Box 20, Folder 27, Complete Folder

Dublin Core


Box 20, Folder 27, Complete Folder

Text Item Type Metadata


WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board of Aldermen
on March 6, 1967, the City of Atlanta has submitted an application to the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Model Cities planning grant
under Title I of the Demonstration Cities and M~tropol itan Development Act of
1966 and,
WHEREAS, the announcement of those cities which have been chosen
to receive such grants was made November 16, 1967 and,
WHEREAS, Atlanta is among those cities chosen and,
WHEREAS, it is important that the planning phase of this program be
started immediate Iy since th is phase is Iim i ted to a one year period and,
WHEREAS, in its application the City proposed that the authority
and responsibility for administering the planning phase of this program be vested
in an Executive Board composed of the Mayor of Atlanta; two members of the Board
of Aldermen; the President of the Atlanta School Board; the Chairman of the Fulton
County Commission; one member to be appointed by the Governor; and three members
to represent the private sector of the community; one from the general public,
one from among the City's Negro leadership and one from the Model Neighborhood
Area residents.
NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of
Aldermen that the Model Neighborhood Executive Board is hereby created for the
purpose of admin istering the planning phase of such program which is conducted
under Title I of the Demonstration Ci tie~ and Metropolitan Development Act of
~966, commonly known as the Model Cities Program, and for which federal financial
assistance is received.
THAT the Model Neighborhood Executive Board shall be composed of
the Mayor of the City of Atlanta, who shall serve as Chairman; two members of the

.._c·c.;:-=-:-:=.::·===-=-:...::-=--=--=-=-====-=- -·----.,------~- ·- - - -- ··- -- --- - --

-2 ..
Board of Alde rmen, to be selected by the membership of that body~ one of which
sh al I be from among those members representing the first and fourth wards; the
President of the Atlanta School Board; the Chairman of the Fulton County Commission;
one member to be appointed by the Governor; and three members to represent the
private sector of the community, one to be appointed by the Mayor from the
. general public, one to be appointed by the Mayor from among the City•s Negro
leadership, and one to be selected by and from the membership of a committee to be
formed representing the citizens of the Model Neighborhood Area (Model Neighborhood
Area Council).
THAT the Model Neighborhood Executive Board shall have the
authority and responsibility for administering the planning phase of the City's Model
Neighbo rhood Program, including the approval of plans and work programs developed
by the project staff and the reconciling of conflicting plans, goals, programs,
priorities and time schedules of the various participating agencies; and shall have
the responsibility for recommending to the Board of Aldermen the allocation of grant
funds received for this program from the Federal Government.
THAT the Mayor is requested to make such appointments as he 1s
authorized to make under the above provisions and is further requested to contact the
Fu Iton County Commission, the Atlanta Board of Education and the Governor
of Georgia, and to request that they make appoin tments to the Model Neighborhood
Executive Board in conformance with the above provisions.

-··-- -····-----
- -- ---- - - - - ---- - - -
. ~t(/)
July 21, 1967
A regu /a;ly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the
Board of Aldermen was held 9n Friday, July 21, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. in Committee
Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall.
The following Members were present:
Rodney Cook, Chairman
E. Gregory Griggs
John Flanigen
George Cotsakis
Q. V. Williamson
Charles Leftwich
Jack Summers
Also Present: Collier Gladin, Planning Director
Sam Masseli, Vice-Mayor
Tom Shuttleworth, Departmental Staff
Robert Lyle, Associate City Attorney
The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was
Public Hearing - Annexation Petition.
Chairman Cook explained this annexation involved 47 lots lying to the
north of Jett Road, contiguous to the city limits of Atlanta; that the petition
for annexation by the residents of the area has qualified for public hearing
under the criteria established by law.
Mr. Gladin briefly explained that 27.62 acres were involved, totaling 47
lots. Of these 47 lots, 44 are occupied and 3 are vacant. He then stated
under the requirements of Section 6 of the Annexation Ordinance, the City is
required to make plans for the extension of services to the area proposed to
be annexed and shall, prior to the public hearing provided for in Section 3 of
said Ordinance, prepare a report setting forth such plans to provide services
to such area .
Mr. Gladin then submitted said report, stating that the Department's of Fire,
Police, Construction, Water and Sanitation have indicated, by letters included
in the report, that adequa te services can be provided to the annexed area.
He stated that the Department of Planning recommends approval of this petition.
show of hands indicated about 10 people were present in favor of the annexation
and about 6 in opposition .
The Chairman stated the Committee would hear from those in favor and then the
First, Mr. John Sikes of Bryn Mawr Circle appeared and tendered a signed
list of persons wishing to withdraw their names from the petition they previously
signed for annexation to the City of Atlanta. He also submitted a separate
petition of opposition for the record. The proponents asked that the names on
Planning and Development Committee
July 21, 1967
Page 2
this petition be read aloud, which th e Chairman did, as follows: Barbara S.
Newland; Marshall C. Newland; Constance W. Balnis; Henry J. Balnis; W. B. Ray,
III; Mrs. W. B. Ray; James M. Robinson; Frank J. Breunig, Jr., and Jane R.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Glad in to che ck this list against t he original
petition to determine if it would still qualify. However, the staff was unable
to determine this during the meeting because of the complexity of such calculations.
The following persons then spoke in favor of the annexation:
MR. C. A. LORENZEN, 4624 JETTRIDGE DRIVE. - I have been a resident of Atlanta
for two years and have resided on J ett rid ge all that time. We have bee~ very
inter e st ed in becoming a part of the City of Atlanta since moving he r e . My wife
submitted a petition in 1965 but at tha t time the annexation issue was coming up
and in view of this it was thought advisable that the petition be withheld. I
feel there are tremendous advantages for the people in Fulton County and the people
living adjacent to Atlanta to being a part of the City. I think Atlanta is a
very progressive City. I think that in order for Atlanta to grow that the community
surrounding the cities has tribe a part of it. Those of us in Fulton who work in
Atlanta have got to help the City grow. We earn our salary here and I think that
we are a part of Atlanta, therefore, it is absolutely essential that petitions
similar to this be adopted.
MR. GEORGE FREER, 4625 BROOKHOLLOW ROAD. - I am a new resident of Atlanta,
but I am very interested in this a r e a becoming a part of t he City because we are
par t o f the City. We lpartake of the services and the name of the City and we are
hopeful of partaking of the government of the City of Atlanta. Thos e of us in the
proposed area do not have adequate f ire protection. I believe those of us who have
children are very interested in comi ng in the Atlanta School System. We can se e
nothing but good, as far as the s e rvices of the government of the City of Atla nta,
that would come of us becoming a part. Whe n i t comes time to dispose of our
property , it is much more in our favor that this property be within the city limits.
I want to go on record as supporting it wholeheartedly.
MR. DICK HODGES , 4615 BROOKHOLLOW ROAD, supported the annexation for the basic
reasons as previously stated.
MR. GENE STELTEN, TWIN SPRINGS ROAD, - From an accompanying map on display,
Mr . Stelten pointed out that this area is basically divided into three divisions Mil lbrook and two others, which have been developed a s subdivisions longer than
Mi llbrook. He s tated that the s e ntiment f o r annexation in the Millbrook subdivision
is about 83% o f the homeowners and 81% of the ele c tors, so they are ovenvhelmingly
in favor of it. To the south (Jettridge Fo rest Subdivision) prior to the submittal
of the withdrawal petition, the people were 47% in f avor of annexation by homeowners and 40% by electors, so the sentiment here is strong for annexation. In the
third subdivision (3 lots on Bryn Mawr Circle cul-de-sac) the sentiment for annexation was less than 50%. The names on that petition fall within this group. If
this will make a difference in your deliberation, I wanted to point out this factor.
Planning and Development Committee
July 21, 1967
Page 3


There were then random questions and answers from the audience.
Q - I have a senior going to Sandy Springs. Will she be able to finish
the last year at Sandy Springs"? Mr. Gladin replied affirmatively.
"Is there any change anticipated in the sewer arrangement in the whole area;
will any additional sewers be needed?" Mr. Gladin stated there are no anticipated new sewers.
Q - "Will our homes be reappraised for tax purposes and what experience
do you have as far as appraisals goes?"
Chairman Cook replied the homes will not be reappraised since there now
exists a joint City-County Board which functions for both governments. As to
past experience, Mr. Cook cited the case of the Sa ndy Springs Annexation, as .
an example, stating there would have been a moderate increase in ad valorem
taxes if annexed to the city, however, this would have been largely offset by
lower charges in other areas, such as water, fire, sanitation, etc. and he felt
this would be typical with the ~ase at h~nd.
Q - "In talking with the people, the fears expressed had to do with installation of new service facilities and higher taxes. Can you give us some assurances
about this since this is our main fear?"



In response to this question, Mr . Cook read aloud the letters f from the
Water Department, the Construction Department and the Police Department. These
letters are on file in the proper Docket.
Q - "If this is approved will our children be transferred to other schools
in September?"
Mr. Cook stated they can be transferred this September, but graduating seniors
can elect to remain in the school they _are presently in until graduation.
Q - "If this is approved, when would this area become a part of the City 1"
Mr. Gladin stated if it is approved by this Committ ee today, it wou ld go
to the fo llowing meeting ' of the f ull Board of Aldermen for f ormal action, and
woul d become effective on signatu re of the Mayor, which would be sho rtly there-
Q - "When would the tax es become effective ?"
Mr. Cook stated the City of Atlanta taxes would become applicable January 1,
1968 but the City services would become effective immediately.
JOHN SIKES, 4575 BRYN MAWR CIRCLE , spoke in opposition. There are three
homes on my street seeking to come in. The first basis of my objection is a
number of people in the neighborhood appeared t o want to c ome into the City
because they feel it wil l affect their house values. They have tried to sell
Planning and Development Committee
Ju l y 21, 1967

Page 4
and lost buyers because they are not in the city. They feel this is a
situation where they can help their property val ues so they can move away
and increase our taxes . They are not looking to pay the extra taxes . My
sec ond objection is the Dykes High School. If you put one more child in
Dykes, the walls will burst out. I understand it will be a couple of years
before more spac e would be available. Mo st of the people in the lower end
o f Jettridge where the opposition i s coming from have had children in the
county school and we like the county schools. Most of the people tal king
about going into the City s choo ls are the more re cent residents further out
and they have not had the good experience with the County schoo ls we have.
We resent being "saddled" with ext ra taxes to set up a number of people beyond
us to see this as a added value inducement.





