i —s LEAR” (B® Kaa lt BOORUM & PEASE “fs A oc wi Or j Lhe k en June 12, 1967 ( A joint meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners of the Atlanta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 12, 1967 at 11:15 A. M. in the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriot to discuss the awarding of the bid in the University Center Urban Redevelopment Area. The following Members were present: Mr. Rodney Cook, Chairman Mr. E. Gregory Griggs Mr. John M. Flanigen Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. Frank Etheridge Mr. Edwin L. Sterne Mr. George Cotsakis Also present were: Mr. M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority. Mr. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, AHA. Mr. Howard Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atlanta Housing Authority. Mr. J. B. Blayton, Member, Board of Commissioners, Atlanta Housing Authority. Mr. Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta. Seven redevelopers submitted proposals, listed below, consisting of narrative statements, accompanied by drawings showing site plans, floor plans, ele- vations and perspectives, which were on display for discussion and examin- ation: . Prince Hall Masonic Lodge #1 Prince Hall Masonic Lodge #2 Civic Housing Associates, Inc. . Atlanta Building & Development Corporation Celotex Corporation Department of Minimum Salaries, AME Church 7. Diamond & Kaye Properties PwNye ann * « Mr. Persells explained that the various reviewers had rated each proposal fairly equal insofar as their claiber of development is concerned. The committee proceeded to discuss each proposal, pro and con. The question of modification of plans by FHA (regardless of who the developer is) and what constitutes a minor and major change of plans was discussed at length. Mr. Persells said that in discussions with FHA about this particular point, the Housing Authority was assured that any changes request- ed would be within the original concept of development. Mr. Cotsakis raised the question of providing air-conditioning in the units, stating he felt it would be highly desirable. O Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee June 12, 1967 Page 2 Mr. Persells stated that in 221(d)(3) developments this is not an FHA requirement and there is no way of subjecting a developer to it; that some consideration is being given to this in a development in the Rawson- Washington project area; in the case of the 7 proposals at hand, one pro- poses air-conditioning and the other six can supply unit conditioners later. Incidentally, Mr. Persells stated this would be considered a minor plan change. Mr. Etheridge stated that keeping in mind this property forms the entrance way to Atlanta's Negro college complex, his concept of development would be to go high-rise, in order to allow more open space, and orient it to the college complex, rather than to the overall housing problem. He suggested the high-rise could be placed in the interior of the development with the low-rise structures around it, at the entrance way to the college complex. This concept would tie in with the colleges' proposal to place low-rise buildings for faculty and students in a fourth of their property. There was further discussion as to whether or not it would be ethical for the committee to negotiate with a developer on a plan change after the award was made. Mr. Persells stated that minor changes vs. major changes gets to be a matter of opinion, but he felt you could negotiate with the winning developer within the concept of the original development, but as to the question of high rise, per se, he felt if this was deemed advisable for the area, each developer would have to be given an opportunity to submit plans based on a high-rise concept since, in his opinion, this would constitute a major change. He also mentioned that no waivers were granted in any of the proposals. The Chairman then called for a decision, The Committee adopted, by unanimous consent, proposal number 5 by the Celotex Corporation with proposal number 1 by Prince Hall Masonic Lodge #l as a second choice. RAKE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. kiekieickicKckk Approved: Respectfully submitted, (20). A Wea uke) Rodney cook, Chairman /soanne Parks, Secretary 8 Q  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 6 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/fc8183c6586eba526bee8a600240b04a.pdf e1fdcbf119d0578e2941501ecb6a4488 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. -· ~ 1::,_lar meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee combining three public hearings was held on Friday, July 14, 1967, at 10:00 A. M. at the City Hall, Committee Room 2. All members were present as follows: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. Gregory Griggs Mr. George Cotsakis Mr. John M. Flanigen Mr. Edwin L. Sterne Mr. Frank Etheridge Also preser+t were: Alder.man G. Everett Millican Mr. Collier Glad.in, Planning Director, City of Atlanta Mr. Robert Sommerville, Chair.man, CACUR; President; Atlanta Transit System Mr. William S. Howland, Executive Director, CACUR Mr. John Izard, Attorney, King and Spald1ng Mr. Les Parsells, Director of R0 development, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howard Openshaw, Chief, -Planning and Engineering Branch, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. James Henley, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Cook called the meeting to order and expl ained the purpose of this meeting is to have three public heari ngs. They will include (1) an Urban Redevelopment Plan for t he North Avenue - Boulevard Urban Redevelopment Area (part of t he Bedfor d Pine Urban Redevelopment Area); (2) a pr oposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Auditorium Urban Redevelopment Area; (3) a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Thomasville Urban Redevelopment Area. A fourth item, separate from the publi c hearings, is a Star- Tex pr oposal for di sposition parcel 22, West End Urban Redevelopment Area . Chairman Cook intr oduced Mr . Howard Openshaw, who was to make t he presentations f or t he Housi ng Authori ty. Mr. Openshaw began by orienting t hose present t o the Nor th Avenue - Boulevard Urban Redevelopment Project. A map was on di splay out lini ng t he boundaries. Mr. Openshaw s t at ed there were t wo r easons f or requesting appr oval of a por t i on of t he Bedfor d Pi ne Urban Redevelopment area at this time. The first being that it will pr ovi de, even while t he pr oject is still in planning, permanent public and privat e housing f or the resident s who will be displaced through the Urban Renewal process and who want to re.main in the general area. Subsequent to the appr oval of the Plan, the ·. Authorit y will file with the Federal Government an application f or an Earl y Land Acquisi t i on Loan to secure Federal funds to begin acqui s i t i on of a limi t ed area. Secondly, to provide rehabilitation assistance through Federal funds to resid.ent s along Boulevard who are now being subjected to rigid code enforcement by the City. H~ continued that the Authority will concentrate its acquisition, relocation and demolition efforts in the blocks bounded by North Avenue, Parkway Drive, Linden Avenue and Nutting Street to make public housing available at the earliest possible timee �i The Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Committee's consideration consists of a six page narrative document, a boundary and acquisition map, and three exhibits marked Minimum Property Standards. Secondly, consideration to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Authority to bear any loss resulting from early land acquisition activities in the event the area acquired is not included in the total urban renewal area. Mr. Openshaw stated that reuse of this area will be residential, consisting of public housing or 221 (d)(3) housing. Mr. Cook opened the floor to anyone wishing to comment or ask questions. Mr. Robert Sommerville asked if there is any assurance that the area on North Avenue will be approved. by HUD for public housing. Mr. Openshaw replied that we have had initial meetings with representatives from public housing, HAA and RAA and have preliminary indication they will go along with public housing, although we ,have not had official word it will be approved. The Committee heard from Reverend Searcy, Chairman of URF.SCU, State Representative J. D. Grier and Reverend Dorsey, all of whom endorsed the Plan and expressed their desire that permission be granted to imple~nt the Pl.an. Tommie Weeks, a lay member of URESCU, spoke for the people of Bedford Pine expressing their desire that the area remain re~idential. Mr. Openshaw added in a final note that 77 families are to be relocated in the area outlined in this Plan. Relocation surveys that have been conducted indicate that the predominance of people to be moved want to remain in this area; therefore, included in the application to be filed with the Federal Government, is a request of funds to provide temporary relocation facilities in the immediate area. For clarification, Reverend Searcy stated that even before construction starts, living space will be provided. for those who will be displaced and can live in temporary housing until public housing is complete. Mr. Cook replied this is correct and explained there is an open space in the Auditorium project area where temporary housing may be placed. Mr . Sommerville requested .maps showing this area be made available, and Mr. Openshaw assured him they are available in the Project Office for anyone wishing to see them and have been made available to Reverend Grier and w~ll be made available as needed. Alderman Pierce asked what the nature of the temporary housing will be and expressed concern for using something of this nature. He stated he would never go along wi th this solution unless there is assurance it will be temporary. Alderman Griggs moved the Committee approve the two resoluti ons and bring them to the Board of Aldermen Monday~ The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook stated the second publ ic hearing is on the proposed amendment to the urban redevelopment plan for the Aud.i tori um Urban Redevelopment area. Mr. Openshaw stated this Plan was ad.o pted in ·1 964 to get the Audi tori um under way and has been amended various ti.mes since, primarily for auditorium parking and street widening. This amendment is to permit acquisition of three properties at the southeast corner of Forrest and Piedmont Avenues. The reason to acquire -2- �i these at this point is to facilitate widening of Piedmont Avenue south of Forrest on the east side, and to relieve hardship or owner of Parcel BB 4-5. The Plan must be amended to acquire these parcels. Alderman Griggs moved the Committee accept the amendment to the Plan. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook stated the third public hearing is on a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Thomasville Urban Redevelopment .Area. Mr. Openshaw explained that this . project is nearing completion of its execution stage. On March 15, 1965, this area was designated by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for public housing. This amendment will designate public housing as a permitted use in the area north of McDonough Road. It will also include acquisition of two properties located at 1043 and lll9 Isa Drive. These properties have not been rehabilitated and are a blighting influence on the surrounding redevelopment. The original plan designated duplexes as a buffer between the proposed commercial and single-family development. However, the Zoning Committee turned down the rezoning application to permit duplexes at the request of the area residents. Mr. Openshaw pointed out a site designated for school vse and stated the School Board doesn't have money to buy the entire site. A portion will be donated as a park site, which will serve the school as well as the community at large. Also ihcluded will be proposed project funds to build a chain link fence along Moreland Avenue to protect the children in the area. Mr. Cook stated he has been told final plans should be ready in a few months and let for public housing by the end of this year with construction underway the first of next year. Mr. E. V. Mosby, a resident in the Thomasville area, stated he felt this proposal to be very good and asked that work get started as soon as possible. He thanked the Committee for looking into this situation. Alderman Griggs moved this amendment be approved. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook presented the next item for consideration and turned the meeting ove r to Mr. Herbert A. Ringle to make his presentation. Mr. Ringle explained that he i s attorney for a group of d.e velopers interested in a por tion of property north of Oak Street between Ashby and. Lee Streets . This . property is across the street from the proposed West End shopping center. His clients have purchased the Adalaide Apartments along with 12 of the 15 other parcels in that block. They want to develop a motel facility consisting of 296 rooms plus 4 penthouse apartments totaling 300 units. They have hired an architect and have developed preliminary plans for this facility. He stated his awareness t hat Urban Renewal has also projected a motel site in the same general vicinity; but according to his thinking, more than one motel type facility is needed in the area. He continued that with the acquisitions they have made and.·the offers for development they have received from national motel chains they are ready to go with the redevelopment -3- �of the site. He stated it will be an Urban Renewal development by private interest and private money. According to Mr. Ringle, they are ready to enter into any legal covenants that this pro{6rty will be developed strictly in accordance with plans specified by this Committee, and that they are not buying to resell but for development. Mr. Ringle introduced Mr. Henry Calb who stated the cost figures they have assembled. For the entire facility, the cost was estimated to be $2,921,000. It was Mr. Ringle 1 s wish that the site they are interested in be changed from-a to-be-acquired status to a not to-be-acquired status and give them an · opportunity in purchase the three parcels acquired by the Housing Author~ty. At this point the Chairman recognized Mr. Wilson McClure who read a r esolution passed by the West End Citizens Advisory Committee recommending, (1) '(That a plan change be submitted to include the acquisition of the Adelaide Apart·ments and vacant tract of land adjacent to the Adelaide along the expressway; (2) That the plan change on the north side of Oak street be deferred to see what interest is shown by a proposed developer of the shopping center." Mr. Tom Oxnard, &iitor of the WEST END STAR, stated that the primary consideration is the status of the West End Urban Renewal Project. A fine job has been done with rehabilitation; and with the proposed shopping center some time off, the psychological effect of a motel would be immeasurable so long as the type structure erected can be supervised. This would put a tremendous visual impact on the community if strict standards are followed. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Persells if he has any dates or figures for the shopping center which is the top priority area. Mr. Parsells replied that it will be advertised for sale by the end of this year. A date in mid August is being aimed for, but will probably have to be postponed. The shopping center has to be advertised for a considerable length of time, a minimum of 6 months and probably 8 months. He continued that the major delaying factor in the shopping center development is the presence of the Lee Street School. The replacement school is to be bid on and construction started in September . The Board of Fducation usually projects about a 15 month construction period fo"r such a school. If the school can be demolished after 15 months, the shopping center can get underway immediately. Mr. Cook stated that the relocation of Lee Street School will not affect t he Northern part of the sector and continued that construction of the northern porti on must be i ncluded as a part of the Plan. He said this is the main priority area in Urban Renewal, and hopefully some visual efforts will be evi dent within the next f ew months. He asked Mr . William Greenleaf fo r the actual status of acqui sition i n thi s block. Mr . Greenleaf r eplied that all par cels except one bet ween Zachery and Oak Str eets have been bought or ar e under option. In r eply t o Mr. Gr eenleaf ' s quest i on to Mr . Ringle regarding the number of parcels his clients have acquired, he r eplied that t en have actually be purchased and t wo are under option. Alderman Flanigan asked Mr. Gladin what t he eff ect of the shopping center will be on the motel. Mr. Gladin replied t hat this has not been looked into yet. He added that up to this point estimates that have been made are not projecting two motels, although he realized these estimates are out of date. I', --"'-- - --r--. �' . At this point, Mr. Cook turned the meeting over to Mr. E. S. Robinson, a Real Tutate Representative for Gulf Oil Corporation in Atlanta. Mr. Robinson .was interested in acquisition Parcel 11-1, located at the corner of Lee and Oak Streets, on which a Gulf Station is now operating. The Gulf Oil Corporation is interested in leasing Parcel 11-39 which fronts 50 feet on Lee Street. This property is now in a to-be-acquired status; they request it be designated not to-be-. acquired to enable Gulf Oil to lease it from the present property owner and facilitate expansion of the Station. Mr. McClure read a· resolution passed by the West End Citizens Advisory Committee recommending that, 11 ••• The property be acquired by the Atlanta Housing Authority and Guld Oil Company negotiate with the developer of the shopping center for additional space." Mr. Everett Millican said he spoke as an individual, not as a member of the Board of Alder.men, when he stated that if the station is to remain in this location the additional room is needed to make it an asset. Mr. Millican stated he has assurance from Gulf that the area will be cleaned up, removing arry debris that has accu.mmulated. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Mullican if the Committee approves this · request for the add.itional 50 feet would Gulf be any less likely in the future to move across the street if it was shown to be in the best interest of the shopping center. Mr. Mullican stated it is not the d.esire of Gulf to move across the street. He felt the position they presently .occupy is better than being directly on the Interstate. Mr. Oxnard pointed out that the West End CAC's discussion was not reflected in the resolution ready by Mr. McClure. He continued that the general feeling of the Committee was that the station should not be there. Rather than allowing it to expand, it should .move across the street. The general feeling was that it should not have been there in the first place and expansion would merely cut that much .more from the shopping center. Mr. Robinson countered that he ·met with Mr. McClure and the CAC July 11th and told them their plans were to beautify the station by landscaping and adding facilities to it, proposing to make that corner a credit to the area as a whole. Mr. Robinson believes this can be done by providing the additional .frontage. Mr.• Cotsakis moved the Com.mi ttee take this up in Executive Session. This was agreed on unanimously, ani the public hearings ended and the Committee moved into Executive .Session. When the Committee was called to order in the Executive Session, Mr. Cook stated in regard to the Star Tex proposal there is need for more pre-planning rather than just offering f or sale and. leaving it to the developer to draw the plans. He felt additi onal ground work should be laid before letting the site f or bids, and stated this is initially what must be done. Mr. Cook said. an immediate start must be made on the northern sector of the shopping center. He doesn't want to see everybody .moved out then take years to move them back. New buildings should be ready for occupancy before demolition begins on the old. structures. He thought this is s01nething ·· that must be required in developing the site. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Openshaw what happened to the idea of moving Oak Street. Mr. Openshaw replied that Mr. Karl Bevins, City Traffic Engineer, would not permit Oak Street to be moved because it would interfer with the expressway ramp. I -5- �•• . ',·""· Mr. Edwin Sterne commented in connection with Mr. Ringle I s proposed motel development that apparently Urban Renewal had already planned a motel and asked what effect another .motel development will have on this one and if it would make our proposed motel less saleable. Mr. Etheridge stated it would tend to create another constructive activity, and he did not believe there could be an adverse effect. Mr. Cook expressed more concern about its effect on the shopping center than on another motel. He continued that when we d.o have an opportunity to really put a plan together with something that looks good and can set the tone for the entire area, we ought to make every effort to tie it together. We ought to go further than setting a fixed price, then selecting the best plan submitted by outlining planning criteria and having the developer follow those plans. Mr. Sterne stated he. thought the entire area north of Oak Street ought to be devoted to motel use rather than ad.ding other facilities. Mr. Gladin thought it should be designed as one unit following a set design criteria. Mr. Etheridge suggested we have someone set up the design criteria rather than relying on the architect. Mr. Gladin suggested the City or a consultant make the plan. Mr. Persells suggested the Committee recommend to the Housing Authority that this be included in the Urban Renewal Plan for acquisition and take no action at this time and recommend to the Housing Authority that immediate steps be taken to implement a top notch plan by emplaying an outside Planner. Mr. Cook stated we will need to bring so.me~me in from the outside. Mr. Cotsakis did not think the Housing Authority should be responsible for selecting the consultant, but suggested as a.:possibility the Civic Design Commission. He continued that with an outside consultant, a plan be effectuated relating the entire ~rea. Mr. Cotsakis suggested the Committee defer a decision at this time. The Committee was in general agreement. Mr. Cook concluded that within 60 days the Committee should have some answers on this issue. * *** There being rio further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Appr oved: Chairman Respectfull y submitted: ,. Secretary - 6- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ’ Al “fy. bee nai meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee combining three public hearings was held on Friday, July 1h, 1967, at 10:00 A. M. at the City Hall, Committee Room 2. All members were present as follows: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. Gregory Griggs Mr. George Cotsakis Mr. John M. Flanigen Mr. Edwin L. Sterne Mr. Frank Etheridge Also present were: Alderman G. Everett Millican Mr. Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta Mr. Robert Sommerville, Chairman, CACUR; President, Atlanta Transit System Mr. William S. Howland, Executive Director, CACUR é Mr. John Izard, Attorney, King and Spalding Mr. Les Persells, Director of R,development, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howard Openshaw, Chief, -Planning and Engineering Branch, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. James Henley, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Cook called the meeting to order and explained the purpose of this meeting is to have three public hearings. They will include (1) an Urban Redevelop- ment Plan for the North Avenue - Boulevard Urban Redevelopment Area (part of the Bedford Pine Urban Redevelopment Area); (2) a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Auditorium Urban Redevelopment Area; (3) a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Thomasville Urban Redevelop- ment Area. A fourth item, separate from the public hearings, is a Star-Tex pro- posal for disposition parcel 22, West End Urban Redevelopment Area. Chairman Cook introduced Mr. Howard Openshaw, who was to make the pre- sentations for the Housing Authority. Mr. Openshaw began by orienting those pre- sent to the North Avenue ~- Boulevard Urban Redevelopment Project. A map was on display outlining the boundaries. Mr. Openshaw stated there were two reasons for requesting approval of a portion of the Bedford Pine Urban Redevelopment area at this time. The first being that it will provide, even while the project is still in planning, permanent public and private housing for the residents who will be displaced through the Urban Renewal process and who want to remain in the general area. Subsequent to the approval of the Plan, the Authority will file with the Federal Government an application for an Early Land Acquisition Loan to secure Federal funds to begin acquisition of a limited area. Secondly, to provide re- habilitation assistance through Federal funds to residents along Boulevard who are now being subjected to rigid code enforcement by the City. He continued that the Authority will concentrate its acquisition, reloca- tion and demolition efforts in the blocks bounded by North Avenue, Parkway Drive, Linden Avenue and Nutting Street to make public housing available at the earliest possible time. j The Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Committee's consideration consists of a six page narrative document, a boundary and acquisition map, and three exhibits marked Minimum Property Standards. Secondly, consideration to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Authority to bear any loss resulting from early land acquisition activities in the event the area acquired is not included in the total urban renewal area. Mr. Openshaw stated that reuse of this area will be residential, consisting of public housing or 221 (d)(3) housing. Mr. Cook opened the floor to anyone wishing to comment or ask questions. Mr. Robert Sommerville asked if there is any assurance that the area on North Avenue will be approved by HUD for public housing. Mr. Openshaw replied that we have had initial meetings with representatives from public housing, HAA and RAA and have preliminary indication they will go along with public housing, although we have not had official word it will be approved. The Committee heard from Reverend Searcy, Chairman of URESCU, State Representative J. D. Grier and Reverend Dorsey, all of whom endorsed the Plan and expressed their desire that permission be granted to implement the Plan. Tommie Weeks, a lay member of URESCU, spoke for the people of Bedford Pine expressing their desire that the area remain residential. Mr. Openshaw added in a final note that 77 families are to be relocated in the area outlined in this Plan. Relocation surveys that have been conducted indicate that the predominance of people to be moved want to remain in this area; therefore, included in the application to be filed with the Federal Government, is a request of funds to provide temporary relocation facilities in the immediate area. For clarification, Reverend Searcy stated that even before construction starts, living space will be provided for those who will be displaced and can live in temporary housing until public housing is complete. Mr. Cook replied this is correct and explained there is an open space in the Auditorium project area where temporary housing may be placed. Mr. Sommerville requested maps showing this area be made available, and Mr. Openshaw assured him they are available in the Project Office for anyone wishing to see them and have been made available to Reverend Grier and will be made avail- able as needed. Alderman Pierce asked what the nature of the temporary housing will be and expressed concern for using something of this nature. He stated he would never go along with this solution unless there is assurance it will be temporary. Alderman Griggs moved the Committee approve the two resolutions and bring them to the Board of Aldermen Monday. The vote was unanimous. HHH HH H Chairman Cook stated the second public hearing is on the proposed amend- ment to the urban redevelopment plan for the Auditorium Urban Redevelopment area. Mr. Openshaw stated this Plan was adopted in 196) to get the Auditorium under way and has been amended various times since, primarily for auditorium parking and street widening. This amendment is to permit acquisition of three properties at the southeast corner of Forrest and Piedmont Avenues. The reason to acquire ¥ =Z< these at this point is to facilitate widening of Piedmont Avenue south of Forrest on the east side, and to relieve hardship or owner of Parcel BB 4-5. The Plan must be amended to acquire these parcels. Alderman Griggs moved the Committee acéept the amendment to the Plan. The vote was unanimous. KHHHHH HEH Chairman Cook stated the third public hearing is on a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Thomasville Urban Redevelopment Area. Mr. Openshaw explained that this project is nearing completion of its execution stage. On March 15, 1965, this area was designated by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for public housing. This amendment will designate public housing as a permitted use in the area north of McDonough Road. It will also include acquisition of two properties located at 10,3 and 1119 Isa Drive. ; These properties have not been rehabilitated and are a blighting in- fluence on the surrounding redevelopment. The original plan designated duplexes as a buffer between the proposed commercial and single-family development. How- ever, the Zoning Committee turned down the rezoning application to permit duplexes at the request of the area residents. Mr. Openshaw pointed out a site designated for school yse and stated the School Board doesn't have money to buy the entire site. A portion will be donated as a park site, which will serve the school as well as the community at large. Also included will be proposed project funds to build a chain link fence along Moreland Avenue to protect the children in the area. Mr. Cook stated he has been told final plans should be ready in a few months and let for public housing by the end of this year with construction under- way the first of next year. Mr. E. V. Mosby, a resident in the Thomasville area, stated he felt this proposal to be very good and asked that work get started as soon as possible. He thanked the Committee for looking into this situation. Alderman Griggs moved this amendment be approved. The vote was unanimous. HHH HH HH Chairman Cook presented the next item for consideration and turned the meeting over to Mr. Herbert A. Ringle to make his presentation. Mr. Ringle ex- plained that he is attorney for a group of developers interested in a portion of property north of Oak Street between Ashby and Lee Streets. This. property is across the street from the proposed West End shopping center. His clients have purchased the Adalaide Apartments along with 12 of the 15 other parcels in that block. They want to develop a motel facility consisting of 296 rooms plus ) pent- house apartments totaling 300 units. They have hired an architect and have developed preliminary plans for this facility. He stated his awareness that Urban Renewal has also projected a motel site in the same general vicinity; but according to his thinking, more than one motel type facility is needed in the area. He continued that with the acquisitions they have made and:the offers for development they have received from national motel chains they are ready to go with the redevelopment =3- ; of the site. He stated it will be an Urban Renewal development by private interest and private money. According to Mr. Ringle, they are ready to enter into any legal covenants that this property will be developed strictly in accordance with plans specified by this Committee, and that they are not buying to resell but for develop- ment. Mr. Ringle introduced Mr. Henry Calb who stated the cost figures they have assembled. For the entire facility, the cost was estimated to be $2,921,000. It was Mr. Ringle's wish that the site they are interested in be changed from a to-be-acquired status to a not to-be-acquired status and give them an opportunity t purchase the three parcels acquired by the Housing Authority. At this point the Chairman recognized Mr. Wilson McClure who read a resolution passed by the West End Citizens Advisory Committee recommending, (1) "That a plan change be submitted to include the acquisition of the Adelaide Apart- ‘ments and vacant tract of land adjacent to the Adelaide along the expressway; (2) That the plan change on the north side of Oak Street be deferred to see what interest is shown by a proposed developer of the shopping center." Mr. Tom Oxnard, Editor of the WEST END STAR, stated that the primary consideration is the status of the West End Urban Renewal Project. A fine job has been done with rehabilitation; and with the proposed shopping center some time off, the psychological effect of a motel would be immeasurable so long as the type structure erected can be supervised. This would put a tremendous visual impact on the community if strict standards are followed. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Persells if he has any dates or figures for the shopping center which is the top priority area. Mr. Persells replied that it will be advertised for sale by the end of this year. A date in mid August is being aimed for, but will probably have to be postponed. The shopping center has to be ad- vertised for a considerable length of time, a minimum of 6 months and probably 8 months. He continued that the major delaying factor in the shopping center develop- ment is the presence of the Lee Street School. The replacement school is to be bid on and construction started in September. The Board of Education usually pro- jects about a 15 month construction period for such a school. If the school can be demolished after 15 months, the shopping center can get underway immediately. Mr. Cook stated that the relocation of Lee Street School will not affect the Northern part of the sector and continued that construction of the northern portion must be included as a part of the Plan. He said this is the main priority area in Urban Renewal, and hopefully some visual efforts will be evident within the next few months. He asked Mr. William Greenleaf for the actual status of acquisition in this block. Mr. Greenleaf replied that all parcels except one between Zachery and Oak Streets have been bought or are under option. In reply to Mr. Greenleaf's question to Mr. Ringle regarding the number of parcels his clients have acquired, he replied that ten have actually be purchased and two are under option. Alderman Flanigen asked Mr. Gladin what the effect of the shopping center will be on the motel. Mr. Gladin replied that this has not been looked into yet. He added that up to this point estimates that have been made are not projecting two motels, although he realized these estimates are out of date. HHH HH EH HE -4- the shopping center. He doesn't want to see everybody moved out then take years At this point, Mr. Cook turned the meeting over to Mr. E. S. Robinson, a Real Estate Representative for Gulf Oil Corporation in Atlanta. Mr. Robinson .was interested in acquisition Parcel 11-1, located at the corner of Lee and Oak Streets, on which a Gulf Station is now operating. The Gulf Oil Corporation is interested in leasing Parcel 11-39 which fronts 50 feet on Lee Street. This pro- perty is now in a to-be-acquired status; they request it be designated not to-be- acquired to enable Gulf Oil to lease it from the present property owner and facilitate expansion of the Station. . Mr. McClure read a resolution passed by the West End Citizens Advisory Committee recommending that, "...The property be acquired by the Atlanta Housing Authority and Guld Oil Company negotiate with the developer of the shopping center for additional space." Mr. Everett Millican said he spoke as an individual, not as a member of the Board of Aldermen, when he stated that if the station is to remain in this location the additional room is needed to make it an asset. Mr. Millican stated he has assurance from Gulf that the area will be cleaned up, removing any debris that has accummulated. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Mullican if the Committee approves this request for the additional 50 feet would Gulf be any less likely in the future to move across the street if it was shown to be in the best interest of the shopp- ing center. Mr. Mullican stated it is not the desire of Gulf to move across the street. He felt the position they presently occupy is better than being directly on the Interstate. Mr. Oxnard pointed out that the West End CAC's discussion was not re- flected in the resolution ready by Mr. McClure. He continued that the general feeling of the Committee was that the station should not be there. Rather than allowing it to expand, it should move across the street. The general feeling was that it should not have been there in the first place and expansion would merely cut that much more from the shopping center. Mr. Robinson countered that he met with Mr. McClure and the CAC July 11th and told them their plans were to beautify the station by landscaping and adding facilities to it, proposing to make that corner a credit to the area as a whole. Mr. Robinson believes this can be done by providing the additional frontage. Mr. Cotsakis moved the Committee take this up in Executive Session. This was agreed on unanimously, and the public hearings ended and the Committee moved into Executive Session. HHEHHKH HE KU HHH H When the Committee was called to order in the Executive Session, Mr. Cook stated in regard to the Star Tex proposal there is need for more pre-planning rather than just offering for sale and leaving it to the developer to draw the plans. He felt additional ground work should be laid before letting the site for bids, and stated this is initially what must be done. Mr. Cook said an immediate start must be made on the northern sector of to move them back. New buildings should be ready for occupancy before demolition begins on the old structures. He thought this is something that must be required in developing the site. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Openshaw what happened to the idea of moving Oak Street. Mr. Openshaw replied that Mr. Karl Bevins, City Traffic Engineer, would not permit Oak Street to be moved because it would interfer with the expressway ramp. i a a? Mr. Edwin Sterne commented in connection with Mr. Ringle's proposed motel development that apparently Urban Renewal had already planned a motel and asked what effect another motel development will have on this one and if it would make our proposed motel less saleable. Mr. Etheridge stated it would tend to create another constructive activity, and he did not believe there could be an adverse effect. Mr. Cook expressed more concern about its effect on the shopping center than on another motel. He continued that when we do have an opportunity to really put a plan together with something that looks good and can set the tone for the entire area, we ought to make every effort to tie it together. We ought to go further than setting a fixed price, then selecting the best plan submitted by outlining planning criteria and having the developer follow those plans. Mr. Sterne stated he thought the entire area north of Oak Street ought to be devoted to motel use rather than adding other facilities. Mr. Gladin bem it should be designed as one unit following a set design criteria. Mr. Etheridge suggested we have someone set up the design criteria rather than relying on the architect. Mr. Gladin suggested the City or a consultant make the plan. Mr. Persells suggested the Committee recommend to the Housing Authority that this be included in the Urban Renewal Plan for acquisition and take no action at this time and recommend to the Housing Authority that immediate steps be taken to implement a top notch plan by employing an outside Planner. Mr. Cook stated we will need to bring someone in from the outside. Mr. Cotsakis did not think the Housing Authority should be responsible for selecting the consultant, but Suggested as a ‘possibility the Civic Design Commission. He continued that with an outside consultant, a plan be effectuated relating the entire area. Mr. Cotsakis suggested the Committee defer a decision at this time. The Committee was in general agreement. Mr. Cook concluded that within 60 days the Committee should have some answers on this issue. HHA HE Ht There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: Respectfully submitted: Rodney Mo ob bbe Secretary Chairman h  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 5 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/00b015af308356d6c6fb9205de9612c3.pdf be0833be16e2af4a9a984e472f8ef6a4 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. V inu:-es Urba n enewal Po l ic y Committee August 18 , 1967 0 WES EN D SHO PP! G C E 1-ER SUMMARY OF F!NDI !GS BY HAMME & ASSO C . I. Shopping c enter should inc lu de all land possible sinc e m rket stud y show s mo·e need th an land in o i inal bloc ks. This is true whether or not Oaks Street is closed (C i'y Traffc Engin . states that Oaks St . c annot be c losed) . 2. Fo· above reasons , Adelaide Apts . should be a c9 u ired and include d in shopping c enter area . 3. Gulf Station , sin c e a serv·ce station should be inc luded in Cen"er, shou ld remain "as is", expans·on and possi ble re -orientation shou ld be a su b ·ec t of negotiation between Gu If interests and the · fu ure redeveloper. 4. Construc ti o n of cente r ca n be staged sa tisfactorily and can be begu n befo e demo Iit ion of Lee St. School . 5 . Su ff icient o th e business along Gordon St. can and should be re located to the firsts age of construc ti on that it is desi rab le to provide for th is o po·tunity. 6. General design c riteria should be included in the Invitation to Bid but these shou Id not inc lud e either site o r construc ti on design . 7. If deve Iope rs do not propose to use the area north of Oa k St . , then a mo te I reuse would be desirab le . The project area and the market wi l I support two motels . It is essential that the area north of O aks St. no t be develope d to include fringe area businesses to the detriment of the center itself . 8. - ere is no dire ct relationship betwee 'he o·oj ct mot I site and t' e shopping �( I M in uJ-es U ·ban Ren e\val Policy Committ e Aug us-:· i8 , 1967 0 c ente r . Ne i ther is esse nf to the o the r . Ea c h would comp lem ent th e other . The v isual rela tionship would be between 1·he proposed projec t motel a nd th e exis ' ing Sears building and i ts park ing garage ra •h er than to new c onstruc t ion in th e new sh o pp ing c enter . 9. I 0. 0 s •aff pro posals w i ll be ready w i th in 30 days . Initial advert ising of th e projec t motel si te c an begin a t o nc e , if auth or ·zed . � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee August 18, 1967 ) Ds C Oo. O oO WEST END SHOPPING CENTER SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY HAMMER & ASSOC, Shopping center should include all land possible since market study shows more need than land in original blocks. This is true whether or not Oaks Sireet is closed (City Traffic Engin. states that Oaks St. cannot be closed). For above reasons, Adelaide Apis. should be acquired and included in shopping center area, Gulf Station, since a service station should be included in Center, should remain "as is", expansion and possible re-orientation should be a subject of negotiation between Gulf interests and the future redeveloper. Construction of center can be staged satisfactorily and can be begun before demolition of Lee St. School. Sufficient of the business along Gordon Si. can and should be relocated to the first stage of construction that it is desirable to provide for this opportunity. General design criteria should be included in the Invitation to Bid but these should not include either site or construction design. If developers do not propose to use the area north of Oak St., then a moiel reuse would be desirable. The project area and the market will support two motels. It is essential that the area north of Oaks Si. not be developed to include fringe area businesses to the detriment of the center itself. There is no direct relationship between the project mote! site and the shopping O Minuies Urban Renewal Policy Commiitee August 18, 1967 center. Neither is essential to the other. Each would complement the other. The visual relationship would be beiween the proposed project motel and the existing Sears building and its parking garage rather than fo new construction in the new shopping center. Staff proposals will be ready within 30 days. Initial advertising of the project motel site can begin at once, if authorized.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 4 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/df2d3c55ba42e9062d696f53d60a53d5.pdf b976e9356983ce90529d54e11ca81ed7 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. '0;) ,,... ~ ,I:~ , Au gust 18 , 196 7 ~! ..,, 0 ~ --, "> w U) < Lw 0... A regu la r meet ing of the U ba n Re newal Policy Commi t tee Vv'Cl S hel d o n Fr iday, August 18, 1967 a t 10:00 A. M . in Commi ttee Room #4, Second Floor , C ity Ha ll . A ll members we re presen t as follows: .. Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . -:- .,__ , er: 0 0 ro Ro dne y M . Cook, C hai rm an Hugh Pie rce G rego ry Gri ggs George Cotsa k is Joh n M . Flanigen Edwin L. Sterne Frank Eth eridge Also pre se nt were: Col I ie r G lad in , Plann ing D ire c tor , C ity of At lanta . Le s Perse ll s, Associate Ex ecutiv e Direc tor , At lanta Housing Authori ty. Don Ingra m , Planner , Ce ntra l A t lan ta Progress , Inc . W ill iam How land , Ex ecu t ive D ire c t o r , C ACUR. Howard O pe nshaw, Dire cto r of Re de ve lopme nt , Atlanta Housi ng Au th or ity. He nry Fil !mer , Department o f Housing and Urban Development Severa l o ther sta ff me mbers of the Housing Au th or ity were also present. Th e Cha irm an c al led the meet ing to o rder and the fo ll ow i g business was considered : @) I. Pu b I ic Hearing on Amendmen t to Roc kdale Urban Red e velopmen t Pla n . "" "' ~ .i , I .raj Li ,::;, "" '" w U) -< w a.. co c;:,.. ""::> c:: 0 0 QJ 0 Mr . O pe nshaw expla ined that the awarding o f the d ispos it ion of th is land to Davi Rosen Assoc iate s o f New York for mul t i-family housi l'\9 a nd c omme rcial de v el o pment has been made and the only pu rpose in br ingin g the matter be fore the Comm ittee t oday is to corre ct th e re c ord . He sta te d that the orig ina l Rockda le Plan was ad o pted by the Mayor and Board of Alde rmen on Apr i I 6 , 1960 a nd there ha ve been no am endments to th is plan . In the course o f offering this pro perty fo r d isposi t io n c erta in pro ble ms were e ncou ntere d (street la you ts, mu lti plic ity o f stree ts, re lat ive ly sma ll si tes, bu ild a b le and un buil dab le site s , etc. ) and su bseq uent plan c hanges w e re made to a ssist dev el o pers w ith these prob le ms. This a me nded plan was su bm itted to HUD and approved, bu t through a tech nicali ty , it has nev e r re c e ived offici a l a p proval of the Mayo r and Board of A lde rmen . Mr . Openshaw state d the p lan a mendment consi sts o f th ree ma ps a land a cq uisition and bou nda ry ma p; a z o nin g c hanges map , a nd a la nd use map, plu s a 13 page narrat ive . He reque sted the Comm ittee's a pprov a l in ord e r to corre c t the re cord . He a lso po inte d ou t that the proje ct bounda ri e s had bee n ex t ende d to Procto r Cre e k , pl us the addi ti on of a ha lf parc e l o f property and the delet ion of the Le e property on the sou th side of Dobbs Stree t in orde r to a vo id severa nce payments; also , the addi t io n of a se co nd sch ool. N o one appe ared to speak on th is matte r , �,' Minutes Urban Re newa l Policy Commit ee August I , 1967 Page 2 In Exec utive Session , motion was made by Mr . Sterne, seconded by Mr . G r "ggs and una nimously c a rried tha t the amended Rockdale Plan be a pproved . "I."