Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
a eR? , a
ee
~
OE
ct
—
ate
AC
“
r
i
re
2 E
,
a hw
March 3, 1967
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee
of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, March 3, 1967, at 2:00 P. 4M.
in Committee Room #1, Second-Floor, City Hall.
The following members were present:
Rodney Cook, Chairman
E. Gregory Griggs
Charles Leftwich
George Cotsakis
Jack Summers
John M. Flanigen
Absent: Q. V. Williamson
Also in attendance were:
Collier Gladin
Les Persells
William R. Wofford
George Aldridge
Dan Sweat
Robert Bivens
The Chairman called the meeting to order and -the following business was
considered:
Mr. Gladin presented each committee member with a copy of an enabling
resolution approving a request for financial assistance for the City of
Atlanta to plan and develop a comprehensive City Demonstration Program
and a lengthy discussion ensued.
Mr. Gladin briefly explained that since the last meeting of this committee,
staff members of the Planning Department, as well as staffs from other
city departments and various public and private agencies, have been working
almost full time to put together the Demonstration City application; that the
initial draft 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 change 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 matter in conjunction with the Finance Committee and the
finai figures should be ready by March 6, He specifically noted that the
enabling Resolution did not mention any specific cost figures, but the tentative
estimations for the total budget is around $600,000 - approximately $475,000
¥ederal 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,
anning & Development Committee
1967
During the course of other discussion about the many facets of the
Model Neighborhood Program, the committee (and Chairman Cook in particular)
again raised the practical objection as to staff availability to implement
the program and expressed reluctance to enter into the Model City program
when other important and vital programs of the city (such as the Land
Use Plan, updating of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, etc.)
were being "relegated to the shelf and that the present planning staff
was being overworked and “spread too thin".
Mr, Gladin stated that the planning staff was instructed to put this
application together and this is what they have attempted to do; that this
application will provide the city with the financial capability to accomplish
a particular job; that the majority of the planning workload will be
borne by the project staff, consisting of permanent project personnel to
be recruited by the city and supporting personnel on loan from other city
departments, from other public agencies, and in one case from a private
agency. He stated-further he was aware of the other city programs and
agreed they were vital and important, however, a problem at the moment
is the filling of job vacancies in the Planning Department which were
requested and created in the '67 Budget (5 professional planning slots
now open); that the Planning Department is undertaking 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 commitments in other programs. He emphasized that
the majority of the work the City Planning Staff would be doing in
connection with the Model City program 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 would be in a form that this committee could act on it
and submit it to the Federal Government to substantiate that the City has
met its requirements set forth in the recertification of Atlanta's Workable
Program.
In answer to further questioning by the committee, Mr. Gladin stated that
if submission of this application for financial assistance is approved
and submitted to HUD, it will be around June before HUD will submit an
answer and in the meantime, the staff will have completed recertification
of the Workable Program,
Mr. Cook stated he agreed the Demonstration Cities program was important
and that he supported it, but he wanted some assurance that the basic,
tegular day-to-day planning is accomplished; that if the answer is
additional staff, then he would support it. Mr. Gladin reiterated that he
felt if the existing staff vacancies could be filled, the department
could meet its commitments,
Bill Bassett, Program Coordinator, then gave a breakdown of the proposed
J
Minutes
Planning & Development Committee
March 3, 1967 Page 3
organization of the Demonstration Cities Program. (For complete
details, see Part I, page 13, Administrative Machinery, of A Model
Neighborhood for Atlanta).
Upon motion by Mr. Leftwich, seconded by Mr. Griggs and unanimous vote,
the following Resolution was adopted:
"A RESOLUTION
BY PLANNING & DEVELOPHENT COMMITTEE
APPROVING REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAN
AND DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE CITY DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM,
WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta desires to undertake a
comprehensive program to rebuild or revitalize large slum and blighted
areas and generally improve living conditions for the people who live in
such areas; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
is authorized to make grants 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 request for financial assistance for the planning
and development of a comprehensive city demonstration
program; (2) for the provision of any information or
documentation concerning the preparation and content
of such program as may be required by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development; and (3) for the
ee
O
Mees
anning & Development Committee
reh3). 1967 Page 4
ad
_
L
Pe
E
hg
we
representation by Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
és the authorized representative empowered
to act on behalf of the City of Atlanta,
Fulton County, Georgia in connection with all
matters pertaining to the request for financial
assistance,"
Teatent soles! tanta
ct RRR
afeal.