ALICE STROMQUIST , 4540 JETTRIDGE DRIVE, spoke in opposition, stating
she had hoped to wait until all of Sa ndy Springs could be brought in .
MR . JOHN BURNETT , 4545 JETTRIDGE DRIVE. The proponents mentioned inadequate fire protection~ There is a fire station down at We st Conway and
Northside Drive which services this area. I don ' t know what e l se could be
done by the way of additional fire protection. We pay an extra mill t ax to
use that fire station. I could drive to t his station in about a minute.
In response to the question of increased taxes, Mr. Cook stated to Mr .
Sikes the staff would be glad to provide him with the differenc e in tax figures
on an individual basis if he would like, and he believed the people would be
surprised at how little the difference will be, taking into account the reduced
cost of services from the increase.
Regarding fire rates, Mr. Cook stated, if you come inside the City taxes
would be r e duced by one mill, which you are now paying for fire protection, and
your fire protection will be increas ed with a likely reduction in f ire ra t e s.
J OHN BEAMER , 4525 J ETTRIDGE DRIVE. I don't want to be a nnexed primarily
because o f the school situation, until Dykes has additional fa cilit ies .
Mr . Cook stated the staff nor the committee had heard any oppos ition until
today and all efforts until now has been to get the children in the city schools
by September. If you wish to keep your children where they are and try to work
it out with the School Depar tment, we will che ck on the schoo l situation . The
new Dyke s High School has been f unded; so has the new elementary school on Mt .
Pa r a n. Both we r e f unded in 1965. The land has been bought and the money is
a vail able . The contract should b e l e t in the Spr ing and cons t ruction st a r ted.
It will be about an 18 month building program.
From the a udience - "we are not against coming into the City.
t he timing is bad."
We jus t t hink
A young lady, who did no t ide ntify herse l f , sta t e d tha t a schoo l teacher ,
who has taught in bo th the City a nd County s chools there is a va s t difference
in the t wo systems, t he City being t he better one.
.:::...- ~
Planning and Development Committee
July 21, 1967
Page 5
Q-"Will the new Dykes High School be consolidated ?"
Mr. Cook stated he could a s sure everyone there will not be a consolidated
school. I think the schools are loc ated with the possibility of annexation in
1mind in relationship to the population.
Q later? 11
Will there be the possibility of any annexation around th~ new School
Mr. Cook stated they could petition for annexation if they elected to.
Mr . Sikes stated that since everybody below this line (pointing to · the map)
wants to stay out to take this area which is the last and newest of the three
subdivision .and l eave the area as it is.
Mr . Cook stated the Committee would look into this in Executive Session.
Mr~ Cook asked the audience if most o f the ir objections have to do with
the schools, to which those in opposition replied yes.
Mr . Cook asked them if the school p r ob l ems could be worked out, would this
Mr . Sikes stated this is actually an over-simplification since some of the .
people who withdrew their names do not have c hildren , but this would be desirable.
The matter was then referred to Exe cuti ve Session.
In Executive Session, f ollowing a discussion period, the Committ ee unanimously
agreed t o approve the Or d i nance , sub ject to it qualifying under the 60% elector's
requirement and the 60% land a rea requi rement, and f urther, t hat the Planning
Department staff wo uld che ck with th e Board o f Education to see if t he children
in the area could continue at county school s in c ases where their parents do
not wish them to be transfe rred t o city schoo ls.
Tre e Or dinance - Public Hearing .
Mr . Cook brie f ly expl ai ned the p urpose and intent of the Tree Ordinance, and
then called on Mr. Gl adin, Planning Director, who bri ef ly revi ewed the 27 sections
of the Ordi nance , emphas izing it covers two major areas , one o f pro tection, t h e
other of p l anting and maintenance.
Mr. Cook then recognized and expressed appreciation f o~ the large audience
in attendance f o r the hearing and opened the meeting t o questions and answers.
Q - "Is this restricted t o just scenic routes and main thorough f ares, or .will
it be in all neighborhoods"?
Planning and Development Committee
July 21, 196~
Page 6
Mr. Gl a din stated it is res tr icted to the St reet Tree Plant i ng Zone along
Major Thoroughfares and Scenic Drives, as defined in the Ordinance, with the
Exeception of Section 10, which relates to the stripping of property over the
entire City.
From the audience - There are other places in the City that should also
be protected.
Q - "What is the definition of a major and minor street"?
Mr. Cook stat ed that a listing of these streets is available; that they
are streets, such as Pe achtree, Ponce de Leon, etc.
Mr. Gl a din further exp l a ined they are radials f rom the Central Business
District that link the expressway to the Central Business District and outlying
Mr . Cook stated they are based largely on traffic and width size.
Q - "Is there a section alre ady related to ex isting residences or is it
applicable to property if there is a house there or not?"
Mr. Cook stated it is relat ed to a ny residentially zoned property in so far
as the Tree Protective Zone is concerned.
The f ollowing p ersons the n spoke in support of t he Tree Ordinance:
Mr . Be n Jones, Vice-P r esident of t he Spri ng lake Civic As sociat i on ; Mr s.
Wa l l ac e And e rson, in beh a l f o f t he League o f Wome n Vot e rs (A St ate me nt was
p r esented f or the r eco rd) ; Mr s . C. R. Brumb l y , Member and Offi c er o f the Fu l ton
Co unty Federat io n o f Ga r den Club s; Euge ne Lowry, Ar chi t ect; Ma r y Nikas , 85
Avery Drive , N. E.; Ann Mo ore, Cha i rman o f the Downt own Beauti f ica tion Commit tee
o f the Chamber of Commerc e ; Jo e Ha rre l l , J r ., Co ll ier Hi ll s Civic As soc iat ion;
Me lba Ciferly , Geo r gi a Co nse rvancy; Joc e l y n Hi ll, Geo rg i a Bo t an t ic al Soci ety; Ed
Da ugherty , La ndsc ape Archi te c t and Ha rry Ba ldwi n , At l anta Ci vic Des i gn Commission.
Ge ral d Thurman, Att orney , represent ing t h e Geor g i a Power Comp any , pro te s ted c ertain
portions o f the Tree Or di na nc e s ay ing i t wou l d i nt erfe r e wi t h Georgia Power' s
r ou t ine t opping o f tree s t o prote c t l i nes; that t hey fa vo r t he Ordinan c e itself,
but wou l d r e que s t an amendme nt whic h wo u ld ke ep it fr om i nterfer i ng with the
company' s wo rk.
Mr. Cook explai ned tha t the late s t re vi sed d raft o f t he Ordinanc e r emoved
the t ree pl anting and ma i ntena nce standards se c ti ons, which wo uld eliminate
mos t of Georgia Power' s obje c tions.
C. D. Le bey, Jr . , President o f the At l a nt a Real Estat e Board, said hi s
o rganiz a tio n a g r eed wi t h the inte nt o f the Or dinance, but fel t tha t a s pre se ntly
drawn it would v es t too much po~er in o ne ma n, namely, t he " City Arbo ri s t".
In a nswer t o ques t ioning by Chai rman Cook , he s ugges t ed a better approach
would be t hrough s tre ngthe ni ng the Zo ning Ord inances .
Planning and Development Committee
July 21, 1967
Page 7
A representative of the Tel ephone Company, who did not submit his name,
supported the position of the Georgia Power Company.
Warren Coleman, immediate past President of the Men's Garden Club of
Atlanta, spoke in support of the Tree Ordinance, as did Wadley Duckworth,
resident of North Atlanta; and Edith Henderson, Architect and Member of the
Atlanta Civic Design Commission.
Mr. Sam Massell, Vice-Mayor, asked Mrs. Henderson if she felt as an architect
that sidewalks must follow a straight line; that the Ordinance now prohibits trees
within five (5) feet of the sidewalk and that he was opposed to this and would
like her opinion.
Mrs. Henderson replied that she did not fee l tha t sidewalks should be in
a stra ight line; that the last place a tree should be is between the sidewalk
and the street. That she felt it would be desirable for the trees to be planted
on property off the sidewalk and arch over the street.
Mrs. Rascal Vernard, Garden Club of Georgia, and John Mixon of the Georgia
Foresty Commission, spoke in support of the Ordinance.
The matter was then referred to Executive Session.
In Executive Session, the Committee discussed the proposed ordinance which
had been re-drafted to delete the tree pl a nt ing program in addition to s eve ral
oth er change s as proposed by the staff (s ee draft "C") section by sec t ion suggesting t hat several a dditional changes be made. The maj or change as re commended
by Mr . Lyl e of the Ci ty Attorney's Of fice was that the Tree Protective Zone
apply to all city streets rather than just major stre ets since he fe lt that
under the police powers of the City this would be considered less descrimi natory
by the Court s.
The Committee gav e tentative approval to the ordinance s ubj e ct to the sugges ted changes b eing made by the staff with the a id o f the City Attor ney 's Offi ce,
with the re-drafted o rdinanc e being brought back t o the Committee for their
final approval.
Mr. Gladin presented each Committee member with a preliminary staff report
on the amount of vacant l and in the Ci ty of Atlanta by zoning districts. This
information was compiled for and furnished to the Hou s ing Resources Committee.
The report recommended a joint meeting o f these two Committees to examine the
City's housing policy.
There being no further business , the meeting wa s adjourned.


Planning and Development Committee
July 21, 1967
Page 8
Respectfully submitted:
Collier Gladin
Planning Director

.?/ / / '. - ·_,.,,
Joanne Parks
�June 21, 1967
A regul ,··y scheduled meeting of the Pl a n n ing and Deve lopment Comm ittee o f the
Boa rd of Aldermen was held on Friday , June 21 , 1967 at 2: 00 P. M . 1n Com mitte e
Room #2 , Second Fl oor , C ity Hall.
T e following Members were prese nt:
Rod ne y Cook, Chairm an
E. Gregory G riggs
Jo hn Flanigen
J a c k Sum mers
Q . V. Williamson
C harles Le ftw ic h
G eorge Cotsak · s
he Cha irman cal led th e meeting to order and the fol lowing business wa s
co nside e d:
lnit ia rev iew of the upda ted La nd Use Plan .
I ,
. ·,.


- h is p la n was on displa y for viewing . Als o on di sp lay were supporting mcps
o f va r· ous studies whic h furnished da ta for th e u pdated Land Use Plan .
P"er c e Mahon y of the depa -rmental staff , in presenting the u pdated Pla n to
tne Comm ittee , gave a ba c kground talk on th e history of plann ing efforts in
At anra , using 1958 as a reference poi nt . Br ie f ly summar ized , he stated tha t th en

.J; an
-a began to get in to comprehensive p lanni ng , as a resu It of urba n renewa l

a .d an .ual re c ertificati on re9uir eme nts of th e Workable Program; in 1963 the
Housing Code Comp li an ce P·ogram was initi ated; in 1964 and 1 65 the C ity e ngaged
in th e Commun ity Improvemen t Program; al so in 1 65 a s a result of the 1962 Highw ay
Ac t and the Atlanta Are a Trcm spo rtat ion Study, an ag reement was made amo ng the
C ity , State , Atlanta Reg ion Met opoli tan Pla nn in g Commission and th e fv e cou nty
juri sdi c tion s to in i t ia te a stud y _,k now n as P-37. This is a Federally a ssiste d
orogram for making po pul ati o n an d economic projections (for the AAT S) throu gh out
the me ropolitan area for 1983, includi ng At lanl·a, of what the housi ng ne e ds a re
end the number of jobs by three di fferen t c ate gories - commercial, indus t r ia l nd
servi c e. Mr . Mahon y th en st a ted th a t al I of these studies and activities have fu ·n ished
aata for and have bee n incorpo ra te d into the upd ated Land Use Plen, pro iec ted
i"o the yea r ' 983. He bri efly ta lked on pa st la nd use trends and what w e e nvision
the fut u,e. Tw o importan t po in ts empha sized by Mr . Maho ny du r in g hi s presentati o n
wast e lee k of invol vem ent and a cceptan c e o f th e 1958 Plan a nd w hy, and the need

or their (c·ty o fri cials) in vo lv ement e d u nderstand ing of thi s o ne a nd why it should