*~:* ·k 1: ·): ·k·k -k •/: ·k ·): ·k 2. Morehouse Co llege re9u est to purchase Parcels 12 , 13 and 14, Unive rsi ty Center Urban Renewal Area. Mr . Openshaw pointed ou t th e parcels in q uesti on on th e project ma p . Cha irman Cook read a letter from Hugh M. Gloster, President o f Morehouse Co l lege , requesting that Moreh ouse be al lowed to purchase subject property , pointing ou t the ir pressing need for additio nal land for fac u lty and student h ous ing , as wel l as their inab i li ty to expand in any d ire c ti on , except in to Parcel 12 . Mr . O penshaw stated that the reuse pans indi cate_this property for hou sing so no plan chan ge would be re9 ui red; that it is his u nderstandin g they would purchase these properties a t the go ing rate of $40 , 000 per acre , al th ough he doesn't have this in writing. In Executive Session , the Committee unan imous ly approved the pu rc hase of Parce ls 12 , 13 and 14 by Morehouse Co llege and in so doing , re9 uested that a le tter be sent to all membe rs of the Coll ege Council of Preside nts conveying that: The Policy Committee recognizes that the Negro coll ege complex is one of Atlanta's greatest asse ts and desires to make available land to meet the long range needs of these vi ta l insti tutions of h igher learning . The -C ommittee further re cogn iz es that several of the a d joining co ll eges are also interested in. acquiring. additional urban renewal land for similar e x pansion purposes and it is the feeling of the Committee, the refore , that prior to a ny fur ther a pproval of such purc ha se of land, that an overall de ve lopme nt pl a n for the six co lleges be prepared and presen ted to the Commi ttee for review, a nd since th e University Center Proje c t is well into the exe cu t ion stage , it is felt tha t · such a plan shou Id be prepared as soon as possible . The Comm ittee the n continu e d to discuss the Un iversi ty Cen ter Pro ject a s a whole and severa l prob le ms which mi gh t de lay its consumma t ion , spe ci fica lly th e contemplated interc hange at the interse ction o f Northside Drive a nd Hun ter Street. The Centra l AME Church loca ted at this intersection desires to ex pand their prese nt facilities and air-co nd it ion them bu t up to th is poi nt , they ha ve been persuade d to delay the ir expans ion program; pendin g some determ inat io n abou t t he interch ange . Th is property, as well as the property at the corn er of Stonew all a nd Northsid e (for poss ib le rel ocation of th is churc h) hav e been taken out of the offer ing awa it ing some deci sion . It was also po inted ou t tha t some de c ision needed to be made on th e property on th e north side of the intersection of N orths ide a nd Hun ter before it becomes una vail a ble . �0 Minui·es Urban Renewal Pol · cy Committee Augus t 18 , 1967 Page 3 The Committee indicated their awareness of the fa c t that funds were not now avail bl e to purc hase the properties for th e in ter c hange , however , they were also aware of the fa c t that th e C ity is making monthly in te rest payments on ·rhe ent ire pro ject and sin c e it is we ll in to exe c ut ion , the t ime is rap idly approa c hi ng when the inter c hange will be come a c riti c al issue , perhaps be ing the o nly o bstac le to f inalizing the pro ie c t , and at this point the C ity w ould ha ve to make some determinati o n as to the feasib" ity of this interc hange . The Commi ttee c on c luded that the Housing Auth ority wou ld co ns u lt w ith their a ttorn e y's on ways to a ccomp l ish what is needed in th is a re a and a lso investigate the poss ib: ' :ty of a cq ui ring , as soo n a s possible , the no rth side of th e interse c t io n of Nor hsi e and Hu nte r. '~·k*""* * *-A··k·k *·k·k 3. Repo rt on Land Dispositi ons Mr. O penshaw gave the fo l low in g repo rts: BUTLER STREET PR O JE CT Parc el B- 11 -a , Auburn Avenue - so ld to Haugabroo ks Funeral Home to be pav ed and used for parking . Purc hasing pri c e - $26, 500 . Parc el E- 1 - to be a cq u ired by White Motor complex fo r $11 0,000 and expanded into th e ir present ho ldings . As a pa rt of the ir pro posal , the y wi ll re q uest the C ity to c lose a portion o f O ld Wheat Street. · Mr . Openshaw pointed o ut o n the pro je c t map the few remai n ing tra c ts to be so ld, sta t ing th ey are al I o n the market . RAWS ON-WASHIN GTON PR O JE C T Parcel A-5 , Mem o rial Drive - to be a c q u ired for a wh o lesa le fl o ral business. pri ce - $48 , 600. Purchasi ng Parc e l A-4, Memorial Dri ve - to be a cquired by the CMS Realty for parking for the adia cen t Briarcliff Mills. Purc hasing pri c e - $21 , 000. Mr. O penshaw po inted out on the project map other s ites schedu led to be acquired. THOMASVILLE PR OJECT Recently, in three se parate offerings , a total of 69 lots have been so ld , wi th 84 remaining �0 M i u i·es Urban Re ewa l Po li c y Comm ii" ee Au gus t 18, 1967 Page 4 to be so ld . Tw Ive (1 2) lo ts have been purc hase d by Preferred In ve stmen ts , head e d by Willie Wagn o n , at a tot a l c ost of $20 ,200; imp· ovement c os ts - $11 4-, 000 . Fo ur (4) lo ts ha ve been purc hased by Kingsber y Homes at a to tal c os t of $6 , 900; improveme nt costs - $36 , 000 . Fi fty - thre e (53) lots h av e been purc hased by Na t ional Homes a t a tota I c os t of $89, 950; improvement c os·rs $ 85 , 000 . Total de ve lo pm ent c os ts of 69 lo ts - $117 , 100; to tal improveme nt costs - $635 , 000 . Pl ans , site e le va t io ns and pho to graphs o.r: typ ic al home s to be bu ilt were prese nte d for review o n these pro posals. The Committee u nani mo us ly a pproved a ll sa le s e nume ra ted above . REPO RT O STAT US O F PU BLI C HO USIN G Mr. Pe rse l Is sta ted the re has bee n no c ha nge sin ce the las t report; bids are expe c te d t o be put ou t the lat ter pa rt of N ovembe r for 350 u nits. ~:* ·k * ·k * "k** ·k ·k * 4 . We st End Shopping Ce nter a nd Mot el S ites (See M inu te s of J u ly 14 , 1967 , Pages 3 th ru 6) . Mr . Perse ll s presente d each Committee me mbe r with a 11 Sum ma ry of Fi ndings , We st End Sho pping Cen ter" , pre pa red by Hamme r: & Assoc iates a nd br ie fl y c om me nte d o n e a c h re commendation in the repo rt . (See atta ched I ist). Also o n disp lay was a n arc hite c t ural model depi c t ing the terra in of the la nd . Mr . Persel ls no ted tha t pa rt o f Item 6 , re c ommending that we sh ould not inc lude either site o r c o nstru c t io n desig n c riteria in the dev el o pm e nt of gene ra l design c r iteria , was a t varian c e with the Comm itte e •s las·r di sc uss io n o n t he matte r . Mr . Eth e ridge fe lt very stro ngly that thi s area has trem e nd ous trading power and is eq u iva le nt to the c e ntral core of a fairl y large c ity and he adv oc a te d th e co nta c tin g of firm s wh o o pera te on a nat io n-wide basis to get their o bse rva ti ons and sugge sti o ns fo r thi s dev el o pment be fo re we make an y de c ision o n the o ffering . Mr . Coo k stated th a t fr om a psycho logi c a l sta ndpo int we ne e d to ma ke an immedi ate move in We st End a nd fo r thi s rea son he expresse d c oncern tha t Mr . Eth er idge• s pro posal w ou ld be too t ime co nsum ing . He sta ted he also fel t tha t mini mum deve lo pme nt standards shou Id be e s tab I ishe d and the succe ssfu I b idder req u ired to meet o r exceed them. �0 Minu tes U· ban en ewal Policy Committee August 18, 1967 Page 5 Mr . C oo k th en read a lette r from the Star Te x group requesting an irn rn e dia '- e de c ision o n th e release o f 85 1, 869 an d 885 Oa k Stree t. In the dis cu ssion t at followe , the Committee felt that an ear !y de cisio n committ"ng this area to motel use might pre c lude ·he proper development or th e entire area planned fo r commercial use, bo h nor th a nd sou th of Oak Stree t; further , th e Committee is ve ry a nx ious 'i" o insure that 1·h e bes poss ible c om merc ial redeve lopment of this area o f the West End Prn je ct take place and to th is end, the Committee must c onsider_ the of ect, a d verse or o t, erwise , o f remov·ng that property nodh of O ak St eet from the to ta l area available for commerc"al develo , ent; co nsequen t ly , the Cornmit'- ee d e c ided that it was no t in a position, at this time , to grant the request for immed ia e acf on and i t was requested tho th e C hairman forward a letter to the St ar Tex group adv ising them that thE: Commi'-tee is sympa th etic to the ir si tuation a nd has instruc ed the C ity Planning De partmenl" a nd th e Atlanl·a Housing Au th ority to res tudy the feasibili ty of offeri ng this entire_ t rac t of land for development as a uni fied commer cial c enter. Until the resu lts of such a study a re kn own , the Comm it tee wi ll not be in a position to o ffer the area north of Oak Street o n a separate basis . Also , the Committee c oncluded that the Housing Au th or ity, w o rk ing with Mr . Ether idge , wou Id draft a proposa l to req uest f om national developers su ggest ions fo r th e proper development of thi s property , subsequent t o the approval o f the Ch ai rman . Also , th a t Mr. Cook would wok wi th the C ity Planning Staff and o thers in prepar ing minimum development standards for th e property . ·k***,;.·,· ·k ** *** ·A' *"A' There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned a t 12: 05 P . M . Approv ed : Respe c tfully submitted: (I 'J Rod ney M . f_,'.3ok, Cha rman jp 1 / Joanne Parks, Sec retary ,,1/ J � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document O we”? ies a? i ASE “NS PE i ~ > BOORUM & { dy August 18, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, August 18, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #4, Second Floor, City Hall. All members were present as follows: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. Gregory Griggs Mr. George Cotsakis Mr. John M. Flanigen Mr. Edwin L. Sterne ' Mr. Frank Etheridge Also present were: Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta. Les Persells, Associate Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority. Don Ingram, Planner, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. William Howland, Executive Director, CACUR. Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority. Henry Fillmer, Department of Housing and Urban Development Several other staff members of the Housing Authority were also present. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: |, Public Hearing on Amendment to Rockdale Urban Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Openshaw explained that the awarding of the disposition of this land to David Rosen Associates of New York for multi-family housing and commercial development has been made and the only purpose in bringing the matter before the Commitiee today is to correct the record. He stated that the original Rockdale Plan was adopted by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen on April 6, 1960 and there have been no amendments to this plan. In the course of offering this property for disposition certain problems were encountered (street layouts, multiplicity of streets, relatively small sites, buildable and unbuildable sites, etc.) and subsequent plan changes were made to assist developers with these problems. This amended plan was submitted to HUD and approved, but through a technicality, it has never received official approval of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Mr. Openshaw stated the plan amendment consists of three maps - a land acquisition and boundary map; a zoning changes map, and a land use map, plus a 13 page narrative. He requested the Committee's approval in order to correct the record. He also pointed out that the project boundaries had been extended to Proctor Creek, plus the addition of a half parcel of property and the deletion of the Lee property on the south side of Dobbs Street in order to avoid severance payments; also, the addition of a second school. No one appeared to speak on this matter, Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Commitiee August 18, 1967 Page 2 In Executive Session, motion was made by Mr. Sterne, seconded by Mr. Griggs and unanimously carried that the amended Rockdale Plan be approved. Rk eee 2. Morehouse College request to purchase Parcels 12, 13 and 14, University Center Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Openshaw pointed oui the parcels in question on the project map. Chairman Cook read a letier from Hugh M. Gloster, President of Morehouse College, requesting that Morehouse be allowed to purchase subject property, pointing out their pressing need for additional land for faculty and student housing, as well as their inability to expand in any direction, except into Parcel 12. Mr. Openshaw stated that the reuse plans indicate this property for housing so no plan change would be required; that it is his understanding they would purchase these properties at the going rate of $40,000 per acre, although he doesn't have this in writing. In Executive Session, the Committee unanimously approved the purchase of Parcels 12, 13 and 14 by Morehouse College and in so doing, requested that a letter be seni to all members of the College Council of Presidents conveying that: The Policy Committee recognizes that the Negro college complex is one of Atlanta's greatest assets and desires to make available land to meet the long range needs of these vital institutions of higher learning. The Committee further recognizes that several of the adjoining colleges are also interested in acquiring.additional urban renewal land for similar expansion purposes and it is the feeling of the Committee, therefore, that prior to any further approval of such purchase of land, that an overall! development plan for the six colleges be prepared and presented to the Committee for review, and since the University Center Project is well into the execution stage, it is felt that — such a plan should be prepared as soon as possible. The Committee then continued to discuss the University Center Project as a whole and several problems which might delay its consummation, specifically the contemplated interchange ai the intersection of Northside Drive and Hunter Street. The Central AME Church located at this intersection desires to expand their present facilities and air-condition them but up to this point, they have been persuaded to delay their expansion program, pending some determination about the interchange. This property, as well as the property at the corner of Stonewall and Northside (for possible relocation of this church) have been taken out of the offering awaiting some decision. It was also pointed out that some decision needed to be made on the property on the north side of the intersection of Northside and Hunter before it becomes unavailable. © Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee August 18, 1967 Page 3 The Committee indicated their awareness of the fact that funds were not now available to purchase the properties for the interchange, however, they were also aware of the fact that the City is making monthly interest payments on the entire project and since it is well into execution, the time is rapidly approaching when the interchange will become a critical issue, perhaps being the only obsiacle to finalizing the project, and at this point the City would have to make some determination as to the feasibility of this interchange. The Committee concluded that the Housing Authority would consult with their attorney's on ways to accomplish what is needed in this area and also investigate the possib’| lity of acquiring, as soon as possible, the north side of the intersection of Norihside and Hunier. RRERKEREEER EKER E 3. Report on Land Dispositions Mr. Openshaw gave the following reports: BUTLER STREET PROJECT Parcel B-I!-a, Auburn Avenue - sold to Haugabrooks Funeral Home to be paved and used for parking. Purchasing price - $26,500. Parcel E-I - to be acquired by White Motor complex for $110,000 and expanded into their present holdings. As a part of their proposal, they will request the City to close a portion of Old Wheat Street. : Mr. Openshaw pointed out on the project map the few remaining tracts to be sold, stating they are all on the market. RAWSON-WASHINGTON PROJECT Parcel A-5, Memorial Drive - to be acquired for a wholesale floral business. Purchasing price - $48,600. Parcel A-4, Memorial Drive - to be acquired by the CMS Realty for parking for the adjacent Briarcliff Mills. Purchasing price - $21,000. Mr. Openshaw pointed out on the project map other sites scheduled to be acquired. THOMASVILLE PROJECT Recently, in three separate offerings, a total of 69 lots have been sold, with 84 remaining O O O Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee August 18, 1967 Page 4 to be sold. Twelve (12) lots have been purchased by Preferred Invesimenis, headed by Willie Wagnon, ait a total cost of $20,200; improvement costs - $114,000. Four (4) lots have been purchased by Kingsberry Homes at a total cost of $6,900; improvement cosis - $36,000. Fifty-three (53) lots have been purchased by National Homes at a total cost of $89,950; improvement cosis $485,000. Total development costs of 69 lois - $117,100; total improvement costs - $635,000. Plans, site elevations and photographs of typical homes to be built were presenied for review on these proposals. The Committee unanimously approved all sales enumerated above. REPORT ON STATUS OF PUBLIC HOUSING Mr. Persells stated there has been no change since the last report; bids are expected to be put out the latter part of November for 350 units. HRRERRER RE RERER 4, West End Shopping Center and Motel Sites (See Minutes ar July 14, 1967, Pages 3 thru 6). Mr. Persells presented each Committee member with a "Summary of Findings, West End Shopping Center", prepared by Hammer & Associates and briefly commented on each recommendation in the report. (See attached list). Also on display was an architectural model depicting the terrain of the land. Mr. Persells noted that part of Item 6, recommending that we should not include either site or construction design criteria in the development of general design criteria, was at variance with the Committee's last discussion on the matter. Mr. Etheridge felt very strongly that this area has tremendous trading power and is equivalent to the central core of a fairly large city and he advocated the contacting of firms who operate on a nation-wide basis to get their observations and suggestions for this development before we make any decision on the offering. Mr. Cook stated that from a psychological standpoint we need to make an immediate move in West End and for this reason he expressed concern that Mr. Etheridge's proposal would be too time consuming. He stated he also felt that minimum development standards should be established and the successful bidder required to meet or exceed them. © O Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Commitiee August 18, 1967 Page 5 Mr. Cook ihen read a letier from the Star Tex group requesting an immediate decision on the release of 851, 869 and 885 Oak Street. In the discussion that followed, the Committee felt that an early decision commiiting this area to motel use might preclude the proper development of the entire area planned for commercial use, both north and south of Oak Street; further, the Commitiee is very anxious to insure that the best possible commercial redevelopment of this area of the West End Project take place and to this end, the Committee must consider the affect, adverse or otherwise, of removing that property norih of Oak Street from the total area available for commercial development; consequenily, the Cornmittee decided that it was not in a position, at this time, to grant the request for immediate action and it was requested that the Chairman forward a letter to the Star Tex group advising them that the Committee is sympathetic to their situation and has instructed the City Planning Deparimeni and the Atlanta Housing Authority to restudy the feasibility of offering this entire tract of land for development as a unified commercial center. Until the results of such a study are known, the Commitiee will not be in a position to offer the area north of Oak Sireet on a separate basis. Also, the Committee concluded that the Housing Authority, working w ith Mr. Etheridge, would draft a proposal to request from national developers suggestions for the proper development of this property, subsequent to the approval of the Chairman. Also, that Mr. Cook would work with the City Planning Staff and others in preparing minimum development standards for the property. RREREREREREEEEK There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 P. M. RRRERKEEERER ERE Approved : Respecifully submitted: wove } fj } : \ | ) (hs BL 9. Aids ‘ eet fhs \ , Rodney M. Csok, Chairman // Joanne Parks, Secretary ip  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 3 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/70192ffcd10bed652d8438b3686f6526.pdf 8a4e1dd4bed391733d105c348f3f4faa Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. Sep t eQbe r 22 , 1967 A re gu la r me e t i ng of th e Urb - 1 Renewa l Policy Commi ttee was held on Fri ay, Sep t embe r L2 , 1967 cJ t 10 : 00 A. rr. . in Committe e Ro om #4 , Se con d .,loo r, City· a 1 . The f o llo ii .g 1c1 he rs \ve r e pre s ent : Mr . Rodney Coo k , Cha i rman Mr . Z . Gregory Gri gg s Mr . J ol n . Flani ge n Ab sen :. : 1' r . Hugh Pie rc e · r . Fr ank Ethe ri dge Mr . Edwi n L. Sterne M_ , George Cots a cis lso p· esent we re : Hr . ·Ho\,1ard Open s h.:n-1, Di re c tor o f Red eve lo pmen t, Atlanta Housing Authori t y Mr . Le s Pc rs e ll s , As s ociate Exe cutiv e Di r e ctor, AHA Mr . Coll i er Gladin , Pl anning Dire ctor , Ci ty of Atla n t a ·r . Don Ingram, Ce ntra l Atla n t a Prog ress , Inc . 1r . Byro n Att ridge and J oh n Iza r d , Attorney s f or th e Atlant a Hou s i ng Au t hor it y The r e we r e a lso othe r staff members of t he Atla nt Ho u sing Au thority p res ent; the pre ss and r ep r esentativ e s of othe r c i ty departme nts . The Chairman c a lled the mee ing o rder and th e f ol l owi ng bus ine s s wa s con sid e r ed : 1. Par cel D- 19, Motel s ite a c ross fro m Fulton County Juvenile Court , Rawson - Washin~ton Urban Renewa l Area . Mr . Openshaw brief l y re c apped t he sequence o f events re lativ e to this prope r ty leading up t o thi s meet ing and sta t ed t ha t t he o rigin a l c l o sing da t e of January 10 , 1967 h as been e x t e nded tw ice with an addi t i onal 5% of the pui chase pric e b e i ng paid \vith each e x ten s i o n, p lus a n additiona l 6% of the unpaid balanc e s o t hat up t o the present time , they hav e paid $156 , 000 earnest money on the property and $1 0, 352 i nte r est . He then read a letter from The Edwards Comp a nies requesting approval t o assign their entire interest in Parcel D-1 9 to the American Realty Service Corporation w o proposes to construc t an Admi ral l3enbou Inn on the property consistin;; of 252 units at an estima t ed cost o f $2, 500,000. The origi na l proposal by The Edwards Companies was for a facility of 470 uni ts at an approximate cost of $6 , 000,000 . (For complete details of lette r from The Edwards Companies see copy atta ched he reto and made a part o f these minutes ) . Hr. Openshaw stated the Hous i ng Authority Board o f Commi ssioners, before acting on th i s ma t ter , \vould like a r e commenda tio n f r om t he Po l icy Coramit.-:ee . j �/ Ninutes U b n ~enc,>al Policy Corn, i - ee Septe .. ber :C: 2 , 196 7 Pa ge 2 0 Mr. odensh w pres ent ed site pl a n s and photographs oft e Admiral Benbow Inn ends ate i - is a considerable step downward in compa rable developments . ~r . Gla ins ate this site . he did no- feel we s hould compromise the development of C. airn an Cool· asked abo ut the le g al status of an assignment of this property to me ric an neal ty Servi c e Corpor tion . Mr . Iz rd s tate d this \rnuld be within the discretion of the committee . There 0as the n some d i scussion about t he possibility of a motel being able to ecure a liquor lic ense sinc e a church was lo c ated withi n 40 feet (to the rear) of Pa rcel D- 19 . Tis question was not resolved, but it was the feelin g of Le CO i1'.ITl l. t ee th 2t develo nme nt of the site would be doubtful unless a , ote 1 could ob o in such a license . 0 _ fter othe b rief di s cussion, it \-i as the consen sus of the committ ee that they wo ul d not obje ct to The Edw a rds Companies a st igning their interest in Parcel D- 19 to .merican Se c urity o _ some other company if the quality of development is not to be compromised . It was the op inion of the committee, however , that the second proposal f or the Admi ra l Be nbow Inn wa substantially i nfer ior to t he original proposal and it was reje c ted . 2. St a tu s of \Jest End Shopping Center . In compliance ,.-iith the action of the committee at the August 18 mee ting , Nr . Opensha ·I s ated he had mai led a l etter to t h irty maj or sho pp ing ce nte r developers throu ghou t the country inviting their commen son the proposed redevelopment of the West End shopping fa ci lity . A copy of this letter, al ong with a listing of the thirty companies , had previously been f urn i shed the Chairman and other r.,embers of the Pol icy Commit tee. Mr. Op enshmv st ated some did not respo nd for vario s reasons, fi ve needed additional informat!on and others were interested in being kept informed. The discussion then centered around the following qu es tions: 1. \Jhether or not to alloi, the Star-Te.- group t o proceed with their proposed motel development on property north of Oak Street , across the street from the proposed We st End shopping center ? It wa s the consensus of the committ ee that the Star - Tex group should be given a n opport unity to re design their propos al and before making a final dec i sion, t hc t Mr. Herbert Rin gel, Attorney for the gro up, would be allo\·J ed to appe .: i r wi t h h is clients at a specia l meeting set for Friday , September 29 at 10:00 A. to discuss the matter with the committee . 1. �--:::.-. ~l Minutes Urbar~ ene,,ia l Poli cy Commit ee Sep·embc r 22, 1967 ? Should Parcel s 22 and 23 be offered as one tract a nd as a part of this de ci sion , should the Adalaide pa trnents be acquired and offer in co njunct ion with these two parcel s? The co~nitt~e concluded t hat t he Ada laide Apa rtments should be acqui red and included in the deve lopment o f th e mtel parcel in a y event . It wa s pointed out by Mr . Op e nshaw t hat Karl Bev ins , City Traffic En•inee r , h as insi s t ed that Oak Street be left open and one way as it now is . He stated also that if the Sta - Te,~ propos a 1 oesn' t go through , the Housing Au thority would acquire the Adalai e Apartmen sand offer it in conjunc tio n with Parcels 22 and 23 . i t.:: 0 0 m 3. ?eq est by Gulf Oil Corporation to exclude f om the ~es t End Plans an addi tionai 50 foot pa rcel on Lee Street fo r expansion of the c isting sta tion at t he corner of Oak and Lee Streets, a l ready e xcluded f rom t e Plan s; whether or no t he statio n should be included int e We st Enci Plans nd acquired for the proper dev~lopment of the shop ping ¢ente and faili ng a cqu isition of the station, t he question of upgrading i to blend with the redevelopment of t ·e a rea? Th e committ ee voted una nimous ly to defer a de cision on this matter pending an appeara ce of the Gulf people before t he committee at t he special meeting previously set for Friday, September 29, 1967 at 10 : 00 A. M. 4. Offe~ing of Parc el 20 , lyin~ at the off-ramp to 1- 20 , f or mo tel developmen t . T, c committee requested that the Housing Author ity pro ceed to i IDL~ediat ely place this p r ope rty on the market for motel dev•elopment . ~ If!::} ·k*;~··Jddn'd:·k* ~ fS:,~ I T' ere being no fu rther business, the meeting was adj ourned . .. •~I .,=1· -d "J:d.."7~·' l~k**"1: ~--;, (-=a " '= Approved : Respectfully submitte d , ( I I jp 1 / I I I Jo anne Parks , Secreta ry � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document September 22, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, September 22, 1967 at 10:00 A. M, in Committee Room #4, Second Floor, City Hall. ne following members were present: fic. Rodney Cook, Chairman fr, E, Gregory Griggs Mr. John M. Flanigen He oF wo om =| a) H . Hugh Pierce Frank Etheridge Edwin L. Sterne George Cotsakis ho ore eS FS bs mon . . i Hh . Also present were: . Howard Openshaw, Director of BEEEYETOPEERE: Atlanta " ibesian Authority Mr. Les Persells, Associate Ricecutive Director, AHA Mr. Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta Mr. Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. Mr. Byron Attridge and John Izard, Attorneys for the Atlanta Housing Authority There were also other staff members of the Atlanta Housing Authority present; the press and representatives of other city departments. The Chairman called the meeting order and the following business was considered: 1. Parcel D-19, Motel site across from Fulton County Juvenile Court, Rawson-Washineton Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Openshaw briefly recapped the sequence of events relative to this property leading up to this meeting and stated that the original closing date of January 10, 1967 has been extended twice with an additional 5% of the purchase price being paid with each extension, plus an additional 6% of the unpaid balance so that up to the present time, they have paid $156,000 earnest money on the property and $10,352 interest. He then read a letter from The Edwards Companies requesting approval to assign their entire interest in Parcel D-19 to the American Realty Service Corporation who proposes to construct an Admiral Benbow Inn on the property consisting of 252 units at an estimated cost of $2,500,000. The original proposal by The Edwards Companies was for a facility of 470 units at an approximate cost of $6,000,000. (For complete details of letter from The Edwards Companies see copy attached hereto and made a part of these minutes). Mr. Openshaw stated the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, before acting on this matter, would like a recommendation from the Policy Committee. { Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee September 22, 1967 Page 2 Mr an sented site plans and photographs of the Admiral Benbow Inn a considerable step downward in comparable developments. ' d. St: Mr, Gladin stated he did not feel we should compromise the development of this site. Chairman Cook asked about the legal status of an assignment of this property to American Realty Service Corporation, Mr. Izgard stated this would be within the discretion of the committee, There was then some discussion about the possibility of a motel being able to secure a liquor license since a church was located within 40 feet (to the rear) of Parcel D-19. This question was not resolved, but it was the feeling of the committee thet development of the site would be doubtful unless a motel could obtain such a license. After other brief discussion, it was the consensus of the committee that they would not object to The Edwards Companies assigning their interest in Parcel D-19 to American Security or some other company if the quality of development is not to be compromised. It was the opinion of the committee, however, that the second proposal for the Admiral Benbow Inn was substantially inferior to the original proposal and it was rejected. a Saal as testeates ton’, aickiheiiiegr 2. Status of West End Shopping Center. In compliance with the action of the committee at the August 18 meeting, Mr. Openshaw stated he had mailed a letter to thirty major shopping center developers throughout the country inviting their comments on the proposed redevelopment of the West End shopping facility. A copy of this letter, along with a listing of the thirty companies, had previously been furnished the Chairman and other members of the Policy Committee. Mr. Openshaw stated some did not respond for various reasons, five needed additional information and others were interested in being kept informed, The discussion then centered around the following questions: 1. Whether or not to allow the Star-Tex group to proceed with their proposed motel development on property north of Oak Street, across the street from the proposed West End shopping center? It was the consensus of the committee that the Star-Tex group should be given an opportunity to redesign their proposal and before making a final decision, that Mr. Herbert Ringel, Attorney for the group, would be allowed to appear with his clients at a special meeting set for Friday, September 29 at 10:00 A. M. to discuss the matter with the committee, © $9 2) = rk A Re rj ilmenite rey Ife = Tt rs ” @® od ~ BAY yore Coa is SS 66a, ES EO Ecol RUM & PEAS Fe a JOE BC Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee September 22, 1967 Page 3 bo . Should Parcels 22 and 23 be offered as one tract and as a part of this decision, should the Adalaide Apartments be acquired and offered in conjunction with these two parcels? The committee concluded that the Adalaide Apartments should be acquired and included in the development of the motel parcel in any event. It was pointed out by Mr, Openshaw that Karl Bevins, City Traffic Engineer, has insisted that Oak Street be left open and one way as it now is. He stated also that if the Star-Tex proposal doesn't go through, the Housing Authority would acquire the Adalaide Apartments and offer it in conjunction with Parcels 22 and 23. teins Lo bd % quest by Gulf Oil Corporation to exclude from the West End Plans additional 50 foot parcel on Lee Street for expansion of the existing station at the corner of Oak and Lee Streets, already excluded om the Plans; whether or not the station should be included in the West End Plans and acquired for the proper development of the shopping éenter and failing acquisition of the station, the question of upgrading it to blend with the redevelopment of the area? bh ue i bh @ & md F isa The committee voted unanimously to defer a decision on this matter pending an appearance of the Gulf people before the committee at the special meeting previously set for Friday, September 29, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. RRR TERE 4, Offering of Parcel 20, lying at the off-ramp to I-20, for motel development. The committee requested that the Housing Authority proceed to immediately place this property on the market for motel development, RERERIEKERE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned, wkkickkiceks Approved: Respectfully submitted, By ) af /} / { elit Sh i . | AE eo Hg V4 ie ¢ Mt a “ a } Rodney Cook //Chairman /f/ Joanne Parks, Secretary * a  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 2 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/d11ca97ad7da9967c100848a09755d27.pdf 1d8229440bdf75f22fafb25b7adc2d16 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 0 @) ._ cf '"~;} o 7 1> / December 15, 1967 _/4 regular me e ting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, December 15, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #4, Second Floor, City Hall. Present: Rodney Cook, Chairman George Cotsakis Gregory Griggs Edwin Sterne Absent: John Flanigen Hugh C. Pierce Frank Etheridge w tr) -< w CL ~ 2; > er: 0 0 co Also present: Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Les Persells, Associate Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Coll ier Gladin, Planning Director , City of Atlanta Representatives of various other departments, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and members of the press were in attendance also. 0 The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: I. "'... Motel Proposal on Parcel 18 (south of new City Auditorium) by Beck Companies, Dallas, Texas in Bedford-Pine Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Openshaw stated the Housing Authority has re ceived a proposal from the Beck Companies of Dallas to construct ci two-story, 800 unit motor hotel on the tract immediately south of the new Auditorium on Forrest Avenue; that they have also e x pressed an interest in ad joining parcels 17 and 19. He said that the prese nt redevelopment plans of the Buttermilk Bottoms - Bedford-Pine Project do n.ot permit motel uses and in order to permit transient housing within the project a Transient Housing Study (in accordance with the Housing Act) would be required that ma kes a finding that additional motel units are needed in this particular vicinity of the City. Mr. Ope nshaw briefly reviewed the proposed uses in this Project as d e si g na ted in the 1965 Market Study by Hammer and Company and stated this is an oppo rtuni ty fo r the City to hav e o facility all the way to th e ex pressway c ompa t ibl e with the Audi to r ium and c ompleme ntary to it and the best use for this prope rty ne e ds to be stud ied in depth . �0 Minutes Urban Re newal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 2 tI He then stated he understands from the Beck Companies that time is of the essence with them and he recognized Mr. Nelson, a local represental·ive of Beck and Mr. Cleave Wilcoxon of Adair Realty & Loan Company, also representing Beck. 0 ' Mr. Wilcoxon briefly acquainted the Committee with th e Beck Companies ond stated th e ir main purpose in appe aring today is to u rge the accelerated offer in g of Parcel 18 for mo tel use in order that his cli ent could bid on it; that Be c k is prepared to submit, in writing, that they will also bid on Parc els 17 and 19 when they are offered. He said this proposed development will be similar to the Royal Coach Inn in Dallas, developed by Beck. Brochures were presented. Mr. Wilcoxon stated he also agreed that Parcels 17, 18 and 19 should hav e related uses compat ible with the Auditorium and it would be desirable if 18 and 19 were placed on the market as one parcel. This would require an adjus tment of the street-jog at the inte rse ction of Hi9hland and Baker. Regarding the Tran sient Housing Study and the Hammer Mar ke t Report Mr. Wilcoxon stated that he was reasonably positive that any such housing study woul d indicate the need for at -least 800 motel units in th e area; a nd that based on his past experience as a realtor, he did not believe there was a demand for a Research and De ve lopment Par k (as recommended by the Hammer study) in Atlanta at the present time. He cited two similar developments in Atlanta (The Hartford Building and an office development by Cousins Properties, Inc.) which have had difficulty leasing. Mr. N e lson then spoke to the Committee about the financial solvency of the Be ck Compani e s, the ir exper ience. in this development f ie ld, and he then presente d a brief slide prese ntation of their existing Royal Coach Inn. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Nelson what they would propose for Parce ls 17 and 19. Mr. Nelson state d th ey envis ion Parce l 17 for some restaurant~type facility with park in g and Parcel 19 would be exce ll e nt for motel use. Mr. Cook inqui red about the timetable for the housing study and if the re sults of sa id study a re favorable. Mr. Ope nshaw stated it wou Id take a bo ut s ixty (6.0) days to comp le te a Transi e nt Hou sing Study; that HUD approva l of th e Pro je ct Are a and a plan amendment to pe rmit mote l use , if deemed fe as ib le , cou ld be proce sse d w ithin s ix (6) months, prior to su bmission to th e Board of Ald e rmen for f inal adoption. Th ere was then a genera l discussion about the need for futu re expans ion of the Exhibit Hal I space to the north of the e x isting structure and the affe cts th is expans ion would h a ve on traffic c ircu lotion around the Auditorium and Ex hibit Hal I and th e propo sed re-use a s indi cated in th e urban renewal projec t p lans. There w ere no c oncre te conclusions drawn, how e ver , th e re was a genera l fee l ing that an expansio n o f the Exhibit space was warranted and that th is and the question of mote I I I l �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 3 i I I use should be studied in more depth. I 2. II University Center College Expansion. As a point of information, Mr. Openshaw stated he wanted to bring to the Committee's attention that in the near future they will be faced with a request to include additional land in the University Center Project for College e x pansion and take out more housirig; that he has been invited to speak before the Council of Presidents and he would advise them, us this Committee had _done in the past (see Minutes of August 18, 1967) that a request to expand the colleges would not be considered until they developed a Comprehensive Campus Plan. 3. 0 Proposed Addition to the Thomasville Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Gladin stated that last week the President announced the awarding of 95 acres of Federally owned property at the Federal Penitentiary to the City of Atlanta for low cost housing. The extension of the Lakewood Freeway was then discussed as it relates to this 95 acres. Mr. Gladin explained that th e State Highway and the Parks Departments are working together on a connection through the south side of the 95 acres and determining at what angle it will course through the property. The development of the 95 acres was briefly discussed , i.e., housing, parks, a jun ior · · high school, an e lemen tary school, and a smal I addition to the commercial shopping ark a. -. Mr. Gladin exhibite d a generalized sketch plan, "Stating that bette r mapping is being secured for more de tail e d design, and pointed out that th e public uses woul d be loca ted to the north of the roadway, adjacent to the remaining Federal Penitentiary property and the housing would be to the south of the roadway, tying into the existing Thomasvi ll e Proje ct, with a vehicular and pedestrian overpass. Thirteen acres were included in the general sketch plan which is not part of th e property awarded th e City and Mr. Gladin ex plain ed that he and Mr. Baxter of HUD p lanned to discuss the possibility of securing this additional acreage with Warden Black o f the Federal Penitentiary . ********** *** 4. Di spersed Public Housing Site s. Following up the Mayor's Housing Conference, Mr. G ladin stated the p lanning staff had -.. ,I �i· ~ [ 0 t Minutes Urban Re ne wal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 4 been see king new ways of providing additional low income housin g and on e recommendation made was the dispersed site concept; that the planning staff has simply taken this recommendation another step, strictly for discussion purposes, and selected various sites throughout the City that could be developed for low cost housing. Johnny Johnson, departmental staff member, addressed the Committee briefly on each of the individual sites shown on a display map. Supporting data was presented to -each Committee member that gave Public Housing Distribution by Wards, as follows: (I) number of existing public housing units; (2) number leased; (3) new or proposed units, (4) totals, and (5) percentages. ** ** *** ** ** There being no further business, the meeting ""'.as adjourned. 0 Approved: Respectfu 11 y submitted: (/ jp Joanne Parks, Secretary � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document a; ‘wu = 4 E ae fuse BOORUM & PEASE “ BOORUM & PEASE “NGigAR” ® December 15, 1967 ye mA regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, December |5, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #4, Second Floor, City Hall. Present; Rodney Cook, Chairman : George Cotsakis Gregory Griggs ; Edwin Sterne Absent: = John Flanigen Hugh C. Pierce Frank Etheridge Also present: Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Les Persells, Associate Executive Director, Atlanta Housing puirority Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta Representatives of various other departments, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and members of the press were in attendance also. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered; |. Motel Proposal on Parcel |8 (south of new City Auditorium) by Beck Companies, Dallas, Texas in Bedford=Pine Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Openshaw stated the Housing Authority has received a proposal from the Beck Companies of Dallas to construct a two-story, 800 unit motor hotel on the tract immediately south of the new Auditorium on Forrest Avenue; that they have also expressed an interest in adjoining parcels I7 and 19. He said that the present redevelopment plans of the Buttermilk Bottoms - Bedford-Pine Project do not permit motel uses and in order to permit transient housing within the project a Transient Housing Study (in accordance with the Housing Act) would be required that makes a finding that additional motel units are needed in this particular vicinity of the City. Mr. Openshaw briefly reviewed the proposed uses in this Project as designated in the 1965 Market Study by Hammer and Company and stated this is an opportunity for the City to have a facility all the way to the expressway compatible with the Auditorium and complementary to it and the best use for this property needs to be studied in depth. Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee December |5, 1967 - Page 2 He then stated he understands from the Beck Companies that time is of the essence with them and he recognized Mr. Nelson, a local representative of Beck and Mr. Cleave Wilcoxon of Adair Realty & Loan Company, also representing Beck. Mr. Wilcoxon briefly acquainted the Committee with the Beck Companies and stated their main purpose in appearing today is to urge the accelerated offering of Parcel 18 for motel use in order that his client could bid on it; that Beck is prepared to submit, in writing, that they will also bid on Parcels I7 and 19 when they are offered. He said this proposed development will be similar to the Royal Coach Inn in Dallas, developed by Beck. Brochures were presented. Mr. Wilcoxon stated he also agreed that Parcels 17, 18 and 19 should have related uses compatible with the Auditorium and it would be desirable if 18 and 19 were placed on the market as one parcel. This would require an adjustment of the street-jog at the intersection of Highland and Baker. Regarding the Transient Housing Study and the Hammer Market Report Mr. Wilcoxon stated that he was reasonably positive that any such housing study would indicate the need for at least 800 motel units in the area; and that based on his past experience as a realtor, he did not believe there was a demand for a Research and Development Park (as recommended by the Hammer study) in Atlanta at the present time. He cited two similar developments in Atlanta (The Hartford Building and an office development by Cousins Properties, Inc.) which have had difficulty leasing. Mr. Nelson then spoke to the Committee about the financial solvency of the Beck Companies, their experience in this development field, and he then presented a brief slide presentation of their existing Royal Coach Inn. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Nelson what they would propose for Parcels 17 and 19. Mr. Nelson stated they envision Parcel I7 for some-restaurant.type facility with parking and Parcel 19 would be excellent for motel use. Mr. Cook inquired about the timetable for the housing study and if the results of said study are favorable. Mr. Openshaw stated it would take about sixty (60) days to complete a Transient Housing Study; that HUD approval of the Project Area and a plan amendment to permit motel use, if deemed feasible, could be processed within six (6) months, prior to submission to the Board of Aldermen for final adoption. There was then a general discussion about the need for future expansion of the Exhibit Hall space to the north of the existing structure and the affects this expansion would have on traffic circulation around the Auditorium and Exhibit Hall and the proposed re-use as indicated in the urban renewal project plans. There were no concrete conclusions drawn, however, there was a general feeling that an expansion of the Exhibit space was warranted and that this and the question of motel Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee December |5, 1967 - Page 3 use should be studied in more depth. KREERKERERERERE ERE 2. University Center College Expansion, As a point of information, Mr. Openshaw stated he wanted to bring to the Committee's attention that in the near future they will be faced with a request to include additional land in the University Center Project for College expansion and take out more housing; that he has been invited to speak before the Council of Presidents and he would advise them, as this Committee had done in the past (see Minutes of August 18, 1967) that a request to expand the colleges would not be considered until they developed a Comprehensive Campus Plan. KREKREKREREEKEEE 3. Proposed Addition to the Thomasville Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Gladin stated that last week the President announced the awarding of 95 acres of Federally owned property at the Federal Penitentiary to the City of Atlanta for low cost housing. The extension of the Lakewood Freeway was then discussed as it relates to this 95 acres. Mr. Gladin explained that the State Highway and the Parks Departments are working together on a connection through the south side of the 95 acres and determining at what angle it will course through the property. The development of the 95 acres was briefly discussed, i.e., housing, parks, a junior high school, an elementary school, and a small addition to the commercial shopping area... Mr. Gladin exhibited a generalized sketch plan, ‘stating that better mapping is being secured for more detailed design, and pointed out that the public uses would be located | to the north of the roadway, adjacent to the remaining Federal Penitentiary property and the housing would be to the south of the roadway, tying into the existing Thomasville Project, with a vehicular and pedestrian overpass. Thirteen acres were included in the general sketch plan which is not part of the property awarded the City and Mr. Gladin explained that he and Mr. Baxter of HUD planned to discuss the possibility of securing this additional acreage with Warden Black of the Federal Penitentiary. KEKEKEKEKRKEKERERERE 4, Dispersed Public Housing Sites. Following up the Mayor's Housing Conference, Mr. Gladin stated the planning staff had Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 4 been seeking new ways of providing additional low income housing and one recommendation made was the dispersed site concept; that the planning staff has simply taken this recommendation another step, strictly for discussion purposes, and selected various sites throughout the City that could be developed for low cost housing. Johnny Johnson, departmental staff member, addressed the Committee briefly on each of the individual sites shown on a display map. Supporting data was presented to-each Committee member that gave Public Housing Distribution by Wards, as follows: (1) number of existing public housing units; (2) number leased; (3) new or proposed units, (4) totals, and (5) percentages. RRKEKKREREKREKRERE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. KREREKRKKEKREREKEEE Approved: Respectfully submitted: C8), tod bse ee SOs ss ea { pe? of” bb Saas Rodney Cook, Chairman // Joanne Parks, Secretary v  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Document 1 Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/9d89044b0fa20b86b7e7c8f63101ea43.pdf e642a1eee4b0115c3630ea666cda8a73 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 0 @) ._ cf '"~;} o 7 1> / December 15, 1967 _/4 regular me e ting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, December 15, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #4, Second Floor, City Hall. Present: Rodney Cook, Chairman George Cotsakis Gregory Griggs Edwin Sterne Absent: John Flanigen Hugh C. Pierce Frank Etheridge w tr) -< w CL ~ 2; > er: 0 0 co Also present: Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Les Persells, Associate Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Coll ier Gladin, Planning Director , City of Atlanta Representatives of various other departments, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and members of the press were in attendance also. 0 The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: I. "'... Motel Proposal on Parcel 18 (south of new City Auditorium) by Beck Companies, Dallas, Texas in Bedford-Pine Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Openshaw stated the Housing Authority has re ceived a proposal from the Beck Companies of Dallas to construct ci two-story, 800 unit motor hotel on the tract immediately south of the new Auditorium on Forrest Avenue; that they have also e x pressed an interest in ad joining parcels 17 and 19. He said that the prese nt redevelopment plans of the Buttermilk Bottoms - Bedford-Pine Project do n.ot permit motel uses and in order to permit transient housing within the project a Transient Housing Study (in accordance with the Housing Act) would be required that ma kes a finding that additional motel units are needed in this particular vicinity of the City. Mr. Ope nshaw briefly reviewed the proposed uses in this Project as d e si g na ted in the 1965 Market Study by Hammer and Company and stated this is an oppo rtuni ty fo r the City to hav e o facility all the way to th e ex pressway c ompa t ibl e with the Audi to r ium and c ompleme ntary to it and the best use for this prope rty ne e ds to be stud ied in depth . �0 Minutes Urban Re newal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 2 tI He then stated he understands from the Beck Companies that time is of the essence with them and he recognized Mr. Nelson, a local represental·ive of Beck and Mr. Cleave Wilcoxon of Adair Realty & Loan Company, also representing Beck. 0 ' Mr. Wilcoxon briefly acquainted the Committee with th e Beck Companies ond stated th e ir main purpose in appe aring today is to u rge the accelerated offer in g of Parcel 18 for mo tel use in order that his cli ent could bid on it; that Be c k is prepared to submit, in writing, that they will also bid on Parc els 17 and 19 when they are offered. He said this proposed development will be similar to the Royal Coach Inn in Dallas, developed by Beck. Brochures were presented. Mr. Wilcoxon stated he also agreed that Parcels 17, 18 and 19 should hav e related uses compat ible with the Auditorium and it would be desirable if 18 and 19 were placed on the market as one parcel. This would require an adjus tment of the street-jog at the inte rse ction of Hi9hland and Baker. Regarding the Tran sient Housing Study and the Hammer Mar ke t Report Mr. Wilcoxon stated that he was reasonably positive that any such housing study woul d indicate the need for at -least 800 motel units in th e area; a nd that based on his past experience as a realtor, he did not believe there was a demand for a Research and De ve lopment Par k (as recommended by the Hammer study) in Atlanta at the present time. He cited two similar developments in Atlanta (The Hartford Building and an office development by Cousins Properties, Inc.) which have had difficulty leasing. Mr. N e lson then spoke to the Committee about the financial solvency of the Be ck Compani e s, the ir exper ience. in this development f ie ld, and he then presente d a brief slide prese ntation of their existing Royal Coach Inn. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Nelson what they would propose for Parce ls 17 and 19. Mr. Nelson state d th ey envis ion Parce l 17 for some restaurant~type facility with park in g and Parcel 19 would be exce ll e nt for motel use. Mr. Cook inqui red about the timetable for the housing study and if the re sults of sa id study a re favorable. Mr. Ope nshaw stated it wou Id take a bo ut s ixty (6.0) days to comp le te a Transi e nt Hou sing Study; that HUD approva l of th e Pro je ct Are a and a plan amendment to pe rmit mote l use , if deemed fe as ib le , cou ld be proce sse d w ithin s ix (6) months, prior to su bmission to th e Board of Ald e rmen for f inal adoption. Th ere was then a genera l discussion about the need for futu re expans ion of the Exhibit Hal I space to the north of the e x isting structure and the affe cts th is expans ion would h a ve on traffic c ircu lotion around the Auditorium and Ex hibit Hal I and th e propo sed re-use a s indi cated in th e urban renewal projec t p lans. There w ere no c oncre te conclusions drawn, how e ver , th e re was a genera l fee l ing that an expansio n o f the Exhibit space was warranted and that th is and the question of mote I I I l �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 3 i I I use should be studied in more depth. I 2. II University Center College Expansion. As a point of information, Mr. Openshaw stated he wanted to bring to the Committee's attention that in the near future they will be faced with a request to include additional land in the University Center Project for College e x pansion and take out more housirig; that he has been invited to speak before the Council of Presidents and he would advise them, us this Committee had _done in the past (see Minutes of August 18, 1967) that a request to expand the colleges would not be considered until they developed a Comprehensive Campus Plan. 3. 0 Proposed Addition to the Thomasville Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Gladin stated that last week the President announced the awarding of 95 acres of Federally owned property at the Federal Penitentiary to the City of Atlanta for low cost housing. The extension of the Lakewood Freeway was then discussed as it relates to this 95 acres. Mr. Gladin explained that th e State Highway and the Parks Departments are working together on a connection through the south side of the 95 acres and determining at what angle it will course through the property. The development of the 95 acres was briefly discussed , i.e., housing, parks, a jun ior · · high school, an e lemen tary school, and a smal I addition to the commercial shopping ark a. -. Mr. Gladin exhibite d a generalized sketch plan, "Stating that bette r mapping is being secured for more de tail e d design, and pointed out that th e public uses woul d be loca ted to the north of the roadway, adjacent to the remaining Federal Penitentiary property and the housing would be to the south of the roadway, tying into the existing Thomasvi ll e Proje ct, with a vehicular and pedestrian overpass. Thirteen acres were included in the general sketch plan which is not part of th e property awarded th e City and Mr. Gladin ex plain ed that he and Mr. Baxter of HUD p lanned to discuss the possibility of securing this additional acreage with Warden Black o f the Federal Penitentiary . ********** *** 4. Di spersed Public Housing Site s. Following up the Mayor's Housing Conference, Mr. G ladin stated the p lanning staff had -.. ,I �i· ~ [ 0 t Minutes Urban Re ne wal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 4 been see king new ways of providing additional low income housin g and on e recommendation made was the dispersed site concept; that the planning staff has simply taken this recommendation another step, strictly for discussion purposes, and selected various sites throughout the City that could be developed for low cost housing. Johnny Johnson, departmental staff member, addressed the Committee briefly on each of the individual sites shown on a display map. Supporting data was presented to -each Committee member that gave Public Housing Distribution by Wards, as follows: (I) number of existing public housing units; (2) number leased; (3) new or proposed units, (4) totals, and (5) percentages. ** ** *** ** ** There being no further business, the meeting ""'.as adjourned. 0 Approved: Respectfu 11 y submitted: (/ jp Joanne Parks, Secretary �Sep t eQbe r 22 , 1967 A re gu la r me e t i ng of th e Urb - 1 Renewa l Policy Commi ttee was held on Fri ay, Sep t embe r L2 , 1967 cJ t 10 : 00 A. rr. . in Committe e Ro om #4 , Se con d .,loo r, City· a 1 . The f o llo ii .g 1c1 he rs \ve r e pre s ent : Mr . Rodney Coo k , Cha i rman Mr . Z . Gregory Gri gg s Mr . J ol n . Flani ge n Ab sen :. : 1' r . Hugh Pie rc e · r . Fr ank Ethe ri dge Mr . Edwi n L. Sterne M_ , George Cots a cis lso p· esent we re : Hr . ·Ho\,1ard Open s h.:n-1, Di re c tor o f Red eve lo pmen t, Atlanta Housing Authori t y Mr . Le s Pc rs e ll s , As s ociate Exe cutiv e Di r e ctor, AHA Mr . Coll i er Gladin , Pl anning Dire ctor , Ci ty of Atla n t a ·r . Don Ingram, Ce ntra l Atla n t a Prog ress , Inc . 1r . Byro n Att ridge and J oh n Iza r d , Attorney s f or th e Atlant a Hou s i ng Au t hor it y The r e we r e a lso othe r staff members of t he Atla nt Ho u sing Au thority p res ent; the pre ss and r ep r esentativ e s of othe r c i ty departme nts . The Chairman c a lled the mee ing o rder and th e f ol l owi ng bus ine s s wa s con sid e r ed : 1. Par cel D- 19, Motel s ite a c ross fro m Fulton County Juvenile Court , Rawson - Washin~ton Urban Renewa l Area . Mr . Openshaw brief l y re c apped t he sequence o f events re lativ e to this prope r ty leading up t o thi s meet ing and sta t ed t ha t t he o rigin a l c l o sing da t e of January 10 , 1967 h as been e x t e nded tw ice with an addi t i onal 5% of the pui chase pric e b e i ng paid \vith each e x ten s i o n, p lus a n additiona l 6% of the unpaid balanc e s o t hat up t o the present time , they hav e paid $156 , 000 earnest money on the property and $1 0, 352 i nte r est . He then read a letter from The Edwards Comp a nies requesting approval t o assign their entire interest in Parcel D-1 9 to the American Realty Service Corporation w o proposes to construc t an Admi ral l3enbou Inn on the property consistin;; of 252 units at an estima t ed cost o f $2, 500,000. The origi na l proposal by The Edwards Companies was for a facility of 470 uni ts at an approximate cost of $6 , 000,000 . (For complete details of lette r from The Edwards Companies see copy atta ched he reto and made a part o f these minutes ) . Hr. Openshaw stated the Hous i ng Authority Board o f Commi ssioners, before acting on th i s ma t ter , \vould like a r e commenda tio n f r om t he Po l icy Coramit.-:ee . j �/ Ninutes U b n ~enc,>al Policy Corn, i - ee Septe .. ber :C: 2 , 196 7 Pa ge 2 0 Mr. odensh w pres ent ed site pl a n s and photographs oft e Admiral Benbow Inn ends ate i - is a considerable step downward in compa rable developments . ~r . Gla ins ate this site . he did no- feel we s hould compromise the development of C. airn an Cool· asked abo ut the le g al status of an assignment of this property to me ric an neal ty Servi c e Corpor tion . Mr . Iz rd s tate d this \rnuld be within the discretion of the committee . There 0as the n some d i scussion about t he possibility of a motel being able to ecure a liquor lic ense sinc e a church was lo c ated withi n 40 feet (to the rear) of Pa rcel D- 19 . Tis question was not resolved, but it was the feelin g of Le CO i1'.ITl l. t ee th 2t develo nme nt of the site would be doubtful unless a , ote 1 could ob o in such a license . 0 _ fter othe b rief di s cussion, it \-i as the consen sus of the committ ee that they wo ul d not obje ct to The Edw a rds Companies a st igning their interest in Parcel D- 19 to .merican Se c urity o _ some other company if the quality of development is not to be compromised . It was the op inion of the committee, however , that the second proposal f or the Admi ra l Be nbow Inn wa substantially i nfer ior to t he original proposal and it was reje c ted . 2. St a tu s of \Jest End Shopping Center . In compliance ,.-iith the action of the committee at the August 18 mee ting , Nr . Opensha ·I s ated he had mai led a l etter to t h irty maj or sho pp ing ce nte r developers throu ghou t the country inviting their commen son the proposed redevelopment of the West End shopping fa ci lity . A copy of this letter, al ong with a listing of the thirty companies , had previously been f urn i shed the Chairman and other r.,embers of the Pol icy Commit tee. Mr. Op enshmv st ated some did not respo nd for vario s reasons, fi ve needed additional informat!on and others were interested in being kept informed. The discussion then centered around the following qu es tions: 1. \Jhether or not to alloi, the Star-Te.- group t o proceed with their proposed motel development on property north of Oak Street , across the street from the proposed We st End shopping center ? It wa s the consensus of the committ ee that the Star - Tex group should be given a n opport unity to re design their propos al and before making a final dec i sion, t hc t Mr. Herbert Rin gel, Attorney for the gro up, would be allo\·J ed to appe .: i r wi t h h is clients at a specia l meeting set for Friday , September 29 at 10:00 A. to discuss the matter with the committee . 1. �--:::.-. ~l Minutes Urbar~ ene,,ia l Poli cy Commit ee Sep·embc r 22, 1967 ? Should Parcel s 22 and 23 be offered as one tract a nd as a part of this de ci sion , should the Adalaide pa trnents be acquired and offer in co njunct ion with these two parcel s? The co~nitt~e concluded t hat t he Ada laide Apa rtments should be acqui red and included in the deve lopment o f th e mtel parcel in a y event . It wa s pointed out by Mr . Op e nshaw t hat Karl Bev ins , City Traffic En•inee r , h as insi s t ed that Oak Street be left open and one way as it now is . He stated also that if the Sta - Te,~ propos a 1 oesn' t go through , the Housing Au thority would acquire the Adalai e Apartmen sand offer it in conjunc tio n with Parcels 22 and 23 . i t.:: 0 0 m 3. ?eq est by Gulf Oil Corporation to exclude f om the ~es t End Plans an addi tionai 50 foot pa rcel on Lee Street fo r expansion of the c isting sta tion at t he corner of Oak and Lee Streets, a l ready e xcluded f rom t e Plan s; whether or no t he statio n should be included int e We st Enci Plans nd acquired for the proper dev~lopment of the shop ping ¢ente and faili ng a cqu isition of the station, t he question of upgrading i to blend with the redevelopment of t ·e a rea? Th e committ ee voted una nimous ly to defer a de cision on this matter pending an appeara ce of the Gulf people before t he committee at t he special meeting previously set for Friday, September 29, 1967 at 10 : 00 A. M. 4. Offe~ing of Parc el 20 , lyin~ at the off-ramp to 1- 20 , f or mo tel developmen t . T, c committee requested that the Housing Author ity pro ceed to i IDL~ediat ely place this p r ope rty on the market for motel dev•elopment . ~ If!::} ·k*;~··Jddn'd:·k* ~ fS:,~ I T' ere being no fu rther business, the meeting was adj ourned . .. •~I .,=1· -d "J:d.."7~·' l~k**"1: ~--;, (-=a " '= Approved : Respectfully submitte d , ( I I jp 1 / I I I Jo anne Parks , Secreta ry �'0;) ,,... ~ ,I:~ , Au gust 18 , 196 7 ~! ..,, 0 ~ --, "> w U) < Lw 0... A regu la r meet ing of the U ba n Re newal Policy Commi t tee Vv'Cl S hel d o n Fr iday, August 18, 1967 a t 10:00 A. M . in Commi ttee Room #4, Second Floor , C ity Ha ll . A ll members we re presen t as follows: .. Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . -:- .,__ , er: 0 0 ro Ro dne y M . Cook, C hai rm an Hugh Pie rce G rego ry Gri ggs George Cotsa k is Joh n M . Flanigen Edwin L. Sterne Frank Eth eridge Also pre se nt were: Col I ie r G lad in , Plann ing D ire c tor , C ity of At lanta . Le s Perse ll s, Associate Ex ecutiv e Direc tor , At lanta Housing Authori ty. Don Ingra m , Planner , Ce ntra l A t lan ta Progress , Inc . W ill iam How land , Ex ecu t ive D ire c t o r , C ACUR. Howard O pe nshaw, Dire cto r of Re de ve lopme nt , Atlanta Housi ng Au th or ity. He nry Fil !mer , Department o f Housing and Urban Development Severa l o ther sta ff me mbers of the Housing Au th or ity were also present. Th e Cha irm an c al led the meet ing to o rder and the fo ll ow i g business was considered : @) I. Pu b I ic Hearing on Amendmen t to Roc kdale Urban Red e velopmen t Pla n . "" "' ~ .i , I .raj Li ,::;, "" '" w U) -< w a.. co c;:,.. ""::> c:: 0 0 QJ 0 Mr . O pe nshaw expla ined that the awarding o f the d ispos it ion of th is land to Davi Rosen Assoc iate s o f New York for mul t i-family housi l'\9 a nd c omme rcial de v el o pment has been made and the only pu rpose in br ingin g the matter be fore the Comm ittee t oday is to corre ct th e re c ord . He sta te d that the orig ina l Rockda le Plan was ad o pted by the Mayor and Board of Alde rmen on Apr i I 6 , 1960 a nd there ha ve been no am endments to th is plan . In the course o f offering this pro perty fo r d isposi t io n c erta in pro ble ms were e ncou ntere d (street la you ts, mu lti plic ity o f stree ts, re lat ive ly sma ll si tes, bu ild a b le and un buil dab le site s , etc. ) and su bseq uent plan c hanges w e re made to a ssist dev el o pers w ith these prob le ms. This a me nded plan was su bm itted to HUD and approved, bu t through a tech nicali ty , it has nev e r re c e ived offici a l a p proval of the Mayo r and Board of A lde rmen . Mr . Openshaw state d the p lan a mendment consi sts o f th ree ma ps a land a cq uisition and bou nda ry ma p; a z o nin g c hanges map , a nd a la nd use map, plu s a 13 page narrat ive . He reque sted the Comm ittee's a pprov a l in ord e r to corre c t the re cord . He a lso po inte d ou t that the proje ct bounda ri e s had bee n ex t ende d to Procto r Cre e k , pl us the addi ti on of a ha lf parc e l o f property and the delet ion of the Le e property on the sou th side of Dobbs Stree t in orde r to a vo id severa nce payments; also , the addi t io n of a se co nd sch ool. N o one appe ared to speak on th is matte r , �,' Minutes Urban Re newa l Policy Commit ee August I , 1967 Page 2 In Exec utive Session , motion was made by Mr . Sterne, seconded by Mr . G r "ggs and una nimously c a rried tha t the amended Rockdale Plan be a pproved . "I."*~:* ·k 1: ·): ·k·k -k •/: ·k ·): ·k 2. Morehouse Co llege re9u est to purchase Parcels 12 , 13 and 14, Unive rsi ty Center Urban Renewal Area. Mr . Openshaw pointed ou t th e parcels in q uesti on on th e project ma p . Cha irman Cook read a letter from Hugh M. Gloster, President o f Morehouse Co l lege , requesting that Moreh ouse be al lowed to purchase subject property , pointing ou t the ir pressing need for additio nal land for fac u lty and student h ous ing , as wel l as their inab i li ty to expand in any d ire c ti on , except in to Parcel 12 . Mr . O penshaw stated that the reuse pans indi cate_this property for hou sing so no plan chan ge would be re9 ui red; that it is his u nderstandin g they would purchase these properties a t the go ing rate of $40 , 000 per acre , al th ough he doesn't have this in writing. In Executive Session , the Committee unan imous ly approved the pu rc hase of Parce ls 12 , 13 and 14 by Morehouse Co llege and in so doing , re9 uested that a le tter be sent to all membe rs of the Coll ege Council of Preside nts conveying that: The Policy Committee recognizes that the Negro coll ege complex is one of Atlanta's greatest asse ts and desires to make available land to meet the long range needs of these vi ta l insti tutions of h igher learning . The -C ommittee further re cogn iz es that several of the a d joining co ll eges are also interested in. acquiring. additional urban renewal land for similar e x pansion purposes and it is the feeling of the Committee, the refore , that prior to a ny fur ther a pproval of such purc ha se of land, that an overall de ve lopme nt pl a n for the six co lleges be prepared and presen ted to the Commi ttee for review, a nd since th e University Center Proje c t is well into the exe cu t ion stage , it is felt tha t · such a plan shou Id be prepared as soon as possible . The Comm ittee the n continu e d to discuss the Un iversi ty Cen ter Pro ject a s a whole and severa l prob le ms which mi gh t de lay its consumma t ion , spe ci fica lly th e contemplated interc hange at the interse ction o f Northside Drive a nd Hun ter Street. The Centra l AME Church loca ted at this intersection desires to ex pand their prese nt facilities and air-co nd it ion them bu t up to th is poi nt , they ha ve been persuade d to delay the ir expans ion program; pendin g some determ inat io n abou t t he interch ange . Th is property, as well as the property at the corn er of Stonew all a nd Northsid e (for poss ib le rel ocation of th is churc h) hav e been taken out of the offer ing awa it ing some deci sion . It was also po inted ou t tha t some de c ision needed to be made on th e property on th e north side of the intersection of N orths ide a nd Hun ter before it becomes una vail a ble . �0 Minui·es Urban Renewal Pol · cy Committee Augus t 18 , 1967 Page 3 The Committee indicated their awareness of the fa c t that funds were not now avail bl e to purc hase the properties for th e in ter c hange , however , they were also aware of the fa c t that th e C ity is making monthly in te rest payments on ·rhe ent ire pro ject and sin c e it is we ll in to exe c ut ion , the t ime is rap idly approa c hi ng when the inter c hange will be come a c riti c al issue , perhaps be ing the o nly o bstac le to f inalizing the pro ie c t , and at this point the C ity w ould ha ve to make some determinati o n as to the feasib" ity of this interc hange . The Commi ttee c on c luded that the Housing Auth ority wou ld co ns u lt w ith their a ttorn e y's on ways to a ccomp l ish what is needed in th is a re a and a lso investigate the poss ib: ' :ty of a cq ui ring , as soo n a s possible , the no rth side of th e interse c t io n of Nor hsi e and Hu nte r. '~·k*""* * *-A··k·k *·k·k 3. Repo rt on Land Dispositi ons Mr. O penshaw gave the fo l low in g repo rts: BUTLER STREET PR O JE CT Parc el B- 11 -a , Auburn Avenue - so ld to Haugabroo ks Funeral Home to be pav ed and used for parking . Purc hasing pri c e - $26, 500 . Parc el E- 1 - to be a cq u ired by White Motor complex fo r $11 0,000 and expanded into th e ir present ho ldings . As a pa rt of the ir pro posal , the y wi ll re q uest the C ity to c lose a portion o f O ld Wheat Street. · Mr . Openshaw pointed o ut o n the pro je c t map the few remai n ing tra c ts to be so ld, sta t ing th ey are al I o n the market . RAWS ON-WASHIN GTON PR O JE C T Parcel A-5 , Mem o rial Drive - to be a c q u ired for a wh o lesa le fl o ral business. pri ce - $48 , 600. Purchasi ng Parc e l A-4, Memorial Dri ve - to be a cquired by the CMS Realty for parking for the adia cen t Briarcliff Mills. Purc hasing pri c e - $21 , 000. Mr. O penshaw po inted out on the project map other s ites schedu led to be acquired. THOMASVILLE PR OJECT Recently, in three se parate offerings , a total of 69 lots have been so ld , wi th 84 remaining �0 M i u i·es Urban Re ewa l Po li c y Comm ii" ee Au gus t 18, 1967 Page 4 to be so ld . Tw Ive (1 2) lo ts have been purc hase d by Preferred In ve stmen ts , head e d by Willie Wagn o n , at a tot a l c ost of $20 ,200; imp· ovement c os ts - $11 4-, 000 . Fo ur (4) lo ts ha ve been purc hased by Kingsber y Homes at a to tal c os t of $6 , 900; improveme nt costs - $36 , 000 . Fi fty - thre e (53) lots h av e been purc hased by Na t ional Homes a t a tota I c os t of $89, 950; improvement c os·rs $ 85 , 000 . Total de ve lo pm ent c os ts of 69 lo ts - $117 , 100; to tal improveme nt costs - $635 , 000 . Pl ans , site e le va t io ns and pho to graphs o.r: typ ic al home s to be bu ilt were prese nte d for review o n these pro posals. The Committee u nani mo us ly a pproved a ll sa le s e nume ra ted above . REPO RT O STAT US O F PU BLI C HO USIN G Mr. Pe rse l Is sta ted the re has bee n no c ha nge sin ce the las t report; bids are expe c te d t o be put ou t the lat ter pa rt of N ovembe r for 350 u nits. ~:* ·k * ·k * "k** ·k ·k * 4 . We st End Shopping Ce nter a nd Mot el S ites (See M inu te s of J u ly 14 , 1967 , Pages 3 th ru 6) . Mr . Perse ll s presente d each Committee me mbe r with a 11 Sum ma ry of Fi ndings , We st End Sho pping Cen ter" , pre pa red by Hamme r: & Assoc iates a nd br ie fl y c om me nte d o n e a c h re commendation in the repo rt . (See atta ched I ist). Also o n disp lay was a n arc hite c t ural model depi c t ing the terra in of the la nd . Mr . Persel ls no ted tha t pa rt o f Item 6 , re c ommending that we sh ould not inc lude either site o r c o nstru c t io n desig n c riteria in the dev el o pm e nt of gene ra l design c r iteria , was a t varian c e with the Comm itte e •s las·r di sc uss io n o n t he matte r . Mr . Eth e ridge fe lt very stro ngly that thi s area has trem e nd ous trading power and is eq u iva le nt to the c e ntral core of a fairl y large c ity and he adv oc a te d th e co nta c tin g of firm s wh o o pera te on a nat io n-wide basis to get their o bse rva ti ons and sugge sti o ns fo r thi s dev el o pment be fo re we make an y de c ision o n the o ffering . Mr . Coo k stated th a t fr om a psycho logi c a l sta ndpo int we ne e d to ma ke an immedi ate move in We st End a nd fo r thi s rea son he expresse d c oncern tha t Mr . Eth er idge• s pro posal w ou ld be too t ime co nsum ing . He sta ted he also fel t tha t mini mum deve lo pme nt standards shou Id be e s tab I ishe d and the succe ssfu I b idder req u ired to meet o r exceed them. �0 Minu tes U· ban en ewal Policy Committee August 18, 1967 Page 5 Mr . C oo k th en read a lette r from the Star Te x group requesting an irn rn e dia '- e de c ision o n th e release o f 85 1, 869 an d 885 Oa k Stree t. In the dis cu ssion t at followe , the Committee felt that an ear !y de cisio n committ"ng this area to motel use might pre c lude ·he proper development or th e entire area planned fo r commercial use, bo h nor th a nd sou th of Oak Stree t; further , th e Committee is ve ry a nx ious 'i" o insure that 1·h e bes poss ible c om merc ial redeve lopment of this area o f the West End Prn je ct take place and to th is end, the Committee must c onsider_ the of ect, a d verse or o t, erwise , o f remov·ng that property nodh of O ak St eet from the to ta l area available for commerc"al develo , ent; co nsequen t ly , the Cornmit'- ee d e c ided that it was no t in a position, at this time , to grant the request for immed ia e acf on and i t was requested tho th e C hairman forward a letter to the St ar Tex group adv ising them that thE: Commi'-tee is sympa th etic to the ir si tuation a nd has instruc ed the C ity Planning De partmenl" a nd th e Atlanl·a Housing Au th ority to res tudy the feasibili ty of offeri ng this entire_ t rac t of land for development as a uni fied commer cial c enter. Until the resu lts of such a study a re kn own , the Comm it tee wi ll not be in a position to o ffer the area north of Oak Street o n a separate basis . Also , the Committee c oncluded that the Housing Au th or ity, w o rk ing with Mr . Ether idge , wou Id draft a proposa l to req uest f om national developers su ggest ions fo r th e proper development of thi s property , subsequent t o the approval o f the Ch ai rman . Also , th a t Mr. Cook would wok wi th the C ity Planning Staff and o thers in prepar ing minimum development standards for th e property . ·k***,;.·,· ·k ** *** ·A' *"A' There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned a t 12: 05 P . M . Approv ed : Respe c tfully submitted: (I 'J Rod ney M . f_,'.3ok, Cha rman jp 1 / Joanne Parks, Sec retary ,,1/ J �V inu:-es Urba n enewal Po l ic y Committee August 18 , 1967 0 WES EN D SHO PP! G C E 1-ER SUMMARY OF F!NDI !GS BY HAMME & ASSO C . I. Shopping c enter should inc lu de all land possible sinc e m rket stud y show s mo·e need th an land in o i inal bloc ks. This is true whether or not Oaks Street is closed (C i'y Traffc Engin . states that Oaks St . c annot be c losed) . 2. Fo· above reasons , Adelaide Apts . should be a c9 u ired and include d in shopping c enter area . 3. Gulf Station , sin c e a serv·ce station should be inc luded in Cen"er, shou ld remain "as is", expans·on and possi ble re -orientation shou ld be a su b ·ec t of negotiation between Gu If interests and the · fu ure redeveloper. 4. Construc ti o n of cente r ca n be staged sa tisfactorily and can be begu n befo e demo Iit ion of Lee St. School . 5 . Su ff icient o th e business along Gordon St. can and should be re located to the firsts age of construc ti on that it is desi rab le to provide for th is o po·tunity. 6. General design c riteria should be included in the Invitation to Bid but these shou Id not inc lud e either site o r construc ti on design . 7. If deve Iope rs do not propose to use the area north of Oa k St . , then a mo te I reuse would be desirab le . The project area and the market wi l I support two motels . It is essential that the area north of O aks St. no t be develope d to include fringe area businesses to the detriment of the center itself . 8. - ere is no dire ct relationship betwee 'he o·oj ct mot I site and t' e shopping �( I M in uJ-es U ·ban Ren e\val Policy Committ e Aug us-:· i8 , 1967 0 c ente r . Ne i ther is esse nf to the o the r . Ea c h would comp lem ent th e other . The v isual rela tionship would be between 1·he proposed projec t motel a nd th e exis ' ing Sears building and i ts park ing garage ra •h er than to new c onstruc t ion in th e new sh o pp ing c enter . 9. I 0. 0 s •aff pro posals w i ll be ready w i th in 30 days . Initial advert ising of th e projec t motel si te c an begin a t o nc e , if auth or ·zed . �-· ~ 1::,_lar meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee combining three public hearings was held on Friday, July 14, 1967, at 10:00 A. M. at the City Hall, Committee Room 2. All members were present as follows: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. Gregory Griggs Mr. George Cotsakis Mr. John M. Flanigen Mr. Edwin L. Sterne Mr. Frank Etheridge Also preser+t were: Alder.man G. Everett Millican Mr. Collier Glad.in, Planning Director, City of Atlanta Mr. Robert Sommerville, Chair.man, CACUR; President; Atlanta Transit System Mr. William S. Howland, Executive Director, CACUR Mr. John Izard, Attorney, King and Spald1ng Mr. Les Parsells, Director of R0 development, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howard Openshaw, Chief, -Planning and Engineering Branch, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. James Henley, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Cook called the meeting to order and expl ained the purpose of this meeting is to have three public heari ngs. They will include (1) an Urban Redevelopment Plan for t he North Avenue - Boulevard Urban Redevelopment Area (part of t he Bedfor d Pine Urban Redevelopment Area); (2) a pr oposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Auditorium Urban Redevelopment Area; (3) a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Thomasville Urban Redevelopment Area. A fourth item, separate from the publi c hearings, is a Star- Tex pr oposal for di sposition parcel 22, West End Urban Redevelopment Area . Chairman Cook intr oduced Mr . Howard Openshaw, who was to make t he presentations f or t he Housi ng Authori ty. Mr. Openshaw began by orienting t hose present t o the Nor th Avenue - Boulevard Urban Redevelopment Project. A map was on di splay out lini ng t he boundaries. Mr. Openshaw s t at ed there were t wo r easons f or requesting appr oval of a por t i on of t he Bedfor d Pi ne Urban Redevelopment area at this time. The first being that it will pr ovi de, even while t he pr oject is still in planning, permanent public and privat e housing f or the resident s who will be displaced through the Urban Renewal process and who want to re.main in the general area. Subsequent to the appr oval of the Plan, the ·. Authorit y will file with the Federal Government an application f or an Earl y Land Acquisi t i on Loan to secure Federal funds to begin acqui s i t i on of a limi t ed area. Secondly, to provide rehabilitation assistance through Federal funds to resid.ent s along Boulevard who are now being subjected to rigid code enforcement by the City. H~ continued that the Authority will concentrate its acquisition, relocation and demolition efforts in the blocks bounded by North Avenue, Parkway Drive, Linden Avenue and Nutting Street to make public housing available at the earliest possible timee �i The Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Committee's consideration consists of a six page narrative document, a boundary and acquisition map, and three exhibits marked Minimum Property Standards. Secondly, consideration to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Authority to bear any loss resulting from early land acquisition activities in the event the area acquired is not included in the total urban renewal area. Mr. Openshaw stated that reuse of this area will be residential, consisting of public housing or 221 (d)(3) housing. Mr. Cook opened the floor to anyone wishing to comment or ask questions. Mr. Robert Sommerville asked if there is any assurance that the area on North Avenue will be approved. by HUD for public housing. Mr. Openshaw replied that we have had initial meetings with representatives from public housing, HAA and RAA and have preliminary indication they will go along with public housing, although we ,have not had official word it will be approved. The Committee heard from Reverend Searcy, Chairman of URF.SCU, State Representative J. D. Grier and Reverend Dorsey, all of whom endorsed the Plan and expressed their desire that permission be granted to imple~nt the Pl.an. Tommie Weeks, a lay member of URESCU, spoke for the people of Bedford Pine expressing their desire that the area remain re~idential. Mr. Openshaw added in a final note that 77 families are to be relocated in the area outlined in this Plan. Relocation surveys that have been conducted indicate that the predominance of people to be moved want to remain in this area; therefore, included in the application to be filed with the Federal Government, is a request of funds to provide temporary relocation facilities in the immediate area. For clarification, Reverend Searcy stated that even before construction starts, living space will be provided. for those who will be displaced and can live in temporary housing until public housing is complete. Mr. Cook replied this is correct and explained there is an open space in the Auditorium project area where temporary housing may be placed. Mr . Sommerville requested .maps showing this area be made available, and Mr. Openshaw assured him they are available in the Project Office for anyone wishing to see them and have been made available to Reverend Grier and w~ll be made available as needed. Alderman Pierce asked what the nature of the temporary housing will be and expressed concern for using something of this nature. He stated he would never go along wi th this solution unless there is assurance it will be temporary. Alderman Griggs moved the Committee approve the two resoluti ons and bring them to the Board of Aldermen Monday~ The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook stated the second publ ic hearing is on the proposed amendment to the urban redevelopment plan for the Aud.i tori um Urban Redevelopment area. Mr. Openshaw stated this Plan was ad.o pted in ·1 964 to get the Audi tori um under way and has been amended various ti.mes since, primarily for auditorium parking and street widening. This amendment is to permit acquisition of three properties at the southeast corner of Forrest and Piedmont Avenues. The reason to acquire -2- �i these at this point is to facilitate widening of Piedmont Avenue south of Forrest on the east side, and to relieve hardship or owner of Parcel BB 4-5. The Plan must be amended to acquire these parcels. Alderman Griggs moved the Committee accept the amendment to the Plan. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook stated the third public hearing is on a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Thomasville Urban Redevelopment .Area. Mr. Openshaw explained that this . project is nearing completion of its execution stage. On March 15, 1965, this area was designated by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for public housing. This amendment will designate public housing as a permitted use in the area north of McDonough Road. It will also include acquisition of two properties located at 1043 and lll9 Isa Drive. These properties have not been rehabilitated and are a blighting influence on the surrounding redevelopment. The original plan designated duplexes as a buffer between the proposed commercial and single-family development. However, the Zoning Committee turned down the rezoning application to permit duplexes at the request of the area residents. Mr. Openshaw pointed out a site designated for school vse and stated the School Board doesn't have money to buy the entire site. A portion will be donated as a park site, which will serve the school as well as the community at large. Also ihcluded will be proposed project funds to build a chain link fence along Moreland Avenue to protect the children in the area. Mr. Cook stated he has been told final plans should be ready in a few months and let for public housing by the end of this year with construction underway the first of next year. Mr. E. V. Mosby, a resident in the Thomasville area, stated he felt this proposal to be very good and asked that work get started as soon as possible. He thanked the Committee for looking into this situation. Alderman Griggs moved this amendment be approved. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook presented the next item for consideration and turned the meeting ove r to Mr. Herbert A. Ringle to make his presentation. Mr. Ringle explained that he i s attorney for a group of d.e velopers interested in a por tion of property north of Oak Street between Ashby and. Lee Streets . This . property is across the street from the proposed West End shopping center. His clients have purchased the Adalaide Apartments along with 12 of the 15 other parcels in that block. They want to develop a motel facility consisting of 296 rooms plus 4 penthouse apartments totaling 300 units. They have hired an architect and have developed preliminary plans for this facility. He stated his awareness t hat Urban Renewal has also projected a motel site in the same general vicinity; but according to his thinking, more than one motel type facility is needed in the area. He continued that with the acquisitions they have made and.·the offers for development they have received from national motel chains they are ready to go with the redevelopment -3- �of the site. He stated it will be an Urban Renewal development by private interest and private money. According to Mr. Ringle, they are ready to enter into any legal covenants that this pro{6rty will be developed strictly in accordance with plans specified by this Committee, and that they are not buying to resell but for development. Mr. Ringle introduced Mr. Henry Calb who stated the cost figures they have assembled. For the entire facility, the cost was estimated to be $2,921,000. It was Mr. Ringle 1 s wish that the site they are interested in be changed from-a to-be-acquired status to a not to-be-acquired status and give them an · opportunity in purchase the three parcels acquired by the Housing Author~ty. At this point the Chairman recognized Mr. Wilson McClure who read a r esolution passed by the West End Citizens Advisory Committee recommending, (1) '(That a plan change be submitted to include the acquisition of the Adelaide Apart·ments and vacant tract of land adjacent to the Adelaide along the expressway; (2) That the plan change on the north side of Oak street be deferred to see what interest is shown by a proposed developer of the shopping center." Mr. Tom Oxnard, &iitor of the WEST END STAR, stated that the primary consideration is the status of the West End Urban Renewal Project. A fine job has been done with rehabilitation; and with the proposed shopping center some time off, the psychological effect of a motel would be immeasurable so long as the type structure erected can be supervised. This would put a tremendous visual impact on the community if strict standards are followed. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Persells if he has any dates or figures for the shopping center which is the top priority area. Mr. Parsells replied that it will be advertised for sale by the end of this year. A date in mid August is being aimed for, but will probably have to be postponed. The shopping center has to be advertised for a considerable length of time, a minimum of 6 months and probably 8 months. He continued that the major delaying factor in the shopping center development is the presence of the Lee Street School. The replacement school is to be bid on and construction started in September . The Board of Fducation usually projects about a 15 month construction period fo"r such a school. If the school can be demolished after 15 months, the shopping center can get underway immediately. Mr. Cook stated that the relocation of Lee Street School will not affect t he Northern part of the sector and continued that construction of the northern porti on must be i ncluded as a part of the Plan. He said this is the main priority area in Urban Renewal, and hopefully some visual efforts will be evi dent within the next f ew months. He asked Mr . William Greenleaf fo r the actual status of acqui sition i n thi s block. Mr . Greenleaf r eplied that all par cels except one bet ween Zachery and Oak Str eets have been bought or ar e under option. In r eply t o Mr. Gr eenleaf ' s quest i on to Mr . Ringle regarding the number of parcels his clients have acquired, he r eplied that t en have actually be purchased and t wo are under option. Alderman Flanigan asked Mr. Gladin what t he eff ect of the shopping center will be on the motel. Mr. Gladin replied t hat this has not been looked into yet. He added that up to this point estimates that have been made are not projecting two motels, although he realized these estimates are out of date. I', --"'-- - --r--. �' . At this point, Mr. Cook turned the meeting over to Mr. E. S. Robinson, a Real Tutate Representative for Gulf Oil Corporation in Atlanta. Mr. Robinson .was interested in acquisition Parcel 11-1, located at the corner of Lee and Oak Streets, on which a Gulf Station is now operating. The Gulf Oil Corporation is interested in leasing Parcel 11-39 which fronts 50 feet on Lee Street. This property is now in a to-be-acquired status; they request it be designated not to-be-. acquired to enable Gulf Oil to lease it from the present property owner and facilitate expansion of the Station. Mr. McClure read a· resolution passed by the West End Citizens Advisory Committee recommending that, 11 ••• The property be acquired by the Atlanta Housing Authority and Guld Oil Company negotiate with the developer of the shopping center for additional space." Mr. Everett Millican said he spoke as an individual, not as a member of the Board of Alder.men, when he stated that if the station is to remain in this location the additional room is needed to make it an asset. Mr. Millican stated he has assurance from Gulf that the area will be cleaned up, removing arry debris that has accu.mmulated. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Mullican if the Committee approves this · request for the add.itional 50 feet would Gulf be any less likely in the future to move across the street if it was shown to be in the best interest of the shopping center. Mr. Mullican stated it is not the d.esire of Gulf to move across the street. He felt the position they presently .occupy is better than being directly on the Interstate. Mr. Oxnard pointed out that the West End CAC's discussion was not reflected in the resolution ready by Mr. McClure. He continued that the general feeling of the Committee was that the station should not be there. Rather than allowing it to expand, it should .move across the street. The general feeling was that it should not have been there in the first place and expansion would merely cut that much .more from the shopping center. Mr. Robinson countered that he ·met with Mr. McClure and the CAC July 11th and told them their plans were to beautify the station by landscaping and adding facilities to it, proposing to make that corner a credit to the area as a whole. Mr. Robinson believes this can be done by providing the additional .frontage. Mr.• Cotsakis moved the Com.mi ttee take this up in Executive Session. This was agreed on unanimously, ani the public hearings ended and the Committee moved into Executive .Session. When the Committee was called to order in the Executive Session, Mr. Cook stated in regard to the Star Tex proposal there is need for more pre-planning rather than just offering f or sale and. leaving it to the developer to draw the plans. He felt additi onal ground work should be laid before letting the site f or bids, and stated this is initially what must be done. Mr. Cook said. an immediate start must be made on the northern sector of the shopping center. He doesn't want to see everybody .moved out then take years to move them back. New buildings should be ready for occupancy before demolition begins on the old. structures. He thought this is s01nething ·· that must be required in developing the site. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Openshaw what happened to the idea of moving Oak Street. Mr. Openshaw replied that Mr. Karl Bevins, City Traffic Engineer, would not permit Oak Street to be moved because it would interfer with the expressway ramp. I -5- �•• . ',·""· Mr. Edwin Sterne commented in connection with Mr. Ringle I s proposed motel development that apparently Urban Renewal had already planned a motel and asked what effect another .motel development will have on this one and if it would make our proposed motel less saleable. Mr. Etheridge stated it would tend to create another constructive activity, and he did not believe there could be an adverse effect. Mr. Cook expressed more concern about its effect on the shopping center than on another motel. He continued that when we d.o have an opportunity to really put a plan together with something that looks good and can set the tone for the entire area, we ought to make every effort to tie it together. We ought to go further than setting a fixed price, then selecting the best plan submitted by outlining planning criteria and having the developer follow those plans. Mr. Sterne stated he. thought the entire area north of Oak Street ought to be devoted to motel use rather than ad.ding other facilities. Mr. Gladin thought it should be designed as one unit following a set design criteria. Mr. Etheridge suggested we have someone set up the design criteria rather than relying on the architect. Mr. Gladin suggested the City or a consultant make the plan. Mr. Persells suggested the Committee recommend to the Housing Authority that this be included in the Urban Renewal Plan for acquisition and take no action at this time and recommend to the Housing Authority that immediate steps be taken to implement a top notch plan by emplaying an outside Planner. Mr. Cook stated we will need to bring so.me~me in from the outside. Mr. Cotsakis did not think the Housing Authority should be responsible for selecting the consultant, but suggested as a.:possibility the Civic Design Commission. He continued that with an outside consultant, a plan be effectuated relating the entire ~rea. Mr. Cotsakis suggested the Committee defer a decision at this time. The Committee was in general agreement. Mr. Cook concluded that within 60 days the Committee should have some answers on this issue. * *** There being rio further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Appr oved: Chairman Respectfull y submitted: ,. Secretary - 6- �I .r June 12, 1967 0 A j oint meet i ng of the Ur ba n Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of Commi s sio ners of t he At l a nta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 12, 1967 at 11: 15 A. M. in the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriot to discuss t he awarding o f the bid in the University Center Urban Redevelopment Area. The f ollowing Members we re pres e nt: w (/) ~ w CL dj ~ J c::: 0 0 ro Mr . Mr. Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Rodney Cook , Chairman E . . Gregor y Griggs John M. Fl anigen Hugh Pi e rce Frank Etherid ge Edwin L. Sterne Mr . George Cotsakis Also pre se nt were : Mr . M. B. Sat t erfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr . Le s Pers el l s , Director of Redevelopment, AHA. Mr . Howard Opens haw, Chief , Pl anning-Engineering Depa rtment, At l a n ta Housing Author ity. Mr . J . B. Blayton , Membe r, Boa rd of Commissioner s, Atlanta Housing Au t ho r i t y. Mr . Collie r Glad in, Planning Director, City of Atlanta, Seve n redevelopers submit t e d propos al s , lis ted below, consisting of nar rative st a teme nt s , a ccompanied by drawings showing site plans, floor plans, elevat i o ns and pe rspe ctives , which we r e on display for discussion and examinati on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pri nc e Ha ll Mas onic Lodge # 1 Pri nce Hall Mas oni c Lodge # 2 Civic Ho usi ng As s ociate s, I nc . Atl a nt a Bui lding & Deve lopme nt Corporat io n Ce lotex Co r poration Department o f Minimum Salari e s , AME Chur ch Diamond & Kaye Prop erties Mr . Perse lls explained tha t the various reviewers ha d rat e d each proposal f airly equa l ins ofar a s t he i r cla iber of development is conc erned. @) =he committee p r oc e eded to di s cuss each propos a l, pr o and con. ~he question o f modifi cation of plans by FHA ( r e gardless of who the dev e loper is) and what constitu te s a mi nor a nd ma jor change of plans wa s discuss ed at length . Mr . Pe rsell s s a id that in dis cussions wi t h FHA abo ut t hi s particu lar point , the Housing Au t ho ri ty wa s ass ured that any changes requested would be within the or i ginal concept of d eve lopment . Mr . Cotsakis raised the ques t i on of providi ng ai r-conditioning in t he units , stating he felt it would be highly de sirab l e. �Minutes Urba n Renewal Policy Committee J une 12, 1967 Page 2 0 ~rr . Pers e ll s s tated that in 22l(d)(3) developments this is not an FHA requirement a nd the re is no way of subjecting a developer to it; that some co ns i derat ion is being given to this in a development in the RawsonWashi ngt on proj ect area; in the case of the 7 proposals at hand, one propo se s air-condi t ioning and the other six can supply unit conditioners later. Incidentally, Mr. Persells stated this would be considered a minor plan change . Mr . Etheridge st at ed that keeping in mind this property forms the entrance way t o At l anta 's Negro college complex, his concept of development would be t o go h i gh-rise, in order to allow more open space, and orient it to the col lege comp l ex , rather than to the overall housing problem. He · suggested the h i gh-ris e could be placed in the interior of the development with the l ow- r is e structu re s a round it, at the entrance way to the col l ege complex . Thi s concept would tie in with the colleges' proposal to place low- r ise buildings for faculty and students in a fourth of their property. There was f urthe r discussion as to whether or not it would be ethical for the c ommittee t o negot iate with a developer on a plan change after the award was made . Mr . Persells stated tha t minor changes vs. major changes gets to be a matter of opinion , but he fe lt you could negotiate with the winning develop e r within the conc ept of the original development, but as to the question o f hi gh rise, pe r se , he fel t if this was deemed advisable for the area , each developer wou ld have to be given an opportunity to submit plans based on a high- rise concept s inc e , in his opinion, this would constitute a ma jor cha nge . He also ment ioned that no wa ivers were granted in any of the propos a ls. The Chairman then called f or a decision . The Committ ee adopted, by unanimous co nsent, p r oposal number 5 by t h e Celo tex Corporation with proposal number 1 by Prince Ha l l Masonic Lodge 1 a s a second c hoi c e . There be i ng no f urther business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: me Respectfully submitted, �--··:~~ng of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners of the At lanta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 19, 1967, at 8:00 A. M. i n the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriott Motor Hotel. The following .members of the Policy Committee were present: Mr. Rodney M, Cook, Chair.man Mr. E. Gregory Griggs The follo wing members of the Board. of Commissioners were present: Mr. Edwin L. Sterne, Chair.man Mr. Frank Etheridge Also present were: Mr. M. B. Satterfield., Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Lester H, Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Collier Gladin, Chief Planning Engineer, City of Atlanta The purpose of this joint meeting of the Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners is to recommend. and decide which will be the successful redeveloper for Parcels C-1, 3 and 4 in the Rawson-Washington Street Urban Redevelopment Area. Mr . Cook asked Mr. Attridge if there are any irregularities present in any of t he proposals that would. require a waiver. Mr. Attridge replied there are s o.me irregularities, and cited as an example the use of 202 as well as 221 f i nancing in t he Ebenezer Baptist Church proposal. Their proposed high-rise, cons i s ti ng of efficiencies and. one-bedroom apartments would be financed under 202 wi th t he gar den apartments financed. under 221. The developer has been contacted regarding this and has indicated. his willingness to go entirely 221. Mr. Attridge f oresees no difficulty, however, with a waiver of this nature. A di s cu s sion continued between Mr. Cook and Mr. Attridge regarding the restr ic t i venes s of 202 to elderly. It was noted, however, that certain of the other proposals, as Wesley Woods, could. also restrict their rentals to elderly since they cons ist of efficiencies and. one-bedroom apartments. Therefore, this does not seem to be a major factor, There being no further discussions at this point, Mr, Persells introduced Mr . Lou i s Orosz who summarized each proposal as to type of structure, number of uni ts, parki ng spaces , community facilities, and. good and bad features. Mr. Persell s mentioned. that some question was raised regarding the t welve-story buildi ng propo s ed by Ebenezer Baptist Church conforming to the 100 foot height l imi t ation . The architects and engineers have assured the Authority in wr iting that t he bu i lding will be built within this limitation. �As a background for now and. later, Mr. Persells stated that FHA has looked over t he proposals and. in giving .mortgage insurance they would prefer having a great d.ifference in appearance between the public housing and this development. A distinction would work to create a different clientele. Mr. Etheridge stated. that his objection to the Ebenezer proposal is t hat it provides for large family residence; aad with this being a seven ·acre downtown site, he does not feel it is appropriate for this use. Mr. Sterne commented t hat 2/3 of the development is for elderly, leaving a small percentage for larger families. In response to Mr. Sterne's question regarding the demand for larger units in public housing projects, Mr. Satterfield replied. that at this time there is a demand. f or larger uni ts, and there has been so.me remodeling to pro vi de these. Mr. Cook asked for a decision from the Committee and Board. asked that Mr. Pierce be informed of the waiver and racial issue. He also With the entire Committee not being present, Mr. Cook suggested that everyone pres ent vote, then ask those absent to register their vote with him as Chairman of the Policy Committee. Messrs. Cook, Griggs, and Sterne voted for Ebenezer Baptist Church with Wesley Woods as a second choice. Mr. Etheridge voted for Wesley Woods with Ebenezer Baptis t Church as a second choice. With there being a descenting vote, Mr. Sterne su ggested. the decision be left open. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Gl~din to contact the r emai ning members of the Policy Committee today informing them to contact Mr. Cook regarding their recommendation. Mr. Persells stated. that he would like everything completed 10 days prior to July 1st to allow for adequate public notice prior to the closing date. This concluding the business, Mr. Griggs moved the meeting be adjourned. Approved : �May 12, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, May 12, 1967, at 10:00 A. M. at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt Building. All members were present as follows: Mr . Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne Hugh Pierce E. Gr egory Griggs John M. Flanigen George Cotsakis Frank Etheridge Also present were: @) w iJ) <( w 0.. «:S ~ J n:: 0 0 co Mr. Collier Gladin, Planning Direc t or, City of Atlanta Mr . George Aldridge, Direc t or, Community Improvement Program Mr. Jim Kluttz, Atlanta Planning Department Mr . Robert Sommerville, Executive Director, Atlanta Transi t Company Mr . M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Au t ho rity Mr. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howa rd Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atl a n ta Housing Authority Mr. J ame s Henley, At lanta Housing Authority Mr . By r on Attridge and Mr. Lynn Hewes, King & Spalding, At t orneys Mr . J a ck Glenn and Mr. J. B. Blayton, Members, Board of Commiss i oner s , At lant a Housing Authority Chairman Cook cal l ed t he me eting to or der a nd expl ai ned the purpo se o f this meeting is t o hear a p re s entation from Al derman Q. V. Wi lliamson relative to the Rockda le Ur ban Renewa l Project Area . While awa iting his arrival, the committee conside red schedu l ing o f dates f or the deve lo per's presentations on 7.6 a c re s in the Raws on-Washington Proj ec t Area, scheduled for 22l(d) (3 ) development. It was unanimou sly de cid ed t o hear from all developers who had s ubmi tted bid s on Wed nesday , May 31, 196 7 , beginning at 3:00 P. M. It was al so a gr eed that each developer would be given a fifteen minute presentation period, with f i fteen mi nutes al lowed f o r questions and an swers. Each committe e member was presented wit h a synopsis o f each proposal for revi ew. Mr . Perse l l s also rep o rted that developer's presentations had been held on Parcel 73 in the University Center Pro ject Area . At this time, Alderman Williamson arrived at the meeting along with Senator Leroy R. Johnson and representatives of various Negro organiza ti ons. Chairma n Cook stated that a few days ago certain charges were made t o him concerning the Rockdale Project which he felt was of a serious natu r e and shou ld be presented to this com:nittee for consideration and disposition as it sees fit. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Williamson. Alderman Williamson stated he had discussed this matter with the Mayor on �r Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 2 Wednesday; that he had also met with membe r s of the Atlanta Summit Leadership Conference, the NAACP, Op e ration Breadb a s ke t, Atlanta Voters Lea gue and other organizations that are terribly concerned about urban renewal in Atlanta because "Negroes have gotten nothing but the brunt of being kicked off the land"; that they have not been allowed to participate in urban renewal at any level and have not been allowed jobs nor investments in urban renewal property; that the only land Negroes have gotten out of urban renewal was land the colleges bought which "they paid for out of the nose and paid more than anyone else paid for similar urban renewal land"; that the Wheat Street Baptist Church is a prime example - they paid twice what the land was worth for the (d)(3) development they erected on it, to the extent that the project was almost economically unfeasible. Mr. Cook stated that some statements already made by Aldennan Williamson do not coincide with the facts and he asked Mr. Persells if he cared to respond. Senator Johnson asked that they be allowe d to state their position, after which they would be happy to answer any questions or clarify any statements, but to interrupt with questions during the presentation breaks the continuity of thought. Mr. Williamson continued to state that after analyzing urban renewal in At l anta f or the past ten to twelve years, taking into account "what goes on" at the Atlanta Housing Authority, particularly in public housing, these org ani zations wonder if Atlanta shouldn't get out of the urban renewal business; tha t Atla nta mu st let Negroes participate and become a part of urban renewal i f i t is t o survive. He s t ated t hat Negroes a l so have serious problems wi t h e xisting public hous i ng a nd these organizations a l so wonder if Negroes wou l dn' t be better o f f living in slums on the ir own land than in some of the public hou s ing in At la nta. He cited the Ea gan Homes as an example and brief l y d i scussed some of the deplorable conditions e xisting in this p r ojec t , su ch a s r oach and r odent infesta tions and t he Au t hority's refusal to e x te nninate the premise s and de nying the tenants t he ri gh t t o do so at their own expense. He empha s i z ed t he city requires private owne rs t o do this. Other problems he mentioned were t hat t e nant s we r e not a l l owed to have a te l e phone extension upstairs and e ntry ways to the a pa rtmen ts are rec e s s ed and do no t have adequate lighting ; a case of r a pe was cit ed a s be i ng a t tributab le t o this. He stated further that t e n an t s a r e r eluc tant t o compl ain f o r f ear of being ev icted by the manageme nt; that these tenants , in many i ns tances , rather than live in this proje c t under bondage , would be better o ff in s l ums with freedom. He went on to say that the c a se at po i n t is that thi s is the type of thing urban renewal and public hous ing is producing in Atlanta and it must be stopped. As to the question of Rockda l e, he stated that two years ago a group of Negroes began ini tia l efforts t o organize this community and devel op support of area resident s for a plan f or Rockda l e; subsequently, a community organization was formed and working with the Atlanta Housing Authority, assembled a proposed plan for Rockdale according to their rules and regula t io ns. He stated that propo s als by three other developers were also submitted, t wo of which were later disqualified because they did not abide by the rules o f bidding; however, two weeks later, following a meeting of the Housing Authori t y's �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 3 Board of Commissioners and passage of a resolution by them, these same two plans were reinstated, notwithstanding their previous disqualifications, and that this is the basis of their complaint. After this, Mr. Williamson stated it is his understanding from sources that he can secure information from that the Housing Authority narrowed the consideration to two top plans - the Douglas-Arlen and Rosen proposals - and he was told by staff membersof the Authority that both of them were about equal, but when he receives information that somehow plans can be reinstated that do not meet the bid proposals of the Authority, then the Douglas-Arlen group knows they are at a disadvantage; that it is the same old routine of urban renewal - Negroes aren't allowed to participate because the Douglas-Arlen group has Negro participation, even though Rockdale is a Negro community and will serve Negroes. He stated all they are asking is that the plans be judged on merit and where the Douglas-Arlen plan is as meritorious as any of the others, and Rockdale being a Negro community, it should be given to Negroes; that if Negroes can't participate in urban renewal at all levels, then the City Fathers should leave them in the slums, rather than uproot them and take their property; that the time has come when he felt this needed to be said publicly. In reply to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Williamson named the Rosen and Chruckrow proposals as being the two which were disqualified and then reinstated. He then called on Senator Johnson to speak. Mr. Johnson stated he felt this matter was of enough importance and seriousness tha t he had interrupted a speaking engagement in California to return to Atlanta today for this meeting; that because of his absence from the city he had no t had an opportunity to prepare for the meeting as he should have. He then st at ed "I bel ieve with all my heart and soul that we have been discriminated against be c ause we are Negroes and that if we were not black, we would have been awarded the Rockdale Project". He then explained that he drew the charter of the Rockdale community organization and they began working on a plan for the area long before the bidding was opened; that they were successful in securing a sponsor, builder and archit ect and eventually a plan was submitted t o the Housing Authority according to the bid pr oposals. He stated furt her that after so doing and while waiting on a de cision , and believing in the operation of democracy, they were info rmed that po litic al influence was being used to get the Rosen plan approved; tha t he immediately began to investigate and pose questions, among o thers, as to why the two proposa ls which were disqualified were reinstated; that the foremost thought in the Negroes ' mind s at this time was "you folks happen to be of the wrong hue and you are not going to get it"; that they were told by the Housing Authority, as stated by Alderman Williamson, both proposals were good and a ssuming this is so, then he felt it incumbent on the City Fathers t o " bend over backwards" t o award the development to a Negro group, compos ed of Negro architec t s, lawyers, real estate brokers and builders, who are loc al ly based and have a vested interest in the heart of a Negro community and will represent Negro people who were moved from the area and will probably move back whe n housing is available. He also noted that Rockdale is in the heart of his senatorial district and Alderman Williamson's third ward. Senator Johnson stated further that it greatly disturbs them that on the one hand they have been told by members of this connnittee that no decision has been made and �- ---· . . ··- - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - ~ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 4 on the other hand he gets a call in California saying the Rosen plan had already been sent to FHA by the Ho using Authority and he submitted this is a serious matter. He further commented that after talking with member s of FHA and persons alrea dy engaged in 221 programs, it is his understanding that even if their pla n was submitted to FHA, it would be altered before bein g returned; that you never get plans back from FHA exactly like they are submitted. He cit ed as an example the Allen Temp le Project. He went on t o say they had also been told Negroes had nev e r built anything this big; t hat the ti me wasn't right and there was a question of the ability of the Union Baptist Church to administei the project since they had no previous experience. Senator John s on stated their position here in the 196O's, whether it is i mmediately managing or selling, is to do ri ght; that most of the reasons cited agains t their proposal are not meritorious arguments since the project would be Federally regulated anyway. He again ci ted Allen Temple as an example. He the n concluded by ·stating t hat all they are seeking is "a fair shake of the dice and don't deny us because we are black"; that they feel there is rank discrimination somewhere in the Rockdale project and they are asking this committee to right it. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Johnson who told him they would not get this project because they were Neg roes. Mr . Johnson rep lied "Mr. Cook you know that I cannot reveal my source of information anymore than you could, but as surely as there is a God in Heaven I, and we, have been t old we would not get this project because we are black". Mr. Johnson did say that hi s source of information had the contacts to know whereof he speaks. At . this time, Chairman Cook and Mr. Gladin excused themselves from the meeting t o keep a previous appointment in the Mayor's office. They did no t return during the remainder of the meeting, although they had hoped to. Mr. Griggs presided as Chairman during the rest of the me eting. Reverend Sam Williams then addressed the committee briefly on three points: (1) that so much time has to be spent by Negro es keeping vigil to see that even token justice is done; (2) the c ruelty of denying Negroes because of historic disabilities imposed upon them whi ch they themselves did not p l a ce upon their shoulders; and (3) the fact that Negroes should be al lowed to share in the financial rewards flowing from urban renewal. Reverend Williams also s tated he was personally familiar with the Eagan Homes situation because a member of his congregation lived there and he agreed these things must be corrected. Reverend Grier, representing Operation Breadbasket and a group of ministers, and Reverend Dorsey of Operation Breadbasket , both endorsed the remarks of Alderman Williamson, Senator Johnson and Reverend Williams . Mr. Griggs assured Messrs. Williamson and Johnson that it is of great concern to membersof this committee that the charge of racial discrimination in Rockdale ha s been made. Mr. Cotsakis then stated he had to leave the meeting on a previous commitment, but before departing he stated for the record that in all the meetings of the �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 5 Policy Commi ttee he had par t icip ated in he had never heard the word Negro mentioned, nor had he received any indication of racial discrimination as far as any particular proj ect is concerned. Senator Johnson commented "you don't have to say the word to do the act". Mr . Persells then responded to the charge s as follows: As to no participation on the part of Negroes in planning, he s tated there was a cons iderable period of time whe n there wa s little, if any, par ti cipation in urban renewal planning by whites or Negroe s; that the planning and action that went on took place at the off icia l level and the participati on of the cornmunity at large was extremely limited; that only within the last two to fo ur years were people outsid e o f o ff icials really brought into planning in urban renewal to the extent of actual participation. The first effort at involving parti cipation on the part of persons living in the project area t ook place in the West End Project through a Ci tizen s Advisory Corranittee, whic still functions. The second effort t ook pla ce when the Buttermilk Bo ttoms North Avenue Project (which was combi ned wi th Bedford-Pine) was initiated ; the c itizens residing in the project area fo rmed an organization ca lled "URESCUE" whi ch, from that day f o rward, actively and fully participated in every planning decision affecting the area; that this organizat ion has had a profound effect on the urban renewal plan f or this area and he expected it to continue to do so. Mr . , Persells commented further t h at at some point you have to d evelop a basis f or discussion; in the case of Rockdale the people were moved, the land cleared and then came the question o f utilizati on of the l and; that it was determined many years ago that Rockdale would be used f or schools, playgrounds and residences, with an incidental po ssibility o f furnis hing a service shopping area for the 1500 families that would live in the are a . The allocation of 1500 units was based on a limitation on sewers, documented by the Sewer Departme nt. Mr. Persel l s stated further the initial concept was f or single family r esidences, however, this was never possible, t opographically or financia l ly. Mr . Perse lls said further that for a long time prior t o this there wa s, in Atlan ta, a gr ow ing consciousness of t he importance of good urban desi gn , one reason being there ha d been several i llust r a tions of awards made on a flat do ll ar s ystem whe re t he redevelopmen t s had not been too good, so i t wa s ult i mate ly determi ned tha t in multi-fami l y developments it would be de s irable to make the offe ri ng s at a f i xed land pri ce and awa rd t he b i d base d on compet i tive design c rit e r i a ; t hat a pri me reason f or this change in policy was to avoid the type o f pr ob lem mentioned by Mr . Wi lliamson whe re Wheat Street Baptist Church overbid on the land . He s tated t hi s was a very unfo rtunate situation but could no t have be en avoid ed at that t i me wi th the existing laws . I n adopting the fixed land price s y s tem, Mr. Perse ll s s tated an elaborate procedure was e s tabl i shed to insure that awards wo uld be on the basis of design criteri a a nd not po litical or o ther f acto r s . This procedure involved staff reviews and recommendations, ora l presentat ions by developers and recommendations from e xperts in th e fi eld of planning, architecture and housing. �Minu te s Urban Renewa l Policy Commit tee May 12, 19 67 Page 6 Th is procedu re wa s f ollowed i n the case of Rockda l e . The se r ecommenda t i on s were then presented t o t he Urban Renewal Poli cy Commi tte e who s pen t in e xc e ss o f f ive hours ev a l uating the f our proposa l s . The pr opos a ls we r e t hen pre sented t o t he Board o f Commi ssioners o f the Ho using Autho r i t y a nd t h ey discussed t hem v ery c arefu l l y, howev er , no de c i sion ha s been made by t hem. At thi s point , Mr . Per s ell s com.~ ented t hat no on e had a tt emp t ed to infl uence him in thi s matte r o r con t ac ted him ab out it exc ept Mr. Wi ll iamson an d Mr . J ohnson; that whe n the y visited his o ffi c e he a dvis ed them a t t hat t ime that he wa s a s ta ff member , no t a de c i s i on o r po li cy make r , and he woul d be remi s s in hi s duty if the s t a ff had i nfl uence on policy t o the exten t t hat it was . an overr id ing fa c t o r , ra t her t han a r e commendat ion, and such was no t the ca se wit h Rockdale . Mr . Per s e l ls commented on the s tatement that Ne groes do not hold re sp onsible j obs i n urb an renewal , or t hey hold l ow type j ob s. He s t a t ed this is s imply no t an a c curate s tatement ; that there are a number o f Negro peop le involved in urban renewal a t h i gh and l ow l eve ls and their jobs are open f o r inspection ; that there are v acan t j ob s wh i ch are yet to be fi lled and when quali fie d Neg r o peo p l e ca n be f ound , who a re will i ng t o a cc ept t he job at the salary it c arri es , he would per so na l ly re commend them f o r empl oyme nt. As to the allegation , by imp l i cat i on o r dire c t statement, tha t there ha d bee n no previous la nd purchases invo lving Negroe s and t he que s tion o f t he Ne gro colle ges pa ying more f o r uban re new al land t ha n anyone el s e, Mr. Per se l ls s a id t ha t p r i o r to Ro ckdale, awa rds were stric t l y on t he ba s i s o f the h ighest bidde r, wi t h some c on siderat i on g i ven t o des ign f acto rs, and he could r ec all onl y two ins ta nces when awa r ds we r e made o ther than t o the high b idder and these ha d c lear-cu t re ason s which h ad no thing to do with the qu e s tio n o f ra c e ; that t he re hav e be e n seve ra l ins tanc e s whe r e Neg r oes hav e been s ucc es s f u l bidder s , f or e xamp le, Ci t iz ens Tr us t Company; f urther, at the t ime the Unive r si ty Cent er Urb an Renewal Proj e c t was being planned, it ap pe are d that it wo uld be impo ss ib l e t o f inanc e a proj e c t of t he size des i r e d by t he co l l e ges and so the col le ge s , i n o r der t o make t he project fe a s i ble and se cure t he land, ag reed to pay $40 , 000 an a cre; t ha t h e had neve r heard them comp la in ab out this ; that Whe a t Str eet Ga rde n s , again, wa s a n unfortuna t e se t o f circumstances, but t hey related t o the t i me and s ituation as i t was t hen; t ha t bas ed on his exp e r ience, t he Negro co llege s would have pai d more f o r t he l and wi thout the be nef it of the urb an renewal project. Mr . Pe rsells did no t comment on the pub l i c hou s i ng , except t o s ay the things mentioned in regard t o Eaga n Horne s ar e not who lly accurat e and do no t fairly repre sent the si t uation a s i t i s. He then made brief concluding commen ts on s everal othe r po ints rais ed by Messr s. Williams on and J ohnson. He s t a ted th er e had b een an ass umption made that the two proposals me ntioned (Douglas-Ar len and Ro s en) were equal , but he could assure everyo ne tha t whe n a decision is reached, it will be bec au s e the two were not equal. They had a l so assumed that the Rosen pr opos al doe s not involve Negro pa r t icipa t io n , but Mr . Per sells stated t hey might well include local Negro participat ion , j u s t as Douglas-Ar len does; t h at t h e Ro sen group has agree d to "spin o f f" po rt ions of the t ota l development, in the same manne r a s �- 0 -~-- -- - - - - - Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 7 the Douglas- Arlen group anticipated spinning off the whole of the projec t , to a non-pro f it organiza t ion , however, Rosen was explicit in his desire to retain control of the development. As to t he capability of the Union Baptist Church t o c arry out a project of t h is magnitude, Mr. Persells state d that t o let thi s be t he gove rning factor in the de cision would be wrong; tha t t he assump tion has to be ma de .that such an organization would employ pro f essionally skilled peop l e who could assist them in ma nagement activities. As t o the Rose n propo sal be ing submitted to FHA , Mr. Persells stated it was submitted to FHA f or a preliminary review to determine i f it was acceptable to FHA without having t o make major ch anges; i f i t had been r eturned, another proposal would have been s ubmi tted to them; furth e r, it is not accurate to say that pla ns will not be deve l ope d a s submitted to FHA becaus e they will change them; that i f this were t r ue, compe ti tions would not be he ld; t hat while minor changes might be sugge s ted becau s e of topographic cond itions or other reasons, it doe s not mean the basic concept or layout of the developme nt would be altered. As to Negroes sharing in the financial rewards of urban renewal, Mr. Persel l s stated the bu lk of the f inancial rewards which would accrue to Negroes or whites would be in the development stage; after the structures are built, it lies with the continuing ma nagement. Mr. Persells conc l uded by saying t hat he hoped they could continue to opera te without rega rd to race , creed or color and involve the community as a who l e in planning a c t iviti es oriented to urban renewa l projects; that we shou l d no t condemn ourselves by past mistake s, but pro fi t f rom them and move f orward. There we r e then ques t i ons a nd ans wers . Mr . Glenn st a ted he was the n ewe st member o f t h e Bo a rd of Commiss ione rs and in the meeti ngs he had attended race had never been me ntioned and to h is knowledge no dec ision had been made on Rockdale. He pointedly asked "has a dec i s i on been ma de and was r a ce an issue?" Mr. Griggs stated the Po l icy Committee had ma de a recommenda t i on to t he At lanta Housing Authority a nd rac e was not a n is sue; tha t no decis i on has been made yet by the Authori ty. Mr . Pierc e s t ated he would like it clarified about the charge of reinsta t ing disqualif ied plan s. Mr . Persells explained that at no t i me were any o f the f ou r pr opo sals set aside; that in thei r initia l r eview o f the propos al s, which is to determi ne if they are in proper order t o be accepted, t hey did discover minor t echni calities in the Rosen and Chruckrow p ropo sa l s . The Rosen proposal did not submit a bid bond , nor a total dev elopment cost, although suffic ient information was available to arrive at this figure . The Chruckrow proposal failed to meet the exact specifications with respect to their drawings, however, after consultations with the Authority ' s legal counsel, it was felt these were merely minor irregularities and not sufficient reasons f o r rejecting the propo sals since the s e irregularities did not affect any of the design criteria ; consequently, the Board of Commissioners, �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 8 under the provisions of t he o ffering, waived the se irregularities, but up to this point there was no cons id eration given t o the proposals on the basis o f merit and they were under cons tant review and still are. As a result of this situation Mr . Persells stated it wa s determined that the wording in the offering was too ambiguous and subsequently an addendum to the offering was ma de, setting forth in greater detail the speci fi cations for bidding. Mr . Pierce asked i f any of these exceptions were ever mentioned at the Policy meetings, t o which Mr . Persells answered negative ly, explaining that it was felt this was a re sponsibility of the Board of Commissioners, whose meet ings are a matter of public reco r d. Mr . Wi lliamson con tended that if the Douglas-Arlen group had not "dotted every 'i' and cross ed every 't' t hey would be ou t of the ball game". Mr . Johns on stated it was their understand ing the Policy Corrnnittee wou ld make a re corrnnendation to the Housing Authority , who would be responsible f or making the final decision, but since a re commendation fr om the Policy Corrnnittee is tantamount to approval by the Authority, they felt it was their responsibi li ty t o dis cuss the matter with the Pol i cy Committee and they are here today because they thought no deci sion had been made. Mr. J ohnson stated furth er that he and Mr . Williams on vis ited Mr . Cook in hi s o ffi ce and were told that a decision had been made by t h e Po li cy Corrrrnittee and Mr . Cook suggested they s ee Mr. Persells; that they did visit with Mr . Persel ls who, in turn, suggested they take the matter up with the o ther members of the Policy Committee, resulting in today's meeting . He also mentioned that when Alderman Cotsakis le ft the meeting, he said he would not return to the meeting to vote because thi s Committee had already ma de a recommendation; that if this is the c a s e , then everything said today has been to no avail. He said further that the Ho using Authority permi ts a laxity of rules for some and requires o thers to "toe the mark" and this is where discrimination begins. He submitted that if the Douglas-Arlen group had not submitted a performance bond, they would have been eliminated. Mr. Williamson asked when must the Housing Authority publicize its decision. Mr . Persells stated not later than Monday. There being no further discussion , Mr . Griggs thanked everyone for appearing and the Committee then went into Executive Session. In Executive Session, Mr. Sterne commented that the Policy Connnittee, after studying the four proposals very carefully, and after having the benefit of written recorrnnendations from the experts, did make a recommendation and the final decision rests with the Hou sing Authority; that there is some merit to the statement that generally speaking the Board of Commissioners tends to follow the recommendation of the Policy Corrnnittee; that while he is aware of the Senator's explanation of the insidious way the race issue comes up, he could truthfully say it never entered his mind at any of the briefings or meetings he attended. �..,._ w (/) ~ -· • ... .,.J. - -- -· i'~-- . - - ------ _________ _______________ Minute s Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 ...._ Page 9 LrJ 0 a.. ~ "S'. ~ J a: 0 0 m Mr . Griggs stated he was "dumfounded" when Mr. Wil liamson and Senator Johnson came to his office and made the charges they did; that he was completely unaware o f any racial prejudice connec ted with Rockdale. Mr. Persells stated the bids were opened legally on March 15 and the Housing Authori ty is obligated to reach a decision and notify the successful bidder within 60 days, after which they have 10 days to sign the contract documents. In answer to questioning by Mr. Griggs, Hr. Persells stated the Board of Commissioners will have all four proposals before them at the meeting, with a favo rable recommendation from the Policy Committee on the Rosen proposal. Mr . Pierce recalled that he had to leave the meeting of April 25, 1967, at whi ch the four proposals were discussed, prior to its conclusion and at the time of his departure, advis e d the Chairman that up to t h at point, he favored the Rosen plan, based on the plans he had seen and the recommendations that had been given it by the va rious experts; however, he stated that at that time he was not aware of the exceptions which were made, o r the questio n of the race issue, and he requested that if the Chairman did vote favorable for him, that it be stricken from the record. @ Mr. Sterne, a l so being a member of the Board of Commissioners, sta ted he wanted to make it clear that the waivers which were granted took place pr ior to any hearings and it was afterwards that the detailed presentations were made on all four proposals. After other brief discussion, the Acting Chairman stated that if today's presentations had altered the position of any committee member, he would entert ain a motion to reconsider the matter. Mr. Pierce so moved and simultaneously moved that the Douglas-Arlen pr opo sa l be a pproved. These motions died for the lack of a second. The Acting Cha irman then entertained a motion to reaffirm the previous de cis i on o f the -commi t t ee. Moti on was made a nd seconded by Messrs. Sterne and Flanigen that acc e p t ance o f the Ro sen p r oposal be reaffirmed, s aid motion being adopted by majori ty vote, with Ald e rma n Pierce voting a dversely. Approved: jp Respectfully submitted : �April 28, 1967 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Conunittee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, April 28, 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 Charles Leftwich George Cotsakis John M. Flanigen Q. V. Williamson Absent: Jack Summers Also in attendance were: Collier Gladin William F. Kennedy Pierce Mahony Earl Landers Howard Openshaw Les Persells \. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was consiqered: Mr. Gladin explained that the Planning Department, with assistance from other city departments and agencies, have been preparing the annual request for recertification of the Workable Program, which is necessary in order for the city to continue participation in a variety of federal programs; that it is hoped to submit the recertification to the Board of Aldermen for approval on May 15 and to HUD immediately thereafter in order to allow them two additional weeks of review time. He stated further that prior to today's meeting, a draft copy o f each of seven sections were . forwarded to each member for review and he then asked for any questions o r suggested changes in any of t he individual draf t sec ~ions . Mr. Kennedy of the departmental staff briefly commented on each draft and the foll owing is a listing of them and the recommendations of the committee: 1. Codes and Ordinances - Under Item 4, relative to the number of appeals filed during the past twelve months as a result of code enforcement, it was requested that the figure reflecting the number of cases resolved by the committee be changed to accurately show that the commit tee itself had resolved all the cases which had been brought before it, even though some of the cases might be pending before another governing board. 2. Comprehensive Community Plan - No changes. �Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 2 3. Neighborhood Analyses - No changes, 4. Administrative Organization - No changes. 5. Financing - No changes. 6. Hou s ing For Displ aced Famili e s - The committee asked that the total number of families displaced during 1966 (shown as 162) be verified; that it seemed rather low. Mr. Persells stated the Housing Authority could document this figure. 7, Citizen Participation - No changes. The committee then unanimously adopted the following resolution: "A RESOLUTION BY PLANNI NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ' \. WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta is constantly . working to solve the problems of urban blight and decay and, WHEREAS , the City of Atlanta is committed to a positive working relationship with the national government in an attempt to solve urban problems of mutual concern and, WHEREAS, recertification of the City of Atlanta's Workable Pr ogram for Community Improvement i s necessary in order to cont inue to r ece i ve gran ts-in-aid under a va riety of federal aid programs and , WHEREAS , t he ·city of Atlanta ha s made out standing pr ogress in 1966 in meeting its goals f or t o ta l community i mprovemen t . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor a nd Board o f Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, as f ol l ows: l. That the attached report, A Review of Progress under the Workable Program for Community Improvement, is hereby adopted. 2. That said report be forwarded to the Regional Office of the �r Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 3 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for their review no later than June 1, 1967." "'("k-k* Mr. Mahony of the departmental staff gave a brief status report on the Land Use Plan, ~tating it is expected to have it in a final draft form by July so as to begin consultations with the committee with a view toward final adoption. Revision of Zoning Ordinance \ Mr. Gladin briefly commented that the staff feels it would be desirable, as a n initial step in updating the entire ordinance, to rev~ew it for certa in kinds of deficiencies which should, in turn, give.a clearer under~ st a nding of where the ordinance is lacking in its basic approach to both development and enforcement; tha t while most of these deficiencies are obvious to the admin{strative sta ff , it was felt it would be desirable to have an outside review of the ordinance from a more objective standpoint, point i ng o.ut both the kinds of deficiencies and the areas where it may substanti a lly differ from other ordinances employing similar concepts . and accord i ngly, the American Society of Pl a nning Officials has been employed to do such · a review. Mr. Gladin stated also that he anticipated b r inging this matter before the committee a round the middle of May for discussion. Survey and Planning App lic a tion for Na sh- Bans Area Mr. Gladin exp la ined tha t an in i ti a l mee ting had been schedul ed with representatives from all the a r ea civi c c lubs, chur che s a nd other groups ; the purpose o f thi s meet ing , a nd ot her s i milar one s t o f ol l ow, will be t o acquaint the s e area repre senta tives with the c ity ' s plans f or their area; to hear their problems and s o l u tions; t o ascertain their fee l i ngs about an urban renewal pro j e c t f or t heir area , and t o s o licit thei r support; in turn, it is hoped the s e repre senta tives will keep thei r r espec tive neighborhood informed of all the s e activities . • Combi ning of Buttermi l k Bottoms - Bedford Pine Projects Mr. Persells brought this matter to the committee's attention, explaining �Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 4 that HUD has stated that since we are simply adding the areas and budgets together, no new resolution is required and the documents can be presented to the Regional Office and unless this committee wishes to restate the position taken by the Urban Renewal Policy Connnittee in approving the combination, no further action is required. ·I The conunittee felt no further action was needed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: I Respectfully submitted: ' \. Col lier Gladin Planning Director jp Joanne Parks Secretary �JJ . 1~ 2 called meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee wos h::~n :~e::::, April 25, 1967, at 4:00 P.M., at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt Bui ldin g. Al I members were present as fol lows: Mr . Mr. Mr. Mr . Mr . Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne Hugh Pierce E. Gregory Griggs John M. Flanigen George Cotsakis Fra nk Etheridge Also pre se nt were : L!J .,.., V. <( w Q.. ,.:.j 0 0 f') Mr . Collier B. Gladin, Plan n ing Direc tor, C ity of At lanta Mr . M . B. Satterfield, Executive Direc tor, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr . Howard O penshaw, Ch ief , Planning- Engineering Department, At lanta Housin g Au th o r ity Mr. Hugh Pe terson, King and Spalding, Attorneys Mr. Les Persel Is, Dire c tor of Redevelopm e nt , At lanta Housing Au th o rity Mr. John Hopkins, Atlanta Housing Au tho rity Th e Chairman cal led the meeting to order and th e fo l lowing business was co nsidered : N o te : For th e pur poses of these minu te s and in o rd er to mai ntain clari ty a nd correlat ion of fa c ts, eac h proposa l is w r itten as a s ing le e ntity. How e ve r , al I four pro posals we re jo intl y discusse d, weig h ing th e meri ts of each a ga inst th e o ther. At rhe ou tset o f the meet in g , each com mittee membe r was pre sented with the foll owing materi al : An individua l apprai sal of the fou r Roc kda le proposal s by: Ro bert L. Sommerv i lle; G rac e Ha mi lto n; T. M . A lexa nder and A. B. Padgett , a ll members of the C it ize n' s Ad visory Commi ttee for Urba n Re newal; a re vi ewer 's ra ting shee t of the redevel opme nt pro posa ls , prepared by the At lanta Ho using Au th o rity . Included in th is appra isa l shee t were ratings by the At lan ta Hou sing Auth ority , the Atlan ta Planning Departm en t , the Ameri c an Insti tu te of Plan ners , th e Mayor 's Committee on Housing Resource s and the Ci tizen's Ad v iso ry Commi t tee for Urban Renewa l. These ratings were o n the bas is of fr om 1 to 4 poi nts, 1 being the most de sira bl e for the de velopm en'" a nd 4 the least. Mr. Persel Is stated the Housing Au th ori ty would prefer to tak e the position meeting o f o nl y answering questions and making c larifi cations . t '"hi s It was agreed that the following format w ould be f?llowed: The committee would evaluate �r··. - I ! Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Commi ttee Apr i I 25, 1967 Page 2 the aspec ts of each proposal, pro and con , and by th e proc ess of e limi nati on , based o n the merits of design criteria, narrow the consi derati on to the two top proposa ls o fferi ng the grea test possibi Iity for development for the objectives wh ich Ro c kdale shou Id seek to serve . The proposal by Marv in Warner was discussed at length. During this d iscussion, the comm ittee exa mined closely a rchi te c tural si te plans and pe rspec t iv es presented by the proposer a nd made t.he fol lowing observations and comments - A summarization of these o bservations, Iisted be low , led to the subsequent disqualification of th is proposal from consideration: Flood probl ems and the apparen t placing of some buildings wi th in the fl ood pl ai n . Severe grad ing problems and building co nstruc tion because of th e tremendous variation in grades . Dou btfu I that the si te cou Id be graded to comp ly wi th the site plans presented . The land would have to be tailored to the building arrangeme nt, as opposed to the buil ding to the land. The severe grad ing would destroy all trees. The entire site is covered with buildings, som e to within 25 feet of the property line . A commendab le feature of the plan was the coopera t ive housing approac h (76% co-o p) wh ich wou Id provide for eventual purchase of the uni ts by the resident. The proposal by Chruc krow Construction Company was then conside red , with the following observations and comments - again, a summarization o f these observa tions, I isted below, led to th e disq ualification of th is proposal from considerat ion: Proposal embraces the 11 villa·ge 11 concept , which is desirab le in princ.iple. The vehicu lar street pattern (circular dr ives) was designed in su c h a way that. i ' separated e ach 11 vil lage 11 and actually cu t off pedestrian traffic from one vi I Iage to another . The plans proposed do not fit the topography of the property, and the land would have to be conformed to the bui ldings. The develo pment wou Id be difficult to achieve without costly, extensiv e gn;1ding which wou Id create problems. �Minutes Urban Renewa l Pol icy Committee Apr i I 25, 1967 Page 3 There is reasona ble doubt tha t the si te could even be grade d to con form to the plan because o f so many un kn owns , such as rock deposits , e tc. Only one smal I recreation bui Iding is proposed in the entire developmen t . The developer states that und er 221 (d)(3) developments, swimming pools are not feasible. The archi tectural rend er ings g ive a concept of flatness, with no di ffer ence in grades. A desirabl e fe atu re of the plan was the f lexibili ty of uni ts and varia t ion in des ign . It was the opi ni on of the Policy Committee th a t th e pro posa ls by The Douglas-Arlen G roup and David L. Rose n were the better of the four proposa ls. The se two proposals were co nsidered in terms of advantages and disadvantages and va rious site plans, fl oor elevatio ns , etc. , were examined through ou t the discussion. Douglas- Arlen Pro posal Adva ntages: Proposal embra ces the 11 village 11 or 11 clus ter 11 a rrangement o f buildings . The build ings conform to the site, ra th er than the site being con formed to th e build ings. More community fa ci lities are proposed tha n i~ any of the oth er de vel opmen ts. Appropro to all o f the pro posals , the com munity fa c ilities th a t are o therwise available in th is area were then poin ted out, th e se being a pro posed Ci ty park fa ci lity , ex is ting and proposed elementary sch oo l , the Gun Club Park and the existing health ce nter, which are to serve the proposed 1500 uni ts . It was noted tha t a swimming pool cou ld be pl aced within the Ci ty park fa ci lity if it was not provided elsewhere in the development . Devel opment provides for convenien t access fr om one part of the project t o an other . Ha s local sponsor. �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 25, 1967 Page 4 Provides for church sites as cal led for by th e p lan. It was po inted out that the developer has sta ted he wo uld not be able to f inan ce all the proposed communi ty fo ci Iities , however , the land wou Id be availab le for that purpose if and when f inancing becomes ava ilable - either from the developer or o ther groups . Comp lete separati on of pedestrian and vehicu lar traffic eliminating the danger of c hildren playing near c ars . Central garbage pick-up is pro posed . A des irable feature was the fl e xib ili ty in unit a rrangements - 5% I bed rooms; 5 0 % 2 bedrooms; 35% bedrooms. Site plan fol lows the contour of the land. Entire concept of development mini mizes the grading , keeps the cost down and preserves some of the natural foliage. Disadvantages: Serious question of finan cin g maior portion o f proposed community fac i lities; yet th is is the founda t ion around which the entire proiec t is bu i lt . Over-emphas is on the Community Cen te r concept , espe cially since similar fac il it ie s will be in the nearby park . The large size of the ·swimming pool , the paved area and the build ings a re u nrea l istic. Financing of the communi ty faci lities is not an FHA guaran tee . The vas t amount of paving propose d could c rea te flood and heat reflec ti o n prob lems. Devel o per proposes underpasses (5) a nd overpa sse s (2), wh ich it is fe lt are ge nerally und es irabl e. Exc essi ve wa lking d istance from the park ing areas to the dw e lling units. The conc e pt of buildin g arra ngements ut il izes some unde si rable bu i lding areas and leaves bu ildab le areas va ca nt (Example - sou theast sh o pping area). A qu est ionable feature is the four-story bu i ldings. The grouping of all comm un ity fa c ilities in the v ery center creates a self-contained atmosphere , unre lated to its surround ings, particu larly the existing community facilities - health c e nter and school. · �L - () (' m Minutes Urban Renewal Po l ic y Comm ittee Ap ri I 25 , 1967 The developer proposes to se l I the proiect, in its entirety , to a non- profit sponsor wh o has had no prev ious experience in operating or manag ing parti c ularl y a development of this enormity a nd , hopefu lly , th ey wou ld get some experien ced people to w ork w ith them o n th is. Servi ce side of the bui ld ings a re o r iented to the inter ior c ou rts, making a ccess to service v ehicles (f ire truc ks, etc .) d iff icu It . David L. Rosen Proposa l Advantages: Dwell ing un its are further removed from the rock q uarry than the o ther three proposa ls . ,, I,.