7” eevee
ved
Mr. Gladin stated that he had invited the Building Committee to attend
this meeting so that both committee's could jointly discuss one problem
aspect of the 1967 Housing Code Compliance Program - this being the
Planning Department's basic disagreement with Paragraph II. A.4 and a
related Paragraph IV, E.2., which permits rehabilitation of substandard
residential structures in industrially zoned areas, He stated that the
Planning Department realizes substandard houses in industrially zoned
areas are a problem, but do not feel this is an acceptable answer; that
the present wording of the paragraphs objected to would only postpone
solution of the problem. Mr. Gladin explained that according to the
Zoning Ordinance, construction of new residences is not permitted in the
M-1 and M-2 Industrial districts and existing residences are classified
non-conforming uses; that to rehabilitate many of these 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 the City supporting a policy of rehabilitation in these areas
which is in conflict with a city ordinance, He elaborated further that
if a strict interpretation is made of the provisions of the policy as
now written, which states "provided he complies in full with all codes
and ordinance", (and he felt it should be enforced with no deviation
whatsoever), then in the majority of the cases the property owner would 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 under these circumstances; further, the Department proposes
that the 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. Gladin then gave a brief slide presentation of the types of structures
which have deteriorated beyond repair,
nning & Development Committee
Sig L967
Mr. Wofford stated that his position is that the Policy and
Procedure Guide, as now written, is as near right as it can be
made and it should be approved.
Much of the ensuing discussion centered around properties in the
general vicinity of Markham and Haynes Street where there were
considerable dilapidated structures in industrially zoned areas,
Mr. Flanigen was of the opinion that the Ordinance should be changed
to allow people to rehabilitate residential structures in industrial
areas, stating that his study of other zoning ordinances in the
country reveal they permit this in most cases,
Mr, Wofford stated a serious problem involved in code enforcement
in this instance is a shortage of housing and where to put people
who are displaced from these industrial areas,
Mr. Griggs expressed concern about razing structures and leaving
vacant land; he asked Mr. Wofford if he had any personal knowledge
of a demand for this type of industrial land.
Mr. Wofford stated he didn't, Mr. Gladin stated in these types
of areas you have the problem of assembling land; further, that the
idea is to make strong residential areas and strong industrial areas;
that in order to develop a Land Use Plan, you must have a strong
Zoning Ordinance with a strong non-conforming section and maximum
enforcement in order to implement this Plan. Mr. Gladin stated further
that if the particular vicinity in question is a good residential area,
then the zoning should be changed to reflect and encourage residential
development, but if it is a good industrial area, then residential
construction and rehabilitation should be prohibited; that no industry
will locate in the midst of sium conditions - they have to be attracted
to clean, nice-looking areas; that he personally felt there was certain
industries in this area which would possibly expand if a house or two
were torn down and land made available; that he felt this was
a good potential industrial area and its development as such should
be made strong, but to continue repairing these dilapidated houses will
merely prolong the situation.
Mr. Wofford stated that the areas in which he has had the most vigorous
complaints about dilapidated and substandard housing have been within
these industrial areas,
Bob Bivens, Executive Director of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
stated that the development 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
mistake to prolong this low type of residential housing,
Minutes
Planning & Development Committee
March 3, 1967 Page 6
Mr. Cook stated that he objected to blanket authority for rehabilitation,
and would favor strict code enforcement in not allowing rehabilitation
in the Markham and Haynes Streets area, however, south of Hunter Street
and in the outlying areas, he would like for the Planning and Building
HEDIGHES to look further at these areas and have some meeting of the
s; that in his opinion, these areas could be considered © ina
erent light
Mr. Flanigen objected to prohibiting rehabilitation.
Thére was then @ brief discussion about the time limitation in the Zoning
Ordinance on non-conforming uses and points of weaknesses and how they
could be strengthened.
There was also a brief discussion about code enforcement, and Chairman
Cook, with the committee's concurrence, requested that the Planning
Department provide the Building Inspector with a print-out of information
from the CIP data file; this will enable the Building Inspector to make
determinations concerning the location of non-conforming uses throughout
the City and the development of a strategy for their removal,
Motion was then made by Mr, Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Griggs and carried
by majority vote that the following wording be deleted from Paragraph II
A.4, - "Should the owner elect to rehabilitate a structure he will be
permitted to do so provided he complies in full with all codes and
ordinances; also, by simultaneous motions and action, the same wording
was deleted from a related Paragraph IV E.2.
Mr. Flanigen voted adversely to both actions.
Jelinek
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
SRNR RR
Approved: Respectfully submitted:
20 Pal L Of
. ok NU Pts 4 \ PE ee
Ue!