.:,e come :heir p '.::. .-, . As a pa rt o f '-h e u pdated La nd Use Pl an , some e mph as is has been placed
u;)C,n inc . eased spac e for industr ia l devel o pm en t and Mr . Mah on y st a ted th e pla nning
sta~r is p·epared to recomm e nd that an " Ind us t rial Develo pm en t Program" be insituted
�M " 1u tes
Planning and Deve lopmen'" Committee
une 21, 1967
Page 2
by th e C ity to se c u. industrial sites a nd de velop them to fil l a gap that is not now being
met . Also, the u pd te d Plan emphasized th e need for higher resident ia l den sity' be c ause o f
limited mounts of spa c e , in effe ct, a pol ic y of prom oting high rise apartme nt bu i ldi ngs .
Suc h a poli c y would make mo re la nd availa ble for si ngl e family use.
There was i·he, some dis c ussion as to th e status the Plan w ou Id have if adop ted .
Mr. Cook stc te II le ' s do n 1 i" ad o pt th is Pla n and th en no t pay any a ttenti o n to it; let's
be serious a bout it and make it work 11 •
Mr. G ia in stated the Pla n is designed to prevent c ha otic and disorg a n ized deve lopment
of the C i·;y; t i" it sh ou ld be used a s a guide , a nd he emphas ized the word guide, in
d"stribu i g ant" c ipated growth of the C ity , however , he st ressed th a t every ac t io n take n
by a lderman·c committees sh ou ld be in co nsiderati on of and in con iunction with this
Land Use Plan .
Mr. M ,ony expla ined that afte r adop ti o n of an overal I Land Use Plan, th e planning staff
would p oce e to develop detailed plans o n a nei gh borh ood- by - ne ighbo rhood basis .
After o th er discussion , ·twas u nanimously a greed that the staff wo ul d make arra ngements
fo every member o , th e Board of Ald ermen to rev iew th is Lan d Use Plan, ind iv idual ly o r
smal I g ro ups , ar.d mak e any suggestions and re comme ndations the y desired to prior to
ar,y offi c ·al a c ti on by the Planning and Development Committee .
C l P Status Repor t.
George Aldridge reported that al I C l P reports are c ompleted, and/ or a re under
comple~·on; that fo ll ow in g re c ent sessio ns o-fthis Committee wi th the co nsul tants, Ca ndeub ,
Fleiss ig & Associate s, th ey have been advised , by lette r, to su bmit all fin al reports , w ith
su ppor t ing do cu mentat ion, as soo n ·as possible, for review by th e staff and th is Committee
cs to contrac i· conformity , u tility and soundness o f recommendati o ns and whether the
cor.sul r::i ts will have to do add iti o nal work, pr io r to adopt io n of the Final C IP Repor t . Mr.
A ld rid ; e stated further it has been estimated an additi o nal three months will be need ed
to c lose out the program and HUD offi cial s have approved this extension; that it does not
re pr-2sent any in crease in the cost of the pro gram. He also said that al I a cc epted do c uments
w· I hGve to be submitted to HUD for approval , after which final co ntra c t payments wou ld
be rr.ade; fol lowing th is w ou Id be the federal a udit a nd co nsummation o f the program.
As t 0 act ion by th is Committee today, Mr. Aldridge requested adoption of a Resolution
co ncu rr ing in the three months• extension.
/l/1r. zftw ic h moved that a Res olu tion to th is effe ct be ad opted and prepared for su bmissi on
to C o J o r. Mo .day , July 3; thi s motion was seconded by Mr. Flanigen a nd carried
u anim m,sly.
Planning and Development Committee
June 21, 1967
Page 3
3. Set date for pub I ic hearing to consider petition for annexation.
Tom Shuttleworth of the departmental staff presented each committee member with
background material on this proposed annexation, explaining it involved 47 lots
located north of Jett Road. He pinpointed this on a map, and then certified to the
committee that the petition for annexation qualified for a public hearing under
the provisions for annexation as set forth by the Legislature and city ordinance and
requested a date for said hearing.
The Committee unanimously voted to hold said public hearing on Friday, July 21,
1967 at 2:00 P. M.
4. Draft revision to Tree Ordinance.
Mr. Mahony presented each Committee member with a copy of the latest revisions
to the Tree Ordinance. Chairman Cook commented it is substantially changed
from the previous draft and Mr. Harkness of the departmental staff has worked closely
with the Home Builders Association on the matter and has obtained their support, in
principle .
After a cursory examination, it was unanimously agreed that the revisions would
require further study, but that the Ordinance could be placed on first reading before
Council on Monday, July 3 and referred back to the Planning and Developme nt
Committee for further study and formal action. It was suggested that if any committee
member had any changes they wished to make in the Ordinance to pleas~ give them
to the staff prior to the Monday Council meeting. It was also agreed that in the interim,
a pub Iic hearing on the Tree Ordinance wou Id be held by the Planning and Development
' '* .


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 P. M.

Approve d:
Collier Gladin, Planning Dire ctor
Respectfull y submi tted,
June 2, 1967


A special meeting of the Planning and -Development ColllI!littee was held on
Friday, June 2, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. in -Committee Room #1, Second Floor,
City Hall.
The following members were present:
Rodney Cook, Chairman
E. Gregory Griggs
John M. Flanigen
Q. V. Williamson
Jack Summers
Charlie Leftwich
George Cotsakis
Also in attendance were:
Collier Gladin
William F. Kennedy
George Aldridge
Izadore Candeub
John Brown


Also at the meeting were various representatives of the press.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was
Mr. Cook stated that the purpose of this meeting is to continue the discussion of the Community Improvement Program, which is to be completed
shortly. He then presented Mr. Candeub who stated that the following points,
which were raised at the last meeting, would be discussed in detail:
Details of individual program sectors.
Priority system methodology.
Background material on development of land use allocations.
He then presented John Brown. Mr. Brown first presented a chart entitled
"Residential Construction by 1983". The chart showed the total number of
existing housing units in the City, based on a 1965 CIP field survey; total
inventory was also shown by standard and substandard units and the number
of new units to be constructed by 1983 was indicated. The projected housing
inventory for 1983 is 217,370 units - 121,470 white occupied units and
95,900 non-white occupied units.
Mr. Flanigen asked Mr. Brown how the housing projections had been derived
and did the consultants have a high and low projection of total city
population for 1983. Mr. Brown explained that this background information
was included fn previous ':co_nomic ·reports. He then presented a second
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Page 2
chart entitled "Residential Land Needed by 1983" and stated that his firm
has assumed one of the objectives of the City of Atlanta is to continue
to provide a large amount of land for detached single family dwellings.
He pointed out that one of the alternative program actions that might be
followed by the City is to decrease the amount of land that is being used
for medium density apartments and to increase the number of high density
apartment developments. He stated further that if present low and medium
density development trends continue there will not be enough land in the
City to accpmmodate the projected number of housing units. He stated this
was, of course, a policy decision to be made by the City of Atlanta.
Mr. Aldridge asked if these figures assumed any annexation by the City
within the time period, to which Mr. Brown stated they did not; that their
allocation is based on present land area, which is either vacant or to be redeveloped, within the present corporate limits.
Mr. Flanigen asked if it is logical to base the projection on the assumption
that no additional area will be annexed to the City.
Mr. Brown stated this was the only basis on which they could work; that it
is impossible to speculate on future bounds of the City.
Mr. Flanigen commented that if the city limits stay the same, instead of
getting high density development, people will move out of the city and the
population will not grow as much as Candeub has projected.
Mr. Brown stated if you propose to cont a in the population growth that is
projected a nd also carry out the program that is projected, this ratio,
or something similar to it, must be accommodated in the city.
Mr. F l anigen said the only way to do this would be to have tenements, which
Atlanta doesn't want.
Mr. Brown stated this is a policy dec ision for the committee' s consideration;
that they have done their program on the assumption that growth will be
contained .
Mr. Cook asked if there was any basis for the ratio of 40% low density;
40% high density and 20% medium density.
Mr. Brown stated there are two bases, one of which is the amount of land
available, including vacant land and land to be redeveloped. The total
projected units for 1983 were fitted into that land. The other base was
the economic study that showed certain types of units to be needed by 1983.
He stated these were very rough approximations but indicate a fairly large
need for high density units, based on the type of families that will be
living in Atlanta - families without children, an aging population and
other family characteristics which might require high density units.
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Page 3
Mr. Candeub stated they projected Atlanta as a complete regional center,
and in connection with that kind of growth in the future, that there
would be a substantial increase in the white collar population, the
executive category, and a large number of young people coming in, indicating a very definite, strong apartment market; that this is where
Atlanta will likely have its major growth in job types in the next decade
or more.
Mr. Brown exmphasized their projections are not binding; it is just one
way of accommodating the city's growth. A small continency of undesignated
land (2,700 acres) is available which provides flexibility for growth
in any of the three density categories.
Mr. Flanigen asked about the population figure per acre for 1983, compared with the data on the map.
Mr. Brown stated they had not computed this figure.
Mr. Flanigen stated he felt this was the problem; a projection has been
made but has not been tied in with the end of the time period; that he
did not see Atlanta getting the projected density because it would mean
slums, which Atlanta doesn't want.
Mr. Brown agreed this was a good point of view to bring out and would
require a policy decision on the part of the City.
Mr. Candeub then made the following comments.
We have made market pro jections of growth and we have been getting a feed-back on a reloc a tion
analysis in terms of housing needs. The c i ty had certain land within
its boundaries. Certainly we can say these needs can only be met by
going beyond its boundaries by going into a policy of aggressive annexation.
On th e other hand, let me say that Atlanta will also have a responsibility
in meeting its relocation needs in the face of continued growth a nd that
i t ha s the resources and a policy to meet the housing needs by ut i li zat i on
of i ts r e sources. You have a number of elements to keep in balance.
The f a c t or of growth and where it will occur in terms of market consi derat i ons;
the fact or of r elocation in terms o f cont inued programs ; a quest i on o f
s ize of f amil i es and need in te r ms of what kind of housing can, wi l l
and s hou ld be bui lt. The ques t ion of sing le family housing or mult i family, high ris e i s a que st ion t hat has t o be looked a t differently
that has been done in the past . I n th e past, the high ri s e was built
as a tenement struct ur e t o hous e i mmigrant worke r s who came to the large
cities. It was bui l t as a l ow rental form o f trans i e nt housing which
was initially, or rapidly , became a slum. This pa tt e rn i s most typical
of the northeast and o t her parts o f the central are a of the U. S. What
we are talking about today is really entirely diffe rent because the typical
high rise is built for a different population and buiit on a different
order. It is built for people that can afford to pay a good rent; a low
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Page 4
land coverag e with a high level of fac i lities is incorporated, with
a dequ a te setbacks so that one building is not blocking another in terms
of li ght, etc. Certainly Atlanta has the power to erect the type res idence s it wants. We are not talking about the old type tenement st r ucture.
The new national figures from the census in terms of the effects of the
post-wa r birth rate indicate that we are now getting into a period where
you will have a lot of new family formations and you will have people
seeking apartments because they don't want the burden of free standing
housing. We feel the best manner in which Atlanta can maintain its character,
and we want Atlanta to have more single family homes, and in order to
get more single family homes in face of the total demands, instead of
utilizing the land area for g arden apartments exclusively, we are suggesting we want to hold more land for single family homes and the only way
to do this is to squeeze down on the garden apartment developments and increase the higher densities under strong controls. Otherwise, you will
have little land you are able to hold for single family housing. The
housing picture is a changing market picture in terms of population,
income and the demand of the kinds of people that Atlanta is drawing.
Mr. Gladin asked how to incourage this type of development activity;
"what is the route to follow?"
Mr . Candeub replied "not to permit a tenement type development". The
way to do this, he suggested, might be to go to a design control on high
r i se, which they recommended in the Design Report; perhaps establish a
minimum size on the lot.
Mr . Gladi n then asked "how do you solve the economics of high r i se deve lopme nt?"
Mr. Ca ndeub stated they are not trying to do all this at one time ; de nsi ty
patterns will have to be revised to allow high rise. You may have to
get int o zona l determinations, establ i shing a max imum density i n ce r tain
areas. The city has the powe r to draw t he line whe re it want s t o draw it .
You might have a hi gh dens i t y i n t he c e nt er a nd a lesse r dens ity on the
peripheral areas . The cycle is beginni ng to cha nge because th e population
figures are changing . It mi ght t ake time t o pr ove out our proj ections,
but they will be.
Mr. Cook stated "you mean by 1983 we will have a need for 31, 000 high
rise units when today we have 1, 000 which it took five years to fill and
some are still vacant".
Mr. Brown answered affirmatively, stating the smallest amount of land
was left for high rise (69 0 acres). This land will accommodate a large
number of housing units, which is another way to look at it.
Mr. Cook asked "will the city absorb this and will it be feasible by
1983 and if we do will it be slum development, or should we go on a real
strong push for annexation.
We would like your recommendations?
It is
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Page 5
not a question of dividing the acreage on a breakdown of percentages.
It is how you think it should be. There is the question of the contingency of 2,700 acres,"
Mr. Candeub stated if high rise developments become slum tenements, then
the City doesn't want any high rise, to which Mr. Cook agreed. Mr.
Ca ndeub in turn stated if you accept this as a premise, then we will
eliminate all high rise; that he is saying across the country we are
getting into higher densities in urban areas and the idea is to provide
it in a large building complex.
Mr. Cook stated he was not accepting that high rise, per se, is slums
but he would like to know the basis of the percentages; that he did
question the need for more high rise when we can't fill our present high
rise developments.
Mr. Candeub st a ted he was not saying it is good or bad. If you control
it it ca n be good. If you don't control it, it can be bad. This lies
within the power of control. The re is a ce rtain number of units that
will have to go into apartments when you project the t otal popula t i on
to 1983. We are saying you do have a choice of what density you wa nt
it in. This determination will dictate what is left for single family
housing. I have a preference f or high rise. I have discussed this probl em wi th many builders who tell me you cannot build quality into a garden
apar tme nt , whereas you c a n in high ri se because you have a di fferent
leve l of stand ards a nd maintenance. Agai n, th1s is a policy qu estion .
We are trying to put it into f ocus. Our obj ectives here is to create
op timum sp ace f or single family homes . Within the city's tota l envelope
o f need s, we have tried to maximize the amount of land available fo r single
family homes. We have also tried to be realistic and leave some l and not
categorized because we reali ze some land will not be developed, but for
the most part we are saying the city will have to make the decis i on as to
whe ther or not it will all be low rise, or will it b e balanced with some
high rise.
Mr. Gl adin said "you have desc ribe d the reasons why we should start seeking high rise. How do we -start a program of encouraging high rise and
how can this committee move in that direction?"
Mr. Ca ndeub stated that Atlanta has better builders than most other areas
he has seen and he suggested one way is to meet with the builders and
discuss problems with them.
Mr. Flanigen stated you have to consider the difference in rentals of high
rise and garden apartments.
Mr. Mahony cited one case in which a ·high rise was competitive with garden
�f t,;-_
__,.,...,... . ..- -,- -- -- - --
- - - -- - - - --
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Page 6
Mr. Howland pointed out that the building was a considerable distance
from the downtown area.
Mr. Cook asked Mr. Candeub "do you think Atlanta can handle 31,000
high rise units by 1983?"
Mr. Candeub replied "we see a market for it".
Mr. Brown stated that in order to continue land for single family, you
will have to change from low density to high density with 20% left over
for garden apartments.
There was a general discussion of each of the eight improvement sector
maps, with considerable emphasis on the Buckhead sector. It was generally
agreed that the treatment recommended for this sector was not reflective
of the high quality housing existing in the area.
Mr. Brown pointed out that factors other than housing conditions were
considered in the designation of treatment areas. As an example, he cited
traffic and street conditions. Following this discussion, Mr. Brown
then explained the priority system methodology. He stated one of the most
important features of the CIP program is what should be done first and the
only way to determine this was through the development of a priority
·rating system, which he explained as follows: There were five major
elements in the rating system, i.e., (1) social implications - areas
in which programs for improvement are presently needed to supplement
social action agency programs; (2) resource areas - where better utilization of land might relieve pressure for land resources; (3) relation
to public programs - the total program should be financed through the
building of public facilities which are presently needed by the city,
however, when you have a public program for which you do not get any sort
of federa l credit, you have a changing economy (example, auditorium complex) and this gives a further sense of urgency for treatment; (4) planning
objectives - a tool for carrying out the city's comprehensive plan through
the CIP; and (5) areas characterized by change - some areas, regardless
of whether they met any of the other criteria, were in need of immediate
Mr. Brown then discussed Ansley Park as an example of the priority rating
system, stating the neighborhood was measured against each of the five
elements and scored from O through 2 points based on each of the five
The Chairman thanked Mr. Candeub and Mr. Brown for their presentations,
and it was unanimously agreed that the Committee would meet again on
Friday, June 9 at 2:00 P. M, to discuss the fiscal and administrative
portions of the Community Improvement Program.


