Box 2, Folder 1, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_002_001.pdf

Dublin Core

Title

Box 2, Folder 1, Complete Folder

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

.------ - - - - - - - - - - - -- --
-
--
-
---
.July 18, 1969
(',.__
A meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held in Committee Room


2, Second Floor, City Hall, at 2 :00 P. M., Friday, July 18, 1969.


@
......
Committee members present:
~
Rodney Cook, Chairman
Q. V. Williamson
Jack Summers
John Flanigen
~
~
......~~
w
(/)
<
w
Committee members absent:

Gregory Griggs
Char.li e Leftwich
George Cotsakis
Hugh Pierce
....!..
c~:


2:

J




cc
0
0
co
Edwin Sterne,
)
Frank Etheridge )
Housing Authority
The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered:
1
I •
A
r-'\ •
PUBLIC HEARI NG - ANN EXA. TIOI'-! PETITION BY JULIUS SCHNEIDER MEDICAL
FOUNDATION, INC., COLUMBUS UNION CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST AND EUGENE A. ANDERSON.
Charl es Watkins, First National Bank Building, was present representing the three property
owners involved. Two other persons were prese nt in support of the annexation. There
wa s no opp:isition.
@
.,..
""
~
·O
"-111
......
w
,£,,,
(/)
(
'-..._.,
tat'(
LiJ
The staff presented a deta il ed report to each comm ittee member present re lati ve to this
petition , certifying that it meets a ll requirements set forth by the State Enabling
Legi slation and applicab le c ity ordinances , and recommended its approve!. The property
in question lies in Land Lot 29 of the 14th District of Fulton, former ly Fayette County,
and involves 69. l acres; of the total acrea ge, 46.6 acres is zoned A- 1 apartments; 17
acres is zoned R-3 and a sma ll er C-1 tract li es in Fulton County. Mr. G ladin e·xplained
the c ity wou ld be annexing this property under the zoning most c lose ly related to the
ex isting county z oning, which in this instance is practi ca ll y ide ntical to the county' s.
All city services to the area are available, or can be provided upon req uest (letters to
this effe ct from the appropriate city departments are included in the report) .
In answer to que stioning by Mr. Summer~, Mr. Watkins stated the owners wish to come
into the c ity for the services that are ava il ab le and to make their land more marketable
for housing and sa le of apmtments.
!l.
c::i-<
, . .,
"'-:::
1:!. ...



J




Q:'.
0
0
u
-
-'
�Minutes
· Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Two
'·...__ ...
I
The committee expressed its concern about a tract immediately to the north lying in
unincorporated . Fulton County which, upon approval of this annexation petition, would
become landlocked and asked if it could be included along with this petition.
Mr. Gladin explained this is one type of problem you incur in the petition route and
it could not be legally included, but could be brought up at the next filing period in
May, 1970.
The committee felt this would be highly desirable and should be encouraged at that
time.
Mr. Eugene Anderson, part-owner of the tract which would become
appeared speaking for himself and Mrs. Schneider, also part-owner,
be willing to have their property annexed; that, however, he could
for Mr. Steinmetz, another owner, but Mr. Steinmetz had told him
to be annexed.
landlocked,
stating they would
not officially speak
he would be willing
In answer to questioning by Mr. Cook, Mr. Anderson stated the C-1 zoning approved
by the · county was done so as part of an overall Medical Complex proposal which
subsequently fel I_ through much to their regret and loss, and there is no commercial
development in the area presently.
There being no further discussion, the_ matter was referred to Executive Session.
In Executive Session, upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee.
































1 . B. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION PETITION BY JOHN E. LIVADITIS GARMON ROAD.
There was no opposition present. A detailed report relative to this petition certifying
its compliance with State Enabling Le gislation and app licabl e city ordinances was presented
to ea ch committee member pre sent and the staff recommended approva l . The property
li es in Land Lot 177 of the 17th District and is approximately 2 acres in si z e. Mr.
G ladi n stated the property is presently zoned R- 1 (Reside ntial) a nd would be annexed
as R-1; that all services are available, or can be provided upon request (lettersto this
e ffect are a part of the report).
(-
,,
Mr. Li vaditis was present a long with his representative, Robert Smith . Mr . Smith
acknowledged the y were aware of the fact there a re no existing sewers to the property
and . the present plans are to use two septic tanks, but the y are hopeful of working out
an easement agreement with the adjoi ning property owner to connect with an outfall
�Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Three
sewer 150 feet from Mr. Livaditis 1 property line.
Mr. Cook called to Mr. Smith's attention a letter in the report from the Public Works
Department stating that sanitary sewer is not available for the property to be annexed
on Garmon Road and would not be available until approved by the property owners
along this section.
Mr. Smith stated they realized securing the easement would be difficult but were still
hopeful it could be worked out, and in the meantime, the septic tanks are an alternative.
Mr. Smith stated Mr. Livaditis is ready to begin bricking the house and doesn't have
any water; since there is a charge to tap onto the water fo r property outside the city, he
wanted to know if final approval of this petition by the Board of Aldermen would be
expedited to relieve him from having to pay this charge.
A check with the Water De partment indicated that if this committee approves the annexation
peti t ion today, they would not charge Mr. Livaditis to tap onto the water prior to final
approval of the petition. Messrs. Smith and Livaditis expressed their appreciation to the
committee.
The matter was then refe rred to Executive Session, and upon unanimous vote, this petition
was approved by the committee.
































2.
STATUS OF RECERTIFICATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM
Pie rce Mahon y explaine d tha t the Planning staff is progressing rapidly toward completion
of work fo r recerti fi ca t ion of the Wo rka ble Prog ram for a two- ye a r period, ra t he r than
one ye a r which has been approve d in the past . He stated the re have bee n considerable
revisi ons in the req uire me nts of the p rog ram fo r recert ification, mak ing it much more
diffic ul t to pu t toge ther a nd committi ng us to a much more sol id app roach . He comme nted
brie fl y on some o f the new aspe c ts of the progra m, such a s the housing and re loca ti on
element and the departme nt's antici pa ted part icipa tio n in the HUD 701 p la nning p rog ra m.
He explained a federa l requireme nt fo r particip ati o n in the 701 progra m is that one
portion of the p lanning studies be a housing study; further, the person ne l situation
throughout the city , especia lly in the te ch nica l and p rofe ssiona l leve l', is getting' serious
and the Planning Department ho pe s to so lve some o f its prob lem s by hiring tempo rary
personnel on 701 planning programs w ho coul d move into permanent planning vacancies as
they occu r.
He went on to say these new requirements, particularly housing planning fo r low and
moderate income families, points up the critical need for the Urban Information System
�c.
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Four
for the city, because of the various and sundry data which can be obtained from it on
immediate notice, and he urged the committee's support in implementation of this system.
He presented a draft of "Workable Program Five-Year Goals II and stated the city wi II
be committed to these goals and emphasized the need to begin considering an advance
two-year budget.
Considerable discussion then ensued about the status of the Mayor's Housing Program.
Colonel Jones of the Housing Resources Committee stated that the city is about halfway
through the initial five-year program. He cited figures for the two and one-half year
period, stating we have under construction and completed approximately 8,000 units, and
we have in the pipeline more units than the original goal of 17,000. He sta ted, however,
a lot of !re units in planning are being lost because we do not have properly zoned
locations to put them on.
Mr. Cook asked on what basis units are classified as being in the "planning stage".
C·.
.•
Mr. Jones explained they are put in this category when a rezoning application is filed
and a proposal is submitted; if the zoning is denied, they are taken out; that more
zonings for this purpose have been denied than approved. He cited the loss of 21,000
units through recent rezoning denials .
Mr. Cook state d this doesn't concur with figures he obtained from the Planning Department.
Mr. Gladin explained the staff analysis referre d to was done about a ye ar ago and at
that time the zoning approvals were running about 80-90%; that the staff is in the process
of p reparing an up-to- date analysis o{ the housing program .
Mr. Cook ds ked for and was furnished with a copy of Mr. Jones' late st housing report.
Afte r a cu rsory examination, Mr . Cook expressed conce rn ab out the disc repancy in
fi g ures contai ned in the repo rt and those sta ted ora lly by Colone l J ones. Being a
me mbe r of the Zoning Committee, he state d he was tired of charges being made that
the ci ty's housing goa ls we re not be ing me t because of rez oning de nial s as he did not
be li e ve this to be the case, a nd he finds it very confusing and frustating to be unable
to justify his positi on whe n he is unabl e to secure re li ab le statis tics; that he would
Iike statisti cs differen ti a ting wha t pe rce ntage of the 8,000 uni ts quoted by Colone l
J ones is ac tually low and moderate income housi ng .
Mr. Kennedy stated he ha d ve ry strong rese rvations that this perce ntage was q uite low ,
that as stated by Mr. G ladi n , the Plann ing staff is in the process of ana lyz ing the
Housing Program for the la st two and one- ha lf years a nd he fe lt this report would
produce the type statistics Mr. Cook is looking for.
C.
�( _
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Five
-:
Mr. Gladin stated he realized the problems in working with the housing figures, and
again this points up the need for good management procedures, which need to be
standardized, and the Urban Information System for quick delivery of these statistics
over a period of time. He also commented on the need for more emphasis on the
city's total housing needs.
Mr. Cook directed the staff to prepare a letter for his signature to Colonel Jones
requesting clarification on the following:
l.
Is the actual number of units under construction and completed for the last
two and one-half years the 8,000 oral figure given by Colonel Jones, or
the 12,000 figure in his report of May 15, 1969;
2.
What percentage of this figure is for low and moderate income housing;
3.
The method used for determining what is low and moderate income housing,
the name of the projects and the number of units in each project.
He stated that in looking at the May 15 report and oral figures by Colonel Jones, it
would appear we a re moving backwards and this prompted Mr. Flanigen to remark he
had no doubt but what the program is "slipping".
_p.?)
~
it:
it
1to.~1
'





w
if)
~
w
n.
With additi anal reference to the housing question, Mr. Mahony stated that at the
last meeting of the Housing Resources Committee, the Legal Panel discussed the need
for establishing a Housing Planning Agency within the city government to relieve the
Housing Resources Commi t te e membe rs who are present ly spending an inord inate amount
of time doing su rveys and research in the field of housing .
He stated the logical
place for such a housing function would be in the Planning Depa rtment, particularly
in light of the 701 planning p rogram; that the staff would like the committe e's support;
and he prese nted a le tter for Mr. Cook 's signa tu re as Chai rman of the Planning and
De ve lopmen t Commi ttee supporting the department's position .
Colone l Jo ne s sta ted tha t the Legal Panel has been studying this matter, but the y have
no t subm itted a posi tion report to Mr . Ale xander a nd he does not kn ow what type of
report w il I be subm it te d if and whe n it is, and he felt any action by t his committee
on this matter would be pre mature a t t his ti me .
~
~
~
Q::
0
0
c·-~
C!)
M r. Gladin stated the letter does not request an y fina l a ction; tha t it mere ly makes
a recommendation for the Ho using Re sou rces Committee t o consider in making their
recommendation.
Colonel Jones stated he sti II felt the letter was in anticipation of something and
prematu re.
�Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page · Six
Mr. Mahony commented that the Planning Deportment fee Is very strong Iy about this
and consequently wanted to take a positive approach, rather than waiting for a
proposal from the Housing Resources Committee and reacting.
The committee unanimously approved the letter and Mr. Cook appended his signature
thereto.
Referring back to the status report on the Workable Program, Mr. Gladin stated the
staff hopes to present the final draft to this committee July 28, 1969 for review, and
will request committee approval at a meeting on August I, 1969; it will then be forwarded
to the ne x t meeting of the Board of Aldermen where, hopefully, it will be finally
approved and hand delivered that same afternoon to HUD. This will give HUD ample
review time prior to the October expiration date for last year's recertification.



