Box 20, Folder 20, Complete Folder

Dublin Core


Box 20, Folder 20, Complete Folder

Text Item Type Metadata







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.
Rodney Cook, Chairman
George Cotsakis
Gregory Griggs
Edwin Sterne
John Flanigen
Hugh C. Pierce
Frank Etheridge


Also present:
Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing
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.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was
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 .
Urban Re newal Policy Committee
December 15, 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 represental·ive of Beck and Mr.
Cleave Wilcoxon of Adair Realty & Loan Company, also representing Beck.
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
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
December 15, 1967 - Page 3
use should be studied in more depth.

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.

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
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
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.

Respectfu 11 y submitted:
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
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 :
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 .
U b n ~enc,>al Policy Corn, i - ee
Septe .. ber :C: 2 , 196 7
Pa ge 2
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 .
_ 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 .
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:
\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 .
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
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 .


?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.
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 .
T' ere being no fu rther business, the meeting was adj ourned .

"J:d.."7~·' l~k**"1:

Approved :
Respectfully submitte d ,
1 /
Jo anne Parks , Secreta ry
Au gust 18 , 196 7


~ --,
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 .


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 :
Pu b I ic Hearing on Amendmen t to Roc kdale Urban Red e velopmen t Pla n .
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 ,
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 .
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

Repo rt on Land Dispositi ons
Mr. O penshaw gave the fo l low in g repo rts:
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 .
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.
Recently, in three se parate offerings , a total of 69 lots have been so ld , wi th 84 remaining
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 .
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.
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:
Rod ney M . f_,'.3ok, Cha rman
1 / Joanne Parks, Sec retary


�V inu:-es
Urba n enewal Po l ic y Committee
August 18 , 1967
G C E 1-ER
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) .
Fo· above reasons , Adelaide Apts . should be a c9 u ired and include d in shopping
c enter area .
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.
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.
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 .
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 .
- ere is no dire ct relationship betwee
'he o·oj ct mot I site and t' e shopping
M in uJ-es
U ·ban Ren e\val Policy Committ e
Aug us-:· i8 , 1967
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 .
I 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: G. Everett Millican
Mr. Collier, Planning Director, City of Atlanta
Mr. Robert Sommerville,, 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
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 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
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
�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.

--"'-- - --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, 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.
�•• . ',·""·
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 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:
Respectfull y submitted:
- 6-
June 12, 1967
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:


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:
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.
Urba n Renewal Policy Committee
J une 12, 1967
Page 2
~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.

Respectfully submitted,
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,
Mr. E. Gregory Griggs
The follo wing members of the Board. of Commissioners were present:
Mr. Edwin L. Sterne,
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
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 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 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 .
Rodney M. Cook, Chairman
Edwin L. Sterne
Hugh Pierce
E. Gr egory Griggs
John M. Flanigen
George Cotsakis
Frank Etheridge
Also present were:


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
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
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
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
�- ---· . .
··- - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - ~
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
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
-~-- -- - - - - -
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,
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
-· •
... .,.J. - --

- - ------
_________ _______________
Minute s
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
May 12, 1967
Page 9


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
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.

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
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
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
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.
Comprehensive Community Plan - No changes.
Planning and Development Committee
April 28, 1967
Page 2
Neighborhood Analyses - No changes,
Administrative Organization - No changes.
Financing - No changes.
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.
Citizen Participation - No changes.
The committee then unanimously adopted the following resolution:
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:
That the attached report,
Review of Progress under the
Workable Program for Community Improvement, is hereby adopted.
That said report be forwarded to the Regional Office of the
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,


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

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
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.
The conunittee felt no further action was needed.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted:
Col lier Gladin
Planning Director
Joanne Parks
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 .
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 :
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
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
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
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.
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
village 11 or
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.
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.
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 -
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
Dwell ing un its are further removed from the rock q uarry
than the o ther three proposa ls .
l t'J
Access galler ies to eac h u ni t , permitt ing c_ross ventilation .
.., _i
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.
! ,..:
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
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
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.
•; '
· ·:
, ·
,, ' '
�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 **


There °be ing no fu rther busi~ess, the meeti ng was adjourned..
Respe c tfo I ly su bmitted ,

.. ·
I .
·- , ·. . ··.: J
/. _J_o_a_n_n_e-Pa-rk_s_1_S_
e_c-re_ t_a_r_y_ _- .
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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
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

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.
. (/)


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
...r ..
Page 6
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
April 21, 1967
their proposal had been verified by a special department of the
Trust Company of Georgia.
l, .
r- ,
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).
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).

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,


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
John Flanigen
· Frank Etheridge
Also present were:


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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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 •


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.
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
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.
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~
Mr. Gladin stated the City has acquired land on Forrest Avenue and
is ready to begin the street widening.
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.
Respectfully submitted,
~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:
Rodney M. Cook, Chairman
Edwin L. Sterne
George Cotsakis
John Flanigen
Hugh Pierce
Mr. Frank Etheridge
Mr . E. Gregory Griggs
Also present were :
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 .
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 .


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
He commented the purpose of the Plan is to
provide a guide to the physical development of Georgia State
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:
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 :
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 .
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
�~ ~-- ----·-..._
_____ ·~---- - -----
Urban ~enewal Policy Committee
January 13, 1967
Page 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 .
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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:
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 .
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.
�[ ---;-.-.:-:

-."JC.=-. ., -=-~-= = = ==--- -----· ·- ----·4·- ~ . -

-- -· -...._. . ____ ,..______ _ ___ _ _ _
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
January 13, 1967
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. ·
Block 27
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 .
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
Upon motion by Mr. Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Sterne and
unanimous vote this request was rejected. Mr. Gladin stated it
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
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.
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
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
Respectfully submit t ed ,

. ,-. Coo K
/ /
/1" ' ,
, /~ ;_, /
~ L _ i...L/_ - - ,-L _1/
---J oan n e P ar Ks
S e cr e tary
November 28, 1966
Dr. Noah Langdale, Jr.
Georgia State College
33 Gilmer St~, S. E.
Atlanta, Ga.
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 .


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,
This twenty-second day of December, 1966.
/ ·
rJ "77
/1 /J--11--1~
M6J.' ~ubert L. Harris
Assistant Executive Secretary
Regents, University System of Georgia

Social Bookmarking


Transcribe This Item


Document Viewer