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Page 7
Respectfully submitted:
0143.215.248.55 16:50, 29 December 2017 (EST)
Collier Gladin
Planning Director
~ .....

;-..l - .-......__... . " ' '-·· . . -- .. _"'


BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board"of Aldermen of the

City of Atlanta as f ollows :

An application for annexat ion to t h e City of
!!, ) At - anta by petition of unincorp orated are a s contiguous to the
!i City Limits of t he City o f Atlanta shall be filed with t he Mayor
j[ and Board of Aldermen on or before
1fa y
1 of the year dur i ng
whic h said annexati on shall be cons idere.d .
Sue·. applications
/J shall contain the written and signed app lic a tion of not less than
)! Sixty percent (60%) of the electors resident i n the a r ea proposed
i for ar.nexation
and of t he owners of r.ot l es s than s i xty perc ent
i( (60%) of the land area, by a creage, i ncluded in such application.
Ji Each
such .application shall contain a c omplete legal description
,-- -------
Ji and s hall have attache d thereto a co,npl e te survey by a cor.roe t e nt
!! surveyor of the land propose d to be annexed . There also shall be
j! su~1itted with each app lic ation a~ opinion in writing b y a me~ber


li of t he____S. t ate__B_ar of Georg ia s ta-::ing that each appl ic 2.nt ·who h as
l1' ) signed said application as an owner a s provided in t his ordi nance.
l is
th2 r e cord title holder o - the fee ·simple title of the property
\!,, c laimed to be owne d by s uch npplic a1 t or is the legal rep~2senta -
!t,, tive of the record title hol 'er of the said pr opercy c l ~i~ed to be
,! owne~.
Lands to be annexed a t a yon~ time shal l be treated as
body , regardless of the n
1r.1 b
'r of O'ivncrs , and all p.2.:cs s'1.2ll


.. '


I1 be
considered as adjoining .cie limits of the City of Atlanta when
.I any
one part of the entire ~ody ab uts such limits.
For the purpos~
. .
' application ,!l

111 or- d eternn.ning

t h e percentage o f e 1 ectors signing
[;, t the De partment of Pla nning sha ll obtain a list of electors r ~ sid-


ing in such area from the reg istrars of the county or counties
ii in which the area lies.


Said list shall be as comp i led by the
I board o f registrars and provided to the City of Atlanta in

ac cordance with Section 34 - 636 o f the Georgia Election Code, and
the City of Atlanta shall bear t h e e x pense of the preparation of
!,I such
lists in the manner prescribed by such section .
For the
1/ purpose of determining owne rship of the property included within

Iil sue h

- ·
. 1 e h o ld e r ot~ t h e ree
~ simp
. 1 e tit
. 1 e,
t h e recor d tit
J/ or his legal representative shall be considered the
rowne r" of
such property~
The Department o f Planning shall f urnish to
if the Planning and Development Committee the infonnation ne cess ary
to determine whether such app lication complies with the require -
11 ments o f this Ordinance .
If it determines that such appl ication
'. doe s not comply with this Ordinanc , t e Pl anning a,d Development
I Comm ittee
sha ll notify, in writing, the per sons presenting such
happ lication
.. ~ 1
wherein the applic at ion is def icient.
If it is
111 determine d tha t such application does comply with this Ordinanc e ,
the Committee shall proceed to s e t for public hearing said applica 7
I:i/ tion
rt se t
i n ac cordanc e
· l1.
. .
3 l1ereo:i..
Th e Planning and Dev e lopmen t Commit t e e shall
a pub lic hearing during
he month of
f or an a?p 1 ication
ll which has been determined to meet
I; Ordinance . Such h earing shall be
- 2 -

the requ irements o f this
held by said Com:1i~t2e no ~ less
. ..
/j than iif t20.n (15) nor rnor
! t he
Committee makes a determin~Lion that such petition i s valid.
!I Notice
t h ~n for t y- f ive (45) da ys fr om the time
of the time and place of ::;uch hearin g shall be given , in
writing , to the person~·pre~enting t he appli c at i;n and shall be
II adverti sed once a ,;..;,eek f.or t:wo cons ecutive week s

i mmediatel,y
JI preceding such hearing in a newsp aper of general circulation in
the City of Atlanta and in t he area propos e d for annexat ion.


such publ ic hearing all p e rsons resident or owning property in the
City o f Atlanta, or in the area proposed for annexation, may be
li h2ard on the qu~stion of annexation of such a~ea by the City of
Atl anta;
provided, however, that any property owner may withdraw
h ugh t he date of the public hearing.
qI! ,nis
consent at any time tro
jl Following
said hearing , the Planning an d Developr.ient Committee shalJ l
prepare and submit a report t o the Board of Aldermen ,vhich shall
include a recommendation as to whether or not the land described
i n sai d application shoul d be annexed to the City of Atlanta and;
I if
applicable, the date such proposed annexation should become

If after such public hearing the Board of
/! Aldermen, after considering t he report and recommenda tion of the
!"1 Planning
I to
would be in the best interest of the residents and prop rty owners
!I City
of Atlanta, said a re a may be annexe d to the municip a lity by
I the adoption of an annex i ng ordinance.
rrcontiguous a re a " shall mean an y area which,
limits line on at l east one - eighth of the a r e~ ' s aggregate
Jl. external boundary.
li by
\ the time ann exation procedures are initiated, coincides , the
...------------- \!dcity
j of the area proposed for annexation and of the ci t iz en s of the
- ~::----·-
the City of Atlanta of the area proposed in the application
and Development Corn:n i ttee, determines th a t the annex2.tion
Any a_ ea sep.2rate.d from the city limits boun da~y
a street or street rig ~t - of-way , a creek or river, the ri~ht - of ~
othe r p ~bli c s ervi ce corpora tion, l a nds own ·
./ ...--0-f --a-ra-i , _ or
i by
t he city; lands owned by a c ounty, or l a nds m, ~
Iof Georgia shall be a rrc ontig uous
area"· within the ~eaning of this

by tl e St .:.1 t e
!, Ordinance
when such area coincides with either the city limits or
j such l and or both on at le~~t one - eighth of such area's aggregate
/f external boundary.
,,t! t he
Provided the re shall be no annexation across
boundary lines of . any political subdivision under the pro-
lj visions of this Ordinance.
The City of Atlanta shall make plans for the
extension of services to the area proposed to be annexed and shall.,
p rior to the public hearing provided for in Section
3 of this
Ordinance, prepare a report setting forth such plans to provide
services to such area.
The report shall include:
A. · A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent
territory to show the following information:
The present and proposed boundaries of , the
...... ..
2 • .. The present major trunk water mains and
sewer interc eptors and outfal ls as required
by this sectiono
The above information and such information as listed below shall
ij be prepar~~ by the city departm~nt responsible
for such ser~ice

,1 and such i n f ormation and/ or maps sha ll be forwarded to the Dep art -

!ment o~ _P.lanning··-·no . l ater than seven
(7) days prior to t h e date
·. /
i on which the area proposed for annexat ion has been scheduled for

jf pub lie hearing .
A statement shall be prepared setting forth the
I p l ans
!I major
of the Ci ty for e x tending to the ar e a to b e anne xed each
s e rvic e p e rformed within the City a t ,the time o f annexa tion . /
Specif ically,
s uch plans s hal l :
Prov ide for extending pol ic e protection ,
fire protection, garbage colle c tion and
�7, '~,
.. ,, . . . . . - • - - • ·


--,.: ... ·~ • . . .
• _.;:.,..; ,., a ..

• _'



s t r eet ma intenance services to -the area to
be . ariqexed on the date of annexation on

· '

subst an tially· the same b as is and in the same
-- --·····~------·
manner as such services are provided within
the rest of the City prior to annexation.
If a wate r distribution system is not avail-
able in the area to be annexed, the plans
shall call for reasonably effective fire
protec·tion services until such time as water
lines are made available in such area under
existing City policies for the extension of
water lines .
Provide for the extension of major trunk
water mains and sewer outfall lines into
the area to be annexed within twelve (12)
months of the effective date of annexation
so t hat
when such li·
property owners in the area tobe annexed
will be able to secure public water and
( ,
sewer service according to the policies in


effect in the City and sewer lines to
individual lots or subdivisions.
i;..Th.en such appl ication is acted upon by t he
Mayor an d Board of Aldermen. and the l and is, by ordinan ce,
annexed .
j/ to the City, a complete survey by a competent surveyor, not
necess ar ily a county surveyor , shall be filed a s a part of the
ordinance annexing the territory and a copy certi f ie d to by the

- 5 -
_ l_~
�....... ---·-· ,.··--.-..
-·...·-~-· -- -- -·
__ ..,, _ ____ ..
·· ··· ·····
- - rr

~ . ii
{· ·

_...--..::::::-- -
if City Clerk shiil:T-b·e- filed with the Secretary of State of t he State
of Georg ia and municipal. · ad\ valorem taxes shall not app ly to
i/ property _w ithin
the annexed terr i to r y until Janua ry l ·of the
- - -following year. 'When so ar:1exed, such lands shall con sti t ute a
part of the lands within the corporate l imits of t he City as
completely and fully as if the limits had been marked and defined
) by sp e cial act of the Gene r al Assembly.