*** *** **




Mr. Mahony explained the City of Mountain View, Clayton County and the City of
Atlanta have common problems in the Plunkettown area which require joint study and
action to solve. The following Resolution to initiate such action was approved: -
(~
A RESOLUTION
BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMM! TTEE
WHEREAS, the City Planning Department is presen t ly studying the Plunkettown
neighbo rhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighbo rhood Development Program, and
WHEREAS, the Plunkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City Limits
i nto t he City of Mountain View and Clayton County, and
WH EREAS, Clayton County, Mountain View, and the City of Atlanta face
common problem s in this area .
NOW, THE REF O RE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor a nd Boa rd of Alde rmen o f
the City of Atlanta that Mayor Iva n Allen , J r . reque sts the Boa rd of Comm issione rs
of Clayton County and the Mayor and Coun ci l of the City of Mountain View to
porti cipate in a joint stud y designed to slove the probl e ms of the Plunkettown
neighborhood.
(~
The committee heard from Charles Stinson, President of t he Federation of South\A.Elst
Clubs, a report on the first phase of the Southwest Community Study, being done for
the Federation by graduate planning students from Georgia Tech. A copy of the first
study phase was presented to each committee member present for information and no
action was requested .
































�Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
July 18, 1969 - Page Seven
( ,;
@)
Mr. Gladin informed the committee members that the Sign O rdinance had been approved
by the Zoning Committee and he anticipated submitting it to the full Board of Aldermen
for approval Monday, July 21, 1969, and would like this committee's support at the
Monday meeting. He further informed them we wi 11 be working toward recruiting
personnel to implement the ordinance, that he has requested by letter that Mr. William
H. Wofford, Building Official, and the Personnel Board prepare a joint study on such
personnel needs.
....
<>•
i
"'...
w
CJ)




** *****






Mr. Gladin stated he had received a communication from the BOND (Bass Organization
for Neightorhood Development) Community req~esting to appear before the committee
to discuss being included in the 1970 NDP program; that he felt they should have this
opportunity and he would like authorization to notify them to appear at the next meeting
of the committee.
<(
w
0..
aj
~
,,.
---
'-
0
0
(
In answer to Mr. Flanigen, Mr. Gladin stated the freeway ramp question in the BOND
area had not been resolved, but there are continuing discussions with Ray Nixon and
the State Highway Department on the matter and he felt it could be worked out.
.....I
~
The committee concurred for the BOND group to appear at the next meeting.
m


.***** ****


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.







****












Approved :
Rodney1500k, Chairma n
Respectfully submitted:
Joanne Parks, Secreta ry
@)
~
/
(
'-
i
...
"'
u.J
CJ)
<(
(J.J
a..
,."'(
-
-

1 •
�·J
AGENDA
ZONING C0r1MITTEE
Meeting, Thursday, July 24, 1969
Aldermanic Chamber, Second Floor , Ci ty Hall, 2:00 P. M.
1/U-69-34-S
An Application f or a Special Use Permit for a church to be located
at MACON DRIVE, f ronting 40 feet on the east side of Macon Dri ve, S.W.,
beginning 31 6 .5 f e~t north from the corner of Bromack Drive, S.W.
Depth appro x i ma t ely 624 feet. Land Lot 70, 14th Di strict,
Fulton County, Georgia.
Mrs . Thelma Lois Mo r gan, Owner
New Hope Baptist Church - Appl i cant
Propos ed Use - Church
(Planning Board, adverse r ecommenda t ion)
WARD 4
iffaZ-69 - 93-S
An Ordi nance to r e zone from A-1-C (Apartme nt-Conditional) Di strict
to C-1 (Commerc i al) Di s tr i ct, prop ert y located at the Northeast
corne r of OLD HAPEVILLE ROAD a nd CLEVELAND AVENUE , S. W., fronting
200 f ee t on the nor th s ide o f Cleve l a nd Avenue, S .W., beg inning
0 fe e t fro m t he nor theast c orne r of Old Hapeville Ro a d.
Depth 456 fe e t . Are a 92,00 0 square fe e t. Land Lot 69, 14th
Di strict, Fulton County, Georgi a .
·
Dr . Rob e rt B. Hodgson, Owner-App l i cant
Proposed Us e - Off ice & Se rv i c e Sta tion
(Plann i ng Boa r d, advers e r e commend ation)
WARD 4
iffaZ-69-91 - S
An Or d i na nc e t o re zone from R- 4 (Re si dential) District to
A-1 - C (Apart me nt- Conditiona l) Di s trict , pro perty loca t ed at
2965 BROHNS MI LL ROAD, S .E. , fr onti ng 78 . 2 f e et on the west
s i de of Browns Mi l l Road , begi nni ng 930 fe e t fro m the
s out hwest corne r of Spri ngside Dr i ve . De pth 1,024 feet .
Area approximat~ly 78 ,0 00 square fe et . La nd Lot 61 ,
14th Di stri c t, Fulton County , Georgi a.
William T. St anfie ld , Owne r
Robert A. Young - Appli c a nt
Proposed Us e - Apartment s
WARD 4
(Planning Board, adverse r.e commendat_i on) ·
An Ordinance to rez one fr om R-4 (Residential )D i s tr i c t to A-1
(Apar t ment) Di strict, property lo cated at 311 6 BROHNS MILL
ROAD , f r on ti ng 251. 5 feet on t he northeast side o f Browns
Mill Road , beg inning 500 . 7 feet from the no r theast co r ner
of Humph r ies Dr ive . Depth va r ie s . _Area 23 . 3 ac r e s . Land
Lot s 35 & 62 , 14t h Di s t r i ct , Fult on County , Georg i a .
Ruby All e ne Brooks & W. T . Atkinso n, Owne r s
B &. H Compa ny - Applican t
Propo s ed Us e - Apa rt me nt s
(Planning Board, adve r s e recomme ndati on)
WARD 4
1/Z- 69-89-S
�ZONING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Page· 2
July 24, 1969
ifrZ-69-84-s
·An Ordinance to rezone from A-1 (Apartment) Di strict to C-1
(Commercial) District, property located at J ONESBORO ROAD,
fronting 652.5 feet on the southwesterly side of Jonesboro
Road, beginn i ng 707.06 feet f ro m the southwe st corner of
Macedonia Road. Depth 1048.43 feet. Area 16.4 acres .
La nd Lot 34, 14th District , Fulton County, Georgia.
The Mi litary Corpo r ation, Owner
Theodore G. Frankel - Applicant
Proposed Use - Shopp i ng Center & Office Park
(Planning Board, favor able recommendation as amended to C-1-C)
WARD 4
ifZ-69-80-S
An Or dinance to r e zone f rom R-4 (Re s i dent ia l) District to A-2
(Apartment) District, property loca ted at 2946 & 2954 HAPEVILLE
ROAD, S.H. , f r onting 192 feet on the east side of Ha pevi lle
Road, S. W. , beginning 389 fe e t from the northeast corner of
Mt. Zi on Road. Dep th 293.4 f eet . Ar ea 56,208 s quar e fee t.
La nd Lot 68 , 14 th Di st rict , Ful to n County , Georgi a .
Benj ami n F . Ma rti n, Owner-App lica nt
Pr opo sed Use - Apartme nts
(Planning Boar d, adverse recomme ndation)
WARD 4
!IU- 69- 30- S
An Applica t io n fo r a Spe c ia l Us e Permi t fo r a Day Nur s ery to be
located at 3825 ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.W. , fronting 100 f ee t on the
no rth s i de of Adams vi lle Dr i ve, S.W . , begi nni ng 393 . 7 fe e t east
f rom the cor ner o f Woodstock Drive. Depth 200 feet. La nd Lot
14 , 14th FF Dis t ric t , Fulton Count y, Georgi a.
Emma Hunt (Renfroe), Owner
Doris Stri ck land - App l icant
Pr opos ed Us e - Day Nu rsery
(Planning Board, favor able r ecommendation)
WARD 7


U-69-31-C


An App l i cat io n f o r a Spe c i al Us e Permi t f or a Nur sing Home to
be located at 120 LINE ROAD, S. W. , fr onting 252 feet o n the
e ast side of Li ne Roa d, be ginni ng 680 f eet no r th from the
co r ner o f Br anch Dr ive. D~pth 698 fe et. Land L6t 13, ·
14 t h Dis t ric t , Ful t on County , Georgia
ABDEC , I nc . , Owner- Appl icant
Propos ed Use - Nursi ng home
(Pla nning Boar d, favorable r ecomme ndation)
WARD 7


Z- 69 - 85 - S


An Or dinance to rezone from R-5 (Res ident ial) and A- 1 (Apartment)
Di s t r icts to C- 1 (Commercial) Di stri ct, prope rty l ocate d at
STEWART AVENUE, fronting 131 fe et on t he e a s t s ide of Stewart
Avenue , b egi nning O feet from t he north c orner o f Grant Stree t .
Depth 218 feet . Area 14,25& swuare f eet . La nd Lot 90, 14t h
Dist r i ct, Fulton County, Georgia .
Carrie Blake, Ow ner
C. M. Mcche s ney ,- Appl i ca nt
Proposed Use - Service Station
WARD 4
(Planning Board , favorab l e recommendation)
�ZONING.COMMITTEE AGENDA
Page 3
July 24, 1969
ffaZ-69-83-S
An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to
C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 1955
CAMPBELLTON ROAD, fronting 260.7 feet on the north side
of Campbellton Road, beginning O feet from the northeast
corner of Honeysuckle Lane. Depth 212.1 feet. Area
approximately 66,000 square feet. Land Lot 168, 14th
District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Perry Boulevard, Inc., Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Service Station
(Planning Board, favorable recommendation)
WARD 7
ffaZ-69-94-S
An Ordinance to rezone from C-L (Commercial-Limited) District
to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2860
CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S.W., fronting 120 feet on the south
side o f Campbe llton Road, beginning 293 feet from the
east corner of Naxwe ll Drive. Dep th 340 feet. Area
33,000+ · square feet. Land Lot 218, 14th D~strict, Fulton
County, Georgia.
Ellis Maloof, Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Car Wash
(Planning Board, favorable recomme ndat i on)
WARD 7
ffaU-69-33-S
An Application for a Specia l Use Permit for a Car Wash and
Service Station, to . be located at 2360 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S .H.,
fronting 120 feet on the south side of Campbel lton Road ,
beginning 293 f ee t east fro1:1 the corne r of Maxwe ll Drive.
Depth 340 feet. Land Lot 218 , 14th Di s trict, Fulton County,
Georgia.
Ellis Maloo f, Owner-Appli ca nt
Proposed Use - Car Wash & Servi ce Station
(Planning Board , favo rab l e recommendation)
WARD 7