Rodney Cook /f Joanne Parks
Chairman L Secretary
ip
ee
~
OE
ct
—
ate
AC
“
r
i
re
2 E
,
a hw
March 3, 1967
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Development Committee
of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, March 3, 1967, at 2:00 P. 4M.
in Committee Room #1, Second-Floor, City Hall.
The following members were present:
Rodney Cook, Chairman
E. Gregory Griggs
Charles Leftwich
George Cotsakis
Jack Summers
John M. Flanigen
Absent: Q. V. Williamson
Also in attendance were:
Collier Gladin
Les Persells
William R. Wofford
George Aldridge
Dan Sweat
Robert Bivens
The Chairman called the meeting to order and -the following business was
considered:
Mr. Gladin presented each committee member with a copy of an enabling
resolution approving a request for financial assistance for the City of
Atlanta to plan and develop a comprehensive City Demonstration Program
and a lengthy discussion ensued.
Mr. Gladin briefly explained that since the last meeting of this committee,
staff members of the Planning Department, as well as staffs from other
city departments and various public and private agencies, have been working
almost full time to put together the Demonstration City application; that the
initial draft 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 change 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 matter in conjunction with the Finance Committee and the
finai figures should be ready by March 6, He specifically noted that the
enabling Resolution did not mention any specific cost figures, but the tentative
estimations for the total budget is around $600,000 - approximately $475,000
¥ederal 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,
anning & Development Committee
1967
During the course of other discussion about the many facets of the
Model Neighborhood Program, the committee (and Chairman Cook in particular)
again raised the practical objection as to staff availability to implement
the program and expressed reluctance to enter into the Model City program
when other important and vital programs of the city (such as the Land
Use Plan, updating of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, etc.)
were being "relegated to the shelf and that the present planning staff
was being overworked and “spread too thin".
Mr, Gladin stated that the planning staff was instructed to put this
application together and this is what they have attempted to do; that this
application will provide the city with the financial capability to accomplish
a particular job; that the majority of the planning workload will be
borne by the project staff, consisting of permanent project personnel to
be recruited by the city and supporting personnel on loan from other city
departments, from other public agencies, and in one case from a private
agency. He stated-further he was aware of the other city programs and
agreed they were vital and important, however, a problem at the moment
is the filling of job vacancies in the Planning Department which were
requested and created in the '67 Budget (5 professional planning slots
now open); that the Planning Department is undertaking 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 commitments in other programs. He emphasized that
the majority of the work the City Planning Staff would be doing in
connection with the Model City program 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 would be in a form that this committee could act on it
and submit it to the Federal Government to substantiate that the City has
met its requirements set forth in the recertification of Atlanta's Workable
Program.
In answer to further questioning by the committee, Mr. Gladin stated that
if submission of this application for financial assistance is approved
and submitted to HUD, it will be around June before HUD will submit an
answer and in the meantime, the staff will have completed recertification
of the Workable Program,
Mr. Cook stated he agreed the Demonstration Cities program was important
and that he supported it, but he wanted some assurance that the basic,
tegular day-to-day planning is accomplished; that if the answer is
additional staff, then he would support it. Mr. Gladin reiterated that he
felt if the existing staff vacancies could be filled, the department
could meet its commitments,
Bill Bassett, Program Coordinator, then gave a breakdown of the proposed
J
Minutes
Planning & Development Committee
March 3, 1967 Page 3
organization of the Demonstration Cities Program. (For complete
details, see Part I, page 13, Administrative Machinery, of A Model
Neighborhood for Atlanta).
Upon motion by Mr. Leftwich, seconded by Mr. Griggs and unanimous vote,
the following Resolution was adopted:
"A RESOLUTION
BY PLANNING & DEVELOPHENT COMMITTEE
APPROVING REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAN
AND DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE CITY DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM,
WHEREAS, the City of Atlanta desires to undertake a
comprehensive program to rebuild or revitalize large slum and blighted
areas and generally improve living conditions for the people who live in
such areas; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
is authorized to make grants 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 request for financial assistance for the planning
and development of a comprehensive city demonstration
program; (2) for the provision of any information or
documentation concerning the preparation and content
of such program as may be required by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development; and (3) for the
ee
O
Mees
anning & Development Committee
reh3). 1967 Page 4
ad
_
L
Pe
E
hg
we
representation by Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
és the authorized representative empowered
to act on behalf of the City of Atlanta,
Fulton County, Georgia in connection with all
matters pertaining to the request for financial
assistance,"
Teatent soles! tanta
ct RRR
afeal.