Nothing within this Ordinance shall prohibit
!! the City .of Atlan~a from requiring the residents of the new annexed
area to use City owned utilities when they are availab l e.
As provided in Ga. Laws 1966, pp. 409, 413,
! within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Ordinance
!) annex ing such land to the City of Atlanta, any resident elector
I!·i of
the area so annexed or of the City of Atlanta, or any property l
owner of such area or of the City of Atlanta may bring a petition !
declaratory judgment in the Superior Court of Fulton County
) to determine the validity of the application and the C:ity 1 s
l action
All Ordinan c es an d parts of Ordinances in
fl conflict herewith are hereby r epealed .
Se ptember 19, 1966
Sept ember 20, 1966


---···-·- .


\_ J
to provid e for th e ca n cell a tion of exec uti on s ; to r ep eal
Cod e section 24-3327, r elating to th e exec uti on and fil in g
of an ack'nowlecl i rn ent of t he p ay me nt of a ju dg rn e; nt;
to provid e th e proc:e; dur e con n ect ed th erewith; t o r epeal
conflicting la v:s ; a nd for oth er purpos es.
B e it en acte d b y t h<.: Genern l A ss em bl y of Geo r g i,.L:
S ect ion 1. Code Ch apter 39- G, r ela tin g t <J t he: s ~1.ti s fac ti on
of exec u t ion s , is h er eby am e nded b y add in g at th e en d
th er eof th e foll ov:in g t wo Code secti on s :
"39-609. \ Vh e n a pa ymen t on th e e'.'ec uti on s h a ll be mad e
whi ch does n ot en t ir ely s a ti s f y th e jud g me nt u pon v:hi c:h
the executi on h a s b ee n is s uecl, th e pl a in t iff in fi. fa. ur hi :-;
attorn ey s h a ll au th or ize t he cle1·k t o enter th e a mo unt of
such p ay m en ts upon t h e ex ecu t ion .
"39-610. Up on th e s a ti s fa ct ion of th e ent ir e cl eb! up on
whi ch t h e exec u t ion h a s be en is s ue d , th e p b inti ff in fi . fa .
or hi s a tt orn ey sh a ll dir ect t h e cl e r k t o ca n cel th e ex e-: ut ion
and m a r k th e ju dg m ent snt is fi <: d.?'
S ect ion 2 . Cod e sec t ion 2-1-332 7, r elat in g t o th e ex ec uti on
and filin g of a n ackn ow lecl g rn e11t of th e p:1 ym e11t of a j ucl g-m ent, is h er eby r ep ea led in it s e nt ir ety .
Sect io n 3. All la ,,·:=; an cl pa rt s of laws i n confli ct wi t h
thi s A ct ar e h e r eby r ep ea led.
Appro,· ed 1\Ta r ch 10, 1% Li .
M UN ICIP.-\LIT Jr. S- .- \ :'.'\ :'.'\ f: X .- \Tl ():-; DY P ETITIC' :'.'\ ,


PnocE n r 1rn, ETC.
'\ _,I
N o. fi 13 (St:11 ;1 fl' Hi ll No. 18 :2 ) .
A11 Act to p nn·id l' fr, r :1 nw tlw d , in ,1ddi l i,,11 t o cxi s tin ~: llll' th ocl c:., fo r th e :lllll l' X:t l i ll ll of :ll'l' :1 c:. con t i g th) ll S ll1 in ccw porat ecl rnunil'ip;tl it iL'S u pon t he appli c:it itin of n ot ll'"-"- th:m
· sixty perment (GO.')& ) of the land area included in such
included in ·s ucJ/i1pplication and the owners of at least
sixty percent (GO ~c ) of the land area incluclecl in such
· applic,1tion ;· to JH'ClYid e for municipal services to such
areas; to wovide for public hearings; to provide for the
procedure connected th erewith ; to define contigL1ous
area; to repeal conflicting laws ; and for other purposes .
.·· , !
Be it enacted by the General A ssembly of Georgia:
Ann cxn lio n.
Appli ca ti,,n :; .
Section 1. Authority is h ereby granted to the governing
bodi es of the several incorporated rnimicipalities of this
State to annex to the existing corporate limits th ereof unincorporated areas which are contiguous to the existing
corporate limits at th e time of such annexation, upon the
writt e1~ and signed application of not less than sixty percent
(GO 'lc ) of th e ej_g_ctors r esid ent in th e area includ ed in any
such application and of th e o,vners of not less than sixty
percent ( G.Q_Je, ) of th e la nd area, by acreage, included in
su ch application. Th e :1uth ority h er eby g r·a nt ed is in addition
to exis ting authorit y, and is int ended to p rovid e a cumula tive method of Hnnex"in g territory to in corporated rnurnc1palili es in addition t o thos e methods provided by present
law .
Each such a pplica ti;Jn s hall contain a complete d escription of the land proposed t o Le ann exed. Lands to Le ann exed
al any one time shall h e trea t ed as one boc1y, reg ardl ess of
th e number of o,,·ners, and all p a rts s h a ll b e consiclerecl as
adjoinin g th e limi ts of lhc municipa li ty w h en any one p a rt
of th e entire body abuts such limits .
For th e purpos e of d e t erminin g th e 11er centage of electors
signing s uch a pplicati(Jn th e municipal governing lJocl y sh ,tll
obtain a lis t of elcc- tors r es idin g in :c; uch area from the lioarcl
of r q•;i s t rars cJf lli c c.:o unty , or counties in whi ch th e area
li es. Said lis t s h a ll lie comp il r!d b y th e b oa rcl of r cgis lrars
\ / al!d pro v id ed to th e rnunic-ipal gu,·e rnin g b ody in a cco rdan ce
witlt sed io11 3-1-G:ic of th e Geo r g ia 1-: 1<:dion Corle, :t11d the
muni cipa l g<J\·e rnill l-': body s h :tl l b th e ex p011 ~:c of th e
pre pa rat io11 of s uch lis t s i11 the ma111H·r presc ril ,ed Ly such
sce tirJ11.
�' I
. I
For the purpose of c.ktennining o·,.;ncrship of the properly
included within such appli cation, the r ecord title holde r of
the fee simple title, or hi s leg al re11rcs entali v e, s h a ll !Jc considered the "own er" of such property.
Section 2. Whenever the gov ernin g hotly of a mu111c1pality shall recei ve such an ar,plica tion it sh all, after inves tiga tion, dct errnine v;heth er s uch applic,ttion co m pli es
with the r equir em ents of thi s Act. If it is d et er m in ed th a t
such appli cati on does not comply \\"ilh thi s A ct, the governing bocly shall notify in wri t in1 th e person s prese nti ng s uch
applica tion sta tin g wher ein the appli ca ti on · is de:fi ci~nl. lf it
is determined that such appli cation does comply ,,.-ith thi .:;
Act the municipa l gov ernin g body s hall proceed to act on
said applica tion in accord a nce with section 3 her eof.
Section 3. Th e muni cipa l goYernin g b ody sh a ll hold a
public h ea rin g on an y s uch appli cat ion which h as been d etermin ed t o m ee t th e r eq uireme n t s of thi s Act. Su ch hea rin ~
shall be h eld not less th an fift ee n (1 5 ) nor rn·or e th a n forty five (4 5 ) cl ays from th e ti me the go Yerni ng bod y m ake;; a
determin a ti on th at s uch pet ition is ,·,:llicl . '.\ot ice of t h e t ime
and place of s uch h ea rin g s h a ll be g iY en in ,,.-rilin g to the
pers ons pres entin g th e applic a tion a ncl sh a ll b e ach· erti se cl
once a we ek for two con sec uti,·e ,,·eeks imm edia t ely p re ceding su ch h ea rin g in a n e,\·spa per of g enera l cir culati on in t h e
municipa lit y a nd in th e a r ea propose d fo r ann exa ti on .
At su ch publi c h ea rin g a ll p er sons r esicl en t or o,Yn ing
propert y in th e mu nicipa lity or in th e ar et1 p ropos ed for
ann exa ti on m ay be h eard on th e q ue s ti on of th e :rn ne x at ion
of su ch a r ea by the muni cipality; pro\"id t·cl , h o,\·en' r, th at
any pro perty o,,· ner m ay wi t hclra,\· hi,-; conse nt at any tim e
throu g h th e el a t e of th e puliliL' h eari ng .
\.._ )
Sec ti on ,1. If aft er s uch publi c h earin g- t h l' gL1n' rn i11 ~·
bocly det ermi nes th:1t th e ,llln L'X :lliL1n t o th e nrn ni L'ip:il it y Llf
th e a r ea propl1,-;c cl in th e ap plic a l ic111 \1·01il d be i n th e b est
int er es t o f th e r l':- iden t,-; and p rop L' rl~- mn wr:=:. of th e a rL' ,t
p ro po,-;c cl fo r .i nnexat ion :11 1d tif ll1 e L·ili zcll$ of !h t.: 111 u11 icipalitY, s:1i cl :1r ca m :1y be :1n nt.:XL' d t o th e rn uniL·ip:il ity b y th e
ad op tio n o f ;11 1 :111n cx in g onli11,1 m·e.
Own e r.
H t-:: rir. ;;s .
Con ticuou s
Section G. "Contig uous area" shall mean any area which,
at the tim e annexation procedures arc initiated, coincides
with the municipal boundary on at least one-eighth of the
area'~ arsr;rcgak external bom{dary. Any area separated
from th e municipal boundary by a street or street right-ofway, a creek or ri\·er,_t h c right-of-way of a railroad or other
public service corporation, lands O\•:ned by the city, lands
owned by a county, or Janet:; owned by the State of Georg ia
shall be a. "contiguous area" within the meaning of this
Act when such area coincides with either the municipai
bounda ry or such la nd or both on at lc~st one-eighth of such
area's aggreg ate external boundary. Provided there sh all b e
no annexation across th e boundary lines of any political subdivis ion und er the provisions of thi s Act.
Section 6. A municipality exer cising authority under this
· Act shall make pla ns for the extension of services to the
area proposed t o Le ann exed a nd s hall, pl"ior to th e public
hearing provided for in section 3 of t.hi s Ad, prepare a r eport settin g for th such pla ns to provide services to such
area. The repo1_-t sha ll incl ude:
(a ) A m a p or maps of th e municipality and adj acent
territory t o show th e followin g informa tion:
· (1) The pres ent and proposed bounda ri es of the munici-
(2 ) The . presc 11l ma jor trunk wa_t er mains aml s ev; cr
inter ceptors and outfalls, and th e prorJosccl extens ions of
such mains and outfalls as r equired by this Section.
(L) A s t a t ement se( tin g fo r t h th e pbns of th e municipalily for cx( e11cli11 g- to the area t o Le ann exed each m a jo1·
mu nicip:d se: r vice JJc rform cd within th e municip:-ilit y at th e
tim e of a1111 exat ion. S pceificall y, s uch pbns shall;
(I) Prnvid r: for cx l<:nclin r·: )J(Jlicl' pro t ec tion, fire 1irot ecti(Jn, garl>ai:·e collect ion ancl s tre:d lll ,tinlc nanc e servi ces to
th e area to !Jc ann exed on lh e cl:ttc of ,rnn cxation on s ul>stantially ll1e sa me li;1 ~is and in th e s am e nrn11n cr a s s uch
s er vice::.; arc prn vid (:( l w ithin th e r est (l[ e rnunid p:di( y"
�, I
prior to annexation. If a water di s tribution system is not
available in the are a to be annexed, the pl a ns mu s t call for
reasonably effective fire protection services until s uch time
as water lin es are macle ava il a ble in such area und er exi s tinz
municipal policies for the extcnsic.,n c.,f water lini:!.:.;.
(2) Prov ide foi· exten s ion of majc.,r trunk water mnins
and sewer outfall lin es into the area to be annr::xd v: ithin
twelve months cif th e effective d a te of annexation so th at
when such lines are con structed property owners in th e c.rea
to be annex ed will b e abl e to secure public water and sev:er
service, according- to th e policies in effect in such municipality for extending water and sewe r lin es to indi v idu al lo ts
or subdivi s ions .
Section 7. When su ch application is act ed upon by th e
muni cipal auth oriti es ancl th e l?.ncl is, hy ordin a nce , annex::-d
to the munic:ipality, a complete s un·ey by a compet en t s urveyor, n ot necessaril y a county su rYey or, ·s h a ll be fil ed as
a part of th e ordina nce a nn exing the t errit ory and a copy
certifi ed t o b y th e clerk or s imi lar offi cia l of the municipality shall b e filed \\'ith the S ecretary of St ate of th e S tate
of Georg ia and muni cipal acl vfdorem t a x es sh ~,11 not Hpply
to property within th e annexed t erritory un t il J a n ua ry 1 of
th e follo\\'ing year. Wh en so annexed, such land;; shall constitute a pa rt of the Ja nel" within th e corporate li mit;; c,f
the muni cipa li ty as completely ancl full y as if th e li mits h ad
been mark ed and dcfin ecl by specia l Act of th e Gcn ern l
"Incorporat ed muni cipality" ns usect in thi s Act shn ll m t' n,1
an i11 coq1oratecl municip:1 lity whi ch ha s a popubtion of ~() 0
t:i::>: C- S , C'tC.
I n cv :·1 ... :- .. : t-,=
11: L!H
j,;,- ;~1:i '.i:y.
or more p er so ns ncc0 rdi11 g to th e l 9GO Feclern l D ccc·nni,,l
cens us or any future su ch cen s us.
, ._ _1
Secti on 8. Nothin g- within thi s A ct sh:111 p rn hiliit t he
municip:1lity fr om r c,1uiri11 g- tJ a, r es id ents of th e n e\\' ann exed art':1 t o use cit)· O\\·ncd utilitic ;: "·h en th ey ,1n' ,1 \·,1il able.
S ection 9. Within thirty (:>Cl ) cl ays of th e effrdi\"C cbtc
of the ordinan ce ,lllll t'xi ng such Lrnd t o th e m 1111ic ip:1li ty ,
UtilitiL' $.
l h- c br :-, t, ,:-y
j ll 1! }.: ! :l L'I! ~ .
any res ident el ector of the area s o annexed or of the municipality, or any property own er of such arc:. or of the municipality, may brin g a p etition for clcclarntory judgment in the
superio1· cou rt of the county of the legal situs of the annexing municipality to de termine the validity, in accordance
with thi s Act, of the appli cation and the municipal_i t y's action thereon. Wh en ever such a petition is filed with the
muni cipa l gove rning body sha ll fil e wi t h the court th e record
of their official actions in regard to such application and
a certified copy of the annexing ordinance.
The judgment of the court on any such petition may decla re th e annexation ordina nce null a nd void upon a finding
that the appli cation, and th e rnunici1'la lity's action th ereon,
are not in s ubs tanti al compli a n ce with thi s Act. Upon a finding th_at procedura l defects or d efects in the plan for service
to the ·ann exed area exist, the court sl-iall, where poss ible,
fra m e a judg m e nt t o p erfect s u ch d efect and uphold the
ordina n ce.
Actions p rovid ed fo r in this s ection sh all b e in a ccordan ce with th e D ecla r a t ory Judg ment Acl, and a ny ag g ri eved
party may obbtin a review of a fin al judg ment under thi s
section as by law in other cases provided.
S ection l 0. All laws and part s of laws in confli ct h e1·ewith arc h er eb y r ep ealed.
Approved March 10, 19GG.
No: 1GO (Sc:natc R es oluti on No. GG) .
A Hcsolution.
Authnri zill i•; a s tHl11 c, lrn s t or o1h(:I' m cnrn r i;t! of Wall er
Franl<l ill C eo r ge t u Lie plac<'. d ill th e h a ll s o f illL) C: tpit ol
of tl w S1a (c <>f C e{ll')-';ia ; ;11Hl for ot h e r )lttrpose:,.
�March 3, 1 96 7
! • ,!

