Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
tet FP EA
Coe ere
7
/ Acalled meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee was held on Tuesday,
f
April 25, 1967
April 25, 1967, at 4:00 P.M., at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt
Building.
All members were present as follows:
Mr. Rodney M. Cook, Chairman
Mr. Edwin L. Sterne
Mr. Hugh Pierce
Mr. E. Gregory Griggs
Mr. John M. Flanigen
Mr. George Cotsakis
Mr. Frank Etheridge
Also present were:
Mr. Collier B. Gladin, Planning Director, City of Atlanta
Mr. M. B. Satterfield, Executive Director, Atlanta Housing Authority
Mr. Howard Openshaw, Chief, Planning-Engineering Department,
Atlanta Housing Authority
Mr. Hugh Peterson, King and Spalding, Attorneys
Mr. Les Persells, Director of Redevelopment, Atlanta Housing Authority
Mr. John Hopkins, Atlanta Housing Authority
The Chairman called the meeting io order and the following business was considered:
Note: For the purposes of these minutes and in order to maintain clarity and correlation
of facts, each proposal is written as a single entity. However, all four proposals were
jointly discussed, weighing the merits of each against the other.
At the outset of the meeting, each committee member was presented with the following
material: An individual appraisal of the four Rockdale proposals by: Robert L.
Sommerville; Grace Hamilton; T. M. Alexander and A. B. Padgett, all members of
the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal; a reviewer's rating sheet of the
redevelopment proposals, prepared by the Atlanta Housing Authority. Included in this
appraisal sheet were ratings by the Atlanta Housing Authority, the Atlanta Planning
Department, the American Institute of Planners, the Mayor's Committee on Housing
Resources and the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal. These ratings
were on the basis of from 1 to 4 points, 1 being the most desirable for the development
and 4 the least.
Mr. Persells stated the Housing Authority would prefer to take the position at this
meeting of only answering questions and making clarifications.
lt was agreed that the following format would be followed: The committee would evaluate
Minutes Page 2
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
April 25, 1967
the aspecis of each proposal, pro and con, and by the process of elimination, based on the
merits of design criteria, narrow the consideration to the two top proposals offering the
greatest possibility for development for the objectives which Rockdale should seek jo serve.
The proposal by Marvin Warner was discussed at length. During this discussion, the commitiee
examined closely architectural site plans and perspectives presented by the proposer and made
the following observations and comments - A summarization of these observations, listed below,
led to the subsequeni disqualification of this proposal from consideration:
Flood problems and the apparent placing of some buildings within the flood plain.
Severe grading problems and building construction because of the tremendous
variation in grades.
Doubtful that the site could be graded to comply with the site plans presented.
The land would have to be tailored to the building arrangement, as opposed
to the building to the land.
The severe grading would destroy all trees.
The entire site is covered with buildings, some to within 25 feet of the property
line.
A commendable feature of the plan was the cooperative housing approach
(76% co-op) which would provide for eventual purchase of the units by the
resident.
The proposal by Chruckrow Construction Company was then considered, with the following
observations and comments = again, a summarization of these observations, listed below,
led to the disqualification of this proposal from consideration:
Proposal embraces the "village" concept, which is desirable in principle.
The vehicular street pattern (circular drives) was designed in such a way that
it separated each "village" and actually cut off pedestrian traffic from one
village to another. :
The plans proposed do not fit the topography of the property, and the land
would have to be conformed to the buildings.
The development would be difficult to achieve without costly, extensive .
grading which would create problems.
Minutes Page 3
Urban Renewal Policy Commiitee
April 25, 1967
There is reasonable doubt that the site could even be graded to conform
to the plan because of so many unknowns, such as rock deposits, etc.
Only one small recreation building is proposed in the entire development.
The developer states that under 221(d)(3) developments, swimming pools are
not feasible.
The architectural renderings give a concept of flatness, with no difference
in grades.
A desirable feature of the plan was the flexibility of units and variation
in design.
lt was the opinion of the Policy Committee that the proposals by The Douglas—Arlen
Group and David L. Rosen were the better of the four proposals. These two proposals
were considered in terms of advantages and disadvantages and various sife plans, floor
elevations, efc., were examined throughout the discussion.
Douglas~Arlen Proposal
Advantages:
Proposal embraces the "village" or "cluster" arrangement of buildings.
The buildings conform to the site, rather than the site being conformed
to the buildings.
More community facilities are proposed than in any of the other developments.
Appropro to all of the proposals, the community facilities that are otherwise available in
this area were then pointed out, these being a proposed City park facility, existing and
proposed elementary school, the Gun Club Park and the existing health center, which
are to serve the proposed 1500 units.
lt was noted that a swimming pool could be placed within the City park facility if it was
not provided elsewhere in the development.
Development provides for convenient access from one part of the project
to another.
Has local sponsor.
Minutes
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
April 25, 1967 Page 4
Provides for church sites as called for by the plan.
