Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-04-24 PZC MINUTES.. • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 24, 1979 The City Planning and Zoning Commission met at 5:30 P. M. in the Library Conference Room for dinner and discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. Members present: Draper, Tanguma, Lathrop, Becker, Pierson, Carson, Bilo Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Williams, Smith Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Associate Planner Fessenden; Planning Assistant Young. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were !con- sidered at a Public Hearing on April 17, 1979, and several issues raised by the Commission members following the Hearing were scheduled to be discussed at this meeting. The matter of landscaping existing industrial uses was con- sidered. One of the issues raised was the lack of screening on the east side of the General Iron Works where the property is adjacent to a residential district. Mrs. Romans suggested that Page 2, #2 of the Industrial Section be amended by adding a statement that: "Existing industrial uses adjacent to or adjoining residential districts should be required to comply with the screening requirements of the industrial zone district." Mr. Wanush pointed out that the law cannot be made retroactive; the Plan could urge that "strong encouragement" be given to landscaping of existing industrial uses. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that in the past, the owners of some in- dustrial uses were not required to provide screening even though they were abutting or adjoining residential uses. This situation occurred especially in instances in which the resi- dential use happened to be situated in the unincorporated area. This was not the case in the instance of General Iron where the lack of screening was probably an oversight when the Commission and Council vacated South Elati Street and accepted 'the new right-of-way. Mr. Bilo noted that in the Commercial Corridor section of the Plan, a tree planting program was discussed whereby the City would provide the plantings and the property owner would assume responsibility for maintaining the plantings in a healthy, growing condition. He asked why this same suggestion could not apply to the Industrial Zone Districts, for example. He felt this could be some encouragement for aesthetic improve- ment of existing industrial uses. Discussion ensued. -2- It was determined that Page 2, #2 of the Industrial Section would be amended as previously suggested by Mrs. Romans, and that the following statement would be incorporated as #3 on Page 2 of the Industrial Section, renumbering the following courses of action accordingly: 11 3. A City-sponsored tree planting program shou ld be under- taken to encourage property owners and businessmen to improve the City's visual image. Relief from large asphalt vistas in many commercial parking lots would result from incentive programs of this kind." The Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan was considered. It was suggested that on Page 4, the following sentence be deleted: "The boundaries of the neighborhoods are such that the closing of these schools will not destroy the intended concept." Mr. Bilo asked how families would be attracted to Englewood? Mrs. Becker stated that the upgrading and improvement of the housing stock would hopefully encourage more families with children to move to Englewood. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans pointed out that even though the three elementary schools have been closed, it is not the intent of the School Board to get rid of the schools. Mr. Lathrop agreed, and noted the leasing agreement with the City of Englewood on Duncan School, and the agreement with Swedish Medical Center on Washington Elementary School. Discussion ensued. Mr. Bilo questioned the use of the word housing "stock". Mr. Wanush stated that he felt the word "stock" refers to existing housing, and the upgrading of such housing, plus the increase of the number of housing units. Page 7 (g) of the Housing Section was then discussed, with the question centered on whether reference to the paving of alleys should remain in this statement. Mrs. Romans stated that the means to accomplish alley paving are available to any property owners that want to do so. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the statement should remain; that it might act as a catalyst to those property owners who do want paved alleys. Further discussion ensued. Final determination was to leave this section worded as it is. The Parks and Recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan was considered. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is sug- gesting that the standards referred to at the bottom of Page 2 be omitted, and that the paragraph preceding these standards be reworded. She noted that the 243.3 acres deficit in park land is in reference to neighborhood parks, and that the golf course would not be included in this category. Mr. Draper stated that he did not feel the deficits cited necessarily apply to Englewood; the people of Englewood have access to other recreational facilities in neighboring cities, • • • -3- and he did not see that there was any hardship created by the "deficits" that are cited. He questioned why Englewood should have to meet standards that may not be applicable to our par- ti c ular situation? Discussion ensued. It was decided that reference to the shortage of park land should remain in the Plan, but that the deficits according to national standards of recreational facilities should be deleted. Further discussion ensued. The meeting disbanded to begin the formal Public Hearing at 7:00 P. M. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER . The meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Tanguma in the Englewood City Council Chambers. Members present: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Smith, Williams Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Associate Planner Fessenden; Planning Assistant Young; Assistant Director Reddy; and Associate Housing Coordinator Morris. II. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CASE #22-78 Draper moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-79 be open ·~d. AYES: Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Wanush stated that he is the Director of Community Develop- ment. The City of Englewood applied for $226,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds for the express purpose of con- tinuing the Rehabilitation Loan Program which was begun two years ago. The City has been notified that its application has been given preliminary approval, and has been asked to sub- mit a Final Application for these funds. One of the require- ments is that two Public Hearings must be held, the first of which is scheduled for this evening, and the second which is -4- scheduled May 7, 1979, before City Council. Mr. Wanush stated that the purpose of the meeting is two-fold; initially, to re-• view the existing rehabilitation program and its accomplishments up to this date, which review will be given by Mr. Mike Reddy, Assistant Director for Housing and the Executive Director of the Housing Authority. The second aim of the meeting is the pre- sentation of the contents of the new application and the elements of the program projected for the next two years. Mr. Reddy stated that the Englewood Housing Authority started the Rehabilitation Loan Program in 1976, with the intent being to improve and expand housing stock in the City of Englewood. Mr. Reddy stated that the Authority received $90,000 from the City, and a $40,000 grant from the State, which monies were used to provide low-interest or deferred loans. In 1977, the City was the recipient of $150,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds, which money was also used to subsidize the loans. The City also obtained a $450,000 line of credit from a consortium of Englewood Banks to use in the program. Since the inception of the program, 52 loans have been processed. Mr. Reddy stated that of the $90,000 from the City, $88,763 is committed, leaving a balance of $1,236. Of the $40,000 from the State, approximately $35,000 has been committed, and of the $150,000 CDBG funds, there is ·a balance of approximately $25,355. This totals approximately $45,406 in uncommitted funds to operate the program. Mr. Reddy stated that of the 52 loans processed, 71% were subsidized, and 29% were unsubsidized. Mr. Reddy stated that guidelines for the program state that ~ code violation items roust be taken care of first; these are ~ determined to be matters of imminent hazard affecting the safety and health of the resident. He noted that 67% of the loans processed dealt with this type of violation, and 42% of the loans were for room additions. Mr. Reddy noted that Englewood has many smaller homes, and by expanding the size of the homes, it is providing more "liveable" dwellings. Other statistics cited by Mr. Reddy were that 12.5% of the loans were used for improvement of handicapped individuals residences, and a total of 39.5% were used for general improvements, such as roofing, siding, etc. Also, 14.5% were used for weatherization purposes, 19% were for the remodeling of existing rooms, and 8% of the loans were concerned with the construction of garages. There have been 15 unsubsidized loans, 22 subsidized loans, and 15 deferred loans approved. Nineteen percent (19%) of the loans were made to persons under 30 years of age, and 27% were made to persons over 62 years of age; 35% of the loans were made to single-heads-of-households. Mr. Reddy stated that 27 loan~ were made in the Target Areas, and 25 loans were granted out- side of the designated Target Areas. Mr. Draper questioned the figures cited by Mr. Reddy on the funds expended. Mr. Reddy noted that the figures have been up-dated to reflect the most recent balances. Mr. Reddy also explained the percentages cited; some loans may have covered • more than one item, and will be reflected in each category, therefore, the percentages will not add up to 100%. -5- Mr. Tanguma asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to ask questions of Mr. Reddy. Mr. Reddy pointed out that at this point, the request is for comments on the program to date. Mr. Paul Hendricks 4001 South Elati -stated that he feels that he and his grand- father, Mr. B. B. Williamson, have gotten a lot of value and improvement to their home for the amount of the loan. He pointed out that the wiring in the house was brought up to current code, there was a room addition, a new sink in the bathroom, and new furnace. The square footage of the structure was increased to 768 square feet, and it is now a very livable home. He stated that they are most impressed with the program. Mr. Jerry Golding stated that he has had a very positive experience with the program, and thinks it is very exciting. Mr. Golding asked if someone living outside of a Target Area could still participate in the program? Mr. Reddy stated that the program is designed to aid residents who live both within the Target Areas and outside the Target Areas; there are dif- ferent criteria that would apply depending on whether or not the property is located in a Target Area. He stated that the reason for the designated Target Areas is to meet Federal Regulations; the Federal Government regulations indicate that impact and/or improvement in a given geographical area must be shown. It is the responsibility of the local entity to identify this geographical area --or Target Areas --where use of the Federal Funds will be concentrated. The Target Areas may be amended and changed, and in fact new Target Areas are proposed for concentration of efforts for the next two years. A question was asked by a member of the audience whether the program was designed to aid the low income or medium income family? Mr. Reddy stated that the program is designed to assist a diversity of incomes; he pointed out that the dif- ference in assistance would be the amount of subsidy allowed. Persons who are over-income, but reside in Target Areas, could participate in the program, but would be at the "pass-through" rate of interest. The subsidies are used to aid those property owners who cannot afford to pay the interest rates. A member of the audience asked how one would go about signing up to participate in the program, and how the program would work? Mr. Reddy stated that the funding from the existing grants would be used to continue the program until August, when the application would be finalized by the Federal Government. Target Areas would be changed in August if the Planning Com- mission and City Council concur with the staff recommendations. The program will apply to the existing Target Areas until August. Mr. Reddy