Z-69-96-S


An Ordi nance to re zone from R-4 (Residential) Di5trict to
A-1 (Apartme nt) District, p r operty located at FAIRBURN
ROAD, S.W., fronting 100 feet on the west side o f Fairburn
Road, beginning 720 feet ,ram the . south ~orne r of . qarrison
Drive . De pth 800± feet. Area 236,013 square feet. Land
Lot 8, 14th FF District, Ful ton County, Georgia.
D. E. Norr is, Owner
E. Lane Brown-Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartments
(Planning Board, adverse recommendation)
WARD 7
�AGENDA
ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY --JOINT PLANNING BOARD
Meeting, Wednesday, November 12,1969
Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall, 2:00 P.M.
i!Z-69-154-N
An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District
to C-1 (Corranercial) District property located at 1265
BOULDERCREST DRIVE, S.E., fronting 231 feet on the West
side of Bouldercrest Drive, beginning 175 feet from the
northwest corner of Eastland Road. Depth 175 feet. Area
40,425 squ are feet. Land Lot 143, 15th District, DeKalb
County, Georgia.
Alford M. Williams & Ellis A. Maloof, Owner
Ellis A. Maloof, Applicant
Proposed Use - Foor store & dry cleaners
WARD 2
i!U-69-68-N
A~ Application f or a Special Us e Per mi t for a Chu~ch to
be locate d at 1323 S. PONCE DE LEON AVE NUE , N. E., f ronting 182 feet on t he south side of Ponce de Leon Ave.,
N.E. beginning O fe et east from the corner of Springdale
Road, N.E. Depth 240.4 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District
DeKabl County, Georgia.
Elmer D. Lill ey, Owner
Church of God of Prophe cy, Applicant
Proposed Use - Church
WARD 2
i!U-69-65-N
An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Dent a l Fr a t ernity-Boarding House, to be located at 1315 PONCE DE LEON
AVENUE N.E., f r cnt ing 15 2 . 4 fee t e n t he s outh side cf Ponce
de Le on Avenue, beg i nning 170 feet wes t f rom the corner o f
Springda l e Road. Dep th 220 fee t. Land Lot 241, 15th
District, DeKalb County, Georgia.
Delta Sigma Delta House, Inc., Owner
Cliffor d Ox f ord , App l ican t
Proposed Use - Dental Fra ter ni ty - Boarding House
WARD 2
( i!Z - 69 - 172 - C)
An Oi dinance to r ezone f r om A- 2 (Apar tment) Dis t rict t o
C- 1 (Commercial) Di s t rict proper t y located at 493,497 , _
503,507 EAST AVENUE and 298 , 302 1 304 ~.ACKENZIE , fronting
180 f e e t on t he s outh s ide of East Avenue, begi nning 210
fee t f r om t he s outheast corner o f Bou levard . Depth 30 .5
fe et . Area 1 . 30 acres. Land Lot 46, 14th District ,
Fulton County, Georgia.
Caduceus Properties, Owner
Carl Cofer , Applicant
Propos ed Us e - Park i ng Lot
WARD 6
�ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, November 12 1 1969 - Page 2
/FU-69-66-G
An Application f-0r a Special Use Permit for an Apartment
above a store, to be located at 979 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E.
fronting 45 feet on the easterly side of Piedmont Avenue,
N.E., beginning 92.8 feet southwest from the corner of
Tenth Street, N.E. Depth 175 feet. Land Lot 106, 17th
District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Augusto Silva, Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartment
WARD 5
f!U-69-69-C
An Application for a Special Use Permit for Parking to be
located at 1230 & 1236 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E.,fronting
236.7 feet on the northwest side of Piedmont Avenue, beginning 250.5 feet southwest from·the corner of South
Prado, Depth approximately 160 feet. Land Lot 55, 17th
District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Morton Realty Company, Owner,Applicant
Proposed Use - Parking
WARD 5
f!Z-69-174-N
An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to
0-I (Office-Institutional) District, property located at
3783 ROSWELL ROAD, N.E., fronting 202 feet on the east
side of Roswell Road, N.E., beginning 2,257.5 feet form
the northeast corner of Ivy Road. Depth 835 feet. Area
70,700 square feet. Land Lot 97, 17th District, Fulton
County, Geor gi a,
Jeannette M. Prince, Owner,Applicant
Proposed Use - Office & Apartments
WARD 8
f!Z-69-183-N
An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to
C-1 (Connnercial) District, property located at 2114 thru
2126 DEFOORS FERRY ROAD, front _ing 633 feet on the south
side of DeFoors Ferry Road, beginning 698 feet from the
northwest corner of Collier Road. Depth 422 feet. Area
174,428 square feet, Land Lots 185,186,&194, 17th District
Fulton County, Georgia.
H.W. Dunn, et al, Owner
Initiated by Alderman G. Everett Millican
Proposed Use - Service Station/Retail Uses
WARD 3
f!Z-69-169-S
An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 · (Residential) District to
A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 2905 SPRING
DALE ROAD, fronting 206 feet on the west side of Springdale
Road, beginning 990,7 feet from the southwest corner of S.
Fredell Circle. Depth 665 feet. Area 3.7 acres. Land Lot
100, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia,
William H. Cook, Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartments
WARD 4
�ATLANTA-F1JLTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 3


Z-69-175-C



Z-69-176-C


An Ordinance to rezon~ from R-9 (Townhouse) District to
C-1 (Commerc~al) District, property located at PEYTON
ROAD, fronting 325.0 feet on the east side of Peyton
Road, beginning 340 feet from the southeast corner of
Gordon Road. Depth 165.8 feet. Area 1.265± acres.
Land Lot 205, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Peyton Center, Inc., Ovmer - Applicant
Proposed Use - Not stated
WARD 7
An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to
A-L (Apartment-Limited) District, property located at LYNHURST DRIVE, fronting 381.09 feet on the west side of Lynhurst Drive, beginning 595.9 feet from the northwest corner
of Hiawasee Drive. Depth 1,485± feet. Area 22.72 acres.
Land Lot 236, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia,
R.T. Griffith, Owner - Applicant
Pr.oposed Use - Apartments
WARD 7


Z-69-171-C


An Ordinance t6 rezone form R-5 (Residential) District to
& 3401
SCOTT ST., S,W., fronting 497.3 feet on the North side of
Scott Street, beginning O feet from the northeast cor ner
of Brownlee Road. Depth 100 feet. Area 1.01 acres. Land
Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Therori & Jackie Bolton, Owner
Theron Bolton, Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartments
WARD 7
A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 3335


Z-69-180-C


An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) Di s tr i ct to
A-1 (Ap ar tmen t ) Di s trict, prop erty loc a t ed at SEWELL ROAD
s.w.,
f r onting 570,2 fee t on the north s id e o f Sewell Road,
beginning 1450 fee t from the nor theas t cor ne r o f Fairbur n
Road. Depth 1,930 feet. Area 74.3 acre s. Land Lot 245,
14th District, Fulton County , Ge orgia.
Blaclock Machinery, Owner
Thornton Properti es , I nc., App l i cant
Propo sed Us e - Apartments
WAR,D 7


Z-69-178-S


An Or di nance t o rezone from A- 1- C (Apartment -Conditional )
Distr i ct to C- 1 (Conuner cial) Distri ct, property lo cated at
2440 FAIRBUR~ ROAD , s. w., f r onti ng 60 feet on the east side
o f Fai rbur n Road . S.W. , beginni ng 104 9 fe e t from the southe a s t corner of Campbellton Road, S .W ., Depth 792 fe e t.
Area 4 a cres. Land Lot 5, 14th District , Fulton County,
Georgia.
Maude H. Wai ts , Owner
David D. Warren, Applicant
Proposed Use - Office Building
WARD 7
�ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 4
ifZ-69-170-C
An Ordinance to rezone for ·R-3 (Residential) District to
C-1 (Commercial) District, property .1 .ocated at ADAMSVILLE
DRIVE, S.W.,fronting 100 feet on the south side of Adamsville Drive, beginning 152 feet from the southwest corner
of Gordon Road. Depth 197 feet. Area 25,672 square feet.
Land Lot 14, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.
J.I. Kingloff & Mildred L. Kingloff, Owner-Applicant
Proposed Use - Not stated
WARD 7


Z-69-177-C


An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to
A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 125 FAIRBURN
ROAD, N.W., fronting 102.8 feet on the east side of Fairburn Road, beginning 811.9 feet from the northeast corner
of Gordon Road. Depth 838.2 feet. Area 3.611 acres.
Land Lot 243, 14th Distr ict, Fulton County, Georgia.
Rosa G. Washington, Owner
Kfng & Spalding, Applicant
Proposed Use - Apartments
WARD 7
fFU-69-67-C
An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Care
to be located at 633 HIGHTOWER ROAD, N.E., fronting 50
on the east side of Hightower Road, beginning 515 feet
from the corner of Oldknow Drive. Depth 196.4 feet
Lot 208, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.
Mrs. Julie C. Ogletree, Owner-Applicant
. WARD
Proposed Use - Day Care Center
4/Z-69-179-C
Center
feet
north
Land
3
An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to
C-1 (Commercial) Di strict, property located at 2138 ,2098
& 2094 BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, fronting 75 & 133 feet on t he
south side of Bankhe ad Highway, beginning O & 330 f ee t
from the southeast corner of Alta Place. Depth 243 feet.
Area 50,544 square feet. Land Lot 176, 14th District,
Fulton County, Georgia.
Initiated by Zoning Committee
Proposed Use - Not stated
WARD 3
�.)
CITY OF .ATLANTA
May 29, 1969
CITY HALL
ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
DE PARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B. GLADIN, Dir e c cor
Mr. Johnny Robinson
Community Development Coordinator
Mayor•s Office
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Johnny:
Certification of Atlanta 1s Workable Program for Community Improvement
expires on October I, 1969. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development requires that we make our submission by August I, 60 days in
advance of the expiration date . Last year, we made our submission on time;
we wou Id Iike to repeat the performance th is year .
We are enclosing a copy of the newly revised Workable Program for
Community Improvement HUD Handbook along with those portions of the
Wo rkab le Program that pertain to your operation . Please note the changed
requirements in the HUD Handbook . All Workable Program certifications have
bee n ex tended over a two - yea r pe riod . The City of Atlanta will not submit
another Wo rkable Program until 1971 . Therefore, we ask that you make su re
you maintain th e required data pertaining to your depa rtment on a two- yea r basis.
The report ing period for the Ju ne 31 Workable Prog ram for th is year is
March 31, 1968 to June I, 1969. The Planning Department wi II be g la d to
assi st you in any way possib le to get the wo rk done on time. At least a month 1s
time is needed by us for assemb li ng exhibits, typing and re producing and generally
tying up loose ends . Therefore, we must have the sections back by June 16.
Sincerely yours ,
~
Colli e r B. G ladin
Planning Di rector
CBG/bls
Enclosure
�·I
I
RH A 7100.1
)

0
l
ROGR
FOR
COM
U ITV I -PR
Octo be r 1968
A HUD H
D 00
U . S. DEPARTME N T OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASH I NGTON , D. C.
204 10
�•
PREFACE FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM HANDBOOK
'Ihis Handbook sets forth a new approach and revised requirements to
guide localities that are carrying out a Workable Program for Community
Improvement.
It represents the first major revision of the Workable Program procedures since enactment of the statutory provision in 1954-,
We have several objectives which we hope will be achieved by the revision. One is to respond to the many changes that have taken place
in our urban areas over the years. Another is to ensure that our
requirements for the Workable Program are focused on performance by
localities in dealing with the problem of slums and blight~-not just
on compliance with operational procedures. Above all, the purpose is
to give local communities both flexibility an4 the responsibility to
develop effective programs to achieve the objectives of the statute in
light of the particular nature of problems and conditions existing in
each locality.
' '
'.Ihe substitution of performance standards for certain formal elements
of the Workable Program does not represent any easing in current substantive requi rements. Nor does the Handbook envision any reduction
in efforts by communities now participating in the program. The introduction of a performance-oriented approach hopefully will result in a
more effective attack on the major problems facing the community.
I am confident that, after more than a decade of experience with the
Workable Program, the Federal-local partnership has the maturity to
operate effectively under the new approach of this Handbook and thereby
we can make more meaningful progress toward overcoming the urgent
problems facing our cities and towns today.
Robert C. Weaver
Secretary
1
11/ 68
�WORKABLE PRCGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA
7100.11

FOREWORD
This Handbook sets forth revised policies, requirements, and procedures
for communities required to carry out a Workable Program for Community
Improvement in connection with the use of certain Departmental housing
and renewal programs to help overcome probiems of slums and blight.
-Workable Program Guides containing illustrative and advisory information
will be issued to supplement this Handbook.
The revised policies and requirements set forth herein are effective
upon issuance of this Handbook. Tnose communities which already have
submitted or· have substantially completed documentation in support of
an application for certification or recertification of a Workable
Program need not revise the material . However, communities may use the
revised forms described in this Handbook immediately . After March 31,
1969, all applications for certification or recertification of a Workable Program must be in conformance with the revised policies and
requirements.
The primary objective of the revision is to provide a fle:x:i.ble
and performance-oriented framework within which communities may demonstrate reasonable continuing progress toward· achieving the goals sought
by the statutory requirement for a Workable Program and those established by the community to implement them.
The revision also modifies reporting and documenta~ion requirements
and provides new criteria for evaluating community performance.
The revised Workable Program concentrates on four essential areas:
a.
The · adoption and enforcement of housing, building, and related
codes.
b.
The establishment of an effective action-oriented planning
and programming process.