7” eevee
ved
Mr. Gladin stated that he had invited the Building Committee to attend
this meeting so that both committee's could jointly discuss one problem
aspect of the 1967 Housing Code Compliance Program - this being the
Planning Department's basic disagreement with Paragraph II. A.4 and a
related Paragraph IV, E.2., which permits rehabilitation of substandard
residential structures in industrially zoned areas, He stated that the
Planning Department realizes substandard houses in industrially zoned
areas are a problem, but do not feel this is an acceptable answer; that
the present wording of the paragraphs objected to would only postpone
solution of the problem. Mr. Gladin explained that according to the
Zoning Ordinance, construction of new residences is not permitted in the
M-1 and M-2 Industrial districts and existing residences are classified
non-conforming uses; that to rehabilitate many of these 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 the City supporting a policy of rehabilitation in these areas
which is in conflict with a city ordinance, He elaborated further that
if a strict interpretation is made of the provisions of the policy as
now written, which states "provided he complies in full with all codes
and ordinance", (and he felt it should be enforced with no deviation
whatsoever), then in the majority of the cases the property owner would 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 under these circumstances; further, the Department proposes
that the 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. Gladin then gave a brief slide presentation of the types of structures
which have deteriorated beyond repair,
nning & Development Committee
Sig L967
Mr. Wofford stated that his position is that the Policy and
Procedure Guide, as now written, is as near right as it can be
made and it should be approved.
Much of the ensuing discussion centered around properties in the
general vicinity of Markham and Haynes Street where there were
considerable dilapidated structures in industrially zoned areas,
Mr. Flanigen was of the opinion that the Ordinance should be changed
to allow people to rehabilitate residential structures in industrial
areas, stating that his study of other zoning ordinances in the
country reveal they permit this in most cases,
Mr, Wofford stated a serious problem involved in code enforcement
in this instance is a shortage of housing and where to put people
who are displaced from these industrial areas,
Mr. Griggs expressed concern about razing structures and leaving
vacant land; he asked Mr. Wofford if he had any personal knowledge
of a demand for this type of industrial land.
Mr. Wofford stated he didn't, Mr. Gladin stated in these types
of areas you have the problem of assembling land; further, that the
idea is to make strong residential areas and strong industrial areas;
that in order to develop a Land Use Plan, you must have a strong
Zoning Ordinance with a strong non-conforming section and maximum
enforcement in order to implement this Plan. Mr. Gladin stated further
that if the particular vicinity in question is a good residential area,
then the zoning should be changed to reflect and encourage residential
development, but if it is a good industrial area, then residential
construction and rehabilitation should be prohibited; that no industry
will locate in the midst of sium conditions - they have to be attracted
to clean, nice-looking areas; that he personally felt there was certain
industries in this area which would possibly expand if a house or two
were torn down and land made available; that he felt this was
a good potential industrial area and its development as such should
be made strong, but to continue repairing these dilapidated houses will
merely prolong the situation.
Mr. Wofford stated that the areas in which he has had the most vigorous
complaints about dilapidated and substandard housing have been within
these industrial areas,
Bob Bivens, Executive Director of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
stated that the development 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
mistake to prolong this low type of residential housing,
Minutes
Planning & Development Committee
March 3, 1967 Page 6
Mr. Cook stated that he objected to blanket authority for rehabilitation,
and would favor strict code enforcement in not allowing rehabilitation
in the Markham and Haynes Streets area, however, south of Hunter Street
and in the outlying areas, he would like for the Planning and Building
HEDIGHES to look further at these areas and have some meeting of the
s; that in his opinion, these areas could be considered © ina
erent light
Mr. Flanigen objected to prohibiting rehabilitation.
Thére was then @ brief discussion about the time limitation in the Zoning
Ordinance on non-conforming uses and points of weaknesses and how they
could be strengthened.
There was also a brief discussion about code enforcement, and Chairman
Cook, with the committee's concurrence, requested that the Planning
Department provide the Building Inspector with a print-out of information
from the CIP data file; this will enable the Building Inspector to make
determinations concerning the location of non-conforming uses throughout
the City and the development of a strategy for their removal,
Motion was then made by Mr, Cotsakis, seconded by Mr. Griggs and carried
by majority vote that the following wording be deleted from Paragraph II
A.4, - "Should the owner elect to rehabilitate a structure he will be
permitted to do so provided he complies in full with all codes and
ordinances; also, by simultaneous motions and action, the same wording
was deleted from a related Paragraph IV E.2.
Mr. Flanigen voted adversely to both actions.
Jelinek
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
SRNR RR
Approved: Respectfully submitted:
20 Pal L Of
. ok NU Pts 4 \ PE ee
Ue!
Rodney Cook /f Joanne Parks
Chairman L Secretary
ip