stated that contact with the Department of -6- Community Development to the Associate Housing Coordinator anl/or Housing Rehabilitation Technician wou l d be the first step toward • the application. The staff will handle the paper work, and the application would then be presented to a Loan Review Committee, which meets once a month. The Loan Review Committee would approve or disapprove the loan application, and the process would take anywhere from one to two months. Mr. Draper asked if he understood that there were uncommitted funds available for the program now? Mr. Reddy stated that this is correct, and these funds would be available for applicants in the existing Target Areas. Mr. Reddy pointed out that the top limit for a loan is $10,000. Mrs. Tina Warden 3001 West Bellewood Drive -asked whether a property owner could get a second loan through the rehabilitation program? For example, if a person has ob- tained one loan and later decides that they want more work done, could this also be financed by this program? Mr. Reddy stata:l that if the initial loan granted by this program was basically paid off, or paid down to a sufficient level, another loan could be obtained through this program. Mrs. Warden then asked if there would ever be a program avail- able through the Housing Authority or City whereby the first and second loans could be combined? Mr. Reddy stated that the "312 Program" is in existence, and that the City will make application when additional funding is available. He stated that there is no time frame available on when these funds would be available, but probably it would not be before this Fall. Mrs. Warden stated that she felt the City and Housing Authority were doing a wonderful job in helping the citizens with pro- grams such as the rehab loans. Miss Fessenden discussed the proposed final application for the Community Development Block Grant Funds. Miss Fessenden stated that the Department of Housing and Urban Development wants to know what is done with funds made available to the communities, and the communities must identify their community development and housing needs in the final application. Miss Fessenden stated that most of the Community Development needs are taken from the goals of the Comprehensive Plan which have been discussed by the Planning Commission, identifying those needs which could be financed with Community Development Block Grant funds. The Housing needs as set forth in the applica- tion, are outlined in the Housing Assistance Plan. The Housing Assistance Plan covers people who are inadequately housed, anl shows a high need in renter occupied housing, and particularly in the small family rentals. Miss Fessenden pointed out that the rehabilitation program addresses primarily the owner-occupied unit, although it can include renter-occupied housing. one of the short-term needs is to continue the Rehabilitation -7- Loan Program for the improvement and upgrading of existing housing stock. She pointed out that the major change will be the change in the Target Areas, three of which will be the same as are in existence today, and with the addition of three new areas. Miss Fessenden pointed out that in March of 1979, the Building Division did a visual survey of the entire City; this survey was limited to the outside aspects of housing, but was felt to give some indication of areas where there was a concentration of housing that is in need of improvement. Miss Fessenden stated that loans are available to the residents of the Target Areas. The federal monies are used to subsidize the interest rate on loans to low and moderate income residents who cannot pay the pass-through interest rate. Loans are also available to people throughout the City, but the criteria for qualification is different. By getting a line of credit through a consortium of Banks, the Housing Authority is able to give a lower interest rate than the individual would pay by going through the bank directly. Mr. Tanguma asked why two existing Target Areas were deleted? Miss Fessenden stated that there had been extremely low response in those two areas. Mr. Tanguma noted that a reference is made to increased enforcement, and asked what is meant by this statement? Fessenden stated that it is in reference to the general tenance of the area --environmental codes, etc. code Miss main- Mr. Draper asked how the Target Areas are chosen; by the visual standards of the houses? Miss Fessenden stated that the survey that was taken used the same criteria for every block. The survey was taken by block face, and areas where there were major problems were noted, as well as areas with only one or two minor problems. She pointed out that a Target Area does not mean that every house in the block is bad, but the block is part of a general area that is in need of improvement. Mr. Tanguma asked if the funds could be used to buy land for public housing? Miss Fessenden stated that the funds may be used to acquire land, but not for actual construction costs. Mr. Steve Hamil asked whether or not property owners within the Target Areas that are proposed for deletion are eligible for the program? Miss Fessenden stated that they would be right now regardless of their income; after August, they would have to qualify under the criteria used for those areas out- side of the designated Target Areas. Connie Darriet asked about stipulations on rental property owners; can they qualify, and what are the different criteria? Mr. Reddy stated that one of the requirements is that the rental property owner agree to rent the properties to low and moderate income people. He pointed out that to this time, this phase of the program has not been used much, if at all. Mr. -8- wanush stated that investors must have been denied a loan by two lending institutions to qualify for a loan through this program, and they must also show that the income from the property is not sufficient to support the improvements. Ms. Darriet stated that she is on a fixed-income, and is renting a house from her parents which is located in a Target Area. This house needs rewiring. She stated that the rent she pays her parents is less than they could get from some other renter. Mr. Baker asked if forms to sign up for the program could be picked up this evening. Mr. Reddy suggested that those individuals interested in participating in the program leave their names and phone numbers, and appointments will be set up