c.
The developnent of programs to meet low- and moderate- income
housing needs and to meet relocation needs of families ,
individuals, and business concerns displaced by governmental
action.
ii
11/68





�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNI'IY IMPROVEMENT

IRHA
7100.1
d.
I
The involvement of citizens, including poor and minority
groups, in Workable Program activities and in related HUDassisted housing and renewal programs.
The intent of this Handbook is to strengthen the Workable Program as a
flexible and meaningful tool to help communities organize and carry out
its community improvement programs. The Handbook envisions no lessening of effort by communities which h~ve been participating under
previous Workable Program guidelines. Rather, it is anticipated that
communities will make greater :grogress toward achieving the obj ectives
of the statute with the increased flexibility provided by the Handbook
to concentrate local efforts and tailor specific needs and problems
facing the community. Applications for certtfic?tion in accordance
with the requirements of this Handbook which propose a program with an
overall leve l of effort below that made in the past, will not be
acceptable.
Certifications and recertifications of Workable Programs will be e ffective for two years. Field reviews of progress will be made as necessary
by HUD Regional Office staff midway through the certification period to
provide advice and t echnical assistance.
HUD-assisted programs to which the Workable Program applies are listed
in Chapter 1, paragraph 5. A community intending to make application
for financial assistance under any of these pro grams should become
familiar with the policies and requirement s set forth in this Handbook.
An understanding of these policies and requirements will facilitate the
preparation of the application for certification or recertification of
the community 's Workable Program and thus help to expedite the processing of applications for financial assistance for specific programs.
10/ 68
iii
�J
-
HtJD REGIONAL OFFICES
RIDIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
ADDRESS AND
TELEPHONE NUMBER
I
Judah Gribetz
26 Federal Plaza,
New York, N.Y. 10007
Area Code 212 264-8068
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New York, Rhode·
Island, Vermont
n
Warren P. Phelan
Widener Bldg., 1339 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa.
Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Virginia, West Virginia
RIDION
19107
GENER.AL
JURISDICTIONAL AREA
Area Code 215 597-2560
III
Edward H. Baxter
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
~
0
.....
<


e::


Peachtree-Seventh Bldg.,
Atlanta, Ga. 3032~
Area Code 404 526-5585
~
~
>tj
IT
Francis D. Fi.sher
360 North Michigan Ave.,
Chicago, Ill. 60601
Area Code 312 353-5680
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio,. South Dakota, Wisconsin
V
W.W. Collins
Federal Office Bldg., 819
Taylor St., Fort Worth,
Texas 76102
Area Code 817 334-2867
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,
Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
450 Golden Gate Ave., Post
Office Box 36003, San
Francisco, Calif. 94102
Area Code 415 556-4752
Alaska, Arizona, California,
Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
Wyoming



x:,




Q





'
VI
I-'
~
VII
co
°'
Robert B. Pitts
Jose E. Febres-Silva
Post Office Box 3869, GPO,
San Juan, P.R. 00936
(Dial Long Distance Operator)
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands
~



x:,




0
0
~z
H
1-3
1-<1
~ ~~
-.J
I-'
0
0
•I-'
<:





1-3
767-1515
V
·-·
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I

RHA 7100.11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
FOREWORD
HUD REGIONAL OFFICES
CHAPTER 1.
SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES
AND REQUIREMENT
Paragraph
1.
Statutory Provision ·
2.
Basic Purpose of Statutory Provision
3,
Summary of Workable Program Requirements
Local Administrative Requirements
5-
\
HUD-Assisted Pro grams for Which Workable Pro gram Is
A Requirement
CHAPTER 2.
..,
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE
PROGRAM APPLICATIONS
1.
General Principles of Administration
2.
Requirements for Application Content
3.
Criteria for Evaluation of Workable Program Application
4.
Basis for Determining Acceptability
CHAPTER 3.
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CER TIFICATION
1.
Filing of Application for Certification
2.
Governing Body Approval of the Workable Program
3.
Notification of Approval or Disapproval.
4.
Certification Period
5.
Certification Lapse
6.
Technical Assistance to Communities
V
11/68
�WORK.ABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.1
"
I
,I
Paragraph
7.
Relationship of Workable Program and Urban Renewal
Requirements
8.
Availability of Workable Program as Public Document
9.
Guides
CHAPTER 4.
CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
1.
Statutory Provision
2.
Requirements for Code Adoption
3.
Rehabilitation Standards
4.·..> ,
Requi rements for Code Enfor cement
5.
Examples of Priority Areas
6.
Considerat i ons Relate d to ·code Enforcement
CHAPTER 5.





PLANNING AND PROGRAMMI NG
1.
Planning and Programming Objectives
2.
Comprehens ive Planning Requirements
3.
Programming Requireme nts
4.
Charact er i stic s of Planning Process
5.
Summary
CHAPTER 6.
HOUSING AND RELOCATION
1.
Gen~ral Provisions
2.
Relocation Requirements
3.
Housing Requ i rements
4.
Crite~ia for Evaluation of Applications
CHAPTER 7.
1.
11/ 68





CITIZEN I NVOLVEMENT
Requirements f or Citizen Involvement
Vi
-- ---.
'
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA
7100.11
Paragraph
2.
Principles and Purposes of Citizen Involvement
3.
Examples of Citizen Involvement Activities
4.
Criteria for Evaluation of Applications
CHAPTER 8.
GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
1.
General Provisions
2.
Special Provisions
3.
Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Workable
Program Application
V ,
CHAPTER 9,
'
~-
GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS
1.
General Provision.§ ,
2.
Special Obj ectives
3,
General Criteria for Review and Evaluation of
Applications
4.
Provision for Code Adoption and Enforcement
5,
Planning Provisions
6.
Housing and Relocation Provisions
7,
Citizen Involvement Provisions
vii
10/68
�I
WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
"
R1!A
7100.1]
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1.
1.
SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENTS
STATU'IORY PROVISION. The Housing Act of 1949, as amended, requires
as a condition of certain financial assistance, the following:
11
•••
a workable program for co~unity improvement (which
shall include an official plan of action, as it exists
from time to time, for effectively dealing with the problem
of urban slums and blight within the community and for the
establishment and preservation of a well-planned community
with well-organized environment for adequate family life)
for utilizing appropriate private and public resources to
eliminate and prevent the develoµnent or spread of slums
and urban blight, to encourage needed urban rehabilitation,
to provide for redevelopnent of blighted, deteriorated, or
slum areas, or to undertake such of the aforesaid activities or other feasible community activities as may be
suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such a
program."
The statute also requires the ad.option and effective enforcement
of a minimum standards housing code, as described in Chapter 4.
In addition to the Workable Program requirements contained herein,
communities are advised that various HUD-assistance programs may
contain additionab separate requirements tailored to meet specific
program needs (e.g. relocation requirements of the urban renewal
program, general planning requirements for water and sewer, or open
space land grants). See Chapter 3, paragraph 7, for further
information.
2.
BASIC PURPOSE OF STATU'IORY PROVISION. The basic purpose of the
Workable Program requirement is to ensure that communities desiring to utilize funds for renewal and housing programs understand
the array of forces that create slums and blight and are willing
to recognize and .take the steps within their power to prevent and
overcome urban blight.
The Workable Program is based on recognition that the Federal and
local relationship is one of partnership in the task, and that
Federal funds for renewal and housing projects cannot, by themselves, be effective unless localities exercise the full range of
their powers in community efforts on a sustained and coordinated
basis to the objective of preventing and eradicating slums and
blight.
3.
SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROORAM REQUIREMENTS, The specific requirements of the Workable Program are based on the statutory objectives
described above and are designed to provide a flexible framework
Page 1
u/63
�T
WORKABLE PRCGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
"
I
l
RHA 7100.1
J
CHAPTER 1
for organizing community efforts to eliminate and prevent slums
and blight. The Workable Program calls for progress in the following four areas:





a.
Code Adoption and Enforcement. The adoption of housing, building, and related codes, and development of an effective code
enforceme nt program which is at least adequate to de a l with
areas having high priority need for en£orcement, including both
blighted areas and basically sound but deteriorating neighborhoods, and which is gear ed toward eventual community-wi de
compliance with such codes.
b.
Planning and Programming. The establishment of a continuing
public planning and programming process which develops action
programs within a comprehensive planning framework for overcoming the major physical, social, and e conomic problems
related to the slum and blighted areas of the community, and
for establishing and preserving a well- planned community with
suitable l i ving environment for family life .
c.
Housing and Relocation. The development of a centralized or
coordinated program for assisting in the relocation of all
persons and business concer_n;, displace d by public action in
the community and the development of a proi~ ~ to expand the
supply of housing for l ow- and mode rate-inc0u1E. famili es on the
basis of equa l opportunity.
d.
Citizen Involvement . The establishment of programs designed
to achieve meaningful involvement of citizens, including poor
and minority groups , in planning and carrying out HUD-ass i sted
programs related to th e Workable Program.
A detailed explanati on of th e policies and r equirements for each
of the above four areas is s e t forth in subseque nt chapte rs of
this Handbook.
4.
LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. In carrying out Workabl e
Program responsibil i ties, many different local agencies and offices
will necessarily b e involved, together with various public a nd
private institutions, organization s , and individuals. For e xample ,
building departments, planning agencies, health offices, housing
authorities, urban renewal agencies, neighborhood organizat i ons,
private builder s and dev e l opers may b e involved to proyide the
wide range of resources needed to meet Workable Program obj ectives.
While no specific a dministrative s tructure i s r equired by the
Workable Progr am, a community will be expect e d to meet t he gene ral
r equirement for establi shme nt of an administrative me chanism
11/68
Page 2





�,.
WORKABLE PRO'.}RAM FOR COMMUNITY I MPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.11
CHAPTER 1
responsible to the chief executive for the purpose of providing
leadership, supervision, and coordination of Workable Program
activities.
5,
...
HUD-ASSISTED PROJRAMS FOR WHICH WORKABLE PROGRJI.M IS A REQUIREMENT
a.
Urban Renewal Prog_ram
b.
Neighborhood Developnent Program
c.
Concentrated Code Enforcement Program
d.
Interim Assistance for Blighted Areas
e.
Demolition Grant Program
f.
Community Renewal Program
g.
Gene ral Neighborhood Renewal Plan
h.
Rehabilitation loans and gr ants in urban r enewal and concentrated code enforcement areas and in other than urban r enewal
or concentrate d code enforcement areas a ssisted under the
provision of Sec. 115(a)(2) and Sec. 312(a)(1).
i.
Low-Rent Housing Program, except for Section 23, Short Term
Leased Housing.
j.
Mortgage in sura nce under FHA Sec. 220 for housing construction
and rehabilitation in urban renewal project areas.
k.
Mortgage insura nce under FHA 221(d)( 3) at marke t or belowmarke t inter est r at e proj ect s for low- and moderate -income
famili es.
1.
Re nt Supplement Proj ects under Sec . 22 l ( d)( 3 ) for low-income
families, with certain exception s .
338-597 0 - 6 9 - 2
Page 3
10/68
�I
I
WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT

CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2.
..,
RHA 7100. l
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROORAM APPLICATIONS
1.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION. Workable Program applications will be evaluated in light of the varying conditions,
backgrounds, problems, and traditions of the par-ticula~ community.
In view of the difficulty of establisQing predetermined standards
of compliance having equal applicability to all communities
throughout the nation, the Department's review and determination
will be guided by the statutory requirements, the adequacy of the
community's proposed effort as measured against the magnitude of
the job to be done, and the constraints of available Federal, State,
and local resources. A second major consideration governing the
evaluation of application for recertification will be evidence of
reasonable continuing progress toward meeting the statutory goals
and objectives and -those set forth by the community.
2.
REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLJs;:.ATION CONTENT. The Workable Program is the
locality's program, and it i s the r esponsibility of the locality
to establish goals, action programs , and time t able s for accomplishment in each of the four elements discussed in subsequent chapters.
The goals, action programs, and timetables must be approved by the
Department, except where otherwise indicated in Chapter 5, pa r agraph 3. Because the emphasis is on the locality 's responsibi l ity
to develop its own program tailbred to its own needs and abilities
rather than on complying with speci fic Departmental requirements,
the community's application must contain sufficient evidence and
detail to permit an objective basis for review and evaluation .
Therefore, the application must clearly and specifically describe
what the community inte nds to do during the next certification
period in each of the four Workable Program elements. When applying for r ecertification, the application must also clearly describe
what ste ps the community t ook in the l ast period, in order to
provide a basis for measurement of the community ' s continuing
progress toward meeting the agree d-upon goals and objectives. In
developing its "work program" in each of the four elements for the
next certification period , the community must also show how the
proposed act ivit ies are related to a n analysis of the problems or
needs, and t o longer-range tar ge t s for accomplishment. For exampl~
in deve loping a program to meet the r equirement of Chapter 6 to
expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-income families,
the applicat ion should show the relationship of it s proposed
program and timet ables to an anal ysis of needs in the community
and to its longer-range goals or targe ts for expansion of such
supply. The questions included in Application Form 1081 are
designed to e licit the information and evidence required to provide
a reasonable basis for approving or disapproving the community ' s
Workable Program Application.
Page 1
10/68
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
~HA 7100.1

I
\
)
CHAPTER 2
3.
4.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATION. In reviewing a community' s application for certification or recertification of a Workable Program, the Department's assessment will be
based on the followin g factors:
a.
Problem Analysis. Adequacy of the community's analysis of the
problems and needs where required by the Workable Program
elements.
b.
Long-Ra nge Goals . Adequacy and reasonableness of the longrange goals and targets for accompli shment proposed by the
community for overcoming such problems .
c.
Action Programs. Adequacy of the specific a ctions and timetables proposed- to be taken by the community during the next
period of certification to deal with the problems identifi ed,
in light of available resource s and the magnitude of the
problems .
d.
Progress. Demonstration of r easonable continuing progress
toward meeting goals and objectives specified by the community.
BASIS FOR DETERMINING ACCEPTABILITY . The acceptability of a community's initi a l appl ication for ; certification will be base d on
the adequacy of the problem or nee d ana lysis in each of the
e l ement s , th e extent to whi ch longer-range goals or targe t s have
been identifi ed in r e lation to need, and the adequacy of the proposed action programs, in light of both need and available
resources . The acceptability of an application for r ecertifi cation
will b e based on t he performance of the community in meeting the
goa l s, t argets, and timetable s agr ee d to at the last certification,
as well as on the extent to which the proposed l ev e l of e f f ort
r epresent s continui ng progr ess fr om the l a s t per i od t oward meeting
its longer-range targe t s . When unexpe cte d developments or changed
conditions prevent a community from meeting its agr eed- to obj e ctives and time tabl~s, the application for r e certificat ion must
include a de tailed explanation of the r ea sons .
.)
10/68
Page 2
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'T'
I
RHA
7100.11
CJW>TER 3
,,
CHAPTER 3.
1.
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION
FILING OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION. Form HUD-1081 is to be
used by the community to apply for certification or recertification of its Workable Program. Careful attention to the preparation of format and content will obviate the need for correspondence
with the community and thus help to expedite the review and
evaluation of the application and its approval.
An original and three copies of Form HUD-1081 are to be submitted
to the appropriate HUD Regional Office. An application for
recertification should be submitted at least 60 days prior to
expiration of the community's current Workable Program certification.
A community desiring to discuss Workable Program policies and
requirements or to obtain assistance and guidance in the preparation of the required Form 1081 should communicate with the HUD
Regional Office.
2.
GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL OF THE WORKABLE PROO-RAM. Before being
submitted to the Regional Office, the application for certification and recertification on Form HUD-1081 must be approved by the
executive head and the governing~- body of the community.
3.
NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. The HUD Regional Office
will advise the applicant community of approval or disapproval of
the Workable Program application for certification.
a.
Reasons for Disapproval or Conditional Approval. Applicati9ns
may· be disapproved or conditionally approved for ~ither of two
reasons listed below; an explanation of the basis for such
action will be provided to the community.
(1)
Failure by the community to carry out the plan of action
and timetable it proposed for the last certification
period. In the event of disapproval or conditional
approval for this reason, the community will be advised
of the actions it must take to carry out the plans or
steps it initially proposed but did not take and did not
provide justification for not taking.
( 2)
Inadequacy of plans, programs, and timetables -proposed by
the community for the next certification period. In the
event of disapproval or conditional approval for this
reason, the community will be informed of the nature of
Page 1
10/ 68
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
Rl!A 7100.1

I
CHAPTER 3
the inadequacy of its proposed plans and programs, and
will be requested to submit additional information needed
to remedy such inadequacies.
b.
4.
Time Limit. Applications that are conditionally approved will
provide a reasonable, definite time limit for accomplishment
of required actions. In the event of a conditional approval,
applications for financial assistance under the applicable HUD
programs will be processed, but final approvals will be withheld until the Workable Program is fully approved. ( Once a
community's application is approved, no further requirements
will be imposed during the period of certification.)
CERTIFICATION PERIOD. All Workable Program certifications are for
a two-year period. If certification of a Workable Program has
expired, the execution of contracts for assistance is precluded
with respect to the applicable programs listed in Chapter 1,
paragraph 5. Certification is deemed not to expire, however, but
rather to continue in effect for the following purposes:
a.
To provide Federal assistance under Title I of the Housing Act
of 1949 for any urban project in the locality with respect to
which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date.
-~.-: i
b.
To provide Federal assistance under the United States Housing
Act of 1937 for any low-rent public housing being undertaken
by the locality with respect to which a contract for annual
contributions or capital grant is executed prior to the ex-.
piration date.
c.
To provide mortgage and home improvement loan insurance under
Section 220 of the National Housing Act with respect to property in the locality situated in:
10/68
(1)
The area of any urban renewal project for which a loan and
grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date,
or
(2)
Any urban renewal area not involving Federal aid under
Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 respecting which prior
to the expiration date the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Developnent has certified that he has approved the urban
renewal plan for the area, that such plan conforms to the
general plan for the locality as a whole, and that there
exist the -necessary authority and financial capacity to
ensure the completion of such urban renewal plan .
Page 2
�WORl<".ABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY JMffiOVE:MENT
I

RHA
7100.11
CHAPTER 3
d.
5,
To provide mortgage insurance under Section 221(d)(3) of the
National Housing Act with respect to property in the locality
for which a pre-application analysis has been made by the
Federal Housing Administration and it has agreed in writing
to accept a formal application prior to the expiration date,
or located in the area of any urban renewal project for which
a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration
date.
CERTIFICATION LAPSE. Where a Workable Program certification has
expired and a lapse has occurred , the community will be required
to show the progress made in meeting Workable Program r equirements
not only during the period in which the Workable Program was in
effect, but also during the lapse d period. Thus, it is important
that a community anticipate the expiration -date and initiate the
actions necessary to prepare an application for recertification
sufficiently in advance of this dat so that lapse may be avoided.
6.
.'TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES .
7,
RELATIONSHIP OF WORKABLE PR(X;RAM AND URBAN RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS.
Communities intending to apply for urban renewal assistance should
be aware of the following statutory requirements:
In accordance with Section
lOl(d) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, the Department will
endeavor to the maximum extent possible, to assist communities in
meeting their Workable Program objectives. Field reviews of
progress will be made as necess~ry midway through the period of
certification and Regional Office staff will be available to the
ext ent resources permit to provide consultation , advice , and
t echnical assistance.
a.
No loan or grant contract may be e ntered into for an urban
renewal project unless the Workable Program 11 is of sufficient
scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need
for the urban renewal project, and such project is in accord
with the program. 11
b.
The plan for an urban r enewal project must "conform to the
general plan of the locality as a whole and to the Workable
Program . . . "
c.
In entering into any contract for advances for surveys, plans,
and other preliminary urban renewal work, the Secretary must
"give consideration to the extent to which appropriate local
public bodies have undertaken positive programs (through the
adoption, modernization, administration, and enforcement of
housing, zoning, building and other local laws, codes, and
regulations . . . ) for (1) preventing the spread or recurrence
Page 3
10/68
�i'
WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.1
J
CHAPTER 3
in the community of slums and blighted areas, and (2) encouraging housing cost reductions through the use of appropriate
new materials, techniques, and methods in land and residential
planning, design, and construction, the increase of efficiency
in residential construction, and the elimination of restrictive practices which unnecessarily increase housing costs."
d.
HUD will not authorize a Federal aid contract for a Neighborhood Development Program (NDP) unless there is in existence a
certified Workable Pro gram which is of sufficient scope and
content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the
proposed NDP activities and such activities are in accord with
the Workable Program.
Communities are advised that because of the above statutory provisions, requirements for urban r enewal assistance may differ from
those nec essary for Workable Program certification purposes in the
following ways:
a.
Evaluation of Urban Renewal Need. With respect to subparagraphs a. and d., above, a community int ending to apply for
urban renewal or NDP assistance should ensure that the studies
undertaken in connection with the planning and programming requirement describ ed in Chapte;r, 5 are of sufficient scope and
quality to provide a basis for evaluation of the need for the
urban renewal project or NDP activities. In general, the
studies carried out under th e Workable Program should be
adequate to determine that the area is sufficiently blighted
or deteriorated to qualify for an urban renewal or NDP program.
Information should be included to illustrate both building and
environmental deficiencies, such as overcrowded conditions,
exce·ssive densiti es, and so forth . For further information on
urban renewal eligibility requirements see RHA 7205.1 of the
Urban Renewal Handbook, Chapter 1, General Eligibility Requirements. A community may, if it so wishes, supplement its'
Workable Program submission with other related studies having a
bearing, such as a Community Renewal Pro gram, General Neighborhood Renewal Program, or other similar studies.
b.
Renewal Plans. With respect to b ., above, the Urban Renewal
Handbook sets forth the following minimum elements of a general
plan: land use plan, thoroughfare plan, community facilities
plan, public improvement s program, zoning ordinance and map and
subdivision regulations . The preparation of such plans ( except
for a zoning ordinance or other comparable memo for guiding
land usage) is not a prerequisite to the approval of the
Workable Program, though many communities may find the preparaof them helpful in the development of general plans to guide
10/68
Page 4
�I..
I
WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA
7100.11
CHAPTER 3

community growth and development, which is a Workable Program
requirement describ ed in Chapter 5. In addition, for purpose s
of approving specific urban renewal proj ects, a greater de gree
of planning completion may be required than would be necessary
for Workable Program purposes, e spe cially in smaller communities and others seeking initial certification or recertification.
c,
..,
Codes. With respect to c., above, a community intending to
apply for urban renewal assistance is advised that approval of
the housing, building , and other code r equir ements of the
Workable Pro gram will constitute compliance for urban. r e newal
purpose s with Se ction lOl(a) of the Housing Act of 1949, and
no additional information will be r equired for that purpo s e.
8.
AVAILABILITY OF WORKABLE PR03RAM AS PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Since th e
Workable Pro gram is a publi c docume nt , i t must be made available
for public perusal a nd examination. At the ir reque st, copies
should be made available by the locality to citizen groups and
organizations which should be encourage d to participate in the
'develoµn ent and implementation of the Workable Pro gram.
9.
GUIDES . Supplementary guide s will be issue d to provide communities
with advi ce and illustrat ions in conne ction with carryi ng out the
Workable Pro gr am, including des crJption of the s cope a nd conte nt
of compr ehensive pl~nni ng progr ams, ways of organizing and carrying
out effe ctive r e lo cation and code enforcement pro grams, and means
for encouraging and deve loping citi zen involvement. Pending i ssuance of the Guides , questions and r eque sts for technica l assistance
should be dire ct ed to the Regional Offi ce.
Page 5
10/68
�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'r
RHA 7100.1

CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 7.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
1.
REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZEN I NVOLVEMENT. A guiding principle of Departmental policy is to in sure that citizens have the opportunity
to participate in policies and prograijls which affect their welfare.
Therefore, the Workable Program requires clear evidence that the
community provides opportunities for citizens, including those who
are poor and members of minority groups, to participate in all
HUD assisted programs for which a Workable Program is a requirement, and in the community's plan to expand the supply of low- and
moderate-income housing. (S ee Chapter 1, paragraph 5 for li st of
applicable HUD programs.) The community will also be expected to
show what progress has be en made durin g each certification period
to achi eve an adequate and effective degree of citizen involvement.
2.
PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT, The growing complexity of urban deve lopme nt and gove rnment organization make it
essential that widespr ead opportunities for citizen involvement
be created, including opportunities for poor and minority groups,
for many reasons. In some cases, existing local institutions
seem unable to identify the serious proplems of many citizens, as
the citizens define them. In turn, th e people may feel cut off
from their public r epresentative·s', and lack understanding of what
government is doing to and for them. At the same time, traditional
acts of pa rticipa.tion--voting , attendance at meetings, letters to
Congressmen-- are frequently ineffective in dealing with the immediate problems raised by increasingly l ar ge and complex programs
having direct impact on peoples' lives. For these reasons, new
forms of collaborative relationships between citizens and government, new means for participation in the decision-making process,
need to be developed. Recognizing th e need for experimentation and
innovation, the Workable Program does not contain any specific requirements for the form that citizen participation must take. Tne
choice of mechanisms depends upon the needs of the particular community and the structure of the local government. However, there
are certain principles and objectives which should underlie the
community's effort. One is that the community's responsibility
does not end with the establishment of a particular mechanism or .
set of mechanisms. The Workable Program requires continuing effort
on the part of the community to improve and expand the opportunities for creative forms of participation and collaboration that
both ensure repres entation by poor and minority groups. as well as
enable government to take effective, purposeful, and expert action
to deal with the problems and needs facing the community. It is
essentia l that the participation be satisfying, rewarding, and not
frustratin g if it is to achieve the basic objective of cr eating
and sustaining a vo luntary union and mutual trust between governand its citizens.
p
338- 597 0 - 60 - J
Page 1
11/68
�WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.1
"
CHAPTER 7
3,
EXAMPLES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES. It is important that
the community deve lop specific plans for achieving and maintaining
adequate and e ffective citizen involveme nt in the programs covere d.
A community may establish a new community-wide advisory committee
embracing all major interests~ including the poor and members of
minority groups or may create several new special-purpose groups,
or may make b ette r utilization of existing organi zations. Communities which already have establishe d ef.fective citizen advisory
committees for Workable Program purposes are encouraged to retain
them and improve their effectiveness. Communities participating
in the Mode l Cities program or other programs involving a high
degree of citizen participation are encouraged to coordinate the
citizen involvement activities under the Workable Program with the
citi zen pa rtic ipat ion r equirements of th ese programs , where
applicable. In addition to establishing appropriate organizational means for citizen involvement, a community may wish to
take such steps as the following in orde-r - t o- further the objectives
of this element:





a.
.. .. ,
,
,
b.
The developfilent of specific function s for c itizen committees,
such as having t hem hold public hearings , prepare comments on
Workable Program appli cation s , evalua t e proj ect pla n s , conduct
interviews and surveys of neighborhood residents ' views, etc.
The development of specific methods by which the community can
establi sh a basis for insuring there will be fa ir and reasonable r epr esentativeness of advisory committee s participa ting
in th e Workable Program. For example , one method by which to
compo se a community-wide advisory committee might be to choose
repres entatives in equal proportions, from private neighborhood
groups, government program-connected advisory groups, and civic
groups.
/
4.
c.
The establi shment of a planning group t o he l p develop new ideas
and t e chniques for generating greater involvement among poor
and di sadva ntaged groups .
d.
The pr ovision of funds and technical assistance to neighborhood
and other advisory groups so they may become be tter informed
and equippe d t o deal with complex redevelopment problems.
e.
The assignment of specific activities in HUD- assiste d pro j ects
to de signate d ne ighborhood groups, such as evaluating site and
design cons ide r ations, e stablishing information centers, and
making recommendations with r espect to housing project regulation s.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS. To provide a basis for
.e valua ting the citize n involveme nt el ement of Workable Program
ll/ 68
Page 2





�WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
I
RHA 7100.~
CHAPTER 7

applications and for determining the adequacy of such involvement,
the community will be expected to submit the following kinds of
information:
a.
A description of the arrangements or working relationships
established to provide citizen groups with opportunities for
access to the decision-making pro.cess with respect to the related HUD-assisted projects related to the Workable Program.
b.
A description of the nature and range of issues with which the
participating groups and individuals have dealt, the recommendations subsequently made, and the general results and
accomplishments derived from such involvement.
c.
A description of the specific steps the community took in the
preceding period and proposes to take in the next certification
period to achieve or maintain an adequate and effective degree
of citizen involvement, including plans for providing sufficient information, technical assistance, and access to decision-making.
\.>,
Page 3
10/68
�HUD-1081
(11-68)
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
REQUIREMENT. The Workable Program requires clear evidence that the community provides and continues to
expand, opportunities for citizens, especiall y tho se who are poor and members of minority
groups, to participate in all phases of the related HUD-assisted renewal and housing programs. The particular organizational means for community involvement is left to the discretion of each community, but the community mu s t demon s trate in its Workable Progra m submission that it provides clear and direct access to decision making, relevant and timely information, and necessary technical assistance to participating groups and individuals in programs
covered.
1. (a) Identify the groups participating in the HUD-assisted programs related to the Workable Program and in
the community's program to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income hou sing.
(b) Describ e the type of groups (e.g. civic, neighborhood, hous ing) that are participating, and the constituency repre sented (e.g. poor, middle-class, Negro, public hous ing res idents ) •
• 18 •
�HUD·! 081
(11-68)
(c) Describe what pa rticular HUD-ass is ted programs and proj ects s uch groups a re parti ci pating in .

(_.,
.,
(d) Desc ribe efforts to achi eve coordination among cit.izen participation structures loc ated in the same area
or having s imilar program inte res ts.
·
- 19 -
�HUD-1081
(11-68)
2. Describe the arrange ments or working re lations hips s et up to provide groups a nd indi vidua ls opportunities
for access to a nd partici pa tion in deci s ion-making in the a ppli cabl e HUD-ass isted progra ms •

3. Des cribe the s te ps whi ch have been taken in regard to the applicable programs to provide participating
groups a nd individua ls s uffi c ie nt information a nd techni ca l ass is tance .
4. Des cribe the nature a nd range of issues re lating to the applicable programs with whi ch participa ting groups
and individua ls have dealt; the recommenda tions s ubs eque ntly made; and the s pec ific res ul ts and accomplis hments of the partic ipa tion.
• 20 U. S. GOVERNMENT P RINTING OFFICE: 1068 0 - 327 - 649
�CITY OF A.TLANTA.
May 30, 1969
CITY HALL
ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B . GLADIN , Dir e ctor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jof1) Robi ~son
FROM:
c~
SUBJECT: Summer Program 1 69
Our contacts with the Summer Program for all matters except zoning will be
George Aldridge and for zoning, Tom Shuttleworth .
CG/jp
�r
. FUl'f0I NG OF URBAN R.EN:SW1~L AND
lIBJ.GHBOREOOD DEVELO?i:,fENT PROGB}J,1
PROJ ECTS
APRI L 29, 1969 .
.
�-I
,-
. '---· ·
The City of Atlanta is pres ent ly engaged in eight Urban Renewal Projects
and five Neighborhood Developme nt Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in
Thes e projects are fund ed jointly by the City and the
planning only).
Federal Governmen t.
The funding arrangement calls for a contribution
equal to one~third of the Net Project costs from tha City with the· re~
rnaini.ng two--thirds being suppJied by ·che Federal Gov ernmen t.
The City's share may b e in the form of ca sh contributions or non-ca sh
grants-in-aid, th e se grnrits-in- aid are demo lition and removal work,
project or site i ~prov eme nt s , public and supporting facilities, and other s
such as credits fro~ construc~ion of public housings.
At pres ent, the
eight Urb an Ren rn-1 al project~ presently in execution are Slunrna rized as
follows:
Net Project Costs
Local Non- Cash Gra nts-In-Aid
Local Cash and Real Estate
Cr edits
$60 millionl
20 rn:i.llion
1 million
This points very emphatically to th e feet that our prese nt Urban Renewa l
program has been financed al mos t comp l e tely through the use of non-cash
grants·· in-aid.
The res ults of this policy can be seen in th_e long delays
encountered in the clo sing out of these projects, some of which date back
into the 1950 's·.
The cash used for these projects has cor:ie frcr:rt money set aside in the 1957
and 1963 Genera l Obl igat ion Bond Issue s and totaling $3.2 milliono
There-
fore, we have, at present, $2.1 million of unencu:.1bered fun ds available
f:rom this source.
Of this amount, $1. 7 is presently expected to be needed
lof this amount $4.5 mi llion or 7\% has been incurred as interest charges.
�- I
___·L__-
to meet the cash requin:ments of the Be~:fo:cd-Pine Neit;hborhooc1 Develop;T1.2ni:
Program Project in 1970.
The non.,c ash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of
total expenditures totaling about
$29 million and have some of the
following forms .
School
Sect i on 107 2 & Specia l Credits
Streets
Parks
Water T.mp:r.ove1aent
Sewer Improvement s
Special Facilities
Traffic I r,1p;:-ovemeats .
Oth er
$llol~ million
1.3 million
l~. 7 m:i.llion
.7 million
. 6 million
c6 m:i.lJ.:Lon
.3 m:i.11:Lon
.1 million
million
-~
$20.0 million
Some of the problems encount ered because of t he use of non-cash contributions (9408% of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban
Renewal activities are :
1.
Butler Street
A.
Middle School with a total estim.'.lted co st of $2 million has
been delaying the close of this proj ect , but should be under
contract by August of 1969.
2o
Ra-1vson - Washington
A• . Neighborhood Fac ilities, Building with a total estimated cost
of $1 million of which $150,0C0 will be an e ligibl e proj ect
cost.
This project is at present unfunded with -the only
poss ible source of funds be i ng t~rough Mode l Citi es o
It is
presen t ly plenned f or the Ci t y to purchase the l and from t he
Housing Authority and hold this until a det ermi na tion i s made
_;
2r.rN1i
rs rP.sulti.n ~ fro m th e construction of Publ ic Housing .
�-I -· . L_ __
r egard irrg t h e t.1. se of :t-:ode J. CH :i. es f und s.
B.
P.s.rk 1-lith an es tiir.a t ed co s t 0£ $2L:0,000 of wh :i.ch $33,000
will b0 el igibl e cos ts .
No s our c e of fu nding is pr e sently
asce r tainabl e ,
A.
El emen t a ry School 1-1ith an e st i ma t ed cost of $1.5 mj_llion a nd
expected to be und er contract by Aui us t of 1969.
B.
An e:-::pansion of the cx:i.st ing el ernent 8. ry scho o1. with an e s ti-
mated co s t of $700,000 and a t pre sent unf:un ded.
c.
Pa1·l~ with an e s tima t ed co s t of $75,000 which is al s o p:;:-es ently
unftinded .
4, Th omasvi ll e
A.
El ement ary schoo l wi th $1.5 mill i on es timat ed co st and expect ed to b e under contract by Au gus t, 19 69.
B.
Pa rk with est i ma t ed cost of $126,00 0 which i s at pr esent
unfunded.
C.
Tvn primar y scho ol EJ
with $1 million es tina t ed total cost and
a middl e school wi th an est i ma t ed co s t of $2 mi llion are unfunded and n o s our c e is s een until nt l eas t J ~~e of 1971.
The a dvent of th e Neighb orho od Deve l opment Program has br ought t o a n end
t he period during whi ch t he Ci ty could pl edge an i mprovemen t and t he n
wai t unt il funding b ecame av.s.i l ab le b efore c ompl et i ng it.
Und e r t he t erms
of an NDP agreeme nt, the City must h ave co~nple t ed or have unde r cont ract
al l non- ca sh grants - in- aid p l edged f or tha t pa r ticul ar yea r or contribut e
the requ i r ed amoun t in c ash.
- 3-
�..
,....
'
Our p:rc: :, cnt
1-mr
p1~ojects We:re
funded fo;~ 19 69 £r ora c11;:-eac1y existing imp:rnve··
ments o~ supporting facilities amounting to a tot a l City coDmi ttment of
$10. 8 million.
This supports a tot a l ·Nei ~hbo:choo<l Development Program of
$32.l, million.
The 1970 progr~~ is expected to hav e the follo wing Ci~y requirements:
Non··Cash
Ca sh
$1. 7 milli on
$ • 2 f\l:i.llion
Bedfor<l-Pine
1.3 million
1.5 mi lli on
Hocl e l CHie3
Edgei-lOOcl
Vine City
.1 milU.on
.1 mill ion
• 2 million
. 2 million
$3.l} million
$1.9 mi J.lio~1
- ·--
--'"--
This would su pport a to tal pro gram o f $19.9 mi ll i on aud wou ld increase
gr eat ly :i.f the Edge'i·wocl and Vine Cit y projects were expanded to a signi ..
fic abt l eve l of activi ty.
This means that to support th e fairly light l eveJ. of r:c tivi.ty projected fo,~
1970 , th e City
i·i:i.1.l
need approxima teJ.y $1. 7 million .
I£ any new m:eas are
added or the l eve l of activity incr eased t his would increase from $2.5 to
$4.0 million for 1970 .
The possible sourc es of funds include:
l.
Gen::;ra l Funds
~
This
s:i
urce is already under consid er-ab l e pressu::ce and
no relief is p resent ly anticipated.
2.
The G.
annually.
o.
Bonds already ap prov ed, fo r i ssue in the amo un t of $4 mi llion
'.
The financing of Neighborhood Development Programs f m m these
bonds wou ld r equire the us e of almos t this entire amou~t every year and
could very likely become erriliroifed in l egal tangle s .
3.
Ano ther possibility is a sp ec ial Neighborhoo d Deve lopment Program
General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 mil lion in 1970 with a nother
issue 4 or 5 years lat er or the ob ta i ning of voter approva l to issue
G. O. Bonds for th i s purpose i n the amount of $3-5 m:i.lJ.ion per year.
[