It was pointed out thai the developer has stated he would not be able to
finance all the proposed community facilities, however, the land would
be available for that purpose if and when financing becomes available - either
from ithe developer or other groups.
Complete separation of pedesirian and vehicular traffic eliminating the
danger of children playing near cars.
Ceniral garbage pick-up is proposed.
A desirable feature was the flexibility in unit arrangemenis - 5% | bedrooms;
50% 2 bedrooms; 35% bedrooms.
Site plan follows the contour of the land.
Entire concept of development minimizes the grading, keeps the cost down
and preserves some of the natural foliage.
Disadvantages:
Serious question of financing major portion of proposed community facilities; yet
this is the foundation around which the entire project is built.
Over-emphasis on the Community Center concept, especially since similar facilities
will be in the nearby park,
The large size of the swimming pool, the paved area and the buildings are unrealistic.
Financing of the community facilities is not an FHA guarantee.
The vast amount of paving proposed could create flood and heat reflection problems.
Developer proposes underpasses (5) and overpasses (2), which it is felt are
generally undesirable.
Excessive walking distance from the parking areas to the dwelling units.
The concept of building arrangemenis utilizes some undesirable building
areas and leaves buildable areas vacant (Example - southeast shopping area).
A questionable feature is the four-story buildings.
The grouping of all community facilities in the very center creates a self-contained
aimosphere, unrelated to its surroundings, particularly the existing community
facilities - health center and school.
Minutes
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
April 25, 1967 Page 5
The developer proposes to sell the project, in its entirety,
to a non-profit sponsor who has had no previous experience
in operating or managing particularly a development of this
enormity and, hopefully, they would get some experienced
people to work with them on this.
Service side of the buildings are oriented to the interior courts,
making access to service vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) difficult.
David L. Rosen Proposal
Advantages:
Dwelling units are further removed from the rock quarry
than the other three proposals.
Access galleries to each unit, permitting cross ventilation.
No effort has been made to grade the interior Court concept,
leaving the area fairly natural. This would avoid heat reflection
problems and reduce cost.
The parking is recessed so that it is lower than the dwelling units.
This would eliminate visibility of parking lots from the dwelling
units. (It was noted this was listed as a disadvantage by one of
the proposers).
Developer is investing maximum money in the units.
The perspectives presented indicate a clear understanding of the
rough grades.
Pedesirian streets are proposed throughout the project.
The service sides of the buildings are oriented to the outside,
providing better access for service vehicles; and the living
rooms of the units face grassed areas and walks, rather than
paving.
A more complete separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Grouping of the proposed church, health center and community center
will provide for convenience and joint use of parking areas.
Minutes
Urban Renewal Policy Commiiiee
April 25, 1967 Page 6
Two swimming pools are guaranteed by the developer, one for
children and one for adults, with small recreation areas around
the pools.
In every instance the parking is adjacent to the buildings and
recessed so as not to be visible from the units.
Developer will utilize FCH foundation cooperative housing, a
very substantial sponsor who will assist in the financing and
will conduct the advertising and sales program for the develop-
meni.
Design of the units provides built-in flexibility, allowing con-
tracting or expanding of units with the same outside walls; this
will permit developer to compete with the market, and meet
tenants' needs.
Five church sites are proposed.
The developer proposes to retain a major personal investment in
the project and operate it personally.
Disadvantages:
The providing of 1386 units, rather than 1500, is questionable
since it provides that much less housing for people.
Some adjustment should be made in the secondary entrance
road to the project so that it would not funnel traffic through
the rock quarry entrance, and vice-versa. This would necessi-
tate adjustment of a few buildings.
85% of the units are 3-story garden apartments located on the
contours; hopefully they would be adjusted to minimize the
levels and steps to the units.
Recapitulation of the recommendations of the various organizations and groups:
City of Atlanta Planning Department - David L. Rosen proposal.
Atlanta Housing Authority - David L. Rosen proposal.
Citizen's Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal = David L. Rosen
proposal = 3 ito 1.
American Institute of Planners - David L. Rosen proposal.
Minutes Page 7
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
April 25, 1967
American Institute of Architects - No specific recommendation,
but favored the Douglas-Arlen proposal.
Mayor's Committee on Housing Resources - Douglas—Arlen proposal .
The Urban Renewal Policy Committee, with all but one member present, and after ©
' .evaluation of each of the proposals and written comments ‘submited by the organi-
zations listed above, upon motion by Mr. Flanigen, seconded by Messrs. Etheridge
and Coisakis, unanimously recommended to the Board of Commissioners of the
Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, the acceptance of the David
L. Rosen proposal. Alderman Pierce had to leave the meeting before its conclusion
_and based on facts presented up to the time of his departure stated he favored the
Rosen proposal and asked that the Chairman so register his vote in Executive Session.
RRR EERE KER EEE
There being no further business, the meeting was. adjourned.
REKKRREKERE KEK KE
ie os Sig 4 - Cats Respectfully submitted,
as Cook, Chairman Rak! Ro) gh AT ot Joanne Parks, Secretary
OS
JSP /|m