~_;.. l t'J Access galler ies to eac h u ni t , permitt ing c_ross ventilation . ~ i ,1 .., _i "t No effort has been made to grade the interior Court concept, leaving the area fa irly natural . Th is wou Id avoid heat reflection problems and red uce cost. ! ,..: (J) <( LiJ Q_ The parking is recessed so th a t it is low er th an the dwelling units. This would eliminate visibility o f parking lots from the dwelling uni ts. (I t was noted thi s was listed as a disadvanta ge by one of the proposers). De velope r is investing maximum money in the units. The perspect iv es presented indicate a cl ear understand ing of the rough grades. Pedestr ian streets are pro posed throughout the pro jec t. The service sides of the buil dings are oriented to the outside, providing better access for serv ice vehicl es; and the I ivi ng rooms of the units face grassed areas and walks, rather than paving. A more complete separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffi c. G rouping of the proposed c hurch, health center and community cente r will prov ide for convenience and joint use of parking areas. Page 5 �Minutes Urban Re newal Policy Commi ttee April 25, 1967 Page 6 Two swimming pools are guaran teed by the devel oper, one for c h il dren and one for adu Its , with smal I recreati on areas arou nd the pools. In every instance the parking is adiacen t to the buildings a nd re cessed so as not to be visib le from the u nits . Devel o per will utilize FCH foun.dation coopera t ive housi ng , a very substantial sponsor who w i ll a ssist in the finan cing a nd w i ll conduct th e advertising and sales program for the development . Des ign o f the uni ts provides bu il t-i n f lexibility, allowing contract ing o r exparding of uni ts wi th the same ou ts ide walls; this will permit developer to compete with th e market, and meet tena nts I needs. Five church sites are proposed . The developer proposes to retain a maior persona l investmen t in the ' projec t and operate it personally. Di sadva ntages: The prov iding -o f 1386 units, rather than 1500, is q uesti o nable since it prov ides that much less housi ng for peo ple . Som e ad justment shoul d be made in the secondary entrance road to the projec t so t hat it woul d not funnel traff ic throu gh the roc k q ua rry e ntrance , and vice -versa . This would ne cessita te ad justment of a few bui ldings . 85 % of the uni ts are 3-story garden a partments located on the contours; ho pefu lly th ey would be adjusted to minimiz e th e !e v e ls and steps to t he units . Re c apitu lo tion o f the recomm e ndations of the var io us organ iz ations and grou ps: City of Atlanta Planning Departme nt - Da v id L. Rosen proposal . Atlanta Housing Au thori.ty - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. Citi z en 's Adv isory Committee fo r Urban Renewa l - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. - 3 to l . American Institu te of .Planners - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. I •; ' . · ·: . , · . ', I• ~ I 'J. ,, ' ' �Page 7 M i nutes Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee Apr i I 25, 1967 Am e r ic an Inst i tu te of Arc hite c ts - No spe c ific ·e commenda t io n , buL favored the Dou glas- -Arlen proposal: · · Mayo r' s Comm ittee on Hou sing Resou rc es - Do uglas- Ar le n proposal . Tfie 'Urban Renewa l Po lic y Comm i ttee, withal! bu t one member present , Ond aft~r evaluafion o f' each o f the p roposals' and wr itten c omments ·su bmitted by the organi zatio ns listed above , u pon. mo t ion by Mr . Flan igen , seco nded by Messrs . Ether idge .·and Cotsakis, unan imously recommended to Lhe Boord of Commissioners of the Housin g Auth o rity o f the Ci ty o f Atf o nta , G eorg ia, the ac c eptanc e of the David L. Rose n proposal; Alderman Pierc e had to leave the mee t ing before its co ne lusion and based on facts presented up to th.e time of his departure sta ted he fav o red the · .Rosen proposal and asked th a t the Chairman so reg ister his vote in Execu ti ~e Session . ·k*-A· ·k * *·J.:·),: * ·k ** *"k There °be ing no fu rther busi~ess, the meeti ng was adjourned.. . ' ' . '*·k*******·k***** Respe c tfo I ly su bmitted , APPROVED: · ,- ·' .. · .r:/_. I I I . - ·- , ·. . ··.: J /. _J_o_a_n_n_e-Pa-rk_s_1_S_ e_c-re_ t_a_r_y_ _- . v' JP /Im ,' �April 21 , 196 7 A reg ular mee ting o f the Urban Re newa l Policy Committee was he ld on Frid ay , April 21, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room # 2, Second Floor, City Hall, The f ollowing membe rs we r e pr es ent: Ro dney Cook , Chairman Edwi n Sterne Gr ego r y Gri gg s Geo rg e Cotsakis Frank Etheridge Absent: Hugh Pi erc e John F lanigen Also p resent were: George Aldridge J im Kl u t t z George Berr y John I zard Hugh Pe ter son Robert Somme rville Howard Open shaw Colli er Gl adin Le s Perse lls Bob Biv ens The Chairman c a ll ed the meet ing to o r der and the following bus iness wa s considered : Mr . Gla din introdu ced t o the Committee and other s pres ent , Mr . J immy Kl utt z , a new additio n to the City' s planning s taff. He stated that Mr . Klu t tz comes to the City hi ghly rec ommended with impressive qu ali fi c a t i ons; that he has several yea r s e xperience in the housing f i eld and will serv e as the City's coo rdinat o r of urba n renewal. In b eha l f of t he Committee, Cha irma n Cook re cognized and welcomed Mr . Kluttz, s tating t hey look f o r ward t o working with him. Submis s ion of Re v ised Applicat io n t o Combi ne the Bu t t ermi l k Bottoms and Bedford Pine Pro ject Area. Mr, Persells exh i bited a comb ined map of the two e xi s ting project areas and stated that at the time this was initi ally discussed with the re newal assi s tance administrati on , the Hou s ing Authority was advised that the neces s ary right-of-way f o r the wi dening of Bedford Place could be dedicated to the City and that the City could proceed , --- �~~ nutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 2 with the widening project, however, when Part I of the Buttermilk Bottoms Application was presented for their review and approval, a change of policy at the Federal level was made, necessitating that the City purchase the right-of-way for the street widening, which will require a cash outlay of a quarter of a million dollars. Mr. Persells stated further that inasmuch as the City is not in a position to make this cash outlay, the only solution to the problem s e ems to be to combine the two projects. He then cited the advantages to such a combination: First, the proximity of the projects to each other dictate a tying together of the street alignments; since there is a change in street grades as much as 20 feet at some points, considerable regrading of the street system will be required. Secondly, there is a Federal restriction on relocating people outside o f a project proper, and combination of the two projects would permit the temporary on-site relocation of people from one project to the other. Thirdly, if the projects aren't combined, the City stands to lose approximately $125,000 in credits for the widening of Bedford. Mr. Openshaw explained the existing project boundary line is on the east side of Bedford; the City is i mmedia tely widening on the west side of Bedf ord to 3 lanes ( a ll within the Buttermilk Bottoms project) and this being the boundary line , only 50 percent credit will be , 'eligible, both in the cost of the right-of-way and street improvements, unless the projects are combined so as to include the east side of Bedford, making it an interior street; this would then per mit a 100 percent credit f or t he widening that the City had hoped ~o rece ive . Mr . Pers el ls sta t ed als o the coor di nation , a cqui sition , demol ition and reloca tion wil l be much simpl er a s a sin-. gle pr o jec t , r ather than two. Dur ing ensuing discussion, Mr . Cook expres s ed concern about the a dditiona l del ay in acquisition of propert ies i n t he Bu ttermilk Bottoms projec t since the people in this area have been t old it would begin within t he next six week s. The Commi ttee was a l s o doub t f ul tha t i t woul d involve jus t a six months de lay, and Mr . Cook f urther expr essed parti cular concern about known har ds hip cases al ong Forres t Avenue . Mr . Persells explained that he did not believe there would be t hat much delay i n the pr oj e c ts actually ; that as s oon as the Survey and Planning App l i cati on i s submitted t o combine the proj e c ts, t he Housing Au thority can immedi ately proceed with preparation of Part I of the app l ication and would expect t o have it r e ady by the time the Survey and Pl anning Application is approved; that since about 60% of the Buttermilk Bottoms project has been acquired under the Letter of Consent method the Authority has agreed that it would not make any such additional request after the Federal people h ad called to their attention that you cannot execu te a ~roject under the guise of Letters of Consent. However, in order to facilitate a cquisition of hardship cases, Mr. Persells stated Mr. Davis (City Comptroller) has agreed to make available up to $250,000 to purchase bona f ide hardship cases in the 40% balance of the project; that based on a preli minary survey of the types of hardship cases existing and �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 196 7 Page 3 potential numbers, it is felt this amount will take care of the situation during the additional delay involved in submitting the revised Survey and Planning Application. In addition to this, Mr. Persells stated the Authority also proposes to request an amendment to the last Letter of Consent to include the acquisition of three pieces of property at the corner of Piedmont and Forrest which are among the priority hardship cases; that the advance acquisition of these three tracts will solidify the area and facilitate development of the entrance to the auditorium. In response to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Persells stated that through two bond issues, three and one quarter million dollars in urban renewal funds have been allocated, most of which are committed; that present estimates indicate when all credits in all of the urban renewal areas the City now has are pooled, the City's total cash requirement (the actual cash amount the City will have in the projects)' will be about $900,000. It was mentioned that this figure was dependent upon all of the non-cash credits currently scheduled in the projects being built. Mr. Somme rville felt any delays which are not absolutely necQssary should be avoided. He stated delays of this sort imperil the entire urban renewal process and creates an attitude of bitterness toward the City on the part of people living in these areas. After other discussion, it was the general consensus of the Committee that combining of the two projects would be desirable and beneficial t o the City if the matter of acquisition of hardship cases could be assured, In answer to questioning by Chairman Cook, George Berry of the Comptroller's Office stated he felt additional funds, beyond the $250,000, could be provided, within reason, for bona fide hardship cases. A motion wa s t hen made by Mr. Griggs and seconded by Mr, Et heridge tha t t he Commi ttee approve t he combining of the two projects and accept t he lo an of $250,000 from the City to permit advance acquisition of p r op e r t ies de t e rmined to be hardship cases. Messrs. Sterne and Sommerville rel uctan tl y concurred with the motion. There was then a l engthy di scus s i on relative t o the t h ir t een acre s of property l y ing withi n the University Center Proje c t which the Policy Committee had allocated f o r 221-D-3 housing. (See Mi nutes o f March 4, 1966, Pages 2 & 3). This entire area, inclqding the ten acres awarded . to the colleges, was originall y scheduled for 221-D-3 housing, with the ten acres being excluded for college utilization. Mr, Persells stated the thirteen acres was offered for sale on April 12 and that he would like to discuss a �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 4 0 schedule of dates for presentations by the proposed developers - seven at the present time. He explained that in an amendment to the offering, each proposer has been advised he will be given an opportunity to be heard for thirty minutes, with an additional thirty minutes for questions and answers; that it might be advisable to divide the proposals and hear them on two successive days; that he would like to arrange these meetings so that as many members of the committee as possible could attend. In addition to the oral presentations, Mr. Persells stated he hoped to have available, prior to the hearings, written comments on each proposal, highlighting points of interest. Chairman Cook then stated he was greatly disturbed about the offering price of this property ($74,000) stating he felt it was entirely too low a nd unreasonable; that while a specific write-down figure was never mentioned in the discussion of this property for 221-D-3 housing, . the Committee anticipated the property would be sold at a reduced cost for this type development, but not for $74,000 which amounts to about $5,000 an acre. I \. Mr. Cook stated he felt this type of question was a real policy decision matter and the offering at this price should have been b~ought back to the Corrnnittee, Mr. Openshaw stated the Authority appraised the property on the basis of 221-D-3 housing, which they were instructed to do. Mr . Cook ag reed with this, but reiterated no specific write-down figure was mentioned and the Committee had no idea it would be so low; that he did not want to get into this situation again. Mr. Etheridge stated the Housing Authority's Board of Commi ssioners had approved the offering on the assumption that proper steps had been taken; that he, quite frankly, was surpri sed at the low appraisal. It was pointed out that thi s area has been designated for low-cost housing from t he beginning o f the project and it was recognized that this would result in a below market price. The only action taken by the Committee was t o exclude the ten acres for the Universities, resulting in a substantial increase t o the City. After other discussion, it was felt by eve ryone, however, that renewed emphasis should be placed on communication between the Policy Committee and the Authority in such matters and that in the f utu re , they would be brought back to the Committee. Also, Mr . Persells was asked to continue to study the situation at hand so see what steps could be taken to get a higher appraisal of the land without jeopardizing t he steps already taken. The Committee then expressed delight at a nd after a discussion of various dates was unanimously agreed as follows: The P. M. to hear 4 of the 7 proposals; and remaining three. the submission of multiple proposals for presentations by the developers, it Committee would meet on May 9 at 4:00 on May 10 at 9:00 A. M. to hearing the �r w <J) <( w Q_ a:5 0~ 0 0 ro Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee Ap ril 21, 1967 Page 5 Following a brief discussion, the Committee unanimously concurred _ that the Housing Authority would proceed with the selling of properties (prior to actual acquisition by the Housing Authority) between Oak and Gordon Street s, east of Sear s, designated for shopping center development in t he reuse plans. Mr . Persells explained the Authority could sell the properties prior to acquisition, although they could not convey the title. As a ma tt e r of information, Mr . Persells exp lained that Parcels C-1 , 3 and 4 of the Raws on-Washingto n Urban Redevelopment Area had been offered for 22 1-D- 3 development. The area is comprised of 7.6 acres , and wil l permit a maximum of 152 units. The property lies near the Sta t e office building complex , a cro ss from Cap itol Homes, right on Interstate 20 at the on and off ramps a nd has frontage on both Rawson and Logan Streets. Mr . Persells stated the prop osals will be op ened at the Housing Authori ty on May 1, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. He presented each Committee memb er with a copy o f the brochure prepared for the offering. w . (/) <.{ w Q.. ~ ~ ) u::: 0 0 ca The Committee discussed a request by the GeorgiQ Hospital Association, Inc . for a change in the preliminary plans submit.ted by them in conne ction with a proposal to purchase Parcel D-lOb in the Butler Street Urban Redevelopment Area . Mr . Perse lls stated the proposal of the Hospital Ass oc iation has bee n a ccepted but the agreement f or disposition of the land has not b een consummated; that the As sociation has now requested permission to reduce the size o f the proposed building to two stories (3 were originally proposed with first f loor parking ) with parking space provid ed outside o f the building, rather than undernea t h as indicated orig inally; a lso, · this would reduce the estimated c o s t of construction from $235,000.00 to approximately $140,000 . 00. He _f urther stated no other proposal to buy a nd r e dev e lop this property h~d been received. The Committee unanimously rejected the Hos p ital Association's substantial decrease in their improvements, but asked that Mr . Persell s write them and give them the option o f s ubmitting plan s substantially in conformance with their ori ginal proposa l, or provide the Committee with sufficient si te elevat ions and details as to how the amended proposal would enhance the surrounding neighborhood. b rief presentation was made on the four proposals for development of the Rockdale Urban Redevelopment Area . Mr. Persells commented that the financial solvency o f each developer and their ability to carry out A �r ...r .. I Page 6 ' ,. I Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 .. '. I•" their proposal had been verified by a special department of the Trust Company of Georgia. l, . r- , I I It was unanimously decided that a special meeting would be held Tuesday, April . 25, at 4:00 P. M. to discuss these four proposals, and that the Housing Authority's Board of Connnissioners would be invited to attend. (See Minutes of April 25, 1967). ~ I I r Parcel D-19 - Rawson-Washington Urban Renewal Project. Mr. Persells gave the status of this property as being the same as reported at the meeting of February 17, 1967. (See Minutes, page 6). i r. Butler Street Project Area - Mr. Persells reported that all remaining properties within this area will be advertised within the next three to four weeks. The Policy Committee again expressed the hope that this project would be finalized as quickly as possible and requested the Authority to contact the Board of Education and advise them of this and get some firm commitment on the Butler Street School. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Approved : ( Respectfully submitted, \ I Rodney ' ciJ efhairmn i �ro February 17, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, February 17, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following Members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne George Cotsakis Hugh Pierce Gregory Griggs ,~ l ~} t <t ~ ., Absent: John Flanigen · Frank Etheridge Also present were: I!:~ LJJ ti) ~ w 0 Q_ ~ ~ > M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority. Les Persel Is, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority. Howard Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atlanta Housing Authority. . Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta. George Berry, Comptroller's Office. Robert L. Sommerville, Atlanta Transit Company. ~ 0 0 ro Representatives of various City departments were present; also, several representatives of Georgia State College were present, i.e., Dean William Suttles; Andrew Steiner; V. V. Lavroff and Jesse Draper, Member of the Board of Regents. The Chairman cal led the meeting to order and the fol lowing business was considered: Public Hearing on one block amendment to Georgia State Urban Redevelopment Plan, said block being immediately north of the Atlanta Police Station and bounded on the north by Gilmer Street, on the east by Butler Street, on the south by Decatur Street and the west by Piedmont Avenue . @ Mr. Howard Openshaw gave the fol low ing pertinent information relative to th is amendment: The original Urban Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the Board of Alde rmen on March 19, 1962 . Notice of today's public hearing was adve rt ised in Th e Atlanta Constitution on February 3 and February 10 in accordance w ith Federal regu lati ons . The plan c ons ists of a ten pa ge narrat ive and two ma ps , indicating the project boundary , prope rties to be a cq u ired a nd proposed land use. Al I urban redevelopmen t ac t ivi ties have been completed in the ori gina l proje ct area - acquisition, relocation, demo lition, and disposal of land to the Board of Regents. The proposed addition involves a total of 6.6 acres, comprising 13 properties which are proposed �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 2 for acquisition. The properties will be appraised by two competent appraisers and every effort made to acquire the property through negotiation but if necessary, the property will be acqui red through the power of eminent domain. All fifteen existing structures will be demolished. There are no families to be relocated. Relocation assistance will be made available to the existing thirteen businesses in the area. An information statement describing the financial assistance available was distributed to the business concerns on February 10 . The actual moving expense for any one business concern to be paid by the Federal Government cannot exceed $25·, 000; under certain conditions a smal I business displacement payment may also be available. The area to be added is presently zoned M-1 and no change in zoning is proposed, however, certain controls will be placed on the land restricting its use to college and college-related uses; 4.5 net acres will be sold to the Board of Regents for redevelopment in accordance with the Comprehensive Master Campus Plan. The amendment will increase the net project cost $1,147,072. The local share, one-third of the net project cost, will be provided by the Board of Regents. The City of Atlanta will provide an estimated $77,647 for street, sidewalk, sewer and traffic improvements. Dr. Suttles briefly explained how this additional block would fit into Georgia State's Comprehensive Campus Master Plan . And rew Steiner, Georgia State Consultant, briefly explained the composition of the proposed buildings and using perspective maps, gave a visual concept of this proposal as related to the entire Plan. In response to an expression of concern by Mr. Cotsakis that the overal I Plan shou Id be approved prior to the piece- meal addition of a sing.le block, and that some members of the Board of Aldermen were not familiar with the Georgia State Campus Plan, Mr . Cook explain e d that th is was the reason the Pol icy Committee reques ted the Master Campus Plan . He commented further that he fe It Georgia State had progressed far enough to indicate that any additions would follow the guidelines as set forth in the ir Maste r Plan . Cha irman Coo k was requested to alert the Board of Aldermen about the Plan as a ma tter · of communication (at their next meeting of February 20, 1967) and ask them to re vi ew the copy wh ich had been forwarded to them . Mr. G ladin note d tha t there was cons iderable private development a ct iv it ies w ithin the Ce ntra l Bus iness District and that he felt it is in order tha t th is Comm ittee a nd other Alderma nic Committe e s re cogni z e and support the need fo r the de ve lopme nt o f a Central Downtown Plan, designed to coordina te and re late a l I these vari ous activiti es. He cited several examples of both public and private p lanning be ing done on a spot basi s, such as the Nasher property, Portman's Peachtree Center, Georgia Plaza and rapid transit . Mr . Cook then read into the record two communiques. One from Alderman Cecil Turner endorsing the Georgia State Campus Plan, stating he hoped it would be approved and �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 3 sent to the Board of Aldermen on February 20, 1967; a second from the Atlanta Civic Design Commission, stating 11 it is the consensus of opinion of members present at the February 9 meeting that the Atlanta Civic Design Commission strongly endorses, on the Georgia State College Master Plan, the concept of the Plaza system, which includes the separation of vehicles from pedestrian traffic by different levels 11 • No one from the public appeared to be heard, and upon motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Cotsakis and unanimous vote, the one block amendment to the Georgia State Redevelopment Plan was approved. Ebenezer Church - Proposed Expansion. 0 Mr. Openshaw pointed out, on an accompanying map, the existing property of the Church on Auburn Avenue and stated that the property in question Iies adjace nt th e reto to the east; that he understands from the Church members the City Building Inspector has required them to remove a back portion of their building to allow for a fire escape and this eliminates a great deal of their parking; that this request is to purchase an additional 150 feet along Auburn Avenue, extending through to Jackson Place, to be used for church parking. He exhibited a second map illustrating the property on a larger scale. The Committee noted that this property and the adjoining properties extending to the intersection of Auburn Avenue and Boulevard were designated for commercial use and the ensuing discussion centered around the existence of a liquor store situated on the southwest corner of the intersection and whether or not th is owner's rights would be abridged by extending the Church property 150 feet, thereby placing his bu siness in such a proximity to the Church so as to prohibit him from ever selling his business unde r the State statute relative to required distances from Churches for such uses . Alderman Pierce felt the liquor store owner's rights should prevail should he decide to se ll his business since it existed prior to this request. Mr. Cook was of the opinion, and the other committee members generally agreed, that the question of the store owner 's rights is immaterial in considering the merits of a llowing the Church to expand and that the remedy to his problem, if and when it arose, would lie elsewhere, perhaps within the courts. 0 h,,.._____ Mr. Sterne raised a question as to how the commercial development of the remaining properties might be affected by the use of this 150 feet for church purposes. �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 4 Mr. Satterfield stated it was his opinion the remaining 1.63 acres would be just as saleable, if not more so, than if it were a part of the whole parcel. In response to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Openshaw stated the Butler Street Project originated in 1959. A brief discussion then ensued about the type of problems prohibiting consumation of the project. Mr. Openshaw explained there have been no expressions of interest in the remaining properties to date and it has not been previously advertised, but preparations are being made to offer the property for sale. Mr. Persells explained that because there had always been a demand for property in the Butler Street Project, the general policy pursued by the Housing Authority had been to advertise the property after there had been a specific expression of interest in a particular piece of property so there would be competition; that the project had now reached the stage of a few remaining 11 tag ends 11 and the Authority is working on a general proposal to place these on the market. 0 Chairman Cook concurred, stating he would Iike to see a concentrated effort to complete th is project. The Committee then unanimously approved the Church expansion as requested. Rockdale Urban Renewal Project - Fulton County Property. Mr. Openshaw pointed out, on an accompanying map, the property owned by Fu Iton County, lying generally to the east of Grove Park Place, and he stated that he would like some direction from this Committee as to how to acquire the County's interest a.nd a clear title to this property. He explained that another individual is claiming an interest in the lots, therefore clouding the title and prohibiting clear acquisition of it; that Mr. Sheats is wi II ing to give a quit- claim deed for the County's interest at the approved price of $7,300. However , Mr . Persel Is explained the County is not wi 11 ing to take the necessary steps to clear the title because of the cost involved and that the Federal Government will not participate as it would be an ineligible cost. After other discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the Housing Authority should take this matter up with the County Commissioners with a minimum of delay and that Chairman Cook would furnish the Housing Authority with a supporting letter in behalf of the Policy Committee, urging the Commissioners to undertake to resolve this problem as soon as possible. ' "'---------- . �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 5 With further reference to the Rockdale Project, there was a brief discussion as to FHA policy relative to allocation of units within the Area. The Housing Authority maintained their previous position on the matter - that the initial allocation of 150 units for the first project was impractical (see minutes of November 18, 1966, Page 4) but Mr. Satterfield, in response to questioning by the Committee, stated that he had not received any indication on the part of an proposer that they were withdrawing from the competition because of the restrictions being imposed by FHA, but they have voiced some objections. Mr. Persells stated he understood the Mayor's Housing Resources Committee is go ing to urge FHA to increase the allocation of units and he felt it would not be amiss for this Committee to direct a letter to FHA suggesting that every consideration be given to a larger allocation of units. It was the unanimous decision of the Committee that Chairman Cook would direct such letter to FHA • 0 . Rawson-Washington Urban Renewal Project - Industrial land adjacent to public housing. Mr . Ope nshaw pointed out on a map of th e project area Parcel N - 3, owned by Swift and Company and the adjoining small parcel (B-4) being offered for sale by the Housing Authority. Parce l N-3 is presently occupied by a small office building for Swift and a hydrogen gas ta nk; parce I B- 4 is vacant . Both tracts are z oned M- 2 and I ie adjacent to proposed public housing . Mr. Openshaw explained that a bid ($6,300) has be en submitted on Parcel B- 4 and the proposal is for a motorcycle repair shop by Atlanta Motorcycle Sal es; that he would li ke a n expression of th e Committee' s fee lings about th is proposa l . He commented further he a lso discussed with Sw ift the ir plans for the ir property but was advised that he woul d have to write the company in Ch icago . Mr. Sterne commented tha t the Haus ing Authori ty's Board of Commissi oners was strongly opposed to it, fee ling it would not be desirable to place such a use in the midst of public housing where it is presumed there wi ll be a concentration of children. 0 Messrs. Satterfield and Persells stated that it may well be the Housing Authority would want to acquire both tracts and include them in the project in the future, but in the �Minutes Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 6 interim, they did not feel the use of the property for a motorcycle repair shop would be conducive to the surrounding neighborhood. The Committee unanimously denied the bid and requested that the Housing Authority determine from Swift (by writing the Chicago headquarters) their future proposal for Parcel N-3. The Committee then considered the following unfinished business: Citizens Trust Property, Parcel A-5, Butler Street Project. Mr. Openshaw was requested to report at the next meeting whether or not a building permit had been obtained by Citizens Trust. Status of request for up-to-date appraisal from Walt Sullivan on cost of moving public housing building from Hilliard Street. 0 The latest appraisal from Mr. Sul I ivan, obtained by George Berry of the Comptroller• s Office, was in the amount of $62,000. The Policy Committee felt this was entirely out of the question and agreed that the Housing Authority would pursue the idea of placing pub Iic housing on the property. Motel proposal, Parcel D-9, Rawson-Washington Project. Mr. Persells stated the proponents are continuing to pursue this matter; that they requested and was granted an extension of time by paying an additional earnest fee in excess of $50,000, which will not be refunded should the project not materialize. Block 27, West End Boys• Club, Inc. Requests plan change to designate parcels I thru 8 11 To Be Acquired", and re - classify Block 27 for institutional use. (A- I zoning district). Deferred from January 13, 1967 me eting . The Committee unan imously approved this plan change , subject to verification by Keri Byers, Chai rman of the C itiz ens Advisory Committee for West End . Status of study of traffic probl ems around a u ditorium c omplex~ 0 '------ Mr. Gladin stated the City has acquired land on Forrest Avenue and is ready to begin the street widening. �\ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 7 The remaining unfinished business of the Committee was postponed until the next regular meeting with a request that the Housing Authority be prepared to submit status reports on all items. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: <2W(irman 0 jp 0 _________ ,.,.,._ Respectfully submitted, f ~oanne Parks, Secretary �January 13, 1967 A meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, January 13, 1967 at 10:00 A.M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following members were present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne George Cotsakis John Flanigen Hugh Pierce Absent: Mr. Frank Etheridge Mr . E. Gregory Griggs Also present were : ,/".', - @ ~ i , M r • M • B • S a t t e r f i e. I d , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , · Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr. Les Persells, Directo r of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr. Howard Op e nshaw , Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Colli e r Gladin , Planning Enginee r , Ci t y of Atlanta . Mr. Elme r Moon, Assistant Building Official . Mr. Geo r ge Berry, Comptroller ' s Office . w (/) <{ w Q.. Se v era l m e mbe r s of the City Planning Staff w e re pr ese nt ; also , se v er al representat i ves of other City departments we r e 1n atten d a nce . ~ ~ J ~ 0 0 co Chairman Co ok i n tr odu ce d Dean Will i am Su t tl es of Ge o rgia State C ol lege wh o , in t u rn, intr odu ced se v era l oth er rep r esentatives of Georgia State w h o w ere pre s e n t, i.e., M r. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller; M r. J am i so n, Ar c h itect i n c h ar g e of physical plants and Andrew Steiner, Georgia S tate Consu l tant. Mr. Steiner distrib u ted copies of Georgia State College's M aster Campus P l an, prepare d by Robert an d Company Associates, and gave a brief resume of t h e Report, with major emphasis on implementation. He commented the purpose of the Plan is to provide a guide to the physical development of Georgia State �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 2 College in an urban environment. To satisfy four specific questions raised by the Policy Committee on April 22, 1966, Messrs. Lavroff and Steiner submitted the following: (I) Certified original of minutes, including a resolution therein, of the Board of Regents meeting in which they accepted the Georgia State Master Campus Plan (original attached hereto and made a part of these minutes by reference); (2) Copy of letter from the Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, under signature of Edgar J. Forio, Chairman, dated November 28, 1966, agreeing with the general philosophy of the Master Plan and expressing Grady Hospital's willingness to consider mutually advantageous development of the total area (letter attached hereto and made a part of these minutes by reference); (3) Eliminated all proposed classroom facilities north of Edgewood a n d ( 4 ) I n c o r p o r a t e d t h e b I o c k p r e s e n t I y o c c. u p i e d b y t h e P o I i c e Station into the Master Plan for possible future expansion. Mr. Gladin explained the Housing Authority has prepared an a me n d m e n t to th e Ge o r g i a S ta t e U r b a n R e d e v e I o pm e n t Ar e a i ncorporating the block bounded by Gilmer Street, Butler Street, Decatur Street and Piedmont Avenue (containing 4.6 acres of land) and approval of this additional block by the Policy Committee is necessary i n order to facilitate final clearance of this amendment . At this point , Chairman Cook excused himself from the meeting , stating he was due at the Legislature . Mr. Persells then offered the following comments and suggestions, stating they were not related to the approval of the project amendment , but to the Master Plan as a whole : (I) Since the individual buildings in the total complex are bein g designed by various arch it ects , he suggested that some c on tr ols should be written into the Maste r Plan to i n s u r e a n d e f f e c t u a t e m a x i m u m c oo r d i n a t i o n a n d c o r r e I a t i o n of bui ld i ngs , pedestrian malls, etc . (2) Scheduling of parki ng should be given further consideration since it appears off-hand that it is programmed late 1n the plan, rather than as early as it will actually be needed. .[ I �~ ~-- ----·-..._ _____ ·~---- - ----- Minutes Urban ~enewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 3 (3) Suggested that copies of the Master Plan be transmitted to the various city departments, city u t ilities, private utilities and the Rapid Transit Authority, with a request for their written comments and/or recommendations so that in the future implementation of Plan recommendations, Georgia State would have the benefit of their findings . (4) Suggested that within the Plan there should be a clarifying statement as to the uses contemplated west of Ivy ar:id why it is important that the Campus extend into this area. (5) Because of the proximity of the prope r ty across Edgewood to the Central Business District and its potential tax producing capabilities, there should be a clarifying statement as to why it is important that the housing contemplated north of Edgewood be directly across the street from the Campus, as opposed to say a few blocks away convenient to public transportation. (6) Noted there was no indication in the Plan as to how the s t u d e n t s w o u I d m o v e f r o m t h e g r o u .n d I e v e I t o a n o t h e r I e v e I (escalato r s , elevators , etc.) Mr . Lavroff s tated this will be a part of the de t ailed design planning . ( 7) Noted that on Page 20 of the Master Plan, there is a s tat e men t" •. . • . storm arid sanitary sew er s ar e comb i n e d i n th is area . . . •• " and sta t ed that since F e de r a l f u nds ar e i nvolved the r e i s a necessity · fo r separating t he s t o rm a nd sa n ita r y sewers , t herefore , th e Housing Autho rity w o ul d li k e s ome r ecommendat i ons on t he pa r t o f the C oll ege as we l l as t h e Ci t y wi th r espe c t to ut i l i ties i n t h e ar e a. In reference to Ite m (3) , M r . Stei n er sta te d t h ey d o p r opose t o mail c o pies o f t h e P l an to a l l memb ers o f t h e Board o f Alde r men a nd w ill be happy to co m p l y w i t h M r . Per s e l ls suggest i o n . Mo ti o n was t h en ma d e b y M r . Sterne , seconded by M r . Pi e rc e and carri ed unanimous l y as fo l lows : ( I) J Th e C om m ittee to o k the G eo r g ia Sta te M a s t e r Campus Plan und e r a d vi se m en t. �Minutes U r b a n R·e n e w a I P o I i c y C o m m i t t e e · · January 13, 1967 Page 4 (2) Approved the additional block (bounded by Gilmer Street, Butler Street, Decatur Street and Piedmont Avenue) as an amendment to the Georg'ia State Urban Redevelopment Area; in so doing, it was the Committee's understanding from Mr. Persells that this approval would, in no way, represent an approval of the Master Plan, per se, and would not commit any member to any future urban renewal projects in this area. (3) Set a public hearing (as required by law) on the one block amendment to be held at the next regular meeting of the Policy Committee on February 17, 1967. Mr. Openshaw presented for action the following requ e sted plan changes in the · West End Urban Renewal Area: I. Pa r cel 1.... 15, John C. Theisen 751 Park Street, S. W. Requests plan change to 11 Not T o Be Acquired" to p ermi t continued operation of supermarket. Agrees to sell contiguous parcel 1-4 to Housing Authority . (M-1 zoning district) . Rec omm e ndation of West End Local Citizens Commission appointed a sub-committee to study this request and determine if the present op era tion could be upgrad e d . The Policy Committ ee withh 1 1d any action , .pending a r e p o r t f r o·m t h i s s u b - c o m m i t t e e . 2. Parcel 11 - 39, H. 541 Lee Street L. DeF o or, et a l Requests p l an change to 11 Not To Be Acqu ire d" t o remove existing two-story frame residence in poor condition to a ll ow expansion of Gu l f Station on adjoining Parcel 11 - 1. (M-1 to C-2 zoning district). Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission Rejection. �[ ---143.215.248.55---c.;-.-.:-: ._ -."JC.=-. ., -=-~-= = = ==--- -----· ·- ----·4·- ~ . - -- -· -...._. . ____ ,..______ _ ___ _ _ _ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 2. Page 5 (Continued from Page 4) Mr. Openshaw stated this would be · the only piece of prope.rty in a two b Io ck are a (between Lee Street and Se a rs) that w o u Id not be acquired. Mr. Persells thought it pertinent to state that originally the Plan contemplated acquisition of this property, however, the G u I f S t a t i o n w a s e r e c t e d -u n d e r a Bu i I d i n g P e r m i t i s s u e d a f t e r the Plan had been developed, but before it was approved, therefore, i t could no t be prevented - this relates to t h e land owner and not the lessor. Mr. Sommerville felt any action at this time would be premature and not in the best interest of the West End Plan . Motion was then mad e , seconded and duly c arried, that this request be rejected. · I\ \...J 3. Block 27 ~.:~.!-143.215.248.55 Boy s 1 _ C I u b , Inc • Re qu es ts plan chang e to designat e Parc e ls I thru 8 11 To Be Acqui r ed 11 , and r eclassify Block 27 f or institutional use (Boy s C I u b) . Re comme n dation of Wes t End Local Citi z ens Co m mi s sion App r ov a l , a lthough not unanimous . F ollo w ing a brief d i scussion , this r equ e s t w a s defe rr ed fo r f u rt h er s tudy . 4. Parce l 5 7 -2 , F ulton Coun ty 1368 Luci l e A v e nu e Req u ests p l an c h an g e to p e rmit this parc e l to be developed by a major oil compa n y . ( R-6 zo n in g district). Mr. Openshaw stated this property is scheduled for re siden tial rehabilitation. Upon motion by Mr. Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Sterne and unanimous vote this request was rejected. Mr. Gladin stated it �Minutes . Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 6 might be in order to offer to the County the idea of a higher density residential use of this property but he was not prepared to make any specific recommendations at this time. 5. Paree I 44-24 Mrs ._Berry_Blackwood Requests permit to operate day nursery in R-6 zoning district. Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission Approval. Motion was made, seconded and duly carried that this request be approved. 6. Westview Drive City owned remnants City proposes to sell remnants for apartment development. Requires plan change from R-6 to A-I zoning district. Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission r ejection . Because of the uncertainty of exactly what the City owned along Westview Drive and other factors, this matter was de f e r red fo r furthe r study and Mr . Openshaw was requested to have a map a t the next meeting ind i cating city - owned remnants along We s tview . ********** M r . Pe r s e l l s e xpla i ned that w i thin t he Bedfo r d -Pine Ar e a, the Eco n omic Opp o rt un i ty Atl a n ta Org a ni za t i on des ire s t o temporarily uti l ize a vaca n t r e s ident ia l s truc t u re at 365 L i n den Avenue in c o njunction wi th the ir n e i g h b o r hood s erv i ce s ce n ter program . Specifically, they wa n t t o u s e it f o r pre-sc hoo l age and mentally retarded children u nde r a day-care t y p e of program. Mr . Persells stated the matter had not come before the Local Citizens Commission but he felt they would approve it. In r es ponse to a question, Mr. Satterfield stated that EOA•s urgency is they presently have a tutorial �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 7 program underway in this area and they don't want to break this continued activity. The question of temporary use was discussed by the Committee, and with the understanding that use of the premises would be temporary, the matter was . approved. As a matter of information, Mr. Gladin e x plained that the official guide lines for preparation of a Demonstration Cities Application for Planning Funds has been received from HUD and that the City anticipated completion and submission to Washington by March I; that this will result in a considerable step-up of activities in t h e P I a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t a n d i t m i g h1t b e c o m e d e s i r a b I e a n d n e c e s s a r y to call additional meetings of the Policy Committee to keep abreast of the situation. There being no further business to discus s, the meeting was adjourned. **** * **** App r ov e d : Ro dney Chairman jp Respectfully submit t ed , r . ,-. Coo K !l'kl l I / / (/ /1" ' , . LJ,(1 , /~ ;_, / ~ L _ i...L/_ - - ,-L 143.215.248.55-. _1/ ---J oan n e P ar Ks S e cr e tary ' /, �THE FULTON-DEl<ALB HOSPITAL AUTHORITY SO BUTLER STREET, S. E. J . W. PINKSTON. JR. ATLANTA, G E0RG1IA 30303 SECRETARY-TREASU RER ROBERT E. SLEIGHT ASST. SECRETARY-TREASURER FRED M. WALKER November 28, 1966 GRADY MEMOR I AL HOSPITAL HUGHES SPALDING P/<VILION ISOLATION HOSPITAL CLAY MEMORIAL EYE CLINIC CONSULTANT Dr. Noah Langdale, Jr. President Georgia State College 33 Gilmer St~, S. E. Atlanta, Ga. 30303 Dear President Langdale: We have examined with interest the preliminary outline of your Master Campus Plan being prepared by Robert and Company for the future develop1nent of the College. To all appearances the plan is excellent from your standpoint and will provide the necessary physical facilities for your fast growing institution. Included in the proposed Master Campus Plan are some areas now owned by the Grady Memorial Hospital and so1ne areas that we are considering in connection with our future growth. It is our understanding th at it has not b een anticipated by the planner or by th e Colle ge tha t these properti e _s n ow belonging to the hospital or considered in connection with its future pl ans are finally dealt with or that they are necessarily to be acquired from the hospita l or that the hospital is a greeing that it would sell same. In favorably considering the Master Camp us Plan we are considering th e possibility in future years for agreement with respect to joint developm.ent for mutually advant ageous hospital and academic programs or other agree1nent or equitable exchang e of c onti guo u s properties deemed to be in th e best interests of both institutions and desirable with r espe ct to the developrnent of an architectural unity for the area of the hospital a nd the College. W e a gre e with the general philosophy of your Maste r Campus Plan and expr e ss our willingness to consider mutually advantageous develop1nent of the total a r ea . mk �.~. - . , Board - December 13-14, 1966 The Connnittee on Buildings and Grounds reported that for several years a study of a campus plan to show the outermost limits for Georgia State College has been in process; that recent adjustments have been completed as a result of obtaining the Atlantic Company property; that the approval of t he Master Campus Plan will facilitate a rapid decision in final clearance of urban renewal properties now in process with the Atlanta Housing Authority; and that this plan would provide for ultimate expansion of the campus to include approximately 60 acres. The Connnittee reported further that in President Langdale's reconnnendation for approval of the proposed Master Campus Plan for Georgia State College, he pointed out c~rtain items which are necessary to satisfy the Urban Renewal Policy Conunittee on the block of property bounded by Piedmont Avenue, Gilmer Street, and Decatur Street. Mr. Andre Steiner of the architectural firm of Robert and Company presented the preliminary outline of the amended campus plan for the future development of Georgia State College which would provide the necessary physical facilities for this fast growing institution. He was assisted by President Noah Langdale, Jr., in this presentation, and by Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller of the College. Following a discussion of the Master Campus Plan as outlined and of the conditions to be met in satisfying the requirements of the Department of Planning of t he City of Atlanta, upon reconunendation by Chancellor George L. Simpson, Jr., and the Connnittee on Buildings and Grounds, with motion properly made, variously seconded, and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia shall and it does approve in principle, the Master Campus Plan a s prepared by consultants for the Georgia State College. RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board of Regents shall and it does hereby declare its intention to support the devetopment of the Master Campus Plan o f the Georgia State College to the extent that funds are made available for this purpose . RES OLVED FURTHER; That the general approval of the Master Campus Plan includes the intention of the Board to comply with the conditions required t o meet the policy of the Department of Planning of the City �~ : . . : . . . : ..... . .... .. . . . ...... JI, --- . of Atlanta, as stated in a letter, dated June 3, 1966, from Mr. G. Eric Harkness, of the Department of Planning, Cilty of Atlanta,to Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller, Georgia State College. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, and compared excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia held in Atlanta, Georgia, on December 13-14, 1966. This twenty-second day of December, 1966. / · -Q ~ rJ "77 · /1 /J--11--1~ M6J.' ~ubert L. Harris Assistant Executive Secretary Regents, University System of Georgia � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 0 @) ._ cf '"~;} o 7 1> / December 15, 1967 _/4 regular me e ting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, December 15, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #4, Second Floor, City Hall. Present: Rodney Cook, Chairman George Cotsakis Gregory Griggs Edwin Sterne Absent: John Flanigen Hugh C. Pierce Frank Etheridge w tr) -< w CL ~ 2; > er: 0 0 co Also present: Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Les Persells, Associate Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Coll ier Gladin, Planning Director , City of Atlanta Representatives of various other departments, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and members of the press were in attendance also. 0 The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: I. "'... Motel Proposal on Parcel 18 (south of new City Auditorium) by Beck Companies, Dallas, Texas in Bedford-Pine Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Openshaw stated the Housing Authority has re ceived a proposal from the Beck Companies of Dallas to construct ci two-story, 800 unit motor hotel on the tract immediately south of the new Auditorium on Forrest Avenue; that they have also e x pressed an interest in ad joining parcels 17 and 19. He said that the prese nt redevelopment plans of the Buttermilk Bottoms - Bedford-Pine Project do n.ot permit motel uses and in order to permit transient housing within the project a Transient Housing Study (in accordance with the Housing Act) would be required that ma kes a finding that additional motel units are needed in this particular vicinity of the City. Mr. Ope nshaw briefly reviewed the proposed uses in this Project as d e si g na ted in the 1965 Market Study by Hammer and Company and stated this is an oppo rtuni ty fo r the City to hav e o facility all the way to th e ex pressway c ompa t ibl e with the Audi to r ium and c ompleme ntary to it and the best use for this prope rty ne e ds to be stud ied in depth . �0 Minutes Urban Re newal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 2 tI He then stated he understands from the Beck Companies that time is of the essence with them and he recognized Mr. Nelson, a local represental·ive of Beck and Mr. Cleave Wilcoxon of Adair Realty & Loan Company, also representing Beck. 0 ' Mr. Wilcoxon briefly acquainted the Committee with th e Beck Companies ond stated th e ir main purpose in appe aring today is to u rge the accelerated offer in g of Parcel 18 for mo tel use in order that his cli ent could bid on it; that Be c k is prepared to submit, in writing, that they will also bid on Parc els 17 and 19 when they are offered. He said this proposed development will be similar to the Royal Coach Inn in Dallas, developed by Beck. Brochures were presented. Mr. Wilcoxon stated he also agreed that Parcels 17, 18 and 19 should hav e related uses compat ible with the Auditorium and it would be desirable if 18 and 19 were placed on the market as one parcel. This would require an adjus tment of the street-jog at the inte rse ction of Hi9hland and Baker. Regarding the Tran sient Housing Study and the Hammer Mar ke t Report Mr. Wilcoxon stated that he was reasonably positive that any such housing study woul d indicate the need for at -least 800 motel units in th e area; a nd that based on his past experience as a realtor, he did not believe there was a demand for a Research and De ve lopment Par k (as recommended by the Hammer study) in Atlanta at the present time. He cited two similar developments in Atlanta (The Hartford Building and an office development by Cousins Properties, Inc.) which have had difficulty leasing. Mr. N e lson then spoke to the Committee about the financial solvency of the Be ck Compani e s, the ir exper ience. in this development f ie ld, and he then presente d a brief slide prese ntation of their existing Royal Coach Inn. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Nelson what they would propose for Parce ls 17 and 19. Mr. Nelson state d th ey envis ion Parce l 17 for some restaurant~type facility with park in g and Parcel 19 would be exce ll e nt for motel use. Mr. Cook inqui red about the timetable for the housing study and if the re sults of sa id study a re favorable. Mr. Ope nshaw stated it wou Id take a bo ut s ixty (6.0) days to comp le te a Transi e nt Hou sing Study; that HUD approva l of th e Pro je ct Are a and a plan amendment to pe rmit mote l use , if deemed fe as ib le , cou ld be proce sse d w ithin s ix (6) months, prior to su bmission to th e Board of Ald e rmen for f inal adoption. Th ere was then a genera l discussion about the need for futu re expans ion of the Exhibit Hal I space to the north of the e x isting structure and the affe cts th is expans ion would h a ve on traffic c ircu lotion around the Auditorium and Ex hibit Hal I and th e propo sed re-use a s indi cated in th e urban renewal projec t p lans. There w ere no c oncre te conclusions drawn, how e ver , th e re was a genera l fee l ing that an expansio n o f the Exhibit space was warranted and that th is and the question of mote I I I l �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 3 i I I use should be studied in more depth. I 2. II University Center College Expansion. As a point of information, Mr. Openshaw stated he wanted to bring to the Committee's attention that in the near future they will be faced with a request to include additional land in the University Center Project for College e x pansion and take out more housirig; that he has been invited to speak before the Council of Presidents and he would advise them, us this Committee had _done in the past (see Minutes of August 18, 1967) that a request to expand the colleges would not be considered until they developed a Comprehensive Campus Plan. 3. 0 Proposed Addition to the Thomasville Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Gladin stated that last week the President announced the awarding of 95 acres of Federally owned property at the Federal Penitentiary to the City of Atlanta for low cost housing. The extension of the Lakewood Freeway was then discussed as it relates to this 95 acres. Mr. Gladin explained that th e State Highway and the Parks Departments are working together on a connection through the south side of the 95 acres and determining at what angle it will course through the property. The development of the 95 acres was briefly discussed , i.e., housing, parks, a jun ior · · high school, an e lemen tary school, and a smal I addition to the commercial shopping ark a. -. Mr. Gladin exhibite d a generalized sketch plan, "Stating that bette r mapping is being secured for more de tail e d design, and pointed out that th e public uses woul d be loca ted to the north of the roadway, adjacent to the remaining Federal Penitentiary property and the housing would be to the south of the roadway, tying into the existing Thomasvi ll e Proje ct, with a vehicular and pedestrian overpass. Thirteen acres were included in the general sketch plan which is not part of th e property awarded th e City and Mr. Gladin ex plain ed that he and Mr. Baxter of HUD p lanned to discuss the possibility of securing this additional acreage with Warden Black o f the Federal Penitentiary . ********** *** 4. Di spersed Public Housing Site s. Following up the Mayor's Housing Conference, Mr. G ladin stated the p lanning staff had -.. ,I �i· ~ [ 0 t Minutes Urban Re ne wal Policy Committee December 15, 1967 - Page 4 been see king new ways of providing additional low income housin g and on e recommendation made was the dispersed site concept; that the planning staff has simply taken this recommendation another step, strictly for discussion purposes, and selected various sites throughout the City that could be developed for low cost housing. Johnny Johnson, departmental staff member, addressed the Committee briefly on each of the individual sites shown on a display map. Supporting data was presented to -each Committee member that gave Public Housing Distribution by Wards, as follows: (I) number of existing public housing units; (2) number leased; (3) new or proposed units, (4) totals, and (5) percentages. ** ** *** ** ** There being no further business, the meeting ""'.as adjourned. 0 Approved: Respectfu 11 y submitted: (/ jp Joanne Parks, Secretary �Sep t eQbe r 22 , 1967 A re gu la r me e t i ng of th e Urb - 1 Renewa l Policy Commi ttee was held on Fri ay, Sep t embe r L2 , 1967 cJ t 10 : 00 A. rr. . in Committe e Ro om #4 , Se con d .,loo r, City· a 1 . The f o llo ii .g 1c1 he rs \ve r e pre s ent : Mr . Rodney Coo k , Cha i rman Mr . Z . Gregory Gri gg s Mr . J ol n . Flani ge n Ab sen :. : 1' r . Hugh Pie rc e · r . Fr ank Ethe ri dge Mr . Edwi n L. Sterne M_ , George Cots a cis lso p· esent we re : Hr . ·Ho\,1ard Open s h.:n-1, Di re c tor o f Red eve lo pmen t, Atlanta Housing Authori t y Mr . Le s Pc rs e ll s , As s ociate Exe cutiv e Di r e ctor, AHA Mr . Coll i er Gladin , Pl anning Dire ctor , Ci ty of Atla n t a ·r . Don Ingram, Ce ntra l Atla n t a Prog ress , Inc . 1r . Byro n Att ridge and J oh n Iza r d , Attorney s f or th e Atlant a Hou s i ng Au t hor it y The r e we r e a lso othe r staff members of t he Atla nt Ho u sing Au thority p res ent; the pre ss and r ep r esentativ e s of othe r c i ty departme nts . The Chairman c a lled the mee ing o rder and th e f ol l owi ng bus ine s s wa s con sid e r ed : 1. Par cel D- 19, Motel s ite a c ross fro m Fulton County Juvenile Court , Rawson - Washin~ton Urban Renewa l Area . Mr . Openshaw brief l y re c apped t he sequence o f events re lativ e to this prope r ty leading up t o thi s meet ing and sta t ed t ha t t he o rigin a l c l o sing da t e of January 10 , 1967 h as been e x t e nded tw ice with an addi t i onal 5% of the pui chase pric e b e i ng paid \vith each e x ten s i o n, p lus a n additiona l 6% of the unpaid balanc e s o t hat up t o the present time , they hav e paid $156 , 000 earnest money on the property and $1 0, 352 i nte r est . He then read a letter from The Edwards Comp a nies requesting approval t o assign their entire interest in Parcel D-1 9 to the American Realty Service Corporation w o proposes to construc t an Admi ral l3enbou Inn on the property consistin;; of 252 units at an estima t ed cost o f $2, 500,000. The origi na l proposal by The Edwards Companies was for a facility of 470 uni ts at an approximate cost of $6 , 000,000 . (For complete details of lette r from The Edwards Companies see copy atta ched he reto and made a part o f these minutes ) . Hr. Openshaw stated the Hous i ng Authority Board o f Commi ssioners, before acting on th i s ma t ter , \vould like a r e commenda tio n f r om t he Po l icy Coramit.-:ee . j �/ Ninutes U b n ~enc,>al Policy Corn, i - ee Septe .. ber :C: 2 , 196 7 Pa ge 2 0 Mr. odensh w pres ent ed site pl a n s and photographs oft e Admiral Benbow Inn ends ate i - is a considerable step downward in compa rable developments . ~r . Gla ins ate this site . he did no- feel we s hould compromise the development of C. airn an Cool· asked abo ut the le g al status of an assignment of this property to me ric an neal ty Servi c e Corpor tion . Mr . Iz rd s tate d this \rnuld be within the discretion of the committee . There 0as the n some d i scussion about t he possibility of a motel being able to ecure a liquor lic ense sinc e a church was lo c ated withi n 40 feet (to the rear) of Pa rcel D- 19 . Tis question was not resolved, but it was the feelin g of Le CO i1'.ITl l. t ee th 2t develo nme nt of the site would be doubtful unless a , ote 1 could ob o in such a license . 0 _ fter othe b rief di s cussion, it \-i as the consen sus of the committ ee that they wo ul d not obje ct to The Edw a rds Companies a st igning their interest in Parcel D- 19 to .merican Se c urity o _ some other company if the quality of development is not to be compromised . It was the op inion of the committee, however , that the second proposal f or the Admi ra l Be nbow Inn wa substantially i nfer ior to t he original proposal and it was reje c ted . 2. St a tu s of \Jest End Shopping Center . In compliance ,.-iith the action of the committee at the August 18 mee ting , Nr . Opensha ·I s ated he had mai led a l etter to t h irty maj or sho pp ing ce nte r developers throu ghou t the country inviting their commen son the proposed redevelopment of the West End shopping fa ci lity . A copy of this letter, al ong with a listing of the thirty companies , had previously been f urn i shed the Chairman and other r.,embers of the Pol icy Commit tee. Mr. Op enshmv st ated some did not respo nd for vario s reasons, fi ve needed additional informat!on and others were interested in being kept informed. The discussion then centered around the following qu es tions: 1. \Jhether or not to alloi, the Star-Te.- group t o proceed with their proposed motel development on property north of Oak Street , across the street from the proposed We st End shopping center ? It wa s the consensus of the committ ee that the Star - Tex group should be given a n opport unity to re design their propos al and before making a final dec i sion, t hc t Mr. Herbert Rin gel, Attorney for the gro up, would be allo\·J ed to appe .: i r wi t h h is clients at a specia l meeting set for Friday , September 29 at 10:00 A. to discuss the matter with the committee . 1. �--:::.-. ~l Minutes Urbar~ ene,,ia l Poli cy Commit ee Sep·embc r 22, 1967 ? Should Parcel s 22 and 23 be offered as one tract a nd as a part of this de ci sion , should the Adalaide pa trnents be acquired and offer in co njunct ion with these two parcel s? The co~nitt~e concluded t hat t he Ada laide Apa rtments should be acqui red and included in the deve lopment o f th e mtel parcel in a y event . It wa s pointed out by Mr . Op e nshaw t hat Karl Bev ins , City Traffic En•inee r , h as insi s t ed that Oak Street be left open and one way as it now is . He stated also that if the Sta - Te,~ propos a 1 oesn' t go through , the Housing Au thority would acquire the Adalai e Apartmen sand offer it in conjunc tio n with Parcels 22 and 23 . i t.:: 0 0 m 3. ?eq est by Gulf Oil Corporation to exclude f om the ~es t End Plans an addi tionai 50 foot pa rcel on Lee Street fo r expansion of the c isting sta tion at t he corner of Oak and Lee Streets, a l ready e xcluded f rom t e Plan s; whether or no t he statio n should be included int e We st Enci Plans nd acquired for the proper dev~lopment of the shop ping ¢ente and faili ng a cqu isition of the station, t he question of upgrading i to blend with the redevelopment of t ·e a rea? Th e committ ee voted una nimous ly to defer a de cision on this matter pending an appeara ce of the Gulf people before t he committee at t he special meeting previously set for Friday, September 29, 1967 at 10 : 00 A. M. 4. Offe~ing of Parc el 20 , lyin~ at the off-ramp to 1- 20 , f or mo tel developmen t . T, c committee requested that the Housing Author ity pro ceed to i IDL~ediat ely place this p r ope rty on the market for motel dev•elopment . ~ If!::} ·k*;~··Jddn'd:·k* ~ fS:,~ I T' ere being no fu rther business, the meeting was adj ourned . .. •~I .,=1· -d "J:d.."7~·' l~k**"1: ~--;, (-=a " '= Approved : Respectfully submitte d , ( I I jp 1 / I I I Jo anne Parks , Secreta ry �'0;) ,,... ~ ,I:~ , Au gust 18 , 196 7 ~! ..,, 0 ~ --, "> w U) < Lw 0... A regu la r meet ing of the U ba n Re newal Policy Commi t tee Vv'Cl S hel d o n Fr iday, August 18, 1967 a t 10:00 A. M . in Commi ttee Room #4, Second Floor , C ity Ha ll . A ll members we re presen t as follows: .. Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . -:- .,__ , er: 0 0 ro Ro dne y M . Cook, C hai rm an Hugh Pie rce G rego ry Gri ggs George Cotsa k is Joh n M . Flanigen Edwin L. Sterne Frank Eth eridge Also pre se nt were: Col I ie r G lad in , Plann ing D ire c tor , C ity of At lanta . Le s Perse ll s, Associate Ex ecutiv e Direc tor , At lanta Housing Authori ty. Don Ingra m , Planner , Ce ntra l A t lan ta Progress , Inc . W ill iam How land , Ex ecu t ive D ire c t o r , C ACUR. Howard O pe nshaw, Dire cto r of Re de ve lopme nt , Atlanta Housi ng Au th or ity. He nry Fil !mer , Department o f Housing and Urban Development Severa l o ther sta ff me mbers of the Housing Au th or ity were also present. Th e Cha irm an c al led the meet ing to o rder and the fo ll ow i g business was considered : @) I. Pu b I ic Hearing on Amendmen t to Roc kdale Urban Red e velopmen t Pla n . "" "' ~ .i , I .raj Li ,::;, "" '" w U) -< w a.. co c;:,.. ""::> c:: 0 0 QJ 0 Mr . O pe nshaw expla ined that the awarding o f the d ispos it ion of th is land to Davi Rosen Assoc iate s o f New York for mul t i-family housi l'\9 a nd c omme rcial de v el o pment has been made and the only pu rpose in br ingin g the matter be fore the Comm ittee t oday is to corre ct th e re c ord . He sta te d that the orig ina l Rockda le Plan was ad o pted by the Mayor and Board of Alde rmen on Apr i I 6 , 1960 a nd there ha ve been no am endments to th is plan . In the course o f offering this pro perty fo r d isposi t io n c erta in pro ble ms were e ncou ntere d (street la you ts, mu lti plic ity o f stree ts, re lat ive ly sma ll si tes, bu ild a b le and un buil dab le site s , etc. ) and su bseq uent plan c hanges w e re made to a ssist dev el o pers w ith these prob le ms. This a me nded plan was su bm itted to HUD and approved, bu t through a tech nicali ty , it has nev e r re c e ived offici a l a p proval of the Mayo r and Board of A lde rmen . Mr . Openshaw state d the p lan a mendment consi sts o f th ree ma ps a land a cq uisition and bou nda ry ma p; a z o nin g c hanges map , a nd a la nd use map, plu s a 13 page narrat ive . He reque sted the Comm ittee's a pprov a l in ord e r to corre c t the re cord . He a lso po inte d ou t that the proje ct bounda ri e s had bee n ex t ende d to Procto r Cre e k , pl us the addi ti on of a ha lf parc e l o f property and the delet ion of the Le e property on the sou th side of Dobbs Stree t in orde r to a vo id severa nce payments; also , the addi t io n of a se co nd sch ool. N o one appe ared to speak on th is matte r , �,' Minutes Urban Re newa l Policy Commit ee August I , 1967 Page 2 In Exec utive Session , motion was made by Mr . Sterne, seconded by Mr . G r "ggs and una nimously c a rried tha t the amended Rockdale Plan be a pproved . "I."*~:* ·k 1: ·): ·k·k -k •/: ·k ·): ·k 2. Morehouse Co llege re9u est to purchase Parcels 12 , 13 and 14, Unive rsi ty Center Urban Renewal Area. Mr . Openshaw pointed ou t th e parcels in q uesti on on th e project ma p . Cha irman Cook read a letter from Hugh M. Gloster, President o f Morehouse Co l lege , requesting that Moreh ouse be al lowed to purchase subject property , pointing ou t the ir pressing need for additio nal land for fac u lty and student h ous ing , as wel l as their inab i li ty to expand in any d ire c ti on , except in to Parcel 12 . Mr . O penshaw stated that the reuse pans indi cate_this property for hou sing so no plan chan ge would be re9 ui red; that it is his u nderstandin g they would purchase these properties a t the go ing rate of $40 , 000 per acre , al th ough he doesn't have this in writing. In Executive Session , the Committee unan imous ly approved the pu rc hase of Parce ls 12 , 13 and 14 by Morehouse Co llege and in so doing , re9 uested that a le tter be sent to all membe rs of the Coll ege Council of Preside nts conveying that: The Policy Committee recognizes that the Negro coll ege complex is one of Atlanta's greatest asse ts and desires to make available land to meet the long range needs of these vi ta l insti tutions of h igher learning . The -C ommittee further re cogn iz es that several of the a d joining co ll eges are also interested in. acquiring. additional urban renewal land for similar e x pansion purposes and it is the feeling of the Committee, the refore , that prior to a ny fur ther a pproval of such purc ha se of land, that an overall de ve lopme nt pl a n for the six co lleges be prepared and presen ted to the Commi ttee for review, a nd since th e University Center Proje c t is well into the exe cu t ion stage , it is felt tha t · such a plan shou Id be prepared as soon as possible . The Comm ittee the n continu e d to discuss the Un iversi ty Cen ter Pro ject a s a whole and severa l prob le ms which mi gh t de lay its consumma t ion , spe ci fica lly th e contemplated interc hange at the interse ction o f Northside Drive a nd Hun ter Street. The Centra l AME Church loca ted at this intersection desires to ex pand their prese nt facilities and air-co nd it ion them bu t up to th is poi nt , they ha ve been persuade d to delay the ir expans ion program; pendin g some determ inat io n abou t t he interch ange . Th is property, as well as the property at the corn er of Stonew all a nd Northsid e (for poss ib le rel ocation of th is churc h) hav e been taken out of the offer ing awa it ing some deci sion . It was also po inted ou t tha t some de c ision needed to be made on th e property on th e north side of the intersection of N orths ide a nd Hun ter before it becomes una vail a ble . �0 Minui·es Urban Renewal Pol · cy Committee Augus t 18 , 1967 Page 3 The Committee indicated their awareness of the fa c t that funds were not now avail bl e to purc hase the properties for th e in ter c hange , however , they were also aware of the fa c t that th e C ity is making monthly in te rest payments on ·rhe ent ire pro ject and sin c e it is we ll in to exe c ut ion , the t ime is rap idly approa c hi ng when the inter c hange will be come a c riti c al issue , perhaps be ing the o nly o bstac le to f inalizing the pro ie c t , and at this point the C ity w ould ha ve to make some determinati o n as to the feasib" ity of this interc hange . The Commi ttee c on c luded that the Housing Auth ority wou ld co ns u lt w ith their a ttorn e y's on ways to a ccomp l ish what is needed in th is a re a and a lso investigate the poss ib: ' :ty of a cq ui ring , as soo n a s possible , the no rth side of th e interse c t io n of Nor hsi e and Hu nte r. '~·k*""* * *-A··k·k *·k·k 3. Repo rt on Land Dispositi ons Mr. O penshaw gave the fo l low in g repo rts: BUTLER STREET PR O JE CT Parc el B- 11 -a , Auburn Avenue - so ld to Haugabroo ks Funeral Home to be pav ed and used for parking . Purc hasing pri c e - $26, 500 . Parc el E- 1 - to be a cq u ired by White Motor complex fo r $11 0,000 and expanded into th e ir present ho ldings . As a pa rt of the ir pro posal , the y wi ll re q uest the C ity to c lose a portion o f O ld Wheat Street. · Mr . Openshaw pointed o ut o n the pro je c t map the few remai n ing tra c ts to be so ld, sta t ing th ey are al I o n the market . RAWS ON-WASHIN GTON PR O JE C T Parcel A-5 , Mem o rial Drive - to be a c q u ired for a wh o lesa le fl o ral business. pri ce - $48 , 600. Purchasi ng Parc e l A-4, Memorial Dri ve - to be a cquired by the CMS Realty for parking for the adia cen t Briarcliff Mills. Purc hasing pri c e - $21 , 000. Mr. O penshaw po inted out on the project map other s ites schedu led to be acquired. THOMASVILLE PR OJECT Recently, in three se parate offerings , a total of 69 lots have been so ld , wi th 84 remaining �0 M i u i·es Urban Re ewa l Po li c y Comm ii" ee Au gus t 18, 1967 Page 4 to be so ld . Tw Ive (1 2) lo ts have been purc hase d by Preferred In ve stmen ts , head e d by Willie Wagn o n , at a tot a l c ost of $20 ,200; imp· ovement c os ts - $11 4-, 000 . Fo ur (4) lo ts ha ve been purc hased by Kingsber y Homes at a to tal c os t of $6 , 900; improveme nt costs - $36 , 000 . Fi fty - thre e (53) lots h av e been purc hased by Na t ional Homes a t a tota I c os t of $89, 950; improvement c os·rs $ 85 , 000 . Total de ve lo pm ent c os ts of 69 lo ts - $117 , 100; to tal improveme nt costs - $635 , 000 . Pl ans , site e le va t io ns and pho to graphs o.r: typ ic al home s to be bu ilt were prese nte d for review o n these pro posals. The Committee u nani mo us ly a pproved a ll sa le s e nume ra ted above . REPO RT O STAT US O F PU BLI C HO USIN G Mr. Pe rse l Is sta ted the re has bee n no c ha nge sin ce the las t report; bids are expe c te d t o be put ou t the lat ter pa rt of N ovembe r for 350 u nits. ~:* ·k * ·k * "k** ·k ·k * 4 . We st End Shopping Ce nter a nd Mot el S ites (See M inu te s of J u ly 14 , 1967 , Pages 3 th ru 6) . Mr . Perse ll s presente d each Committee me mbe r with a 11 Sum ma ry of Fi ndings , We st End Sho pping Cen ter" , pre pa red by Hamme r: & Assoc iates a nd br ie fl y c om me nte d o n e a c h re commendation in the repo rt . (See atta ched I ist). Also o n disp lay was a n arc hite c t ural model depi c t ing the terra in of the la nd . Mr . Persel ls no ted tha t pa rt o f Item 6 , re c ommending that we sh ould not inc lude either site o r c o nstru c t io n desig n c riteria in the dev el o pm e nt of gene ra l design c r iteria , was a t varian c e with the Comm itte e •s las·r di sc uss io n o n t he matte r . Mr . Eth e ridge fe lt very stro ngly that thi s area has trem e nd ous trading power and is eq u iva le nt to the c e ntral core of a fairl y large c ity and he adv oc a te d th e co nta c tin g of firm s wh o o pera te on a nat io n-wide basis to get their o bse rva ti ons and sugge sti o ns fo r thi s dev el o pment be fo re we make an y de c ision o n the o ffering . Mr . Coo k stated th a t fr om a psycho logi c a l sta ndpo int we ne e d to ma ke an immedi ate move in We st End a nd fo r thi s rea son he expresse d c oncern tha t Mr . Eth er idge• s pro posal w ou ld be too t ime co nsum ing . He sta ted he also fel t tha t mini mum deve lo pme nt standards shou Id be e s tab I ishe d and the succe ssfu I b idder req u ired to meet o r exceed them. �0 Minu tes U· ban en ewal Policy Committee August 18, 1967 Page 5 Mr . C oo k th en read a lette r from the Star Te x group requesting an irn rn e dia '- e de c ision o n th e release o f 85 1, 869 an d 885 Oa k Stree t. In the dis cu ssion t at followe , the Committee felt that an ear !y de cisio n committ"ng this area to motel use might pre c lude ·he proper development or th e entire area planned fo r commercial use, bo h nor th a nd sou th of Oak Stree t; further , th e Committee is ve ry a nx ious 'i" o insure that 1·h e bes poss ible c om merc ial redeve lopment of this area o f the West End Prn je ct take place and to th is end, the Committee must c onsider_ the of ect, a d verse or o t, erwise , o f remov·ng that property nodh of O ak St eet from the to ta l area available for commerc"al develo , ent; co nsequen t ly , the Cornmit'- ee d e c ided that it was no t in a position, at this time , to grant the request for immed ia e acf on and i t was requested tho th e C hairman forward a letter to the St ar Tex group adv ising them that thE: Commi'-tee is sympa th etic to the ir si tuation a nd has instruc ed the C ity Planning De partmenl" a nd th e Atlanl·a Housing Au th ority to res tudy the feasibili ty of offeri ng this entire_ t rac t of land for development as a uni fied commer cial c enter. Until the resu lts of such a study a re kn own , the Comm it tee wi ll not be in a position to o ffer the area north of Oak Street o n a separate basis . Also , the Committee c oncluded that the Housing Au th or ity, w o rk ing with Mr . Ether idge , wou Id draft a proposa l to req uest f om national developers su ggest ions fo r th e proper development of thi s property , subsequent t o the approval o f the Ch ai rman . Also , th a t Mr. Cook would wok wi th the C ity Planning Staff and o thers in prepar ing minimum development standards for th e property . ·k***,;.·,· ·k ** *** ·A' *"A' There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned a t 12: 05 P . M . Approv ed : Respe c tfully submitted: (I 'J Rod ney M . f_,'.3ok, Cha rman jp 1 / Joanne Parks, Sec retary ,,1/ J �V inu:-es Urba n enewal Po l ic y Committee August 18 , 1967 0 WES EN D SHO PP! G C E 1-ER SUMMARY OF F!NDI !GS BY HAMME & ASSO C . I. Shopping c enter should inc lu de all land possible sinc e m rket stud y show s mo·e need th an land in o i inal bloc ks. This is true whether or not Oaks Street is closed (C i'y Traffc Engin . states that Oaks St . c annot be c losed) . 2. Fo· above reasons , Adelaide Apts . should be a c9 u ired and include d in shopping c enter area . 3. Gulf Station , sin c e a serv·ce station should be inc luded in Cen"er, shou ld remain "as is", expans·on and possi ble re -orientation shou ld be a su b ·ec t of negotiation between Gu If interests and the · fu ure redeveloper. 4. Construc ti o n of cente r ca n be staged sa tisfactorily and can be begu n befo e demo Iit ion of Lee St. School . 5 . Su ff icient o th e business along Gordon St. can and should be re located to the firsts age of construc ti on that it is desi rab le to provide for th is o po·tunity. 6. General design c riteria should be included in the Invitation to Bid but these shou Id not inc lud e either site o r construc ti on design . 7. If deve Iope rs do not propose to use the area north of Oa k St . , then a mo te I reuse would be desirab le . The project area and the market wi l I support two motels . It is essential that the area north of O aks St. no t be develope d to include fringe area businesses to the detriment of the center itself . 8. - ere is no dire ct relationship betwee 'he o·oj ct mot I site and t' e shopping �( I M in uJ-es U ·ban Ren e\val Policy Committ e Aug us-:· i8 , 1967 0 c ente r . Ne i ther is esse nf to the o the r . Ea c h would comp lem ent th e other . The v isual rela tionship would be between 1·he proposed projec t motel a nd th e exis ' ing Sears building and i ts park ing garage ra •h er than to new c onstruc t ion in th e new sh o pp ing c enter . 9. I 0. 0 s •aff pro posals w i ll be ready w i th in 30 days . Initial advert ising of th e projec t motel si te c an begin a t o nc e , if auth or ·zed . �-· ~ 1::,_lar meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee combining three public hearings was held on Friday, July 14, 1967, at 10:00 A. M. at the City Hall, Committee Room 2. All members were present as follows: Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. Gregory Griggs Mr. George Cotsakis Mr. John M. Flanigen Mr. Edwin L. Sterne Mr. Frank Etheridge Also preser+t were: Alder.man G. Everett Millican Mr. Collier Glad.in, Planning Director, City of Atlanta Mr. Robert Sommerville, Chair.man, CACUR; President; Atlanta Transit System Mr. William S. Howland, Executive Director, CACUR Mr. John Izard, Attorney, King and Spald1ng Mr. Les Parsells, Director of R0 development, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howard Openshaw, Chief, -Planning and Engineering Branch, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. James Henley, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Cook called the meeting to order and expl ained the purpose of this meeting is to have three public heari ngs. They will include (1) an Urban Redevelopment Plan for t he North Avenue - Boulevard Urban Redevelopment Area (part of t he Bedfor d Pine Urban Redevelopment Area); (2) a pr oposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Auditorium Urban Redevelopment Area; (3) a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Thomasville Urban Redevelopment Area. A fourth item, separate from the publi c hearings, is a Star- Tex pr oposal for di sposition parcel 22, West End Urban Redevelopment Area . Chairman Cook intr oduced Mr . Howard Openshaw, who was to make t he presentations f or t he Housi ng Authori ty. Mr. Openshaw began by orienting t hose present t o the Nor th Avenue - Boulevard Urban Redevelopment Project. A map was on di splay out lini ng t he boundaries. Mr. Openshaw s t at ed there were t wo r easons f or requesting appr oval of a por t i on of t he Bedfor d Pi ne Urban Redevelopment area at this time. The first being that it will pr ovi de, even while t he pr oject is still in planning, permanent public and privat e housing f or the resident s who will be displaced through the Urban Renewal process and who want to re.main in the general area. Subsequent to the appr oval of the Plan, the ·. Authorit y will file with the Federal Government an application f or an Earl y Land Acquisi t i on Loan to secure Federal funds to begin acqui s i t i on of a limi t ed area. Secondly, to provide rehabilitation assistance through Federal funds to resid.ent s along Boulevard who are now being subjected to rigid code enforcement by the City. H~ continued that the Authority will concentrate its acquisition, relocation and demolition efforts in the blocks bounded by North Avenue, Parkway Drive, Linden Avenue and Nutting Street to make public housing available at the earliest possible timee �i The Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Committee's consideration consists of a six page narrative document, a boundary and acquisition map, and three exhibits marked Minimum Property Standards. Secondly, consideration to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Authority to bear any loss resulting from early land acquisition activities in the event the area acquired is not included in the total urban renewal area. Mr. Openshaw stated that reuse of this area will be residential, consisting of public housing or 221 (d)(3) housing. Mr. Cook opened the floor to anyone wishing to comment or ask questions. Mr. Robert Sommerville asked if there is any assurance that the area on North Avenue will be approved. by HUD for public housing. Mr. Openshaw replied that we have had initial meetings with representatives from public housing, HAA and RAA and have preliminary indication they will go along with public housing, although we ,have not had official word it will be approved. The Committee heard from Reverend Searcy, Chairman of URF.SCU, State Representative J. D. Grier and Reverend Dorsey, all of whom endorsed the Plan and expressed their desire that permission be granted to imple~nt the Pl.an. Tommie Weeks, a lay member of URESCU, spoke for the people of Bedford Pine expressing their desire that the area remain re~idential. Mr. Openshaw added in a final note that 77 families are to be relocated in the area outlined in this Plan. Relocation surveys that have been conducted indicate that the predominance of people to be moved want to remain in this area; therefore, included in the application to be filed with the Federal Government, is a request of funds to provide temporary relocation facilities in the immediate area. For clarification, Reverend Searcy stated that even before construction starts, living space will be provided. for those who will be displaced and can live in temporary housing until public housing is complete. Mr. Cook replied this is correct and explained there is an open space in the Auditorium project area where temporary housing may be placed. Mr . Sommerville requested .maps showing this area be made available, and Mr. Openshaw assured him they are available in the Project Office for anyone wishing to see them and have been made available to Reverend Grier and w~ll be made available as needed. Alderman Pierce asked what the nature of the temporary housing will be and expressed concern for using something of this nature. He stated he would never go along wi th this solution unless there is assurance it will be temporary. Alderman Griggs moved the Committee approve the two resoluti ons and bring them to the Board of Aldermen Monday~ The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook stated the second publ ic hearing is on the proposed amendment to the urban redevelopment plan for the Aud.i tori um Urban Redevelopment area. Mr. Openshaw stated this Plan was ad.o pted in ·1 964 to get the Audi tori um under way and has been amended various ti.mes since, primarily for auditorium parking and street widening. This amendment is to permit acquisition of three properties at the southeast corner of Forrest and Piedmont Avenues. The reason to acquire -2- �i these at this point is to facilitate widening of Piedmont Avenue south of Forrest on the east side, and to relieve hardship or owner of Parcel BB 4-5. The Plan must be amended to acquire these parcels. Alderman Griggs moved the Committee accept the amendment to the Plan. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook stated the third public hearing is on a proposed Amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Thomasville Urban Redevelopment .Area. Mr. Openshaw explained that this . project is nearing completion of its execution stage. On March 15, 1965, this area was designated by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for public housing. This amendment will designate public housing as a permitted use in the area north of McDonough Road. It will also include acquisition of two properties located at 1043 and lll9 Isa Drive. These properties have not been rehabilitated and are a blighting influence on the surrounding redevelopment. The original plan designated duplexes as a buffer between the proposed commercial and single-family development. However, the Zoning Committee turned down the rezoning application to permit duplexes at the request of the area residents. Mr. Openshaw pointed out a site designated for school vse and stated the School Board doesn't have money to buy the entire site. A portion will be donated as a park site, which will serve the school as well as the community at large. Also ihcluded will be proposed project funds to build a chain link fence along Moreland Avenue to protect the children in the area. Mr. Cook stated he has been told final plans should be ready in a few months and let for public housing by the end of this year with construction underway the first of next year. Mr. E. V. Mosby, a resident in the Thomasville area, stated he felt this proposal to be very good and asked that work get started as soon as possible. He thanked the Committee for looking into this situation. Alderman Griggs moved this amendment be approved. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Cook presented the next item for consideration and turned the meeting ove r to Mr. Herbert A. Ringle to make his presentation. Mr. Ringle explained that he i s attorney for a group of d.e velopers interested in a por tion of property north of Oak Street between Ashby and. Lee Streets . This . property is across the street from the proposed West End shopping center. His clients have purchased the Adalaide Apartments along with 12 of the 15 other parcels in that block. They want to develop a motel facility consisting of 296 rooms plus 4 penthouse apartments totaling 300 units. They have hired an architect and have developed preliminary plans for this facility. He stated his awareness t hat Urban Renewal has also projected a motel site in the same general vicinity; but according to his thinking, more than one motel type facility is needed in the area. He continued that with the acquisitions they have made and.·the offers for development they have received from national motel chains they are ready to go with the redevelopment -3- �of the site. He stated it will be an Urban Renewal development by private interest and private money. According to Mr. Ringle, they are ready to enter into any legal covenants that this pro{6rty will be developed strictly in accordance with plans specified by this Committee, and that they are not buying to resell but for development. Mr. Ringle introduced Mr. Henry Calb who stated the cost figures they have assembled. For the entire facility, the cost was estimated to be $2,921,000. It was Mr. Ringle 1 s wish that the site they are interested in be changed from-a to-be-acquired status to a not to-be-acquired status and give them an · opportunity in purchase the three parcels acquired by the Housing Author~ty. At this point the Chairman recognized Mr. Wilson McClure who read a r esolution passed by the West End Citizens Advisory Committee recommending, (1) '(That a plan change be submitted to include the acquisition of the Adelaide Apart·ments and vacant tract of land adjacent to the Adelaide along the expressway; (2) That the plan change on the north side of Oak street be deferred to see what interest is shown by a proposed developer of the shopping center." Mr. Tom Oxnard, &iitor of the WEST END STAR, stated that the primary consideration is the status of the West End Urban Renewal Project. A fine job has been done with rehabilitation; and with the proposed shopping center some time off, the psychological effect of a motel would be immeasurable so long as the type structure erected can be supervised. This would put a tremendous visual impact on the community if strict standards are followed. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Persells if he has any dates or figures for the shopping center which is the top priority area. Mr. Parsells replied that it will be advertised for sale by the end of this year. A date in mid August is being aimed for, but will probably have to be postponed. The shopping center has to be advertised for a considerable length of time, a minimum of 6 months and probably 8 months. He continued that the major delaying factor in the shopping center development is the presence of the Lee Street School. The replacement school is to be bid on and construction started in September . The Board of Fducation usually projects about a 15 month construction period fo"r such a school. If the school can be demolished after 15 months, the shopping center can get underway immediately. Mr. Cook stated that the relocation of Lee Street School will not affect t he Northern part of the sector and continued that construction of the northern porti on must be i ncluded as a part of the Plan. He said this is the main priority area in Urban Renewal, and hopefully some visual efforts will be evi dent within the next f ew months. He asked Mr . William Greenleaf fo r the actual status of acqui sition i n thi s block. Mr . Greenleaf r eplied that all par cels except one bet ween Zachery and Oak Str eets have been bought or ar e under option. In r eply t o Mr. Gr eenleaf ' s quest i on to Mr . Ringle regarding the number of parcels his clients have acquired, he r eplied that t en have actually be purchased and t wo are under option. Alderman Flanigan asked Mr. Gladin what t he eff ect of the shopping center will be on the motel. Mr. Gladin replied t hat this has not been looked into yet. He added that up to this point estimates that have been made are not projecting two motels, although he realized these estimates are out of date. I', --"'-- - --r--. �' . At this point, Mr. Cook turned the meeting over to Mr. E. S. Robinson, a Real Tutate Representative for Gulf Oil Corporation in Atlanta. Mr. Robinson .was interested in acquisition Parcel 11-1, located at the corner of Lee and Oak Streets, on which a Gulf Station is now operating. The Gulf Oil Corporation is interested in leasing Parcel 11-39 which fronts 50 feet on Lee Street. This property is now in a to-be-acquired status; they request it be designated not to-be-. acquired to enable Gulf Oil to lease it from the present property owner and facilitate expansion of the Station. Mr. McClure read a· resolution passed by the West End Citizens Advisory Committee recommending that, 11 ••• The property be acquired by the Atlanta Housing Authority and Guld Oil Company negotiate with the developer of the shopping center for additional space." Mr. Everett Millican said he spoke as an individual, not as a member of the Board of Alder.men, when he stated that if the station is to remain in this location the additional room is needed to make it an asset. Mr. Millican stated he has assurance from Gulf that the area will be cleaned up, removing arry debris that has accu.mmulated. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Mullican if the Committee approves this · request for the add.itional 50 feet would Gulf be any less likely in the future to move across the street if it was shown to be in the best interest of the shopping center. Mr. Mullican stated it is not the d.esire of Gulf to move across the street. He felt the position they presently .occupy is better than being directly on the Interstate. Mr. Oxnard pointed out that the West End CAC's discussion was not reflected in the resolution ready by Mr. McClure. He continued that the general feeling of the Committee was that the station should not be there. Rather than allowing it to expand, it should .move across the street. The general feeling was that it should not have been there in the first place and expansion would merely cut that much .more from the shopping center. Mr. Robinson countered that he ·met with Mr. McClure and the CAC July 11th and told them their plans were to beautify the station by landscaping and adding facilities to it, proposing to make that corner a credit to the area as a whole. Mr. Robinson believes this can be done by providing the additional .frontage. Mr.• Cotsakis moved the Com.mi ttee take this up in Executive Session. This was agreed on unanimously, ani the public hearings ended and the Committee moved into Executive .Session. When the Committee was called to order in the Executive Session, Mr. Cook stated in regard to the Star Tex proposal there is need for more pre-planning rather than just offering f or sale and. leaving it to the developer to draw the plans. He felt additi onal ground work should be laid before letting the site f or bids, and stated this is initially what must be done. Mr. Cook said. an immediate start must be made on the northern sector of the shopping center. He doesn't want to see everybody .moved out then take years to move them back. New buildings should be ready for occupancy before demolition begins on the old. structures. He thought this is s01nething ·· that must be required in developing the site. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Openshaw what happened to the idea of moving Oak Street. Mr. Openshaw replied that Mr. Karl Bevins, City Traffic Engineer, would not permit Oak Street to be moved because it would interfer with the expressway ramp. I -5- �•• . ',·""· Mr. Edwin Sterne commented in connection with Mr. Ringle I s proposed motel development that apparently Urban Renewal had already planned a motel and asked what effect another .motel development will have on this one and if it would make our proposed motel less saleable. Mr. Etheridge stated it would tend to create another constructive activity, and he did not believe there could be an adverse effect. Mr. Cook expressed more concern about its effect on the shopping center than on another motel. He continued that when we d.o have an opportunity to really put a plan together with something that looks good and can set the tone for the entire area, we ought to make every effort to tie it together. We ought to go further than setting a fixed price, then selecting the best plan submitted by outlining planning criteria and having the developer follow those plans. Mr. Sterne stated he. thought the entire area north of Oak Street ought to be devoted to motel use rather than ad.ding other facilities. Mr. Gladin thought it should be designed as one unit following a set design criteria. Mr. Etheridge suggested we have someone set up the design criteria rather than relying on the architect. Mr. Gladin suggested the City or a consultant make the plan. Mr. Persells suggested the Committee recommend to the Housing Authority that this be included in the Urban Renewal Plan for acquisition and take no action at this time and recommend to the Housing Authority that immediate steps be taken to implement a top notch plan by emplaying an outside Planner. Mr. Cook stated we will need to bring so.me~me in from the outside. Mr. Cotsakis did not think the Housing Authority should be responsible for selecting the consultant, but suggested as a.:possibility the Civic Design Commission. He continued that with an outside consultant, a plan be effectuated relating the entire ~rea. Mr. Cotsakis suggested the Committee defer a decision at this time. The Committee was in general agreement. Mr. Cook concluded that within 60 days the Committee should have some answers on this issue. * *** There being rio further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Appr oved: Chairman Respectfull y submitted: ,. Secretary - 6- �I .r June 12, 1967 0 A j oint meet i ng of the Ur ba n Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of Commi s sio ners of t he At l a nta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 12, 1967 at 11: 15 A. M. in the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriot to discuss t he awarding o f the bid in the University Center Urban Redevelopment Area. The f ollowing Members we re pres e nt: w (/) ~ w CL dj ~ J c::: 0 0 ro Mr . Mr. Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Rodney Cook , Chairman E . . Gregor y Griggs John M. Fl anigen Hugh Pi e rce Frank Etherid ge Edwin L. Sterne Mr . George Cotsakis Also pre se nt were : Mr . M. B. Sat t erfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr . Le s Pers el l s , Director of Redevelopment, AHA. Mr . Howard Opens haw, Chief , Pl anning-Engineering Depa rtment, At l a n ta Housing Author ity. Mr . J . B. Blayton , Membe r, Boa rd of Commissioner s, Atlanta Housing Au t ho r i t y. Mr . Collie r Glad in, Planning Director, City of Atlanta, Seve n redevelopers submit t e d propos al s , lis ted below, consisting of nar rative st a teme nt s , a ccompanied by drawings showing site plans, floor plans, elevat i o ns and pe rspe ctives , which we r e on display for discussion and examinati on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pri nc e Ha ll Mas onic Lodge # 1 Pri nce Hall Mas oni c Lodge # 2 Civic Ho usi ng As s ociate s, I nc . Atl a nt a Bui lding & Deve lopme nt Corporat io n Ce lotex Co r poration Department o f Minimum Salari e s , AME Chur ch Diamond & Kaye Prop erties Mr . Perse lls explained tha t the various reviewers ha d rat e d each proposal f airly equa l ins ofar a s t he i r cla iber of development is conc erned. @) =he committee p r oc e eded to di s cuss each propos a l, pr o and con. ~he question o f modifi cation of plans by FHA ( r e gardless of who the dev e loper is) and what constitu te s a mi nor a nd ma jor change of plans wa s discuss ed at length . Mr . Pe rsell s s a id that in dis cussions wi t h FHA abo ut t hi s particu lar point , the Housing Au t ho ri ty wa s ass ured that any changes requested would be within the or i ginal concept of d eve lopment . Mr . Cotsakis raised the ques t i on of providi ng ai r-conditioning in t he units , stating he felt it would be highly de sirab l e. �Minutes Urba n Renewal Policy Committee J une 12, 1967 Page 2 0 ~rr . Pers e ll s s tated that in 22l(d)(3) developments this is not an FHA requirement a nd the re is no way of subjecting a developer to it; that some co ns i derat ion is being given to this in a development in the RawsonWashi ngt on proj ect area; in the case of the 7 proposals at hand, one propo se s air-condi t ioning and the other six can supply unit conditioners later. Incidentally, Mr. Persells stated this would be considered a minor plan change . Mr . Etheridge st at ed that keeping in mind this property forms the entrance way t o At l anta 's Negro college complex, his concept of development would be t o go h i gh-rise, in order to allow more open space, and orient it to the col lege comp l ex , rather than to the overall housing problem. He · suggested the h i gh-ris e could be placed in the interior of the development with the l ow- r is e structu re s a round it, at the entrance way to the col l ege complex . Thi s concept would tie in with the colleges' proposal to place low- r ise buildings for faculty and students in a fourth of their property. There was f urthe r discussion as to whether or not it would be ethical for the c ommittee t o negot iate with a developer on a plan change after the award was made . Mr . Persells stated tha t minor changes vs. major changes gets to be a matter of opinion , but he fe lt you could negotiate with the winning develop e r within the conc ept of the original development, but as to the question o f hi gh rise, pe r se , he fel t if this was deemed advisable for the area , each developer wou ld have to be given an opportunity to submit plans based on a high- rise concept s inc e , in his opinion, this would constitute a ma jor cha nge . He also ment ioned that no wa ivers were granted in any of the propos a ls. The Chairman then called f or a decision . The Committ ee adopted, by unanimous co nsent, p r oposal number 5 by t h e Celo tex Corporation with proposal number 1 by Prince Ha l l Masonic Lodge 1 a s a second c hoi c e . There be i ng no f urther business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: me Respectfully submitted, �--··:~~ng of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners of the At lanta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 19, 1967, at 8:00 A. M. i n the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriott Motor Hotel. The following .members of the Policy Committee were present: Mr. Rodney M, Cook, Chair.man Mr. E. Gregory Griggs The follo wing members of the Board. of Commissioners were present: Mr. Edwin L. Sterne, Chair.man Mr. Frank Etheridge Also present were: Mr. M. B. Satterfield., Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Lester H, Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Collier Gladin, Chief Planning Engineer, City of Atlanta The purpose of this joint meeting of the Policy Committee and the Board of Commissioners is to recommend. and decide which will be the successful redeveloper for Parcels C-1, 3 and 4 in the Rawson-Washington Street Urban Redevelopment Area. Mr . Cook asked Mr. Attridge if there are any irregularities present in any of t he proposals that would. require a waiver. Mr. Attridge replied there are s o.me irregularities, and cited as an example the use of 202 as well as 221 f i nancing in t he Ebenezer Baptist Church proposal. Their proposed high-rise, cons i s ti ng of efficiencies and. one-bedroom apartments would be financed under 202 wi th t he gar den apartments financed. under 221. The developer has been contacted regarding this and has indicated. his willingness to go entirely 221. Mr. Attridge f oresees no difficulty, however, with a waiver of this nature. A di s cu s sion continued between Mr. Cook and Mr. Attridge regarding the restr ic t i venes s of 202 to elderly. It was noted, however, that certain of the other proposals, as Wesley Woods, could. also restrict their rentals to elderly since they cons ist of efficiencies and. one-bedroom apartments. Therefore, this does not seem to be a major factor, There being no further discussions at this point, Mr, Persells introduced Mr . Lou i s Orosz who summarized each proposal as to type of structure, number of uni ts, parki ng spaces , community facilities, and. good and bad features. Mr. Persell s mentioned. that some question was raised regarding the t welve-story buildi ng propo s ed by Ebenezer Baptist Church conforming to the 100 foot height l imi t ation . The architects and engineers have assured the Authority in wr iting that t he bu i lding will be built within this limitation. �As a background for now and. later, Mr. Persells stated that FHA has looked over t he proposals and. in giving .mortgage insurance they would prefer having a great d.ifference in appearance between the public housing and this development. A distinction would work to create a different clientele. Mr. Etheridge stated. that his objection to the Ebenezer proposal is t hat it provides for large family residence; aad with this being a seven ·acre downtown site, he does not feel it is appropriate for this use. Mr. Sterne commented t hat 2/3 of the development is for elderly, leaving a small percentage for larger families. In response to Mr. Sterne's question regarding the demand for larger units in public housing projects, Mr. Satterfield replied. that at this time there is a demand. f or larger uni ts, and there has been so.me remodeling to pro vi de these. Mr. Cook asked for a decision from the Committee and Board. asked that Mr. Pierce be informed of the waiver and racial issue. He also With the entire Committee not being present, Mr. Cook suggested that everyone pres ent vote, then ask those absent to register their vote with him as Chairman of the Policy Committee. Messrs. Cook, Griggs, and Sterne voted for Ebenezer Baptist Church with Wesley Woods as a second choice. Mr. Etheridge voted for Wesley Woods with Ebenezer Baptis t Church as a second choice. With there being a descenting vote, Mr. Sterne su ggested. the decision be left open. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Gl~din to contact the r emai ning members of the Policy Committee today informing them to contact Mr. Cook regarding their recommendation. Mr. Persells stated. that he would like everything completed 10 days prior to July 1st to allow for adequate public notice prior to the closing date. This concluding the business, Mr. Griggs moved the meeting be adjourned. Approved : �May 12, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, May 12, 1967, at 10:00 A. M. at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt Building. All members were present as follows: Mr . Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne Hugh Pierce E. Gr egory Griggs John M. Flanigen George Cotsakis Frank Etheridge Also present were: @) w iJ) <( w 0.. «:S ~ J n:: 0 0 co Mr. Collier Gladin, Planning Direc t or, City of Atlanta Mr . George Aldridge, Direc t or, Community Improvement Program Mr. Jim Kluttz, Atlanta Planning Department Mr . Robert Sommerville, Executive Director, Atlanta Transi t Company Mr . M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Au t ho rity Mr. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Howa rd Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atl a n ta Housing Authority Mr. J ame s Henley, At lanta Housing Authority Mr . By r on Attridge and Mr. Lynn Hewes, King & Spalding, At t orneys Mr . J a ck Glenn and Mr. J. B. Blayton, Members, Board of Commiss i oner s , At lant a Housing Authority Chairman Cook cal l ed t he me eting to or der a nd expl ai ned the purpo se o f this meeting is t o hear a p re s entation from Al derman Q. V. Wi lliamson relative to the Rockda le Ur ban Renewa l Project Area . While awa iting his arrival, the committee conside red schedu l ing o f dates f or the deve lo per's presentations on 7.6 a c re s in the Raws on-Washington Proj ec t Area, scheduled for 22l(d) (3 ) development. It was unanimou sly de cid ed t o hear from all developers who had s ubmi tted bid s on Wed nesday , May 31, 196 7 , beginning at 3:00 P. M. It was al so a gr eed that each developer would be given a fifteen minute presentation period, with f i fteen mi nutes al lowed f o r questions and an swers. Each committe e member was presented wit h a synopsis o f each proposal for revi ew. Mr . Perse l l s also rep o rted that developer's presentations had been held on Parcel 73 in the University Center Pro ject Area . At this time, Alderman Williamson arrived at the meeting along with Senator Leroy R. Johnson and representatives of various Negro organiza ti ons. Chairma n Cook stated that a few days ago certain charges were made t o him concerning the Rockdale Project which he felt was of a serious natu r e and shou ld be presented to this com:nittee for consideration and disposition as it sees fit. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Williamson. Alderman Williamson stated he had discussed this matter with the Mayor on �r Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 2 Wednesday; that he had also met with membe r s of the Atlanta Summit Leadership Conference, the NAACP, Op e ration Breadb a s ke t, Atlanta Voters Lea gue and other organizations that are terribly concerned about urban renewal in Atlanta because "Negroes have gotten nothing but the brunt of being kicked off the land"; that they have not been allowed to participate in urban renewal at any level and have not been allowed jobs nor investments in urban renewal property; that the only land Negroes have gotten out of urban renewal was land the colleges bought which "they paid for out of the nose and paid more than anyone else paid for similar urban renewal land"; that the Wheat Street Baptist Church is a prime example - they paid twice what the land was worth for the (d)(3) development they erected on it, to the extent that the project was almost economically unfeasible. Mr. Cook stated that some statements already made by Aldennan Williamson do not coincide with the facts and he asked Mr. Persells if he cared to respond. Senator Johnson asked that they be allowe d to state their position, after which they would be happy to answer any questions or clarify any statements, but to interrupt with questions during the presentation breaks the continuity of thought. Mr. Williamson continued to state that after analyzing urban renewal in At l anta f or the past ten to twelve years, taking into account "what goes on" at the Atlanta Housing Authority, particularly in public housing, these org ani zations wonder if Atlanta shouldn't get out of the urban renewal business; tha t Atla nta mu st let Negroes participate and become a part of urban renewal i f i t is t o survive. He s t ated t hat Negroes a l so have serious problems wi t h e xisting public hous i ng a nd these organizations a l so wonder if Negroes wou l dn' t be better o f f living in slums on the ir own land than in some of the public hou s ing in At la nta. He cited the Ea gan Homes as an example and brief l y d i scussed some of the deplorable conditions e xisting in this p r ojec t , su ch a s r oach and r odent infesta tions and t he Au t hority's refusal to e x te nninate the premise s and de nying the tenants t he ri gh t t o do so at their own expense. He empha s i z ed t he city requires private owne rs t o do this. Other problems he mentioned were t hat t e nant s we r e not a l l owed to have a te l e phone extension upstairs and e ntry ways to the a pa rtmen ts are rec e s s ed and do no t have adequate lighting ; a case of r a pe was cit ed a s be i ng a t tributab le t o this. He stated further that t e n an t s a r e r eluc tant t o compl ain f o r f ear of being ev icted by the manageme nt; that these tenants , in many i ns tances , rather than live in this proje c t under bondage , would be better o ff in s l ums with freedom. He went on to say that the c a se at po i n t is that thi s is the type of thing urban renewal and public hous ing is producing in Atlanta and it must be stopped. As to the question of Rockda l e, he stated that two years ago a group of Negroes began ini tia l efforts t o organize this community and devel op support of area resident s for a plan f or Rockda l e; subsequently, a community organization was formed and working with the Atlanta Housing Authority, assembled a proposed plan for Rockdale according to their rules and regula t io ns. He stated that propo s als by three other developers were also submitted, t wo of which were later disqualified because they did not abide by the rules o f bidding; however, two weeks later, following a meeting of the Housing Authori t y's �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 3 Board of Commissioners and passage of a resolution by them, these same two plans were reinstated, notwithstanding their previous disqualifications, and that this is the basis of their complaint. After this, Mr. Williamson stated it is his understanding from sources that he can secure information from that the Housing Authority narrowed the consideration to two top plans - the Douglas-Arlen and Rosen proposals - and he was told by staff membersof the Authority that both of them were about equal, but when he receives information that somehow plans can be reinstated that do not meet the bid proposals of the Authority, then the Douglas-Arlen group knows they are at a disadvantage; that it is the same old routine of urban renewal - Negroes aren't allowed to participate because the Douglas-Arlen group has Negro participation, even though Rockdale is a Negro community and will serve Negroes. He stated all they are asking is that the plans be judged on merit and where the Douglas-Arlen plan is as meritorious as any of the others, and Rockdale being a Negro community, it should be given to Negroes; that if Negroes can't participate in urban renewal at all levels, then the City Fathers should leave them in the slums, rather than uproot them and take their property; that the time has come when he felt this needed to be said publicly. In reply to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Williamson named the Rosen and Chruckrow proposals as being the two which were disqualified and then reinstated. He then called on Senator Johnson to speak. Mr. Johnson stated he felt this matter was of enough importance and seriousness tha t he had interrupted a speaking engagement in California to return to Atlanta today for this meeting; that because of his absence from the city he had no t had an opportunity to prepare for the meeting as he should have. He then st at ed "I bel ieve with all my heart and soul that we have been discriminated against be c ause we are Negroes and that if we were not black, we would have been awarded the Rockdale Project". He then explained that he drew the charter of the Rockdale community organization and they began working on a plan for the area long before the bidding was opened; that they were successful in securing a sponsor, builder and archit ect and eventually a plan was submitted t o the Housing Authority according to the bid pr oposals. He stated furt her that after so doing and while waiting on a de cision , and believing in the operation of democracy, they were info rmed that po litic al influence was being used to get the Rosen plan approved; tha t he immediately began to investigate and pose questions, among o thers, as to why the two proposa ls which were disqualified were reinstated; that the foremost thought in the Negroes ' mind s at this time was "you folks happen to be of the wrong hue and you are not going to get it"; that they were told by the Housing Authority, as stated by Alderman Williamson, both proposals were good and a ssuming this is so, then he felt it incumbent on the City Fathers t o " bend over backwards" t o award the development to a Negro group, compos ed of Negro architec t s, lawyers, real estate brokers and builders, who are loc al ly based and have a vested interest in the heart of a Negro community and will represent Negro people who were moved from the area and will probably move back whe n housing is available. He also noted that Rockdale is in the heart of his senatorial district and Alderman Williamson's third ward. Senator Johnson stated further that it greatly disturbs them that on the one hand they have been told by members of this connnittee that no decision has been made and �- ---· . . ··- - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - ~ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 4 on the other hand he gets a call in California saying the Rosen plan had already been sent to FHA by the Ho using Authority and he submitted this is a serious matter. He further commented that after talking with member s of FHA and persons alrea dy engaged in 221 programs, it is his understanding that even if their pla n was submitted to FHA, it would be altered before bein g returned; that you never get plans back from FHA exactly like they are submitted. He cit ed as an example the Allen Temp le Project. He went on t o say they had also been told Negroes had nev e r built anything this big; t hat the ti me wasn't right and there was a question of the ability of the Union Baptist Church to administei the project since they had no previous experience. Senator John s on stated their position here in the 196O's, whether it is i mmediately managing or selling, is to do ri ght; that most of the reasons cited agains t their proposal are not meritorious arguments since the project would be Federally regulated anyway. He again ci ted Allen Temple as an example. He the n concluded by ·stating t hat all they are seeking is "a fair shake of the dice and don't deny us because we are black"; that they feel there is rank discrimination somewhere in the Rockdale project and they are asking this committee to right it. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Johnson who told him they would not get this project because they were Neg roes. Mr . Johnson rep lied "Mr. Cook you know that I cannot reveal my source of information anymore than you could, but as surely as there is a God in Heaven I, and we, have been t old we would not get this project because we are black". Mr. Johnson did say that hi s source of information had the contacts to know whereof he speaks. At . this time, Chairman Cook and Mr. Gladin excused themselves from the meeting t o keep a previous appointment in the Mayor's office. They did no t return during the remainder of the meeting, although they had hoped to. Mr. Griggs presided as Chairman during the rest of the me eting. Reverend Sam Williams then addressed the committee briefly on three points: (1) that so much time has to be spent by Negro es keeping vigil to see that even token justice is done; (2) the c ruelty of denying Negroes because of historic disabilities imposed upon them whi ch they themselves did not p l a ce upon their shoulders; and (3) the fact that Negroes should be al lowed to share in the financial rewards flowing from urban renewal. Reverend Williams also s tated he was personally familiar with the Eagan Homes situation because a member of his congregation lived there and he agreed these things must be corrected. Reverend Grier, representing Operation Breadbasket and a group of ministers, and Reverend Dorsey of Operation Breadbasket , both endorsed the remarks of Alderman Williamson, Senator Johnson and Reverend Williams . Mr. Griggs assured Messrs. Williamson and Johnson that it is of great concern to membersof this committee that the charge of racial discrimination in Rockdale ha s been made. Mr. Cotsakis then stated he had to leave the meeting on a previous commitment, but before departing he stated for the record that in all the meetings of the �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 5 Policy Commi ttee he had par t icip ated in he had never heard the word Negro mentioned, nor had he received any indication of racial discrimination as far as any particular proj ect is concerned. Senator Johnson commented "you don't have to say the word to do the act". Mr . Persells then responded to the charge s as follows: As to no participation on the part of Negroes in planning, he s tated there was a cons iderable period of time whe n there wa s little, if any, par ti cipation in urban renewal planning by whites or Negroe s; that the planning and action that went on took place at the off icia l level and the participati on of the cornmunity at large was extremely limited; that only within the last two to fo ur years were people outsid e o f o ff icials really brought into planning in urban renewal to the extent of actual participation. The first effort at involving parti cipation on the part of persons living in the project area t ook place in the West End Project through a Ci tizen s Advisory Corranittee, whic still functions. The second effort t ook pla ce when the Buttermilk Bo ttoms North Avenue Project (which was combi ned wi th Bedford-Pine) was initiated ; the c itizens residing in the project area fo rmed an organization ca lled "URESCUE" whi ch, from that day f o rward, actively and fully participated in every planning decision affecting the area; that this organizat ion has had a profound effect on the urban renewal plan f or this area and he expected it to continue to do so. Mr . , Persells commented further t h at at some point you have to d evelop a basis f or discussion; in the case of Rockdale the people were moved, the land cleared and then came the question o f utilizati on of the l and; that it was determined many years ago that Rockdale would be used f or schools, playgrounds and residences, with an incidental po ssibility o f furnis hing a service shopping area for the 1500 families that would live in the are a . The allocation of 1500 units was based on a limitation on sewers, documented by the Sewer Departme nt. Mr. Persel l s stated further the initial concept was f or single family r esidences, however, this was never possible, t opographically or financia l ly. Mr . Perse lls said further that for a long time prior t o this there wa s, in Atlan ta, a gr ow ing consciousness of t he importance of good urban desi gn , one reason being there ha d been several i llust r a tions of awards made on a flat do ll ar s ystem whe re t he redevelopmen t s had not been too good, so i t wa s ult i mate ly determi ned tha t in multi-fami l y developments it would be de s irable to make the offe ri ng s at a f i xed land pri ce and awa rd t he b i d base d on compet i tive design c rit e r i a ; t hat a pri me reason f or this change in policy was to avoid the type o f pr ob lem mentioned by Mr . Wi lliamson whe re Wheat Street Baptist Church overbid on the land . He s tated t hi s was a very unfo rtunate situation but could no t have be en avoid ed at that t i me wi th the existing laws . I n adopting the fixed land price s y s tem, Mr. Perse ll s s tated an elaborate procedure was e s tabl i shed to insure that awards wo uld be on the basis of design criteri a a nd not po litical or o ther f acto r s . This procedure involved staff reviews and recommendations, ora l presentat ions by developers and recommendations from e xperts in th e fi eld of planning, architecture and housing. �Minu te s Urban Renewa l Policy Commit tee May 12, 19 67 Page 6 Th is procedu re wa s f ollowed i n the case of Rockda l e . The se r ecommenda t i on s were then presented t o t he Urban Renewal Poli cy Commi tte e who s pen t in e xc e ss o f f ive hours ev a l uating the f our proposa l s . The pr opos a ls we r e t hen pre sented t o t he Board o f Commi ssioners o f the Ho using Autho r i t y a nd t h ey discussed t hem v ery c arefu l l y, howev er , no de c i sion ha s been made by t hem. At thi s point , Mr . Per s ell s com.~ ented t hat no on e had a tt emp t ed to infl uence him in thi s matte r o r con t ac ted him ab out it exc ept Mr. Wi ll iamson an d Mr . J ohnson; that whe n the y visited his o ffi c e he a dvis ed them a t t hat t ime that he wa s a s ta ff member , no t a de c i s i on o r po li cy make r , and he woul d be remi s s in hi s duty if the s t a ff had i nfl uence on policy t o the exten t t hat it was . an overr id ing fa c t o r , ra t her t han a r e commendat ion, and such was no t the ca se wit h Rockdale . Mr . Per s e l ls commented on the s tatement that Ne groes do not hold re sp onsible j obs i n urb an renewal , or t hey hold l ow type j ob s. He s t a t ed this is s imply no t an a c curate s tatement ; that there are a number o f Negro peop le involved in urban renewal a t h i gh and l ow l eve ls and their jobs are open f o r inspection ; that there are v acan t j ob s wh i ch are yet to be fi lled and when quali fie d Neg r o peo p l e ca n be f ound , who a re will i ng t o a cc ept t he job at the salary it c arri es , he would per so na l ly re commend them f o r empl oyme nt. As to the allegation , by imp l i cat i on o r dire c t statement, tha t there ha d bee n no previous la nd purchases invo lving Negroe s and t he que s tion o f t he Ne gro colle ges pa ying more f o r uban re new al land t ha n anyone el s e, Mr. Per se l ls s a id t ha t p r i o r to Ro ckdale, awa rds were stric t l y on t he ba s i s o f the h ighest bidde r, wi t h some c on siderat i on g i ven t o des ign f acto rs, and he could r ec all onl y two ins ta nces when awa r ds we r e made o ther than t o the high b idder and these ha d c lear-cu t re ason s which h ad no thing to do with the qu e s tio n o f ra c e ; that t he re hav e be e n seve ra l ins tanc e s whe r e Neg r oes hav e been s ucc es s f u l bidder s , f or e xamp le, Ci t iz ens Tr us t Company; f urther, at the t ime the Unive r si ty Cent er Urb an Renewal Proj e c t was being planned, it ap pe are d that it wo uld be impo ss ib l e t o f inanc e a proj e c t of t he size des i r e d by t he co l l e ges and so the col le ge s , i n o r der t o make t he project fe a s i ble and se cure t he land, ag reed to pay $40 , 000 an a cre; t ha t h e had neve r heard them comp la in ab out this ; that Whe a t Str eet Ga rde n s , again, wa s a n unfortuna t e se t o f circumstances, but t hey related t o the t i me and s ituation as i t was t hen; t ha t bas ed on his exp e r ience, t he Negro co llege s would have pai d more f o r t he l and wi thout the be nef it of the urb an renewal project. Mr . Pe rsells did no t comment on the pub l i c hou s i ng , except t o s ay the things mentioned in regard t o Eaga n Horne s ar e not who lly accurat e and do no t fairly repre sent the si t uation a s i t i s. He then made brief concluding commen ts on s everal othe r po ints rais ed by Messr s. Williams on and J ohnson. He s t a ted th er e had b een an ass umption made that the two proposals me ntioned (Douglas-Ar len and Ro s en) were equal , but he could assure everyo ne tha t whe n a decision is reached, it will be bec au s e the two were not equal. They had a l so assumed that the Rosen pr opos al doe s not involve Negro pa r t icipa t io n , but Mr . Per sells stated t hey might well include local Negro participat ion , j u s t as Douglas-Ar len does; t h at t h e Ro sen group has agree d to "spin o f f" po rt ions of the t ota l development, in the same manne r a s �- 0 -~-- -- - - - - - Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 7 the Douglas- Arlen group anticipated spinning off the whole of the projec t , to a non-pro f it organiza t ion , however, Rosen was explicit in his desire to retain control of the development. As to t he capability of the Union Baptist Church t o c arry out a project of t h is magnitude, Mr. Persells state d that t o let thi s be t he gove rning factor in the de cision would be wrong; tha t t he assump tion has to be ma de .that such an organization would employ pro f essionally skilled peop l e who could assist them in ma nagement activities. As t o the Rose n propo sal be ing submitted to FHA , Mr. Persells stated it was submitted to FHA f or a preliminary review to determine i f it was acceptable to FHA without having t o make major ch anges; i f i t had been r eturned, another proposal would have been s ubmi tted to them; furth e r, it is not accurate to say that pla ns will not be deve l ope d a s submitted to FHA becaus e they will change them; that i f this were t r ue, compe ti tions would not be he ld; t hat while minor changes might be sugge s ted becau s e of topographic cond itions or other reasons, it doe s not mean the basic concept or layout of the developme nt would be altered. As to Negroes sharing in the financial rewards of urban renewal, Mr. Persel l s stated the bu lk of the f inancial rewards which would accrue to Negroes or whites would be in the development stage; after the structures are built, it lies with the continuing ma nagement. Mr. Persells conc l uded by saying t hat he hoped they could continue to opera te without rega rd to race , creed or color and involve the community as a who l e in planning a c t iviti es oriented to urban renewa l projects; that we shou l d no t condemn ourselves by past mistake s, but pro fi t f rom them and move f orward. There we r e then ques t i ons a nd ans wers . Mr . Glenn st a ted he was the n ewe st member o f t h e Bo a rd of Commiss ione rs and in the meeti ngs he had attended race had never been me ntioned and to h is knowledge no dec ision had been made on Rockdale. He pointedly asked "has a dec i s i on been ma de and was r a ce an issue?" Mr. Griggs stated the Po l icy Committee had ma de a recommenda t i on to t he At lanta Housing Authority a nd rac e was not a n is sue; tha t no decis i on has been made yet by the Authori ty. Mr . Pierc e s t ated he would like it clarified about the charge of reinsta t ing disqualif ied plan s. Mr . Persells explained that at no t i me were any o f the f ou r pr opo sals set aside; that in thei r initia l r eview o f the propos al s, which is to determi ne if they are in proper order t o be accepted, t hey did discover minor t echni calities in the Rosen and Chruckrow p ropo sa l s . The Rosen proposal did not submit a bid bond , nor a total dev elopment cost, although suffic ient information was available to arrive at this figure . The Chruckrow proposal failed to meet the exact specifications with respect to their drawings, however, after consultations with the Authority ' s legal counsel, it was felt these were merely minor irregularities and not sufficient reasons f o r rejecting the propo sals since the s e irregularities did not affect any of the design criteria ; consequently, the Board of Commissioners, �0 Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 Page 8 under the provisions of t he o ffering, waived the se irregularities, but up to this point there was no cons id eration given t o the proposals on the basis o f merit and they were under cons tant review and still are. As a result of this situation Mr . Persells stated it wa s determined that the wording in the offering was too ambiguous and subsequently an addendum to the offering was ma de, setting forth in greater detail the speci fi cations for bidding. Mr . Pierce asked i f any of these exceptions were ever mentioned at the Policy meetings, t o which Mr . Persells answered negative ly, explaining that it was felt this was a re sponsibility of the Board of Commissioners, whose meet ings are a matter of public reco r d. Mr . Wi lliamson con tended that if the Douglas-Arlen group had not "dotted every 'i' and cross ed every 't' t hey would be ou t of the ball game". Mr . Johns on stated it was their understand ing the Policy Corrnnittee wou ld make a re corrnnendation to the Housing Authority , who would be responsible f or making the final decision, but since a re commendation fr om the Policy Corrnnittee is tantamount to approval by the Authority, they felt it was their responsibi li ty t o dis cuss the matter with the Pol i cy Committee and they are here today because they thought no deci sion had been made. Mr. J ohnson stated furth er that he and Mr . Williams on vis ited Mr . Cook in hi s o ffi ce and were told that a decision had been made by t h e Po li cy Corrrrnittee and Mr . Cook suggested they s ee Mr. Persells; that they did visit with Mr . Persel ls who, in turn, suggested they take the matter up with the o ther members of the Policy Committee, resulting in today's meeting . He also mentioned that when Alderman Cotsakis le ft the meeting, he said he would not return to the meeting to vote because thi s Committee had already ma de a recommendation; that if this is the c a s e , then everything said today has been to no avail. He said further that the Ho using Authority permi ts a laxity of rules for some and requires o thers to "toe the mark" and this is where discrimination begins. He submitted that if the Douglas-Arlen group had not submitted a performance bond, they would have been eliminated. Mr. Williamson asked when must the Housing Authority publicize its decision. Mr . Persells stated not later than Monday. There being no further discussion , Mr . Griggs thanked everyone for appearing and the Committee then went into Executive Session. In Executive Session, Mr. Sterne commented that the Policy Connnittee, after studying the four proposals very carefully, and after having the benefit of written recorrnnendations from the experts, did make a recommendation and the final decision rests with the Hou sing Authority; that there is some merit to the statement that generally speaking the Board of Commissioners tends to follow the recommendation of the Policy Corrnnittee; that while he is aware of the Senator's explanation of the insidious way the race issue comes up, he could truthfully say it never entered his mind at any of the briefings or meetings he attended. �..,._ w (/) ~ -· • ... .,.J. - -- -· i'~-- . - - ------ _________ _______________ Minute s Urban Renewal Policy Committee May 12, 1967 ...._ Page 9 LrJ 0 a.. ~ "S'. ~ J a: 0 0 m Mr . Griggs stated he was "dumfounded" when Mr. Wil liamson and Senator Johnson came to his office and made the charges they did; that he was completely unaware o f any racial prejudice connec ted with Rockdale. Mr. Persells stated the bids were opened legally on March 15 and the Housing Authori ty is obligated to reach a decision and notify the successful bidder within 60 days, after which they have 10 days to sign the contract documents. In answer to questioning by Mr. Griggs, Hr. Persells stated the Board of Commissioners will have all four proposals before them at the meeting, with a favo rable recommendation from the Policy Committee on the Rosen proposal. Mr . Pierce recalled that he had to leave the meeting of April 25, 1967, at whi ch the four proposals were discussed, prior to its conclusion and at the time of his departure, advis e d the Chairman that up to t h at point, he favored the Rosen plan, based on the plans he had seen and the recommendations that had been given it by the va rious experts; however, he stated that at that time he was not aware of the exceptions which were made, o r the questio n of the race issue, and he requested that if the Chairman did vote favorable for him, that it be stricken from the record. @ Mr. Sterne, a l so being a member of the Board of Commissioners, sta ted he wanted to make it clear that the waivers which were granted took place pr ior to any hearings and it was afterwards that the detailed presentations were made on all four proposals. After other brief discussion, the Acting Chairman stated that if today's presentations had altered the position of any committee member, he would entert ain a motion to reconsider the matter. Mr. Pierce so moved and simultaneously moved that the Douglas-Arlen pr opo sa l be a pproved. These motions died for the lack of a second. The Acting Cha irman then entertained a motion to reaffirm the previous de cis i on o f the -commi t t ee. Moti on was made a nd seconded by Messrs. Sterne and Flanigen that acc e p t ance o f the Ro sen p r oposal be reaffirmed, s aid motion being adopted by majori ty vote, with Ald e rma n Pierce voting a dversely. Approved: jp Respectfully submitted : �April 28, 1967 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Conunittee of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, April 28, 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 Charles Leftwich George Cotsakis John M. Flanigen Q. V. Williamson Absent: Jack Summers Also in attendance were: Collier Gladin William F. Kennedy Pierce Mahony Earl Landers Howard Openshaw Les Persells \. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was consiqered: Mr. Gladin explained that the Planning Department, with assistance from other city departments and agencies, have been preparing the annual request for recertification of the Workable Program, which is necessary in order for the city to continue participation in a variety of federal programs; that it is hoped to submit the recertification to the Board of Aldermen for approval on May 15 and to HUD immediately thereafter in order to allow them two additional weeks of review time. He stated further that prior to today's meeting, a draft copy o f each of seven sections were . forwarded to each member for review and he then asked for any questions o r suggested changes in any of t he individual draf t sec ~ions . Mr. Kennedy of the departmental staff briefly commented on each draft and the foll owing is a listing of them and the recommendations of the committee: 1. Codes and Ordinances - Under Item 4, relative to the number of appeals filed during the past twelve months as a result of code enforcement, it was requested that the figure reflecting the number of cases resolved by the committee be changed to accurately show that the commit tee itself had resolved all the cases which had been brought before it, even though some of the cases might be pending before another governing board. 2. Comprehensive Community Plan - No changes. �Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 2 3. Neighborhood Analyses - No changes, 4. Administrative Organization - No changes. 5. Financing - No changes. 6. Hou s ing For Displ aced Famili e s - The committee asked that the total number of families displaced during 1966 (shown as 162) be verified; that it seemed rather low. Mr. Persells stated the Housing Authority could document this figure. 7, Citizen Participation - No changes. The committee then unanimously adopted the following resolution: "A RESOLUTION BY PLANNI NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ' \. WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta is constantly . working to solve the problems of urban blight and decay and, WHEREAS , the City of Atlanta is committed to a positive working relationship with the national government in an attempt to solve urban problems of mutual concern and, WHEREAS, recertification of the City of Atlanta's Workable Pr ogram for Community Improvement i s necessary in order to cont inue to r ece i ve gran ts-in-aid under a va riety of federal aid programs and , WHEREAS , t he ·city of Atlanta ha s made out standing pr ogress in 1966 in meeting its goals f or t o ta l community i mprovemen t . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor a nd Board o f Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, as f ol l ows: l. That the attached report, A Review of Progress under the Workable Program for Community Improvement, is hereby adopted. 2. That said report be forwarded to the Regional Office of the �r Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 3 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for their review no later than June 1, 1967." "'("k-k* Mr. Mahony of the departmental staff gave a brief status report on the Land Use Plan, ~tating it is expected to have it in a final draft form by July so as to begin consultations with the committee with a view toward final adoption. Revision of Zoning Ordinance \ Mr. Gladin briefly commented that the staff feels it would be desirable, as a n initial step in updating the entire ordinance, to rev~ew it for certa in kinds of deficiencies which should, in turn, give.a clearer under~ st a nding of where the ordinance is lacking in its basic approach to both development and enforcement; tha t while most of these deficiencies are obvious to the admin{strative sta ff , it was felt it would be desirable to have an outside review of the ordinance from a more objective standpoint, point i ng o.ut both the kinds of deficiencies and the areas where it may substanti a lly differ from other ordinances employing similar concepts . and accord i ngly, the American Society of Pl a nning Officials has been employed to do such · a review. Mr. Gladin stated also that he anticipated b r inging this matter before the committee a round the middle of May for discussion. Survey and Planning App lic a tion for Na sh- Bans Area Mr. Gladin exp la ined tha t an in i ti a l mee ting had been schedul ed with representatives from all the a r ea civi c c lubs, chur che s a nd other groups ; the purpose o f thi s meet ing , a nd ot her s i milar one s t o f ol l ow, will be t o acquaint the s e area repre senta tives with the c ity ' s plans f or their area; to hear their problems and s o l u tions; t o ascertain their fee l i ngs about an urban renewal pro j e c t f or t heir area , and t o s o licit thei r support; in turn, it is hoped the s e repre senta tives will keep thei r r espec tive neighborhood informed of all the s e activities . • Combi ning of Buttermi l k Bottoms - Bedford Pine Projects Mr. Persells brought this matter to the committee's attention, explaining �Minutes Planning and Development Committee April 28, 1967 Page 4 that HUD has stated that since we are simply adding the areas and budgets together, no new resolution is required and the documents can be presented to the Regional Office and unless this committee wishes to restate the position taken by the Urban Renewal Policy Connnittee in approving the combination, no further action is required. ·I The conunittee felt no further action was needed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: I Respectfully submitted: ' \. Col lier Gladin Planning Director jp Joanne Parks Secretary �JJ . 1~ 2 called meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee wos h::~n :~e::::, April 25, 1967, at 4:00 P.M., at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt Bui ldin g. Al I members were present as fol lows: Mr . Mr. Mr. Mr . Mr . Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne Hugh Pierce E. Gregory Griggs John M. Flanigen George Cotsakis Fra nk Etheridge Also pre se nt were : L!J .,.., V. <( w Q.. ,.:.j 0 0 f') Mr . Collier B. Gladin, Plan n ing Direc tor, C ity of At lanta Mr . M . B. Satterfield, Executive Direc tor, Atlanta Housing Authority Mr . Howard O penshaw, Ch ief , Planning- Engineering Department, At lanta Housin g Au th o r ity Mr. Hugh Pe terson, King and Spalding, Attorneys Mr. Les Persel Is, Dire c tor of Redevelopm e nt , At lanta Housing Au th o rity Mr. John Hopkins, Atlanta Housing Au tho rity Th e Chairman cal led the meeting to order and th e fo l lowing business was co nsidered : N o te : For th e pur poses of these minu te s and in o rd er to mai ntain clari ty a nd correlat ion of fa c ts, eac h proposa l is w r itten as a s ing le e ntity. How e ve r , al I four pro posals we re jo intl y discusse d, weig h ing th e meri ts of each a ga inst th e o ther. At rhe ou tset o f the meet in g , each com mittee membe r was pre sented with the foll owing materi al : An individua l apprai sal of the fou r Roc kda le proposal s by: Ro bert L. Sommerv i lle; G rac e Ha mi lto n; T. M . A lexa nder and A. B. Padgett , a ll members of the C it ize n' s Ad visory Commi ttee for Urba n Re newal; a re vi ewer 's ra ting shee t of the redevel opme nt pro posa ls , prepared by the At lanta Ho using Au th o rity . Included in th is appra isa l shee t were ratings by the At lan ta Hou sing Auth ority , the Atlan ta Planning Departm en t , the Ameri c an Insti tu te of Plan ners , th e Mayor 's Committee on Housing Resource s and the Ci tizen's Ad v iso ry Commi t tee for Urban Renewa l. These ratings were o n the bas is of fr om 1 to 4 poi nts, 1 being the most de sira bl e for the de velopm en'" a nd 4 the least. Mr. Persel Is stated the Housing Au th ori ty would prefer to tak e the position meeting o f o nl y answering questions and making c larifi cations . t '"hi s It was agreed that the following format w ould be f?llowed: The committee would evaluate �r··. - I ! Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Commi ttee Apr i I 25, 1967 Page 2 the aspec ts of each proposal, pro and con , and by th e proc ess of e limi nati on , based o n the merits of design criteria, narrow the consi derati on to the two top proposa ls o fferi ng the grea test possibi Iity for development for the objectives wh ich Ro c kdale shou Id seek to serve . The proposal by Marv in Warner was discussed at length. During this d iscussion, the comm ittee exa mined closely a rchi te c tural si te plans and pe rspec t iv es presented by the proposer a nd made t.he fol lowing observations and comments - A summarization of these o bservations, Iisted be low , led to the subsequent disqualification of th is proposal from consideration: Flood probl ems and the apparen t placing of some buildings wi th in the fl ood pl ai n . Severe grad ing problems and building co nstruc tion because of th e tremendous variation in grades . Dou btfu I that the si te cou Id be graded to comp ly wi th the site plans presented . The land would have to be tailored to the building arrangeme nt, as opposed to the buil ding to the land. The severe grad ing would destroy all trees. The entire site is covered with buildings, som e to within 25 feet of the property line . A commendab le feature of the plan was the coopera t ive housing approac h (76% co-o p) wh ich wou Id provide for eventual purchase of the uni ts by the resident. The proposal by Chruc krow Construction Company was then conside red , with the following observations and comments - again, a summarization o f these observa tions, I isted below, led to th e disq ualification of th is proposal from considerat ion: Proposal embraces the 11 villa·ge 11 concept , which is desirab le in princ.iple. The vehicu lar street pattern (circular dr ives) was designed in su c h a way that. i ' separated e ach 11 vil lage 11 and actually cu t off pedestrian traffic from one vi I Iage to another . The plans proposed do not fit the topography of the property, and the land would have to be conformed to the bui ldings. The develo pment wou Id be difficult to achieve without costly, extensiv e gn;1ding which wou Id create problems. �Minutes Urban Renewa l Pol icy Committee Apr i I 25, 1967 Page 3 There is reasona ble doubt tha t the si te could even be grade d to con form to the plan because o f so many un kn owns , such as rock deposits , e tc. Only one smal I recreation bui Iding is proposed in the entire developmen t . The developer states that und er 221 (d)(3) developments, swimming pools are not feasible. The archi tectural rend er ings g ive a concept of flatness, with no di ffer ence in grades. A desirabl e fe atu re of the plan was the f lexibili ty of uni ts and varia t ion in des ign . It was the opi ni on of the Policy Committee th a t th e pro posa ls by The Douglas-Arlen G roup and David L. Rose n were the better of the four proposa ls. The se two proposals were co nsidered in terms of advantages and disadvantages and va rious site plans, fl oor elevatio ns , etc. , were examined through ou t the discussion. Douglas- Arlen Pro posal Adva ntages: Proposal embra ces the 11 village 11 or 11 clus ter 11 a rrangement o f buildings . The build ings conform to the site, ra th er than the site being con formed to th e build ings. More community fa ci lities are proposed tha n i~ any of the oth er de vel opmen ts. Appropro to all o f the pro posals , the com munity fa c ilities th a t are o therwise available in th is area were then poin ted out, th e se being a pro posed Ci ty park fa ci lity , ex is ting and proposed elementary sch oo l , the Gun Club Park and the existing health ce nter, which are to serve the proposed 1500 uni ts . It was noted tha t a swimming pool cou ld be pl aced within the Ci ty park fa ci lity if it was not provided elsewhere in the development . Devel opment provides for convenien t access fr om one part of the project t o an other . Ha s local sponsor. �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 25, 1967 Page 4 Provides for church sites as cal led for by th e p lan. It was po inted out that the developer has sta ted he wo uld not be able to f inan ce all the proposed communi ty fo ci Iities , however , the land wou Id be availab le for that purpose if and when f inancing becomes ava ilable - either from the developer or o ther groups . Comp lete separati on of pedestrian and vehicu lar traffic eliminating the danger of c hildren playing near c ars . Central garbage pick-up is pro posed . A des irable feature was the fl e xib ili ty in unit a rrangements - 5% I bed rooms; 5 0 % 2 bedrooms; 35% bedrooms. Site plan fol lows the contour of the land. Entire concept of development mini mizes the grading , keeps the cost down and preserves some of the natural foliage. Disadvantages: Serious question of finan cin g maior portion o f proposed community fac i lities; yet th is is the founda t ion around which the entire proiec t is bu i lt . Over-emphas is on the Community Cen te r concept , espe cially since similar fac il it ie s will be in the nearby park . The large size of the ·swimming pool , the paved area and the build ings a re u nrea l istic. Financing of the communi ty faci lities is not an FHA guaran tee . The vas t amount of paving propose d could c rea te flood and heat reflec ti o n prob lems. Devel o per proposes underpasses (5) a nd overpa sse s (2), wh ich it is fe lt are ge nerally und es irabl e. Exc essi ve wa lking d istance from the park ing areas to the dw e lling units. The conc e pt of buildin g arra ngements ut il izes some unde si rable bu i lding areas and leaves bu ildab le areas va ca nt (Example - sou theast sh o pping area). A qu est ionable feature is the four-story bu i ldings. The grouping of all comm un ity fa c ilities in the v ery center creates a self-contained atmosphere , unre lated to its surround ings, particu larly the existing community facilities - health c e nter and school. · �L - () (' m Minutes Urban Renewal Po l ic y Comm ittee Ap ri I 25 , 1967 The developer proposes to se l I the proiect, in its entirety , to a non- profit sponsor wh o has had no prev ious experience in operating or manag ing parti c ularl y a development of this enormity a nd , hopefu lly , th ey wou ld get some experien ced people to w ork w ith them o n th is. Servi ce side of the bui ld ings a re o r iented to the inter ior c ou rts, making a ccess to service v ehicles (f ire truc ks, etc .) d iff icu It . David L. Rosen Proposa l Advantages: Dwell ing un its are further removed from the rock q uarry than the o ther three proposa ls . ,, I,.