for them. Mr. Golding asked for further explanation on the purpose of the Target Areas, and the role the Federal Government has in this program; does this mean that homes outside of the Target Areas cannot be rehabilitated under the program? Mr. Reddy stated that the Federal Government regulations require that communities participating in the CDBG program must be able to show an impact on a specific area of the community from the use of the CDBG funds. Mr. Steve Van Sickle questioned if someone wanted to remodel their home, and do the work themselves, but did not feel qualified to do the total project, whether or not it could be worked out under the program? Also, would the homeowner be able to do the work he wants done, or would the program dictate which things must be accomplished --such as repair of broken windows, etc? Mr. Reddy stated that not all participants in the rehabilitation program have their work done by contractors; the sweat equity portion of the program is designed for homeowners who are capable of doing their own work. Miss Morris pointed out that a homeowner would be regarded as the "general contractor" if they are doing the majority of their own work, and can sub specific projects, such as rewiring, out. Mr. Tanguma asked if there were further comments or questions regarding the CDBG application or the Housing Assistance Plan? No one asked further questions, or made further comments. Pierson moved: Bilo seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Smith The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma thanked members of the audience for their attendance and noted they were welcome to remain for the rest of the meeting if they so wished. .. A recess of the Commission was declared at 8:00 P. M. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 P. M. -9- Members present: Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson Members absent: Williams, Smith Mr. Tanguma asked the pleasure of the Commission on the Community Development Block Grant application and Housing Assistance Plan? Pierson moved: Bilo seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Community Development Block Grant application and the Housing Assistance Plan as written, and that these documents be recommended to City Council for approval. AYES: Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. III. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush stated that he had nothing to be discussed under Director 's Choice. IV. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. The .Comprehensive Plan was again discussed. Mrs. Becker noted that throughout the Comprehensive Plan a great deal of attention is given to visual quality, but very little is said about noise pollution. She stated that she felt there should be some strong statement in the Plan on the matter of noise pollution. It was pointed out that the City did have a noise control pr~ gram, but that funding for this program was discontinued, and the Police Department has assumed enforcement of the Noise Control Ordinance. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt that noise was just as disturbing to some individuals as poor visual quality is to others. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wanush suggested that the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Page 5, might be amended by adding a statement to the effect that the City should "en- force efforts to reduce noise pollution." Further discussion followed. It was determined that Page 5 of the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan be amended by adding a new sub-section "h" to read "Enforce the Noise Control Ordinance." Mrs. Pierson stated that she recalled some discussion on ef- forts to reduce development time for developers, and asked if there was reference to this in the Plan. Mr. Wanush stated that there is such a reference in the summary. -10- Mr. Wanush pointed out that following the Downtown Section of the Plan, there is a section of suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He proposed that this is not the place for these suggestions; they should be deleted and taken under advisement at the time the Zoning Ordinance is con- sidered for revision. It was so agreed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that some of the maps contained within the Plan need to be redone; some will be run in color, and this will be time consuming, as there will be several runs for one map. She suggested that there could be a several week period before this could be completed. Also, a forward to the Plan and the summary should be included in the final version before it is referred to City Council. Discussion ensued. Mr. Draper asked about the procedure to amend the Comprehensive Plan? Mrs. Romans stated that this is the process the Commission is going through at this time. Mr. Wanush stated that the staff anticipates a general review once a year, but not a total re- view and revision such as this has been. Mr. Tanguma questioned that action should be taken this evening with two members absent; he pointed out that they would not be aware of the changes as decided upon by the other members of the Commission. It was pointed out that a 2/3 majority of the .member- ship of the Commission is required to approve the Plan or any amendment thereto. Discussion followed. Mrs. Becker asked if it would be improper to approve the Plan with the changes that have been approved this evening? Mr. Tanguma indicated he felt such a motion would be proper. Becker moved: Bilo seconded: The Planning Commission approve the 1979 Com- prehensive Plan, as amended April 24, 1979, and that this Plan be referred to City Council for approval and adoption. Mrs. Romans again reminded the Commission that the final version of the Plan would contain the up-dated History and Character, a Forward and Summary. Further discussion ensued. The vote was called. AYES: Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P. M. .. -11- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 24, 1979 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Application Housing Assistance Plan RECOMMENDATION: Pierson moved: Bilo seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Community Development Block Grant application and the Housing Assistance Plan as written, and that these documents be recommended to City Council for approval. AYES: Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.