�. L. -
This appr o 2ch is natu~elly sub ject t o
..
T'df . ~.E!S
of th e _p~b lic, and, there~
fo re , of u~cer tain dep enclabil i ty.
L~.
I
I
Ii.
!'
'
' .
Pe;:-haps the best method would be tln:ou::;h th e obtri:.i.ning of: a n ew rev-e nue
sour c e , by state approval , such as a sales t ax or a payro ll tax of which a
Cf,rtain portion ,-,oulc~ be eari;;art e d for Ne.:i.ghbo:chocrJ Dev_e lopment Programs .
I •
Of course in the pEr.suit of a ne-::-1 s ource of revenue we ,:n-e at loige:cheads
!I ;,
i' .
with t he stet e and ma y not be able to obta in a satisfac t ory revenue s ource .
I1 ·
Regardless of th e raetho <l you favor in obta i n ing the nee2c<l funds, it is
..
i mperat i ve , if th e City of Atlanta is to 11'.aj_nte.in its progressive i mage and


l



•'
"•,
r








i
to continue
• ,_ C
J_
LV
thcrt a som~ce be found ; because the
c ont i nuat ion of a signific ant program of r es tora tion and reheblitation of
th e c entra l core of Atlanta is a vital cl ement in tl1 e continued evolution
H
Ii
r:
of our City.
r:
il
,I
1
,.-
I
j
·1
I





I
-5-
�AGENDA
Meeting:
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Atlanta Planning Department
Atlanta Housing Authority
Atlanta Housing Code Division of the Department of Buildings
Held:
Committee Room frl
10:00-10:30 a.m., March 12, 1968
I.
II.
III.
Jim Smith - Introduction of Mce~ing, Introduction of Speakers
Collier Glc>.din - Import.wee of ~rvey , to City of Atlanta,
Planning Dep.::rtm.ent, Housing Code Division. Responsibility
of Planning Department and Housing Code Division, Introduction
of Planning Department Contact Person (Neyers).
HUD representatives - Importance of Survey to Housing Code Compliance
Progre.m, to Workable Progran, to other Cities.


.' ..


~
In attendance:
J. S. Buchanan
Tom Ficht
Harold Taylor
IV.
Questions and Answers





