.NTU5MQ.NTU5MQ

COMMENTS ON MODEL CITIES LAND USE PLAN I. Observations which may be of assistance. A. ALL NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS - GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The overall residential densities have been measured anticipating development slightly above average for the density range indicated, i.e., if range is 5 - 10, the 8 unit per acre has been used. This plan can be expected to accommodate the existing resident popJlation. There have been some minor adjustments that will improve the situation. However, care must be taken not to arbitrarily change the present proposed density ranges unless compensations are made in other locations. This means no single family areas should be inserted where high density is now proposed unless densities are increased in another location. An alternative to this is to abandon the no-displacement goal. 2. Some deficiencies still exist in park areas and to overcome this and provide space, obviously densities will have to be increased somewhere also. B. MECHANICSVILLE 1. In the area bounded by the Expressway, Bass StreE;_t, Formwalt, Dodd and Pryor Streets, the plan proposes high density and mixed colillilercial in the next five years; however, redevelopment is not proposed until after 1974 and the present use is mostly single family and vacant. It will be difficult to accomplish the proposed land use in the proposed time period without a program of treatment. �7 - 22. In th e area bounded by th e South and West Expressway, Bas s and Formwalt Stree ts, the pl an proposes l arge are as of commer ci a l and high density resid enti al; however, no treatment is called for prior to 1974 and the present use is now equally div:i.ded be t ween vac ant, commercial and single f amily residences. C. I SUMMERHILL 1. Betwe en the Expressway and Fulton - Glenwood Streets, the plan calls for high de nsity resid ential; however , the treatmeHL. plan only calls for activity after 1974 and the present use is mostly vacant, duplexes and single family residences. This area also extends into the Grant Park neighborhood. Obviously some development of this type will occur, but not enough to achieve the expected population density. D. PEOPLESTmrn 1. It is reconmiended that the frontage along the west side of Washington between Atlanta and Ridge Streets be devoted exclusively to high density residential which is in accord with the present uses there. 2. In the block between Washington and Crew Streets from Weyman to Little Streets, high density residential is called for; however, the treatment plan calls for action aft_:_r 1974 and present use is primarily single family with some apartments maki ng it medium density over all. E. GRANT PARK 1. To compensat e f or t he t wo pr oposed block p arks r edes i gnated for school purposes , t he r ecre ati on pl ann er s propos e that one-half of the block bounded by Ormond, Grant, Atlanta and Hill Street be made a block park. The majority of ·t he structures in this block are substandard and slated for clearance in the period 1971 - 73 . �- 32. The block bounded by Hill Street , Sou t h Avenue , Primr ose and Little Streets is propos ed for commercial use. There appears to be come doubt that the topo of this block is suitable for any kind of unified connnercial development. 3. In the blocks bounded by Grant, Sydney, Orleans Streets and Cherokee Avenue, high density residential is proposed. How~ ever, present use is perdominate ly single f amily and the proposed I treatment is rehabilit a tion in the period 1971-1973. 4. I In the area between the Expressway, Grant, Sydney Streets and Park Avenue, the proposed use is high density residenti ~l. This area is for rehabilitation in 1970 and the present use is primarily single family. To achieve the indicated high density, a significant number of high rise units must be built. 5. The area just west of Grant Park Elementary School is proposed for high density residential. However, no redevelopment is proposed prior to 1974 and the present use is mostly single family or vacant. II. Errors of Fact A. MECHANICSVILLE 1. The plan calls for a government center use in the triangle between the railroad, the Expressway and the Pryor Street School. Since most program administration is to be accomplished at two other locations, there appears to be no justification for this center area. It is recommended that this part icu lar area be used for medium density residential. �[ -4 ~ B. GRANT PARK 1. The Boys' Club is located in the block bounded by Killian, Marion, Burn and Eloise Streets. In the Model Cities pl an this has been indicated as single family use which is a mistake and should be changed. 2. The recreation planners have indicated that the area south of Jerome Jones School designated for park purposes · should be changed to school use. ~- The industrial use existing at the corner of Boulevard and the railroad has been omitted and single family residential use substituted. 4. This should be changed to industrial use, On the east side of Hill Avenue between Grady and the railroad medium density residential is indicated. This is presently_ good single family residential use at low density and no clearance has been proposed. This area should be indicated as low density residential. 5. The recreation planners have indicat~d that the block park to the east of Slaton School should be used instead for school expansion purposes. 