Box 20, Folder 20, Document 6

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_020_006.pdf

Dublin Core

Title

Box 20, Folder 20, Document 6

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

I
.r
June 12, 1967
0
A j oint meet i ng of the Ur ba n Renewal Policy Committee and the Board of
Commi s sio ners of t he At l a nta Housing Authority was held on Monday, June 12,
1967 at 11: 15 A. M. in the Hickory Hill Salon of the Marriot to discuss
t he awarding o f the bid in the University Center Urban Redevelopment Area.
The f ollowing Members we re pres e nt:
w
(/)
~
w
CL
dj
~



J




c:::
0
0
ro
Mr .
Mr.
Mr .
Mr .
Mr .
Mr .
Rodney Cook , Chairman
E . . Gregor y Griggs
John M. Fl anigen
Hugh Pi e rce
Frank Etherid ge
Edwin L. Sterne
Mr . George Cotsakis
Also pre se nt were :
Mr . M. B. Sat t erfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing
Authority .
Mr . Le s Pers el l s , Director of Redevelopment, AHA.
Mr . Howard Opens haw, Chief , Pl anning-Engineering Depa rtment,
At l a n ta Housing Author ity.
Mr . J . B. Blayton , Membe r, Boa rd of Commissioner s, Atlanta
Housing Au t ho r i t y.
Mr . Collie r Glad in, Planning Director, City of Atlanta,
Seve n redevelopers submit t e d propos al s , lis ted below, consisting of nar rative
st a teme nt s , a ccompanied by drawings showing site plans, floor plans, elevat i o ns and pe rspe ctives , which we r e on display for discussion and examinati on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pri nc e Ha ll Mas onic Lodge # 1
Pri nce Hall Mas oni c Lodge # 2
Civic Ho usi ng As s ociate s, I nc .
Atl a nt a Bui lding & Deve lopme nt Corporat io n
Ce lotex Co r poration
Department o f Minimum Salari e s , AME Chur ch
Diamond & Kaye Prop erties
Mr . Perse lls explained tha t the various reviewers ha d rat e d each proposal
f airly equa l ins ofar a s t he i r cla iber of development is conc erned.
@)
=he committee p r oc e eded to di s cuss each propos a l, pr o and con.
~he question o f modifi cation of plans by FHA ( r e gardless of who the dev e loper
is) and what constitu te s a mi nor a nd ma jor change of plans wa s discuss ed
at length . Mr . Pe rsell s s a id that in dis cussions wi t h FHA abo ut t hi s
particu lar point , the Housing Au t ho ri ty wa s ass ured that any changes requested would be within the or i ginal concept of d eve lopment . Mr . Cotsakis raised
the ques t i on of providi ng ai r-conditioning in t he units , stating he felt
it would be highly de sirab l e.
�Minutes
Urba n Renewal Policy Committee
J une 12, 1967
Page 2
0
~rr . Pers e ll s s tated that in 22l(d)(3) developments this is not an FHA
requirement a nd the re is no way of subjecting a developer to it; that some
co ns i derat ion is being given to this in a development in the RawsonWashi ngt on proj ect area; in the case of the 7 proposals at hand, one propo se s air-condi t ioning and the other six can supply unit conditioners
later. Incidentally, Mr. Persells stated this would be considered a minor
plan change .
Mr . Etheridge st at ed that keeping in mind this property forms the entrance
way t o At l anta 's Negro college complex, his concept of development would
be t o go h i gh-rise, in order to allow more open space, and orient it to
the col lege comp l ex , rather than to the overall housing problem. He ·
suggested the h i gh-ris e could be placed in the interior of the development
with the l ow- r is e structu re s a round it, at the entrance way to the col l ege
complex . Thi s concept would tie in with the colleges' proposal to place
low- r ise buildings for faculty and students in a fourth of their property.
There was f urthe r discussion as to whether or not it would be ethical for
the c ommittee t o negot iate with a developer on a plan change after the award
was made .
Mr . Persells stated tha t minor changes vs. major changes gets to be a matter
of opinion , but he fe lt you could negotiate with the winning develop e r
within the conc ept of the original development, but as to the question
o f hi gh rise, pe r se , he fel t if this was deemed advisable for the area ,
each developer wou ld have to be given an opportunity to submit plans based
on a high- rise concept s inc e , in his opinion, this would constitute a
ma jor cha nge .
He also ment ioned that no wa ivers were granted in any of the propos a ls.
The Chairman then called f or a decision .
The Committ ee adopted, by unanimous co nsent, p r oposal number 5 by t h e
Celo tex Corporation with proposal number 1 by Prince Ha l l Masonic Lodge


1 a s a second c hoi c e .


There be i ng no f urther business, the meeting was adjourned.






































Approved:
me
Respectfully submitted,

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_020_006.pdf

Document Viewer