r egularly sc eduled m e c ing of the Planning and Devel opment Co~.i t tee
o i the Board of l dermen ·was held on · _iday, 1arch 3, 196 7 , at 2: 00 P . M.
i Committee Roon 11=1 , Secon · Floo r, Ci ty Ha ll.
'• •......!
T' e foll oP i g mer.ibe·s wer
presen t :
Rod ey Coo c, Chai r man
E. Gregory Grigg s
Cha le s Leftwi ch
Geo ge Cotsakis
J a e~ S mi--ne _s
Jo hn M. lan i gen
Ab s e n t :
Q. V. Wil l ia s on
Also i n a t te,danc e we . e :
Col lier Glad in
Les Perse lls
William R. Wof fo rd
George Al d ri ge
Dan Sweat
Rober t Biv e s
The Chairman c alled t he meeting t o o r der and ·the f ollowing bus i ne s s was
considered :
Hr . Gladin presented each co,:nittee memb r with a copy of an enabling
reso _ution approving a request for financial assistance for the City of
Atlanta to plan and develop a comprehensive City Demonstrat i on Program
and a lengthy discussion ensued .
lo !

Hr . Gladin briefly explained that since the last meeting of this cormnittee,
staff members of the Planning Department, as well as staffs from other
city departments and various publi~ and private agencies, have been working
almost full time to put together the Demonstration City application; that the
ini ial dra:t was compiled about two weeks ago and around 100 copies were
distributed to these various staff members; that it was subsequently
critiqued and rewritten, not merely to cha,ge it, but for continuity and
to strengthen it and cover the areas which were missed, in that each
individual section was written by a group of people or individuals.
Regarding the budget phase of the program, Mr . Gladin explained this had
not been finalized, but staff members of the Comptroller's Office is
working on the ma tter in conjunction with the Finance Committee and the
final figu es should be ready by March 6. He specifically noted that the
en~bling Resolution did not mention any specific cost figures, but the tentative
estim&tions fo the total budget is around $600,000 - approximately $475,000
Federal funds and $120,000 City funds. He explained that the city's
local contribution did not represent a cash outlay, but present employee's
salaries, including those of participating agencies, will be credited against
the city's share.
PlannL,g - Dcve lopment Committee

t-!ar ch 3, 1967

During the cou .. c of other discussion about the nany facets oft e
lv~odcl :_,.j"cighbo r; ood P_ograri1,
.e com:.itt e (and Chairman Cook in particular)
again r~ised the p_a ctical ob'ection as to staff availability to impleDe t
the progi:-a:n and expressed rel 1 cta nce ·co ente .. into t he Model City program
when othe r i~por~ant and vital p _o grams of the city (such as the Land
Use Pla., updating of the Co p _ehens ive Plc:.n and Zoning Ordinance, etc . )
were bei. g "relegate to t e s>.. elf" and that the presen planning staff
was being overworl·ed and "spread too
in" .
Mr. Gladin stated that the planning staff was instructed to put this
appli cdtion together and his is w .at they h ave attempted to do ; tat this
application will provide the city wi h the financial capability to accomp l ish
a particular job; that the majcirity of he planning workload will be
borne by ~he project staff, consi sting of per,anent project personnel to
be recruited by the ci ty and supporting personne l on loan from other city
departments , from other publi c agencies , and in one case from a private
agency . Hes ated further he was aware of the ot her city programs and
agre d they were v ital and impo tant, however, a problem at the moment
is t· e filling of job vacancies i n the Planning Department whi ch were
requested and created in the '67 Budget (5 profess ional planning slots
now open); that the Planning Department is u~dertaking a major recruiting
campaign to fill these jobs but this will take time; that when these vacancies
are occupied, it will provide a balanced staff and he felt the department
would be able to meet its co1J1Y.1itments in other programs . He emphas ized that
the majority of the work the City Planning S aff woul d be doing in
connection with the "Nadel City progra would normally be done anyway .
In response to specific questioning by Chairman Cook as to when the Land
Use Plan would be ready, Mr. Gladin stated he felt the July 1 deadline
could be met; he stressed however he did not mean it would be approved by
this time, but it woul be in a form that this com:ni ttee could a c t on it
and submit it to the Federal Government to substant i ate that the City has
met its requirements set forth in the recertification of Atlanta's Workab le
Program .
In a n swer to further questioning by the con:..'1littec, Hr. Gladin stated that
if subnission of this application for financial assistance is approved
and submitted to HUD, it will be around June before HUD will submit an
answe .. and in the neantime, the staff will have completed recertification
of the Workable Program.
Nr. Cook stated he agreed the Demonstration Cities prograra was important
a nd that he supported it, but he wanted some assurance that the basi c,
r egular day-to-day planning is accomplished; that if t h e answer is
a ddi~ional staff, then he would support it. Mr . Gladin reiteraced that he
felt if the existing staff vacancies could be filled, the departffient
could meet its corn:nitnents.
Bill Bassett, Program Coordinator, then gave a breakdown of the proposed
Pia:min3 6, D velopme.n t Com. -· tte e
r-~a _ch 3 , 196 7
Page 3
org.::rii zation of the Dcr:tonst· ation Citi es Program . (Fo·· comp le ~e
det2ils, see Pa_ t I, page 13, Adminis rative fa chinery , of A Mod el
Nci ~hborhood for Atlanta) .
Upon rr.otion by ~1r. Leftw ich, seconded by Mr . Griggs an
t '1e follo·,.,ing Reso lution was a anted :
unanimous vot e ,
WHEREAS, the City of At l anta desires to undertake a
comprehens ·ve program to rebuild or rev·talize large slum and blighted
area s and genera lly i mp r ove living conditions for the peop l e who live in
such areas; a . d
WHE. EAS, t he Secretary of Housing a nd Urb a n Development
is authorized to make gra. ts to, and contract with, City Demonstration
Agencies to pay 80 percent of the costs of planning and developing such
city demonstration programs :
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the Mayor and Board of
Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, as follows:
Approval is hereby granted (1) for the submission
of a reque st for financial assistance for the planning
and development of a comp rehensive city demonstration
program; (2) for the provision of any information or
documentation concerning the p _eparation and content
of such program as may be required by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development; and (3) for the
Planning~ Dev lo~ m t Co!il!.i t · e
Ma rc 1 3, 1967
representation by Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
as t . e aut, o ized re, resentai::ive err.po·.;rered
to ac
on behalf oft e City of At lanta,
ulton County, Georgia in connection vith all
matters pe taining to the request for finan c ial
assista .ce . "
~r . Gladin sta cd 1e had invited th Building Committee to attend
this 1.eeting so that both COIT.mi tee I s could jo intly discuss one problem
aspect of the 1967 Housing Code Corapliance Prog r2m - this being the
Planning Department 1 s basi c disagreement w"th Pa ·ag raph II. A. 4 and a
related Paragraph IV. E . 2 . , whic. pen its ~e abi lita t ion of sub standa rd
resident"al structur es in indus~ ially zoned area s. He stated that the
Planning Department real i zes substandard houses in industrially zoned
areas are a problem, but do not feel this is an acceptable answe r; t hat
the present wording of the paragraphs objected to would only postpone
solution of ·he problem . M_. Gladin explained that a cco rding to t he
Zoning Ordinance, construction of new residences is not permitt ed in the
M- 1 and cl-2 Industrial dis ricts and existing residences are classi£ied
non-con~orming uses; that to rehabilitate many of t1ese substandard
residences would require structural alterations which would be in violation
of the non-conforming provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and he is
opposed to he City supporting a policy of r ehabilitation i n these areas
which is in conflict with a city ordinance. He elabor tcd further that
if a st1.- ict interpretz. ion is made of the provisions of the po licy as
now written, which stat e s "provided he conmlies in fuil with all codes
end ordinance", (and he felt its· ould be e~forced with no dcvi2tion
whatsoever) , then in the mejority of the cases tle prop rty owner woul not
be allowed to rehabilitate ·at all ; that the Planning Department would like
these sections changed to require elimination of structures that have
deteriorated over 50 percent and not allow a developer the alternative of
repairing it u.dcr these circumstances; furthe , the Department proposes
thnt t'.1e non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance should be
clarified and strengthened as soon as possible to permit a better resolution
of the entire problem.
Mr. Gl&din then gave a brief slide presentation of the types of structures
which have deteriorated beyond repair.
}!in tes
Planning & Developmen
Yarch 3, 1967
Co:nr:i ~tee
Page S
Mr . Hofford sta· ed that is posi ion is that the Policy and
Procedure Guid , as now ~rittcn, is as near right as it can be
made and 1- should be epp-oved.
I .'
c. of the ensui .g discussion cc~tered around prop erties int e
general vici ity of Markh- and laynes Street wh re there were
considerable dilapidated structures in industrially zo,ed a· eas .
~r . Flanige was of the opinion tha ~ he Ordinance should be c,anged
to allow p2ople to r eh~bilitate r es:dential s t ructures in industrial
areas, sati ng that is study of o her zoning o _dinanc es in the
country reveal
cy permit this in most cases .
Hr . Fofford st.:!ted a serious nroblem involved in code enforcemen
in this instance is a s hortage of ousing and whe r e t o put people
who a
displa ced from these industrial areas .