6, The block of the proposed educational park bounded by Hill, Primrose Streets, Georgia Avenue and Cherokee Place is .in reality intended for another use, that of some sort of private welfare type activity, either profit or non-profit, and should be indicated as such and not as an educational use. �-5C. Sill1MERHILL 1. An expansion of the small commer cial area at the southeast corner of Atlanta and Capitol is proposed for expansion north and west . The condition of the major structures in the northwest portion is fairly good and there is no progr am of treatment slated prior to 1974. This would indicate that such a change in use is not indicated nor does there · appear to be a need for additional commercial use when there are other commercial areas 11earby. III. Conflicts With Adopted Plans and Policies A. SUMMERHILL 1. This item concerns the park proposed in the blocks bounded by Georgia, Capitol, Little and Crew Streets. The entire Summerhill area needs two twelve acre or more neighborhood parks. The recreational facility proposed at Hoke Smith is not a neighborhood type development and will not serve the neighborhood needs north of Georgia Avenue. This facility south of t;eorgia Avenue is proposed to be a "central park" type facility and, therefore, would not s eem to meet the neighborhood recreational needs of the area south of Georgia Avenue. The northern block of the park is obviously more suitable for commercial devel opment in conjunction with the other blocks along Georgia Avenue immediately adjacent to the stadium. The other two blocks contain a number of substantial standard apartment buildings whose removal would be expensive and undesirable. �- 6~ The mai n just i f ic atio n th at appear s for this site is its proximity to the Capitol Ave nue School; however, the long r ange future of this school ~s questionable in terms 0£ its site and its location relative to the existing and proposed popul a tion to be s e rved. A better p ark location would be nex t to the proposed K,1-3 school mentioned e arlier especially if the Capitol Avenue School could also be relocated to this site. The area adj ac ent to the new school site is proposed for clearance in the period - 1971-1973 - while no treatment is proposed for the pa rk site adjacent to the present school until after the 1974 time period with the exception of the block i mmediately adjacent to Georgi~ Avenue. 2. The plan calls for a school site in the two blocks bounded by Martin, Little, Ami and Kenneth Streets. The school planners reveal this is only to be a K, 1-3 school requiring only three acres at maximum; therefore, w~thout further justifica tion, for example, a new gr ammar school to replace Capitol Avenue, this site appears to be excessively large. 3. In considering the land use aspects of the Hoke Smith Educational Park, it is our understanding tha t the Parks Department is highly reluctant to buy and develop any large recr eational facilities directly abutting a high school as it feels the fac i lity will be monopoli zed by the school to the de tr i ment of t he re st of the connnuni ty . The School Boar d , on t he ot her hand, believes that the Parks Department shoul d acqui r e the portions of the educational park allocated f or r ecreational use . �- 7The resolution of this pr obl em is no t in the province of the land use pl anners; however, the gr aphic expression of proposed l and use should show a solution tha t either indicates all educ a tiona l facility reduced in size to what the School Board would acquire or a recreation use area that is situated to the satisfaction of the Parks Department. One glinnner of hope is that the school pl anners used $80,000 per acre as an acquisition cost; however, the land is slated for clearance in ~970 and hopefully the l and could be sold to the School Board at cleared land prices of about $20,000 - $30,000 an acre. B. PEOPLESTOWN 1. Neither the recreation planners nor the city wide Land Use Plan and Parks Plan call for a block park to be located at the end of Linam Street just south of Vanira Avenue. C. PITTSBURGH 1. In this area, there appears to be only one major comment to be made. This is that in comparison with the city wide Land Use Plan which propos es a uniform medium density throughout the neighborhood, the Model Cities proposal indicates two high density areas .•• one at the northwest, the other at the southeast. The high density area at the southeast can be adequately served by the existing Pittman Park; however, the high density area to the northwest will provide a large concentration of people who will not be conveniently served by an adequate recreation facility. �- 8D. MECHANICSVILLE 1. All pl a ns call for a community facility .to be loc a ted in the block just east of Dunb ar School, and it is my understanding th a t social progr ams are expected to be administered from here; howeve r, the Land Use Pl an does not indic a te a space for this facility. 2. II Since one block of land tha t was to be used for park purposes in our city wide Land Use Plan has been pre- empted by the school bo ard for a second school in the area accor<l ing to the Model Cities Land Use Plan, it will be necest ary to add the block now occupied by the Atlanta Transit System to the park proposed in the Model Cities plan in order to get adequate space to serve this large population concentration. " ' . - �