�AGENDA
Meetine:
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Planning Department
Atlanta Housing Authority
Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings
Held:
Office of Collier Glndin
10:30-11:00 a.m., March 12, 1968
Chairman: Helen l.feyers
~cussion Topics:
1.
Evaluation of Atlanta survey techniques and procedures
by Department of Housing & Urban Development and Atlanta
Housing Authority.
2.
Use of Atlanta's survey information by Department of
Housing & Urban Development and by the City for Federal
program planning.
3.
Development and adoption of a uniform set of standards
and .definitions for structural evaluation and rating.
4.
Organizing a corr.mittee or other mechanism from the
. Department of Housing & Urban Developm~ nt, Atlanta
Housing Authority, Atlanta Planning Department,
Housing Code Division to work on the above.
�,
/
ATTENDANCE SHEET
!
j
Collier Gladin - Planning Dept.
W. Buchanan - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Tom Ficht - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Harpld Taylor - Dept. of Housing &_Urban Development
Wally Screws - Atlanta Housing Authority
Jim Smith - Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings
George Aldridge - Planning Department
John Watson - Planning Department
Helen Meyers - Planning Department
Jack Linville - Planning Department
Wallace Edson - Housing Code Division
Robert Tipton - HousiP~ Code Division
10 Housing Code Inspectors - Housing Code Division
•..
�l\1EIG1-IBOR..1-IOOD D:'!:V:-.:LOP11ENT PROGR.!J :;:
PI'OJ ECTS
APRI L 29 , 1969
�The City of At l anta i s pres ent l y engage d in ei ght Ur ban Renewa l Pr ojec ts
and five Neighbo r ho od Development Pro gram Projects (3 i n ex ecut ion , 2 in
planrti ng onl y).
Thes e pr oj ec ts a r e f unded jo int l y by t he Ci ty and t h e
Fede:r:a l Governmen t.
The fu nding a r r angement ca ll s for a contribution
equal to one- th ird of the Ne t Proj ect co s t s from t h e City wi t h t h e remaining ti,10~t h i rds being s upplied by the Federa l Government .
The Ci t y ' s share ma y be i n the f or m of cash cont r i butions or non- ca sh
grants-in-aid , t hes e grant s -in- a i d ar e demol it io n and r emova l wor k ,
pr ojec t or s it e i mprovements , public and support ing f acil ities , and ot h e r s
s uch a s c red i t s f rom cons truct ion of pub lic ho us i ngs .
At pr ese nt, t he
eight Ur ban Renewa l pro j ec t s presen tl y in execution are s unm1ar i zed a s
follows:
Net Pro j ec t Cos t s
Loc a l Non-C a sh Gran ts - In-Aid
Loca l Ca sh a nd Rea l Es t a te
Cr edit s
$60 millionl
20 million
1 million
This poi nts ve ry emphat ic a lly to the f ac t t hat our pr es ent Urban Renewa l
pr ogram has b een f inanced al most compl etel y through t h e us e of non- cash
grant s-in- aid .
The r e su lts of t h is pol i c y c an b e seen in tl~e long d elays
enc ountered in th e c los ing out of these pr ojects, some of wh ich da t e back
i nto the 1950 ' s ·.
Th e cash used f or thes e pr oj ects has c ome from money set aside i n the 1957
a nd 1963 General Ob l igat ion Bond Issue s and to t aling $3.2 mil l i on o Th er efo r e, we have, at present , $2.1 million of unenc umbered f und s ava ilab l e
f r om thi s s ource .
Of th is amount, $1.7 is pre s ent l y expected to be needed
lo£ thi s a,t1ount $4. 5 million or 7}{/4 has been incurred as interest charges o
�·.
' -
to mee t . tl ,e cash r equi rements of t he Bedfor d-Pine Nei ghbo r hood Development
Program Proj ec t i n 1970 .
The non- cash con t ributions of $20 mi l lion a re the e l igibl e portion of
to tal expenditures tota ling ab out
$2 9 million and have some of the
fol lowing fo rms .
Schoo l
Sec tion 1072 & Special Credi ts
Stre et s
Parks
Wa t er I mpr ovement
Sewer I mpr ovemen:: s
Spec i al Fac i l it i es
Tra ff:i. c I m:_Jl'."ovements .
Other
$11o4 million
1. 3 mi ll ion
~.• 7
mi ll i on
• 7 mi ll i on
.6 million
06 mill i on
.3 mi ll i on
.1 million
o3 mi llion
$20 . 0 million
Some o f th e prob l ems encountered becaus e of th e us e of non-ca sh cont ributions ( 9li. o8% of total city f unding) as t he City ' s s our ce of funding Ur ba n
Renewal activiti e s ar e:
1.
But l er St ree t
A.
Middle School with a to tal e s timated co st of $2 milli on has
been delaying th e c l ose of this pro j ect, but should be under
contrac t by August of 1969.
2o
Rawson - Washington
A.
Ne ighbor hood Fa c ilitie s, Build ing with a total es t i ma ted co st
of $1 million of wh ich $150, 000 will be a n eligible pr oj ect
c ost.
This pr oj ect i s at pr esent unfunded with the only
pos sib l e s ource of f unds being through Model Ci ties o
It is
presently planned for the City t o purchase the l and f r om th e
Housing Au thor ity a nd hold this unt il a dete rmi nation is made
�·• J
-
r egarding the use of Mode l Ci t ies funds.
B.
Park with an estimated co st of $240,000 of which $33,000
will be eligible costs .
No source of funding is presently
ascertainable .
3.
Rockdale
A.
Elementar y School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and
expec ~ed to be under contra ct by August of 1969.
B.
An expansion o f the existing ele1 entary school with
BL
esti-
mated c ost of $700 ,000 and at present unfunded .
C.
Par k 1·1 ith an estimc1ted cost of $75,000 which is also pre sent l y
unfunded.
~..
Thomasvil le
A.
Elementary school with $LS million estimated cost and exp ected to b e under contract by August , 1969 .
B.
Park with estimated cos t of $126,000 which is at p res ent
unfunded.
C.
Tw:> prima ry schoola
with $1 million estimated total cost and
a middle school with an estimated cost of $2 mi llion are unfunded and no source is seen until &t least J une of 1971.
The advent of the Neighborhood Development Program has brought to an end
the period during which the City could pledge an improvement and then
wait until funding became ava ilable before completing it.
Under the terms
of an NDP agreemen t , the Ci t y mus t have comple ted or have und er contrac t
all non-cash grants-in-aid pl edged f or t h at part i c ular year or contribute
t he required amount i n cash .
- 3-
�-I_
I
'
Our present NDP pr oj ec ts we:;_·e funded for 1969 fr om already ex isting i mprove~
ments or suppor ting facilities amoun ting to a tota l City coP-anittment of
$10 .8 million.
This supports a t ota l l·~eighborhood Development Program of
$32.fi. million.
The 1970 program is expected to have the following City requirements :
Non~Cash
Cash
Bedfo1·d-Pine
$ • 2 million
$1. 7 mil lion
1.5 millinn
1.3 million
Hodel Cities
• l mi ll1.c11
. 2 mi llion
Edgewood
• 2 million
.
1
mil
?.
ion
Vine City
$3.Lf mi ll lou
$1.9 mill ion
Thi s would support a total program of $1909 mi l lion and would i ncrease
great ly if the Edgewood and Vine Cit y proj ect s were expanded to a significant level of activi t y.
This means that to support th e fair ly light level of activity projected f.o r
1970, the City wj_ll need approxi mately $1. 7 million .
I f any new areas are
added or the level of activity increased this woul d increase f rom $2 •.S to
$4. 0 mi llion for 19 700
The possible s ources of fund s include:
1.
General Funds - This ro urce is already under considerab l e pressure and
no relief is presently anticipat ed .
2.
The G.
annually .
o.
Bonds already approved, f or issue in the amount of $4 mi llion
'
The fi nanc ing of Neighborhood Development Pro6rams from these
bonds would require t he us e of almost this entire amoutit every year and
could ver y likely be come embroited in l egal tangles.
3.
Another possibility is a spec ial Neighborhood Development Program
General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 million in 1970 with another
issue 4 or 5 years lat er or the obtaining of voter approval to issue
G. O. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 million per year.
�'
.I
This approach is n atura l ly s ubject to t:..he ut :Lrns of th e public, and, t herefo re , of unce rtain dependab ility .
4.
PerLaps the be st metlod would be th r ough the obtaining of a n eH revenue
s ource, by s tate approva l, such as a s ales tax or a payr oll tax of which a
c ertain portion wou ld be earma:i::-ked for Neighborhoo:1 Deve lopmen t Progr e....rns .
Of cours e in the pursuit of a new sourc e of r ev enue we are a t lo ggerh eads
with the sta ~
and may not be able to obta in a s at isfacto ry revenue source .
Regard le s s of the method you f avor in ob t aini ng the needed funds , it is
i mperat i ve, if the City of At lanta is to ma inta in its progre ssive i mage and
t o c ont i nu e its drama t ic deve l opment , that a source be found ; bec au s e the
cont i nuat ion of a signific ant program of restoration and rehabl i ta tion of
t he c entral co r e of Atlanta i s a v ital element in t he continu ed evo l utio n
o f our Cityo
- 5-
�COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM
City Planning Department
City Hall
Atlanta, Ga.
January, 1968
OUTLIN"E
.INTRODUCTION
IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION
PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING
PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOAIB
&
PROGRA..M
STRATEGY STATEMENT - GUIDE TO COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION IN PLANNI NG
(1) Discussion Reports
(2) Distributien of Rep0rts
ATTACHMENTS
Discussion Reports Chart
Report #1 - Problem .Analysis, Sample Outline
�IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION
If the planning of the Model Neighborhood Program is to be successful,
it is absolutely essential that all key participants ·i.ir the program are well
organized.
This means that the following organi zational matters should be
accomplished before planning begins.
1.
The Model Neighborhood Executive Boa rd should be formed to act
as the ultimate authori ty of the pr@gram.
It should allow
representation from all levels of gover-JLment - city, county,
state, and federal; residents of the Model Nei ghborhood area;
and residents of the city-at-large.
2.
The Model Neighborhood staff should be f ormed, including the
executive director, the three chief planners and the technical
staff.
3.
Stable local organizations which adequ at el y represent the residents
of the various neighborhoods in the area should be in operation.
While those organizations should be representative of the interests
of all residents and give everyone a voice in their affairs, they
should not be se cumbersome that they cannot work effectively with
the planners.
In other words, it will be physica.JJ..v impossible for the planners
to carry all of their work directly to the 'grass roots' organizations
of the area.
This may be necessary for some key issues, but for
the most part planners will have to work with a small committee
of 10-20 persons if they are to accomplish anything worthwhile.
�COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The Model Neighborhood Program offers an excellent opportunity to bring
about basic improvements in one of the most problematic areas of Atlanta.
The area selected for the pr0gram contains all the varied and complicated
forms of urban blight which plague American cities today, from overcrowded,
su~standard housing to incompatible land use mj_xtures to poer street conditions
and inadequate community facilities to all facets of socio-economic poverty
and deprivation.
Most of these conditions have deep roots and are so
complex and of such a nature that it will take nothing less than a special
concentrated long-term effort to eliminate them.
So far no major city in
the country has been successful in eliminating them.
The Model Neighborhood Program can bring about t he special concentrated
effort which is needed to alleviate the conditions of the ' Model Neighborhood'
area.
It is designed to pool the resources of the city, county, state,
and federal governments along with tho se of private interest groups to
make a total attack on the serious and widespread problems of the area
for a period of several years.
The funds it provides will support the
pr gram through the planning and implementation stages.
However, if the Model Neighborhood Program is to avoid the mistakes
of many previous efforts to help slwn residents it is very important that
the pr gram be carefully planned and that local residents be involved
throughout all stages of planning.
The purpose of this report is to show
how c mmunity par ticipation ean be effectively fitted into the planning
f the M del Nei~hborho0d Pr gram.
-2-
�Hence the neighborhood groups of the area should be capable of
fer.ming such a cemmittee which can wor k with the planners and
relay this work to the 'grass ro0ts' groups .
It has been
suggested that the steering committee of the various neighb0rhood
gr oups in the area serve this function .
PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING
The federal government has set the pr ocedure s for the planning of the
Model NeighborhQod Program.
The period allowed f or planning is one year,
beginning with the date of the congressional announcement of the program
(Nov. 15, 1967 - Nov• . 15, 1968).
During t his period t he foll0wing planning
items have to be submitted to the fe de ral government for approval:
1.
Problem Analysis, Goals & Progra~ Strategy Statement
2.
Five -Year Pl an
3. Firs t-Year Action Progr am
4.
Pl anning and Evaluation Progr am
S.
Statement of Administ rative St ructLITe for Impl ement ation
Of t hese planning submission requirements , the firs t one - the Problem
Analysis, Goals and Program St rategy'Statemeht - i s probably the most important,
as it will set the stage for the rest of the planning effort.
It will
establish the general orientation of the Five-Year Plan and the FirstYear Action Program and will initiate the general procedures for community
participation in planning.
Thus, it can serve as a guide as to how the
local residents will be involved in plam1ing.
-3-
�PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOALS AND PROGRAM STRATEGY STAT~j§JIT-GUIDE TO COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
The preparation of the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program Strategy
is divided into three stages or milestones:
Strategy.
Problem Analysis; Goals; and
It is intended that the Model Neighborhood planning staff and
the community will be working cl0sely toget her in this preparation so that
the best of their ideas will go into the f inal statement submitted to
HUD.
(1)
DISCUSSION REPORTS
The basis 0f the working relationship between the Model Neighborhood
planning st aff and community will cent er ar oLU1d discussion repor ts to
cover each milestone:
Problems; Goals; and Strategy.
These reports will
be done by the planning staff and designed to st imulate discussion among
t he r esi dents .
They will not be the f inal word on anything, but merely
present t he information available to the pl anning st aff so as to initi ate
community involvement and discussion on t he significant pl anni ng is sues.
The community will be able to criticize , add to and/or subtract from the
reports .
F0r exampl e , t he f irst r epor t will cover the subject:
Problem Analysis
and attempt to identify and survey the major condi t ions and problems of
the Model Neighborhood area which ju st ify treatment.
a.
It will:
define and document the major conditi0ns And problems as far as
available data will allow and according to f ollowing categories:
employment; housing ; schools; recreation ; land use; health
services; family, legal services; police protection.; ,and 'ether.
-4-
�b.
preseBt the i..nforrnati0n in a simple and concise manner so th2t
lay citizens will have a minimum amount of tr<:mble in reading it.
c.
provide a brief questionnaire on which residents can rate the
priority of problems in their community according to the above
categories in (a).
d.
provide space in which residents caD criticize the contents of
the report, i.e., redefine problems, r eorganize data, contribute
additional ideas, etc.
(2)
DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS
The reports are to be distributed to each of the six communicities in
the Model Neighborhood area.
They will include infonnation on the area as
a whole and on the particular community to which it is distributed.
It probably will not be feasible to get written responses from all
residents ef the area.
But perhaps certain people frem each community
could be responsible for surveying the responses of the residents,
summarizing them, and writing them down to be ret urned to the planning
staff.
The reports will be all wed to circulate for a maximum period of
two weeks.
This should give enough time for r esidents to gather up
their written responses te the report.
Also during this time it would
be desirable to have a general meeting in each community, whe r e residents
can _freely express their own ideas ab0ut the subj ect matter of the report.
After this circulation period which hopefully will br ing about
fruitful dialogue and exchanges between the planners and the cormnunity,
the planning staff should then be in a position to draw up final reports
on Pr blems, Goals and St rategy which fully incorporate the ideas of
�the residents.
These reports would then make up the final Problem
Analysis, Goals, and Pregram Strategy Sta tement .
ATTACHMENTS
Attached to this report are:
1.
a chart which shows how the deadline dates and circulation periods
of the discussion reports fit int0 the work program for the
Problem Analysis, Geals, and Progr am Strategy Statement .
2.
a sample outline of Rep0rt #1, Probl em Analysis.
- 6 -
�DISCUSSION REPORTS CHART
PLANNING ACTIVITY
Milestone
Work Tasks
Jan .
Feb.
Mar .
Apr.
May
l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
-
1) Problem Analysis
Goals and Strategy
Swnmary ef Tasks
l) Citizen or i entation
2) Problem Analysis
3) Goals Development
4) Strate gy
5) Pr eparation of Report
A) Preblem Analysis
Report #1
1) Assemble Availabl e Data
2) Decision on Additional Data Requi red
3) Gather Additional Data Required
4) Citizen Analysis of Problems
5) Summarize and .Anal yze
6) Pr epare Report
Legend
Deadline for distributing reports to community .A
Circulation period - - - - Deadline for collection reports from community -y
-
·- .--I- -
-
�Jan.
Miltest0ne
Werk Tasks
Feb .
Mar.
Apr.
Summary of Tasks
'
B) Goals
Report #2
1) Decument Exi sting Goal s
2) Citizen Goals Set ting
3) Synthesis and Repor t Pr eparation
C) Str ategy
Report #3
1) Devel 0p Program Approach
2) Establish Program Pr i ority
3) I denti fy Cr itical Changes Requir ed
4) Report Preparation
I
May
1234 1234 1234 1234 1234
•--,
-
L..
---.
--
�REPORT #1 - PROBLEM ANALYSIS
SAMPLE OUTLINE
I.
II.
Introduction
A.
Pu~pose of report - to identify and document major conditiens ·
and problems of area
B.
Brief description of Model Neighborhood Area and its six
communities
Problems of Model Neighborhood Area as a Whole
1.
2.
3.
4.
s.
I II.
6. Health services
1. Family, legal services
Housing
Employment
Schools
Recreation
Land Use
8.
9.
Police protection and c0mmunity
relations
Other
Problems Which Are Especially Acute In Parti cular C0mmunity
(e.g. Grant Park)
While Grant Park contains all of the proble s affecting the Model
Neighborhood areas as a whole, it is especiall~r har dpressed with
the following pr oblems.
1.
2.
IV.
Employment
Family, legal services
Questionnaire:
How Do You Rate Your Community?
Schools
___god ___fair ___poor
v.
Housing
Etc.
---good --- fair ---poor
Comments
1.
Do you think this report adequat ely covered the main problems
f your neighborhood?
2.
What problems do you find not mentioned in the report?

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_002_001.pdf

Document Viewer