~_;.. l t'J Access galler ies to eac h u ni t , permitt ing c_ross ventilation . ~ i ,1 .., _i "t No effort has been made to grade the interior Court concept, leaving the area fa irly natural . Th is wou Id avoid heat reflection problems and red uce cost. ! ,..: (J) <( LiJ Q_ The parking is recessed so th a t it is low er th an the dwelling units. This would eliminate visibility o f parking lots from the dwelling uni ts. (I t was noted thi s was listed as a disadvanta ge by one of the proposers). De velope r is investing maximum money in the units. The perspect iv es presented indicate a cl ear understand ing of the rough grades. Pedestr ian streets are pro posed throughout the pro jec t. The service sides of the buil dings are oriented to the outside, providing better access for serv ice vehicl es; and the I ivi ng rooms of the units face grassed areas and walks, rather than paving. A more complete separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffi c. G rouping of the proposed c hurch, health center and community cente r will prov ide for convenience and joint use of parking areas. Page 5 �Minutes Urban Re newal Policy Commi ttee April 25, 1967 Page 6 Two swimming pools are guaran teed by the devel oper, one for c h il dren and one for adu Its , with smal I recreati on areas arou nd the pools. In every instance the parking is adiacen t to the buildings a nd re cessed so as not to be visib le from the u nits . Devel o per will utilize FCH foun.dation coopera t ive housi ng , a very substantial sponsor who w i ll a ssist in the finan cing a nd w i ll conduct th e advertising and sales program for the development . Des ign o f the uni ts provides bu il t-i n f lexibility, allowing contract ing o r exparding of uni ts wi th the same ou ts ide walls; this will permit developer to compete with th e market, and meet tena nts I needs. Five church sites are proposed . The developer proposes to retain a maior persona l investmen t in the ' projec t and operate it personally. Di sadva ntages: The prov iding -o f 1386 units, rather than 1500, is q uesti o nable since it prov ides that much less housi ng for peo ple . Som e ad justment shoul d be made in the secondary entrance road to the projec t so t hat it woul d not funnel traff ic throu gh the roc k q ua rry e ntrance , and vice -versa . This would ne cessita te ad justment of a few bui ldings . 85 % of the uni ts are 3-story garden a partments located on the contours; ho pefu lly th ey would be adjusted to minimiz e th e !e v e ls and steps to t he units . Re c apitu lo tion o f the recomm e ndations of the var io us organ iz ations and grou ps: City of Atlanta Planning Departme nt - Da v id L. Rosen proposal . Atlanta Housing Au thori.ty - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. Citi z en 's Adv isory Committee fo r Urban Renewa l - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. - 3 to l . American Institu te of .Planners - Dav id L. Rosen proposal. I •; ' . · ·: . , · . ', I• ~ I 'J. ,, ' ' �Page 7 M i nutes Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee Apr i I 25, 1967 Am e r ic an Inst i tu te of Arc hite c ts - No spe c ific ·e commenda t io n , buL favored the Dou glas- -Arlen proposal: · · Mayo r' s Comm ittee on Hou sing Resou rc es - Do uglas- Ar le n proposal . Tfie 'Urban Renewa l Po lic y Comm i ttee, withal! bu t one member present , Ond aft~r evaluafion o f' each o f the p roposals' and wr itten c omments ·su bmitted by the organi zatio ns listed above , u pon. mo t ion by Mr . Flan igen , seco nded by Messrs . Ether idge .·and Cotsakis, unan imously recommended to Lhe Boord of Commissioners of the Housin g Auth o rity o f the Ci ty o f Atf o nta , G eorg ia, the ac c eptanc e of the David L. Rose n proposal; Alderman Pierc e had to leave the mee t ing before its co ne lusion and based on facts presented up to th.e time of his departure sta ted he fav o red the · .Rosen proposal and asked th a t the Chairman so reg ister his vote in Execu ti ~e Session . ·k*-A· ·k * *·J.:·),: * ·k ** *"k There °be ing no fu rther busi~ess, the meeti ng was adjourned.. . ' ' . '*·k*******·k***** Respe c tfo I ly su bmitted , APPROVED: · ,- ·' .. · .r:/_. I I I . - ·- , ·. . ··.: J /. _J_o_a_n_n_e-Pa-rk_s_1_S_ e_c-re_ t_a_r_y_ _- . v' JP /Im ,' �April 21 , 196 7 A reg ular mee ting o f the Urban Re newa l Policy Committee was he ld on Frid ay , April 21, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room # 2, Second Floor, City Hall, The f ollowing membe rs we r e pr es ent: Ro dney Cook , Chairman Edwi n Sterne Gr ego r y Gri gg s Geo rg e Cotsakis Frank Etheridge Absent: Hugh Pi erc e John F lanigen Also p resent were: George Aldridge J im Kl u t t z George Berr y John I zard Hugh Pe ter son Robert Somme rville Howard Open shaw Colli er Gl adin Le s Perse lls Bob Biv ens The Chairman c a ll ed the meet ing to o r der and the following bus iness wa s considered : Mr . Gla din introdu ced t o the Committee and other s pres ent , Mr . J immy Kl utt z , a new additio n to the City' s planning s taff. He stated that Mr . Klu t tz comes to the City hi ghly rec ommended with impressive qu ali fi c a t i ons; that he has several yea r s e xperience in the housing f i eld and will serv e as the City's coo rdinat o r of urba n renewal. In b eha l f of t he Committee, Cha irma n Cook re cognized and welcomed Mr . Kluttz, s tating t hey look f o r ward t o working with him. Submis s ion of Re v ised Applicat io n t o Combi ne the Bu t t ermi l k Bottoms and Bedford Pine Pro ject Area. Mr, Persells exh i bited a comb ined map of the two e xi s ting project areas and stated that at the time this was initi ally discussed with the re newal assi s tance administrati on , the Hou s ing Authority was advised that the neces s ary right-of-way f o r the wi dening of Bedford Place could be dedicated to the City and that the City could proceed , --- �~~ nutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 2 with the widening project, however, when Part I of the Buttermilk Bottoms Application was presented for their review and approval, a change of policy at the Federal level was made, necessitating that the City purchase the right-of-way for the street widening, which will require a cash outlay of a quarter of a million dollars. Mr. Persells stated further that inasmuch as the City is not in a position to make this cash outlay, the only solution to the problem s e ems to be to combine the two projects. He then cited the advantages to such a combination: First, the proximity of the projects to each other dictate a tying together of the street alignments; since there is a change in street grades as much as 20 feet at some points, considerable regrading of the street system will be required. Secondly, there is a Federal restriction on relocating people outside o f a project proper, and combination of the two projects would permit the temporary on-site relocation of people from one project to the other. Thirdly, if the projects aren't combined, the City stands to lose approximately $125,000 in credits for the widening of Bedford. Mr. Openshaw explained the existing project boundary line is on the east side of Bedford; the City is i mmedia tely widening on the west side of Bedf ord to 3 lanes ( a ll within the Buttermilk Bottoms project) and this being the boundary line , only 50 percent credit will be , 'eligible, both in the cost of the right-of-way and street improvements, unless the projects are combined so as to include the east side of Bedford, making it an interior street; this would then per mit a 100 percent credit f or t he widening that the City had hoped ~o rece ive . Mr . Pers el ls sta t ed als o the coor di nation , a cqui sition , demol ition and reloca tion wil l be much simpl er a s a sin-. gle pr o jec t , r ather than two. Dur ing ensuing discussion, Mr . Cook expres s ed concern about the a dditiona l del ay in acquisition of propert ies i n t he Bu ttermilk Bottoms projec t since the people in this area have been t old it would begin within t he next six week s. The Commi ttee was a l s o doub t f ul tha t i t woul d involve jus t a six months de lay, and Mr . Cook f urther expr essed parti cular concern about known har ds hip cases al ong Forres t Avenue . Mr . Persells explained that he did not believe there would be t hat much delay i n the pr oj e c ts actually ; that as s oon as the Survey and Planning App l i cati on i s submitted t o combine the proj e c ts, t he Housing Au thority can immedi ately proceed with preparation of Part I of the app l ication and would expect t o have it r e ady by the time the Survey and Pl anning Application is approved; that since about 60% of the Buttermilk Bottoms project has been acquired under the Letter of Consent method the Authority has agreed that it would not make any such additional request after the Federal people h ad called to their attention that you cannot execu te a ~roject under the guise of Letters of Consent. However, in order to facilitate a cquisition of hardship cases, Mr. Persells stated Mr. Davis (City Comptroller) has agreed to make available up to $250,000 to purchase bona f ide hardship cases in the 40% balance of the project; that based on a preli minary survey of the types of hardship cases existing and �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 196 7 Page 3 potential numbers, it is felt this amount will take care of the situation during the additional delay involved in submitting the revised Survey and Planning Application. In addition to this, Mr. Persells stated the Authority also proposes to request an amendment to the last Letter of Consent to include the acquisition of three pieces of property at the corner of Piedmont and Forrest which are among the priority hardship cases; that the advance acquisition of these three tracts will solidify the area and facilitate development of the entrance to the auditorium. In response to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Persells stated that through two bond issues, three and one quarter million dollars in urban renewal funds have been allocated, most of which are committed; that present estimates indicate when all credits in all of the urban renewal areas the City now has are pooled, the City's total cash requirement (the actual cash amount the City will have in the projects)' will be about $900,000. It was mentioned that this figure was dependent upon all of the non-cash credits currently scheduled in the projects being built. Mr. Somme rville felt any delays which are not absolutely necQssary should be avoided. He stated delays of this sort imperil the entire urban renewal process and creates an attitude of bitterness toward the City on the part of people living in these areas. After other discussion, it was the general consensus of the Committee that combining of the two projects would be desirable and beneficial t o the City if the matter of acquisition of hardship cases could be assured, In answer to questioning by Chairman Cook, George Berry of the Comptroller's Office stated he felt additional funds, beyond the $250,000, could be provided, within reason, for bona fide hardship cases. A motion wa s t hen made by Mr. Griggs and seconded by Mr, Et heridge tha t t he Commi ttee approve t he combining of the two projects and accept t he lo an of $250,000 from the City to permit advance acquisition of p r op e r t ies de t e rmined to be hardship cases. Messrs. Sterne and Sommerville rel uctan tl y concurred with the motion. There was then a l engthy di scus s i on relative t o the t h ir t een acre s of property l y ing withi n the University Center Proje c t which the Policy Committee had allocated f o r 221-D-3 housing. (See Mi nutes o f March 4, 1966, Pages 2 & 3). This entire area, inclqding the ten acres awarded . to the colleges, was originall y scheduled for 221-D-3 housing, with the ten acres being excluded for college utilization. Mr, Persells stated the thirteen acres was offered for sale on April 12 and that he would like to discuss a �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 Page 4 0 schedule of dates for presentations by the proposed developers - seven at the present time. He explained that in an amendment to the offering, each proposer has been advised he will be given an opportunity to be heard for thirty minutes, with an additional thirty minutes for questions and answers; that it might be advisable to divide the proposals and hear them on two successive days; that he would like to arrange these meetings so that as many members of the committee as possible could attend. In addition to the oral presentations, Mr. Persells stated he hoped to have available, prior to the hearings, written comments on each proposal, highlighting points of interest. Chairman Cook then stated he was greatly disturbed about the offering price of this property ($74,000) stating he felt it was entirely too low a nd unreasonable; that while a specific write-down figure was never mentioned in the discussion of this property for 221-D-3 housing, . the Committee anticipated the property would be sold at a reduced cost for this type development, but not for $74,000 which amounts to about $5,000 an acre. I \. Mr. Cook stated he felt this type of question was a real policy decision matter and the offering at this price should have been b~ought back to the Corrnnittee, Mr. Openshaw stated the Authority appraised the property on the basis of 221-D-3 housing, which they were instructed to do. Mr . Cook ag reed with this, but reiterated no specific write-down figure was mentioned and the Committee had no idea it would be so low; that he did not want to get into this situation again. Mr. Etheridge stated the Housing Authority's Board of Commi ssioners had approved the offering on the assumption that proper steps had been taken; that he, quite frankly, was surpri sed at the low appraisal. It was pointed out that thi s area has been designated for low-cost housing from t he beginning o f the project and it was recognized that this would result in a below market price. The only action taken by the Committee was t o exclude the ten acres for the Universities, resulting in a substantial increase t o the City. After other discussion, it was felt by eve ryone, however, that renewed emphasis should be placed on communication between the Policy Committee and the Authority in such matters and that in the f utu re , they would be brought back to the Committee. Also, Mr . Persells was asked to continue to study the situation at hand so see what steps could be taken to get a higher appraisal of the land without jeopardizing t he steps already taken. The Committee then expressed delight at a nd after a discussion of various dates was unanimously agreed as follows: The P. M. to hear 4 of the 7 proposals; and remaining three. the submission of multiple proposals for presentations by the developers, it Committee would meet on May 9 at 4:00 on May 10 at 9:00 A. M. to hearing the �r w <J) <( w Q_ a:5 0~ 0 0 ro Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee Ap ril 21, 1967 Page 5 Following a brief discussion, the Committee unanimously concurred _ that the Housing Authority would proceed with the selling of properties (prior to actual acquisition by the Housing Authority) between Oak and Gordon Street s, east of Sear s, designated for shopping center development in t he reuse plans. Mr . Persells explained the Authority could sell the properties prior to acquisition, although they could not convey the title. As a ma tt e r of information, Mr . Persells exp lained that Parcels C-1 , 3 and 4 of the Raws on-Washingto n Urban Redevelopment Area had been offered for 22 1-D- 3 development. The area is comprised of 7.6 acres , and wil l permit a maximum of 152 units. The property lies near the Sta t e office building complex , a cro ss from Cap itol Homes, right on Interstate 20 at the on and off ramps a nd has frontage on both Rawson and Logan Streets. Mr . Persells stated the prop osals will be op ened at the Housing Authori ty on May 1, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. He presented each Committee memb er with a copy o f the brochure prepared for the offering. w . (/) <.{ w Q.. ~ ~ ) u::: 0 0 ca The Committee discussed a request by the GeorgiQ Hospital Association, Inc . for a change in the preliminary plans submit.ted by them in conne ction with a proposal to purchase Parcel D-lOb in the Butler Street Urban Redevelopment Area . Mr . Perse lls stated the proposal of the Hospital Ass oc iation has bee n a ccepted but the agreement f or disposition of the land has not b een consummated; that the As sociation has now requested permission to reduce the size o f the proposed building to two stories (3 were originally proposed with first f loor parking ) with parking space provid ed outside o f the building, rather than undernea t h as indicated orig inally; a lso, · this would reduce the estimated c o s t of construction from $235,000.00 to approximately $140,000 . 00. He _f urther stated no other proposal to buy a nd r e dev e lop this property h~d been received. The Committee unanimously rejected the Hos p ital Association's substantial decrease in their improvements, but asked that Mr . Persell s write them and give them the option o f s ubmitting plan s substantially in conformance with their ori ginal proposa l, or provide the Committee with sufficient si te elevat ions and details as to how the amended proposal would enhance the surrounding neighborhood. b rief presentation was made on the four proposals for development of the Rockdale Urban Redevelopment Area . Mr. Persells commented that the financial solvency o f each developer and their ability to carry out A �r ...r .. I Page 6 ' ,. I Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee April 21, 1967 .. '. I•" their proposal had been verified by a special department of the Trust Company of Georgia. l, . r- , I I It was unanimously decided that a special meeting would be held Tuesday, April . 25, at 4:00 P. M. to discuss these four proposals, and that the Housing Authority's Board of Connnissioners would be invited to attend. (See Minutes of April 25, 1967). ~ I I r Parcel D-19 - Rawson-Washington Urban Renewal Project. Mr. Persells gave the status of this property as being the same as reported at the meeting of February 17, 1967. (See Minutes, page 6). i r. Butler Street Project Area - Mr. Persells reported that all remaining properties within this area will be advertised within the next three to four weeks. The Policy Committee again expressed the hope that this project would be finalized as quickly as possible and requested the Authority to contact the Board of Education and advise them of this and get some firm commitment on the Butler Street School. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Approved : ( Respectfully submitted, \ I Rodney ' ciJ efhairmn i �ro February 17, 1967 A regular meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, February 17, 1967 at 10:00 A. M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following Members were present: Rodney Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne George Cotsakis Hugh Pierce Gregory Griggs ,~ l ~} t <t ~ ., Absent: John Flanigen · Frank Etheridge Also present were: I!:~ LJJ ti) ~ w 0 Q_ ~ ~ > M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority. Les Persel Is, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority. Howard Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department, Atlanta Housing Authority. . Collier Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta. George Berry, Comptroller's Office. Robert L. Sommerville, Atlanta Transit Company. ~ 0 0 ro Representatives of various City departments were present; also, several representatives of Georgia State College were present, i.e., Dean William Suttles; Andrew Steiner; V. V. Lavroff and Jesse Draper, Member of the Board of Regents. The Chairman cal led the meeting to order and the fol lowing business was considered: Public Hearing on one block amendment to Georgia State Urban Redevelopment Plan, said block being immediately north of the Atlanta Police Station and bounded on the north by Gilmer Street, on the east by Butler Street, on the south by Decatur Street and the west by Piedmont Avenue . @ Mr. Howard Openshaw gave the fol low ing pertinent information relative to th is amendment: The original Urban Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the Board of Alde rmen on March 19, 1962 . Notice of today's public hearing was adve rt ised in Th e Atlanta Constitution on February 3 and February 10 in accordance w ith Federal regu lati ons . The plan c ons ists of a ten pa ge narrat ive and two ma ps , indicating the project boundary , prope rties to be a cq u ired a nd proposed land use. Al I urban redevelopmen t ac t ivi ties have been completed in the ori gina l proje ct area - acquisition, relocation, demo lition, and disposal of land to the Board of Regents. The proposed addition involves a total of 6.6 acres, comprising 13 properties which are proposed �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 2 for acquisition. The properties will be appraised by two competent appraisers and every effort made to acquire the property through negotiation but if necessary, the property will be acqui red through the power of eminent domain. All fifteen existing structures will be demolished. There are no families to be relocated. Relocation assistance will be made available to the existing thirteen businesses in the area. An information statement describing the financial assistance available was distributed to the business concerns on February 10 . The actual moving expense for any one business concern to be paid by the Federal Government cannot exceed $25·, 000; under certain conditions a smal I business displacement payment may also be available. The area to be added is presently zoned M-1 and no change in zoning is proposed, however, certain controls will be placed on the land restricting its use to college and college-related uses; 4.5 net acres will be sold to the Board of Regents for redevelopment in accordance with the Comprehensive Master Campus Plan. The amendment will increase the net project cost $1,147,072. The local share, one-third of the net project cost, will be provided by the Board of Regents. The City of Atlanta will provide an estimated $77,647 for street, sidewalk, sewer and traffic improvements. Dr. Suttles briefly explained how this additional block would fit into Georgia State's Comprehensive Campus Master Plan . And rew Steiner, Georgia State Consultant, briefly explained the composition of the proposed buildings and using perspective maps, gave a visual concept of this proposal as related to the entire Plan. In response to an expression of concern by Mr. Cotsakis that the overal I Plan shou Id be approved prior to the piece- meal addition of a sing.le block, and that some members of the Board of Aldermen were not familiar with the Georgia State Campus Plan, Mr . Cook explain e d that th is was the reason the Pol icy Committee reques ted the Master Campus Plan . He commented further that he fe It Georgia State had progressed far enough to indicate that any additions would follow the guidelines as set forth in the ir Maste r Plan . Cha irman Coo k was requested to alert the Board of Aldermen about the Plan as a ma tter · of communication (at their next meeting of February 20, 1967) and ask them to re vi ew the copy wh ich had been forwarded to them . Mr. G ladin note d tha t there was cons iderable private development a ct iv it ies w ithin the Ce ntra l Bus iness District and that he felt it is in order tha t th is Comm ittee a nd other Alderma nic Committe e s re cogni z e and support the need fo r the de ve lopme nt o f a Central Downtown Plan, designed to coordina te and re late a l I these vari ous activiti es. He cited several examples of both public and private p lanning be ing done on a spot basi s, such as the Nasher property, Portman's Peachtree Center, Georgia Plaza and rapid transit . Mr . Cook then read into the record two communiques. One from Alderman Cecil Turner endorsing the Georgia State Campus Plan, stating he hoped it would be approved and �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 3 sent to the Board of Aldermen on February 20, 1967; a second from the Atlanta Civic Design Commission, stating 11 it is the consensus of opinion of members present at the February 9 meeting that the Atlanta Civic Design Commission strongly endorses, on the Georgia State College Master Plan, the concept of the Plaza system, which includes the separation of vehicles from pedestrian traffic by different levels 11 • No one from the public appeared to be heard, and upon motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Cotsakis and unanimous vote, the one block amendment to the Georgia State Redevelopment Plan was approved. Ebenezer Church - Proposed Expansion. 0 Mr. Openshaw pointed out, on an accompanying map, the existing property of the Church on Auburn Avenue and stated that the property in question Iies adjace nt th e reto to the east; that he understands from the Church members the City Building Inspector has required them to remove a back portion of their building to allow for a fire escape and this eliminates a great deal of their parking; that this request is to purchase an additional 150 feet along Auburn Avenue, extending through to Jackson Place, to be used for church parking. He exhibited a second map illustrating the property on a larger scale. The Committee noted that this property and the adjoining properties extending to the intersection of Auburn Avenue and Boulevard were designated for commercial use and the ensuing discussion centered around the existence of a liquor store situated on the southwest corner of the intersection and whether or not th is owner's rights would be abridged by extending the Church property 150 feet, thereby placing his bu siness in such a proximity to the Church so as to prohibit him from ever selling his business unde r the State statute relative to required distances from Churches for such uses . Alderman Pierce felt the liquor store owner's rights should prevail should he decide to se ll his business since it existed prior to this request. Mr. Cook was of the opinion, and the other committee members generally agreed, that the question of the store owner 's rights is immaterial in considering the merits of a llowing the Church to expand and that the remedy to his problem, if and when it arose, would lie elsewhere, perhaps within the courts. 0 h,,.._____ Mr. Sterne raised a question as to how the commercial development of the remaining properties might be affected by the use of this 150 feet for church purposes. �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 4 Mr. Satterfield stated it was his opinion the remaining 1.63 acres would be just as saleable, if not more so, than if it were a part of the whole parcel. In response to questioning by Chairman Cook, Mr. Openshaw stated the Butler Street Project originated in 1959. A brief discussion then ensued about the type of problems prohibiting consumation of the project. Mr. Openshaw explained there have been no expressions of interest in the remaining properties to date and it has not been previously advertised, but preparations are being made to offer the property for sale. Mr. Persells explained that because there had always been a demand for property in the Butler Street Project, the general policy pursued by the Housing Authority had been to advertise the property after there had been a specific expression of interest in a particular piece of property so there would be competition; that the project had now reached the stage of a few remaining 11 tag ends 11 and the Authority is working on a general proposal to place these on the market. 0 Chairman Cook concurred, stating he would Iike to see a concentrated effort to complete th is project. The Committee then unanimously approved the Church expansion as requested. Rockdale Urban Renewal Project - Fulton County Property. Mr. Openshaw pointed out, on an accompanying map, the property owned by Fu Iton County, lying generally to the east of Grove Park Place, and he stated that he would like some direction from this Committee as to how to acquire the County's interest a.nd a clear title to this property. He explained that another individual is claiming an interest in the lots, therefore clouding the title and prohibiting clear acquisition of it; that Mr. Sheats is wi II ing to give a quit- claim deed for the County's interest at the approved price of $7,300. However , Mr . Persel Is explained the County is not wi 11 ing to take the necessary steps to clear the title because of the cost involved and that the Federal Government will not participate as it would be an ineligible cost. After other discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the Housing Authority should take this matter up with the County Commissioners with a minimum of delay and that Chairman Cook would furnish the Housing Authority with a supporting letter in behalf of the Policy Committee, urging the Commissioners to undertake to resolve this problem as soon as possible. ' "'---------- . �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 5 With further reference to the Rockdale Project, there was a brief discussion as to FHA policy relative to allocation of units within the Area. The Housing Authority maintained their previous position on the matter - that the initial allocation of 150 units for the first project was impractical (see minutes of November 18, 1966, Page 4) but Mr. Satterfield, in response to questioning by the Committee, stated that he had not received any indication on the part of an proposer that they were withdrawing from the competition because of the restrictions being imposed by FHA, but they have voiced some objections. Mr. Persells stated he understood the Mayor's Housing Resources Committee is go ing to urge FHA to increase the allocation of units and he felt it would not be amiss for this Committee to direct a letter to FHA suggesting that every consideration be given to a larger allocation of units. It was the unanimous decision of the Committee that Chairman Cook would direct such letter to FHA • 0 . Rawson-Washington Urban Renewal Project - Industrial land adjacent to public housing. Mr . Ope nshaw pointed out on a map of th e project area Parcel N - 3, owned by Swift and Company and the adjoining small parcel (B-4) being offered for sale by the Housing Authority. Parce l N-3 is presently occupied by a small office building for Swift and a hydrogen gas ta nk; parce I B- 4 is vacant . Both tracts are z oned M- 2 and I ie adjacent to proposed public housing . Mr. Openshaw explained that a bid ($6,300) has be en submitted on Parcel B- 4 and the proposal is for a motorcycle repair shop by Atlanta Motorcycle Sal es; that he would li ke a n expression of th e Committee' s fee lings about th is proposa l . He commented further he a lso discussed with Sw ift the ir plans for the ir property but was advised that he woul d have to write the company in Ch icago . Mr. Sterne commented tha t the Haus ing Authori ty's Board of Commissi oners was strongly opposed to it, fee ling it would not be desirable to place such a use in the midst of public housing where it is presumed there wi ll be a concentration of children. 0 Messrs. Satterfield and Persells stated that it may well be the Housing Authority would want to acquire both tracts and include them in the project in the future, but in the �Minutes Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 6 interim, they did not feel the use of the property for a motorcycle repair shop would be conducive to the surrounding neighborhood. The Committee unanimously denied the bid and requested that the Housing Authority determine from Swift (by writing the Chicago headquarters) their future proposal for Parcel N-3. The Committee then considered the following unfinished business: Citizens Trust Property, Parcel A-5, Butler Street Project. Mr. Openshaw was requested to report at the next meeting whether or not a building permit had been obtained by Citizens Trust. Status of request for up-to-date appraisal from Walt Sullivan on cost of moving public housing building from Hilliard Street. 0 The latest appraisal from Mr. Sul I ivan, obtained by George Berry of the Comptroller• s Office, was in the amount of $62,000. The Policy Committee felt this was entirely out of the question and agreed that the Housing Authority would pursue the idea of placing pub Iic housing on the property. Motel proposal, Parcel D-9, Rawson-Washington Project. Mr. Persells stated the proponents are continuing to pursue this matter; that they requested and was granted an extension of time by paying an additional earnest fee in excess of $50,000, which will not be refunded should the project not materialize. Block 27, West End Boys• Club, Inc. Requests plan change to designate parcels I thru 8 11 To Be Acquired", and re - classify Block 27 for institutional use. (A- I zoning district). Deferred from January 13, 1967 me eting . The Committee unan imously approved this plan change , subject to verification by Keri Byers, Chai rman of the C itiz ens Advisory Committee for West End . Status of study of traffic probl ems around a u ditorium c omplex~ 0 '------ Mr. Gladin stated the City has acquired land on Forrest Avenue and is ready to begin the street widening. �\ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee February 17, 1967 Page 7 The remaining unfinished business of the Committee was postponed until the next regular meeting with a request that the Housing Authority be prepared to submit status reports on all items. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: <2W(irman 0 jp 0 _________ ,.,.,._ Respectfully submitted, f ~oanne Parks, Secretary �January 13, 1967 A meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Friday, January 13, 1967 at 10:00 A.M. in Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall. The following members were present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman Edwin L. Sterne George Cotsakis John Flanigen Hugh Pierce Absent: Mr. Frank Etheridge Mr . E. Gregory Griggs Also present were : ,/".', - @ ~ i , M r • M • B • S a t t e r f i e. I d , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , · Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr. Les Persells, Directo r of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority . Mr. Howard Op e nshaw , Atlanta Housing Authority Mr. Colli e r Gladin , Planning Enginee r , Ci t y of Atlanta . Mr. Elme r Moon, Assistant Building Official . Mr. Geo r ge Berry, Comptroller ' s Office . w (/) <{ w Q.. Se v era l m e mbe r s of the City Planning Staff w e re pr ese nt ; also , se v er al representat i ves of other City departments we r e 1n atten d a nce . ~ ~ J ~ 0 0 co Chairman Co ok i n tr odu ce d Dean Will i am Su t tl es of Ge o rgia State C ol lege wh o , in t u rn, intr odu ced se v era l oth er rep r esentatives of Georgia State w h o w ere pre s e n t, i.e., M r. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller; M r. J am i so n, Ar c h itect i n c h ar g e of physical plants and Andrew Steiner, Georgia S tate Consu l tant. Mr. Steiner distrib u ted copies of Georgia State College's M aster Campus P l an, prepare d by Robert an d Company Associates, and gave a brief resume of t h e Report, with major emphasis on implementation. He commented the purpose of the Plan is to provide a guide to the physical development of Georgia State �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 2 College in an urban environment. To satisfy four specific questions raised by the Policy Committee on April 22, 1966, Messrs. Lavroff and Steiner submitted the following: (I) Certified original of minutes, including a resolution therein, of the Board of Regents meeting in which they accepted the Georgia State Master Campus Plan (original attached hereto and made a part of these minutes by reference); (2) Copy of letter from the Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, under signature of Edgar J. Forio, Chairman, dated November 28, 1966, agreeing with the general philosophy of the Master Plan and expressing Grady Hospital's willingness to consider mutually advantageous development of the total area (letter attached hereto and made a part of these minutes by reference); (3) Eliminated all proposed classroom facilities north of Edgewood a n d ( 4 ) I n c o r p o r a t e d t h e b I o c k p r e s e n t I y o c c. u p i e d b y t h e P o I i c e Station into the Master Plan for possible future expansion. Mr. Gladin explained the Housing Authority has prepared an a me n d m e n t to th e Ge o r g i a S ta t e U r b a n R e d e v e I o pm e n t Ar e a i ncorporating the block bounded by Gilmer Street, Butler Street, Decatur Street and Piedmont Avenue (containing 4.6 acres of land) and approval of this additional block by the Policy Committee is necessary i n order to facilitate final clearance of this amendment . At this point , Chairman Cook excused himself from the meeting , stating he was due at the Legislature . Mr. Persells then offered the following comments and suggestions, stating they were not related to the approval of the project amendment , but to the Master Plan as a whole : (I) Since the individual buildings in the total complex are bein g designed by various arch it ects , he suggested that some c on tr ols should be written into the Maste r Plan to i n s u r e a n d e f f e c t u a t e m a x i m u m c oo r d i n a t i o n a n d c o r r e I a t i o n of bui ld i ngs , pedestrian malls, etc . (2) Scheduling of parki ng should be given further consideration since it appears off-hand that it is programmed late 1n the plan, rather than as early as it will actually be needed. .[ I �~ ~-- ----·-..._ _____ ·~---- - ----- Minutes Urban ~enewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 3 (3) Suggested that copies of the Master Plan be transmitted to the various city departments, city u t ilities, private utilities and the Rapid Transit Authority, with a request for their written comments and/or recommendations so that in the future implementation of Plan recommendations, Georgia State would have the benefit of their findings . (4) Suggested that within the Plan there should be a clarifying statement as to the uses contemplated west of Ivy ar:id why it is important that the Campus extend into this area. (5) Because of the proximity of the prope r ty across Edgewood to the Central Business District and its potential tax producing capabilities, there should be a clarifying statement as to why it is important that the housing contemplated north of Edgewood be directly across the street from the Campus, as opposed to say a few blocks away convenient to public transportation. (6) Noted there was no indication in the Plan as to how the s t u d e n t s w o u I d m o v e f r o m t h e g r o u .n d I e v e I t o a n o t h e r I e v e I (escalato r s , elevators , etc.) Mr . Lavroff s tated this will be a part of the de t ailed design planning . ( 7) Noted that on Page 20 of the Master Plan, there is a s tat e men t" •. . • . storm arid sanitary sew er s ar e comb i n e d i n th is area . . . •• " and sta t ed that since F e de r a l f u nds ar e i nvolved the r e i s a necessity · fo r separating t he s t o rm a nd sa n ita r y sewers , t herefore , th e Housing Autho rity w o ul d li k e s ome r ecommendat i ons on t he pa r t o f the C oll ege as we l l as t h e Ci t y wi th r espe c t to ut i l i ties i n t h e ar e a. In reference to Ite m (3) , M r . Stei n er sta te d t h ey d o p r opose t o mail c o pies o f t h e P l an to a l l memb ers o f t h e Board o f Alde r men a nd w ill be happy to co m p l y w i t h M r . Per s e l ls suggest i o n . Mo ti o n was t h en ma d e b y M r . Sterne , seconded by M r . Pi e rc e and carri ed unanimous l y as fo l lows : ( I) J Th e C om m ittee to o k the G eo r g ia Sta te M a s t e r Campus Plan und e r a d vi se m en t. �Minutes U r b a n R·e n e w a I P o I i c y C o m m i t t e e · · January 13, 1967 Page 4 (2) Approved the additional block (bounded by Gilmer Street, Butler Street, Decatur Street and Piedmont Avenue) as an amendment to the Georg'ia State Urban Redevelopment Area; in so doing, it was the Committee's understanding from Mr. Persells that this approval would, in no way, represent an approval of the Master Plan, per se, and would not commit any member to any future urban renewal projects in this area. (3) Set a public hearing (as required by law) on the one block amendment to be held at the next regular meeting of the Policy Committee on February 17, 1967. Mr. Openshaw presented for action the following requ e sted plan changes in the · West End Urban Renewal Area: I. Pa r cel 1.... 15, John C. Theisen 751 Park Street, S. W. Requests plan change to 11 Not T o Be Acquired" to p ermi t continued operation of supermarket. Agrees to sell contiguous parcel 1-4 to Housing Authority . (M-1 zoning district) . Rec omm e ndation of West End Local Citizens Commission appointed a sub-committee to study this request and determine if the present op era tion could be upgrad e d . The Policy Committ ee withh 1 1d any action , .pending a r e p o r t f r o·m t h i s s u b - c o m m i t t e e . 2. Parcel 11 - 39, H. 541 Lee Street L. DeF o or, et a l Requests p l an change to 11 Not To Be Acqu ire d" t o remove existing two-story frame residence in poor condition to a ll ow expansion of Gu l f Station on adjoining Parcel 11 - 1. (M-1 to C-2 zoning district). Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission Rejection. �[ ---143.215.248.55---c.;-.-.:-: ._ -."JC.=-. ., -=-~-= = = ==--- -----· ·- ----·4·- ~ . - -- -· -...._. . ____ ,..______ _ ___ _ _ _ Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 2. Page 5 (Continued from Page 4) Mr. Openshaw stated this would be · the only piece of prope.rty in a two b Io ck are a (between Lee Street and Se a rs) that w o u Id not be acquired. Mr. Persells thought it pertinent to state that originally the Plan contemplated acquisition of this property, however, the G u I f S t a t i o n w a s e r e c t e d -u n d e r a Bu i I d i n g P e r m i t i s s u e d a f t e r the Plan had been developed, but before it was approved, therefore, i t could no t be prevented - this relates to t h e land owner and not the lessor. Mr. Sommerville felt any action at this time would be premature and not in the best interest of the West End Plan . Motion was then mad e , seconded and duly c arried, that this request be rejected. · I\ \...J 3. Block 27 ~.:~.!-143.215.248.55 Boy s 1 _ C I u b , Inc • Re qu es ts plan chang e to designat e Parc e ls I thru 8 11 To Be Acqui r ed 11 , and r eclassify Block 27 f or institutional use (Boy s C I u b) . Re comme n dation of Wes t End Local Citi z ens Co m mi s sion App r ov a l , a lthough not unanimous . F ollo w ing a brief d i scussion , this r equ e s t w a s defe rr ed fo r f u rt h er s tudy . 4. Parce l 5 7 -2 , F ulton Coun ty 1368 Luci l e A v e nu e Req u ests p l an c h an g e to p e rmit this parc e l to be developed by a major oil compa n y . ( R-6 zo n in g district). Mr. Openshaw stated this property is scheduled for re siden tial rehabilitation. Upon motion by Mr. Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Sterne and unanimous vote this request was rejected. Mr. Gladin stated it �Minutes . Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 6 might be in order to offer to the County the idea of a higher density residential use of this property but he was not prepared to make any specific recommendations at this time. 5. Paree I 44-24 Mrs ._Berry_Blackwood Requests permit to operate day nursery in R-6 zoning district. Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission Approval. Motion was made, seconded and duly carried that this request be approved. 6. Westview Drive City owned remnants City proposes to sell remnants for apartment development. Requires plan change from R-6 to A-I zoning district. Recommendation of West End Local Citizens Commission r ejection . Because of the uncertainty of exactly what the City owned along Westview Drive and other factors, this matter was de f e r red fo r furthe r study and Mr . Openshaw was requested to have a map a t the next meeting ind i cating city - owned remnants along We s tview . ********** M r . Pe r s e l l s e xpla i ned that w i thin t he Bedfo r d -Pine Ar e a, the Eco n omic Opp o rt un i ty Atl a n ta Org a ni za t i on des ire s t o temporarily uti l ize a vaca n t r e s ident ia l s truc t u re at 365 L i n den Avenue in c o njunction wi th the ir n e i g h b o r hood s erv i ce s ce n ter program . Specifically, they wa n t t o u s e it f o r pre-sc hoo l age and mentally retarded children u nde r a day-care t y p e of program. Mr . Persells stated the matter had not come before the Local Citizens Commission but he felt they would approve it. In r es ponse to a question, Mr. Satterfield stated that EOA•s urgency is they presently have a tutorial �Minutes Urban Renewal Policy Committee January 13, 1967 Page 7 program underway in this area and they don't want to break this continued activity. The question of temporary use was discussed by the Committee, and with the understanding that use of the premises would be temporary, the matter was . approved. As a matter of information, Mr. Gladin e x plained that the official guide lines for preparation of a Demonstration Cities Application for Planning Funds has been received from HUD and that the City anticipated completion and submission to Washington by March I; that this will result in a considerable step-up of activities in t h e P I a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t a n d i t m i g h1t b e c o m e d e s i r a b I e a n d n e c e s s a r y to call additional meetings of the Policy Committee to keep abreast of the situation. There being no further business to discus s, the meeting was adjourned. **** * **** App r ov e d : Ro dney Chairman jp Respectfully submit t ed , r . ,-. Coo K !l'kl l I / / (/ /1" ' , . LJ,(1 , /~ ;_, / ~ L _ i...L/_ - - ,-L 143.215.248.55-. _1/ ---J oan n e P ar Ks S e cr e tary ' /, �THE FULTON-DEl<ALB HOSPITAL AUTHORITY SO BUTLER STREET, S. E. J . W. PINKSTON. JR. ATLANTA, G E0RG1IA 30303 SECRETARY-TREASU RER ROBERT E. SLEIGHT ASST. SECRETARY-TREASURER FRED M. WALKER November 28, 1966 GRADY MEMOR I AL HOSPITAL HUGHES SPALDING P/<VILION ISOLATION HOSPITAL CLAY MEMORIAL EYE CLINIC CONSULTANT Dr. Noah Langdale, Jr. President Georgia State College 33 Gilmer St~, S. E. Atlanta, Ga. 30303 Dear President Langdale: We have examined with interest the preliminary outline of your Master Campus Plan being prepared by Robert and Company for the future develop1nent of the College. To all appearances the plan is excellent from your standpoint and will provide the necessary physical facilities for your fast growing institution. Included in the proposed Master Campus Plan are some areas now owned by the Grady Memorial Hospital and so1ne areas that we are considering in connection with our future growth. It is our understanding th at it has not b een anticipated by the planner or by th e Colle ge tha t these properti e _s n ow belonging to the hospital or considered in connection with its future pl ans are finally dealt with or that they are necessarily to be acquired from the hospita l or that the hospital is a greeing that it would sell same. In favorably considering the Master Camp us Plan we are considering th e possibility in future years for agreement with respect to joint developm.ent for mutually advant ageous hospital and academic programs or other agree1nent or equitable exchang e of c onti guo u s properties deemed to be in th e best interests of both institutions and desirable with r espe ct to the developrnent of an architectural unity for the area of the hospital a nd the College. W e a gre e with the general philosophy of your Maste r Campus Plan and expr e ss our willingness to consider mutually advantageous develop1nent of the total a r ea . mk �.~. - . , Board - December 13-14, 1966 The Connnittee on Buildings and Grounds reported that for several years a study of a campus plan to show the outermost limits for Georgia State College has been in process; that recent adjustments have been completed as a result of obtaining the Atlantic Company property; that the approval of t he Master Campus Plan will facilitate a rapid decision in final clearance of urban renewal properties now in process with the Atlanta Housing Authority; and that this plan would provide for ultimate expansion of the campus to include approximately 60 acres. The Connnittee reported further that in President Langdale's reconnnendation for approval of the proposed Master Campus Plan for Georgia State College, he pointed out c~rtain items which are necessary to satisfy the Urban Renewal Policy Conunittee on the block of property bounded by Piedmont Avenue, Gilmer Street, and Decatur Street. Mr. Andre Steiner of the architectural firm of Robert and Company presented the preliminary outline of the amended campus plan for the future development of Georgia State College which would provide the necessary physical facilities for this fast growing institution. He was assisted by President Noah Langdale, Jr., in this presentation, and by Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller of the College. Following a discussion of the Master Campus Plan as outlined and of the conditions to be met in satisfying the requirements of the Department of Planning of t he City of Atlanta, upon reconunendation by Chancellor George L. Simpson, Jr., and the Connnittee on Buildings and Grounds, with motion properly made, variously seconded, and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia shall and it does approve in principle, the Master Campus Plan a s prepared by consultants for the Georgia State College. RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board of Regents shall and it does hereby declare its intention to support the devetopment of the Master Campus Plan o f the Georgia State College to the extent that funds are made available for this purpose . RES OLVED FURTHER; That the general approval of the Master Campus Plan includes the intention of the Board to comply with the conditions required t o meet the policy of the Department of Planning of the City �~ : . . : . . . : ..... . .... .. . . . ...... JI, --- . of Atlanta, as stated in a letter, dated June 3, 1966, from Mr. G. Eric Harkness, of the Department of Planning, Cilty of Atlanta,to Mr. V. V. Lavroff, Comptroller, Georgia State College. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, and compared excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia held in Atlanta, Georgia, on December 13-14, 1966. This twenty-second day of December, 1966. / · -Q ~ rJ "77 · /1 /J--11--1~ M6J.' ~ubert L. Harris Assistant Executive Secretary Regents, University System of Georgia � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 20, Folder 20, Complete Folder Box 20 Box 20 Folder 20 Folder topic: Aldermanic Committees | Urban Renewal Policy | 1966-1967