r . G~iggs expressed concern about razing structures and leaving
vacant land; e asked M . Wofford if he had a y personal knowledge
of a deman for this type of industrial land.
Mr. Woffo rd stated he idn ' t . Mr . Gladin stated in these types
of areas you have the problem of assembling land; further, that he
idea is to make strong residential areas and strong industrial £.reas;
that in order to develop a Land Use Plan, you must hav a strong
Zoning Orciinance with a strong non-confo·ming section and maximum
enforcement in order to implement this Plan . Mr . Gladin stated further
that if the particular vicinity i question is a good residential area ,
t ,en the zoning should be changed to reflec and encourage residential
developmen , but if it is a good industrial area, then residential
construction and rehabilitction should be prohibited; that no industry
will locate in the midst of slum co ditions - they have to be attracted
to clea , nice-looking areas; that he personally felt there was certain
industries in this area whic1 would poss::.bly expand if a house or wo
were torn dmm and land mode available; that he felt this was
a good po ential industrial area and its development as such should
be made stron 0 , but to co1tinue repairing these dilapidated houses 1vill
nerely prolong the situation.
Hr. Wofford stated that the areas in uhich he has had the most vigorous
co,~laints about dilapidated and substandard housing have been within
these industrial areas.
Bob Bivens, Executive Director of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
stated that the developrrent of the air rights property in the vicinity
of the Techwood and Hunter Viaducts area is arriving and will have
a profound affect on this area and in his opinion, it would be a
mista~e to prolong this low type of residential housing.
P _ann i g & Devclo ment Commi t tee
M~r c 1 3, 1967
Page 6
Mr . Cook stated that he objected to blanke t au hority for rehabilitation,
oi1d would favor strict code enfo,.cemc ,-;: in not allowing rehabilit at ion
in the ~ark1a a nd Hayne3 Stree~s a_ea, however, south of Hunter Street
and L the o · lyi ng .:Jreas, he would like for the Planning and 3uild i ng
Depa r tm nts to loo: furthe _ at hese areas and have some meeting of the
~i~ds; that in his opin io n, t ese a eas c ould be considered in a
differen light .
Nr .
lanigen _obje c ted top o·. ibitin:; n~habilitat ion .
Tnc _e wa s then a bri f discussion about the t ime l i mitat io n in t he Zon i ng
Ord inance on non - confor mi ng u s es a, [J oints of weaknes s e s and how t hey
co~ld be strengthened .
There was also ab ief dis cussion about code enfo rc ement, and Chairman
Cook, wi~h the cornmittee's concu:..rence, reque sted that the Planning
Department provide the Building Inspector with a prin t - ou t o f information
from t e CIP da a file; this will enable the Building In spect or to ma e
determina·ions c oncerning the lo cation of non- c onformi ng u ses throughout
the City and the development of a strategy for the i r r emoval .
Notion was then made by Mr. Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Griggs and carr i ed
by majority vote that he following wording be deleted f r om Paragraph II
A.4 . - 11 Should the owner elect to reh ab ilitate a struc ture he will be
permitted to do so provided he co . p lies in full with all codes and
ordinances; also, by simul aneous motions and a c tio n , t he same wo r ding
was deleted from a related Paragraph IV E.2 .
Mr . Flanigen voted adversely to bo th actions.
The re being no further business, the meeting was adjourned .
Rodn~ Cook
Respectfully submitted:
Joanne Parks
- ------- ---- --·-
--.... ··--··· -~.-· -·· - "-- ---· ----- ·-·--
_ --- ~ - 1
January 27, 1967
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development
Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held in Committee Room #1,
Second Floor, City Hall, Friday, January 27, 1967 at 2:00 P. M.
The following members were present:
Rodney Cook, Chairman
E. Gregory Griggs
Charles Leftwich
George Cotsakis
Jack Summers
Q. V. Williamson
John M. Flanigen
Also in attendance were :



Robert Sommerville
Earl Landers
Collier Gladin
George Aldridge
Malcolm Jones
Pierce Mahony
Dan Sweat
Bob Bivens
Ray Nixon
Darwin Womack
William Howland
M. B. Satterfield
Elmer Moon
George Berry
Howard Openshaw
Les Persells
The Chairman called the meeting to o r de r and the followin g business
was considered:
Regarding t he minutes of the De cember 14, 1966 meeting ( see page 3) Alderman
Flanigen reques t ed (by l etter o f J a nuar y 6 , 1967) that the f o l lowing
clarification be added regarding the di s cuss ion o f the $450 , 000 allocated
for the study of add iti onal housing units: He raised the question of
who was to guarantee this loan from the Federal Government and Mr.
Satterfield advised that when, as, and if a project was approved this
amount would be added t o the cost of that project, but he was rather
evasive on what would happen if no project was approved, but inferred
that it would not be charged to the City; in seconding the motion to
adopt the Resolution, Mr. Flanigen made it clear that this would not be
charged to the City.
Mr. Gladin gave a brief 35 mm slide presentation on the Demonstration
Cities Program and what Atlanta has done thus far to take advantage of it.
Planning & Development Committee
January 27, 1967
Page 2
He stated it has been under consideration for the past six to eight
months and represents a logical extension of the Community Improvement
Program - the Demonstration City project being one of the first phases
of implementation. He also explained that the City had received the
official guide lines from the Federal Government and is now proceeding
with the preparation of an application for planning funds and it is
anticipated it will be completed and submitted to Washington by March l;
that if these planning funds are granted, it would then entail some nine
to twelve months to complete a final application for implementation
funds and would eventually require five years to complete the program.
There was a brief discussion about funds and it was pointed out that
ther e had be en no actual appropriation beyond the initial allocation o f
twelve million dollars for planning grants for fiscal '67.

Mr . Gladin said that this program places major emphasis on citizen
participation and as a result, two neighborhood meetings have been
scheduled f or the purpose of presenting this program to the residents
of the proj ect are as; tha t Mayo r Allen will be conducting thes e presentations,
explaining the program to the people and seeking their support. Fur ther,
he stated that Mr. Johnny Robinson, under a Sterne Foundation Grant, is
working out of Dan Sweat's office and has the responsibility of publicizing
the program . This is in addition to cons i derable press and t e levis i on
cove r age. Mr . Gladin commented thi s progr am will a lso p lace more emphasis
on socia l rehabilitation than ha s eve r been done before a nd major effo r ts
made to rehou se t he people as they a r e d i spl aced by staging t he developments
(on a block-by- block basis i f necessary) so as to avoid wholesa le relocation ,
a s has been exper ienced in the past.
Mr. Sonnnervi lle stated he s upported the s ubmis sion of t he a pplication, bu t
he questioned the abi lity of the c ity planning staff , which he stated is
too slight as it is, t o submit an application within a six weeks period
that would meet the Federal guide lines - particu larly "innovation", on
which so much emphasi s is being pl a ced . He also made t he ob servation that
this program has been oversold na t i ona lly and he fea red it was in danger
of being oversold l oca lly; that he questioned great l y some of the statistics
shown on the slides and the choice of some wo rding being used in connection
with the program, particularly that Atlanta "expects" to be a model city.
He stated we have no basis on which to "expect" Atlanta will be one. He
reiterated his support of the application submission but again warned that
it was very dangerous f or the City to oversell what it was capable of
producing in so short a time.
l .,J
Mr. Gladin explained that the preparation of this planning application is
not restricted to just the city planning staff, but involves many agencies
whose staffs have been working on the matter for a year and the results
at this point do not merely represent a six weeks effort, but actually about a year and a half to two years. He also explained that it is not contemplated
there will be an additional large staff to implement this particular project,
Planning & Development Committee
January 27, 1967
Page 3
but rather a smaller coordinating staff (5 to 6 people) working
directly out of the Mayor's office under a program coordinator who
will be responsible for coordination of all activities of the
responsible agencies involved,
The Committee agreed with the principle but raised the practical
objection as to staff availability.
Mr. Gladin e xplained that in developing the application, proposals
will be made for administering the program but at this point all
of these questions have not been answered.
Mr. Sweat r e- emphasized that it is only being requested at this point
to file an application for planning funds; that a massive amount of
research material has resulted from the CIP study and Atlanta has more
information from which to put together an application than any other
city, except perhaps those who have a completed CIP study. He suggested
that a copy of the complete program guide lines should be furnish ed to
the Committee members as soon as possible.
.. .J
Mr. Cook concluded by requesting that Mr. Gladin inform the neighborhood
residents that this program is still in the preliminary stages and that
funds were not yet available for executi on.
Colonel Mal colm Jones gave the f ollowing r eport in be ha l f of the
Housing Resour c es Commi ttee : The respons e to t he Mayor's Housing Conference
o f November 15 , 1966, calling for 16,800 additional low a nd med i um cost
standard housing units in Atla nta during t he nex t five years (9,800 by
De cember , 1968 ) has f ar exceeded the expect ations o f the Housing Resour ces
Committee. It has been announced by Mr . Cec i l Al exander , Chairman, that
51 separate proj ects have been propo sed or are i n execu tion, or completed;
9,311 units are completed , under construction , and / or proposed since
the Mayor's Conference. A breakdown of thi s t o tal was then given in
three categories as f ol l ows: 3, 963 units - probable; 1,540 units - being
considered; and 800 uni t s - doubtful . The 9, 311 t o tal includes 1,206
public housing units, 66 of which are being leased. In addition, 1,424
existing units are proposed for rehabilitation and of the 9,311 total,
1,652 units are estimated to be available during 1 67 and 4,075 available
during '68 so that there is now a total of 5,727 units in sight for the
next two· years. Colonel Jones then stated that in addition to the Chairman
and Co-Chairman initially appointed to the Housing Resources Committee,
Mayor Allen is now appointing additional prominent community leaders to the
Committee to serve on nine different panels - Legal, Construction & Design,
Financing, Non-Profit Funds, Public Housing, Land Acquisition and
Rehabilitation , Social Problems, Business Participation, and Public
Information; that an organizational meeting of the entire Committee is
scheduled to be held February 9 and details will be announced later •
Colonel Jones concluded by informing the Committee that Mr. William W.

' ..........
Planning & Development Committee
January 27, 1967
Page 4
Gates, . retired former Chief Underwriter for FHA in Atlanta, has accepted
an appointment as Special Advisor to the Housing Resources Committee
and will be available in the committee office in the City Hall each
Thursday to advise and assist builders and developers interested in FHA
programs; further, their Committee is trying to keep an inventory of
the different projects and proposals coming up and would appreciate
receiving any information on such matters. (Copy of Report attached).
Mr. Cook asked how many of the 5,727 units would be public housing,
to which Colonel Jones replied 2,406.
Mr. Sommerville asked how many units in Rockdale were included in the
three categories, to which Colonel Jones stated roughly 250.
Mr. Satterfield gave a brief resume of the time schedules on various
projects with statistics (Thomasville, McDaniel, Rockdale, etc.) and Mr.
Cook subsequently requested of Mr. Satterfield a chronological listing of
these projects with time schedules and that each member of the Planning &
Development Committee be furnished with a copy.
Mr. Gladin then gave each Committee member a Fact Sheet of the Nash-Washington
Urban Renewal Area, along with a letter from Mayor Allen, requesting
that the Pla nning & Development Committee r econsider its previous r e j e ction
o f a nd approve the submission of a Survey a nd Planning Applica t i on f o r the
Na s h-Wa shington Area in view of the progress t hat ha s been made in providing
housing and the future outlook. (Mayor Allen's letter contained supporting
sta t i s tics , as outlined by Colonel Jones' housing report).
At this po int , Mr. Gladin pointed out the need to select a name for the
pro jec t.
Referring to the Fac t Sheet, Pierce Mahony of t he departmental staff briefed
the Committee on t he Survey a nd Pla nni ng Ap pl i ca tion, covering the fo l lowing
ma j or points - Des c r iption, Goal s , Proposed Reuses and Improvements;
Methods and Pro cedures , Financ i ng , Op tion on Sewe r s , a nd Possibl e Sources of
He then stated the recommendations of the planning staff, a s outlined in
a memorandum to Chairman Cook, dated January 27, 1966. (See copy attached) .
There was a lengthy discussion of the Nash-Washington Project, including
the controversial location of the new junior high school and the major problem
of relocation. It was the tenor of the conversation that the Committee members
were very frustrated and disillusioned over time schedules that are
continually not met because of any number of delay s; that they were tired
of dealing with the people on promises and unless some better assurances
could be given the Committee (than had been done in the past) that housing
�[' .
Planning & Development Committee
January 27, 1967
Page 5
would be available to the people in this area, then they would be -reluctant
to approve the Survey and Planning Application. It was generally felt
that there was, however, a favorable trend in providing adequate housing
and this Committee would certainly not want to reverse or slow down this
Mr. Charles Hart, 807 Commodore Drive, speaking as a layman, expressed
his disappointment at ~ast efforts in this regard, but stated he too felt
the trend was favorable.
The Committee then gave tentative approval to the project, with the
tentative name - "Nash-Bans Project Area" - pending further discussion of
the project with area residents. The Committee stressed that evidence of
neighborhood support of the program will have to precede final approval of
the planning application request.
The Committee discussed a Bill to incorporate certain land adjacent to the
City of East Point. This review was made in response to Representative
Dick Lane's (of the 126th District) letter of J?nuary 12 to Mayor Allen
requesting comment on the proposal. Mr. Bill Bush was present in behalf
of the City of Atlanta Water Department. In reviewing maps o f Land Lot's 1
and 37 of the 14th District (consisting of 24 parcels) and noting their
relatio nship to the corporate limits o f both Atlanta and East Point, the
Commit t ee observed (1) that this area would provide one direction in which
the City of Atlanta might expand in the future; (2) one of the City o f
Atlanta's maj or water mains (approximately 1600 feet valued at $32,000)
supplying water to a large part of South Fulton County is located in Welcome
All Road which runs north and south through the area under consideration and
must continue to be maintained or be relocated by the City of Atlanta in
orde r to provide uninterrupted service to Fulton County.
Mr. Leftwich t hen moved that the Committee take a stand against passage
of the Annexation Bill. This motion was unanimously approved by the Conunittee
and Mr. Gladin was requested that this information be conveyed to the
Fulton County Delegation. (See attached sheet for additional action taken on
this matter).
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
January 30, 1967


Subsequent to the January 27 meeting of the Planning & Development
Committee, Mr. Landers and Mr. Cook discussed further the
Committee's recommendation. Mr. Gladin was asked to draft a
letter to the Fulton Delegation setting forth the following
conclusion: (See Item 3 of attached letter).
Mr. Landers then contacted each of the Committee members, with
the exception of Alderman Leftwich, who was out of town, to
review this draft letter which needed to be forwarded to the
delegation prior to their scheduled meeting on February 3, 1967.
This letter was approved by each of th~ Committee members, with
the exception of Mr, Leftwich.
Collier Gladin
Planning Director
Complete copy of letter attached.
ATLA1""TA, GA, 30303
Tel. 522 -4463 Aroa Code 404
Df~I'/\Iff~I E NT OF PLA:\r-,'.I:\G
COI.LIEH B. GLADI:-,/, Director
February 1, 196 7
· Ho ;,o n, b l e Ch<1 rl ie Carnes, Cha i:c;;1an
Fulto n Co unt y Hou s e Dele ga tion
1 }~un:: -2 r Str e et,
Atlan ta , Georgia
Dc ~r Rep re s entative Ca rnes:
The Pla nnin g and De velo c)mc n t Com.11i ttce o f the Boord of .1\ldcr;;-:c n,
a t it s Jan ua ry 27 me eting , d i s c u ss e d a Bill Xo incorpor a t e cer t a i n
land c1 d ja c cnt to t he City of E a st Po i nt . Thi s revi ew was rnad 2 in
~e s ?on s e t o Repres entativ e La ne ' s (of · t h e 126th District) l e t t er of
January 1 2 t o :Mayor Allen r equ e s tin :; comme nt on this p ro po sal .

i\ ft e r ~cvi ew ing map s of L.::ind Lo t 1 and 37 o f the lLft h vi st r ic t,
wh ich c ons i s ts of 2L, pn rcels o f l and a nd no t i n~ th e ir relation si1i ? t o
the co rp o r a t e li mits of both Atla n ta an d Eas t Point, I was aske d to
rel ay to yo u th e follo wing three ma jo r obse r vations of the Pl a n ni ng
and Dev e l opme nt Committee:
Ihat the area of unin co rpora t ed Fu lt on Co u nt y u nde r
~onsidt t j tio n WJS eont f guous to At l anta ~h<l ~3st ~oi n t
c orp o r ot e limits, t herefore , t his a r ea wou ld pr ovi d e
one di r e c t i on in wh ich the City of Atl nn t a co ul d e x pa::1d
in t he future. Thi s co ns ider a t io n i s important b e c au se
i n order to ma int a in a he a lthy rc s io na l c e nt e r AtL:.nta
must h a ve t he cap abili t y of g r O'\ Jth .
One o f the City of Atlante ' s ma jor water ma ins su ppl yin 3
wat e r to a l arg e pa rt o f un i n c or pora t e d sou th Fulto n
County is lo cat ed i n He l c or.~e .i\ J. 1 Ro .:Jd , ,, h i c h r un s nor th 8::1d
s outh throu gh t h e are.:i un de r cor:s i dcri:lti o n . App r o.·i mat el y
1600 feet of water mai n , havi ng a n es t i ma t ed v alue o f
$3 2,00 0 must continue t o be main ta i ne d o r be r e loca t ed
by t he City o f At lan ta in o r der t o provide uninte r r u? t ed
s ervic e to So u t h Fulton County.
Honorable Charlie Carnes
Fcbru.:.:ry 1, 1967
- 2-
,\tl ~int.'.1 , in th e r iJ:; t, lws t ,1 :(e:11 t he position o f l ett ing
t: ie c:i. ti:e:cns nff c c ted in :;uch ..i choice r,1.:ll~e th e decision
tln·ou~h a re fe rendum. Therefore, t he Ci.ty of Atl.:int.:.:
· feels thot rcGar<lless of the p~cceclinc two c onclusions ,
th.:it no official strini c nt objections wo u ld be ma~e
p:::-ovidinb the dcle 6 .:i tior. choose s to take this course, and
proviclin3 the City of Atlanta's i nvestment in water mains
in the area is prote~te<l.
(v •~~
1) Q
1;Q O
~ ~\.1..v p / 1/\E~~
Collier B. Gladin
Planning Director
Co py to - Hembcrs of the Fulton County
House Delegation
Room 1204
City Hall
Tel. 522-4463 Ext. 430
In response to Mayor Allen's Housing Conference, November 15, 1966, calling for
16,800 additional low and medium cost standard housing units, in Atlanta during the
next five years (9,800 by December, 1968), Cecil A, Alexander, . Chairman of the Housing
Resources Committee, announced today that 51 separate projects have been proposed, are
in development or recently completed.
These include
3008 units in the Relatively Firm category
3963 uni ts, Probable
1540 units, Being Considered
800 units, Doubtful
~ Total

9311 units Proposed

(Incls, 1206 Public Housing, 66 of which are. being leased)
In addition, 1424 existing units have been proposed for r~habilitation,
,'·Of this number ,
1652 units are estimated to be available during 1967
4075 units are estimated to be available during 1968
5727 units in sight
In addition to the Chairman and two Co-Chairmen initially appointed to the Housing
Resources Corrnnittee, Mayor Allen is now appointing additional prominent community
leaders to the Committee to serve on the following panelsi
Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation
Const ~uction and Design
Social Problem6
Non Profit Funds
Public Housing
Bus iness Participation
Public Information
An organizational meeting of the entire Committee is scheduled to be held
February 9,
Details will be announced later ,
The Housing Resources Committee has established a full time office in Room 1204,
City Hall, Tel, 522-4463, Ext. 430,
Mr. Wm. W, Gates (Retired), f ormer Chief Underwriter for FHA in Atlanta has
acce?ted an appointment as Special Adviser to the Housing Resources Committee and will
be available in the Committee office in t he City Hall from 9:00 a,m. to 4:00 p.m, each
Thursday to ad vise a nd assist Developers a nd Builders interested in FHA programs.
Malcolm D. Jones , Supervisor of Inspection Services, Building Department, has been
designated to devote full time to acquainting Builders and Deve lo?ers with the program
and to assist them in its promotion .
Mr. Jones would like to keep in touch with
de velopments in all proposed projects under this accelerated program; his telephone
number is 522-4463 , Ext. 43 0 .
Chairman of the Fulton County Delegation
Dear Sir :
The Planning and Development Committee, at its January 27th meeting,
discussed a Bill to incorporate certain land adjacent to the City of East
This review was made in response to Representative Lane ' s (of the
126th District) letter of January 12 to Mayor Allen requesting comment
on this proposal .
3 7
the 14th District, which
consists of
parcels of land and noting their relationship to the
corporate limits of both Atlanta and East Point, I was asked to relay to you
the following three major observations~
That the area of uyincorporated Fu~ton County under consideration
was contiguous to Atlanta and East Point corporate limits, therefore,
this area would provide one direction in which the City of Atlanta
could expand in the future.
This consideration is important because
in order to maintain a healthy regional center Atlanta must have
~ capability of
One of the City of Atlanta ' s major water mains supplying
water to a large part of unincorporated south Fulton County is
located in Welcolm All Road, which runs north and south through
the area under consideration.
Approximately 1600 feet of water
main, having~an esti~ated value of $32,000 must"" continued to
$..( ~&-c.J"~
be maintained~by the City of Atlanta in order to provide uninterrupted
service ~ o n County.
a1cen the posifion af 1l!tt¢tH'\:he citie.o11::::,
affected in such a choi cr.:
ute"ke "the ae~ision througn a relerendu;,
~Jlt~L J...,
�DRAFT (continued)
Atlanta, in the past, has taken the position of letting the
citizens affected in such a choice make the decision through
a referendum.
Therefore, the City of Atlanta feels that
regardless of the preceeding two conclusions, that no official
stringent objections would be made providing the delegation
choses to take this course.
~cO ,

Social Bookmarking


Transcribe This Item


Document Viewer