Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-18 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 18, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Ed McBrayer. Members present: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre , Becker, Ca r son, Gilchrist Members absent: Also present: Susan T. King, Acting Ex-officio Senti Linda Knopinski, Housing Administrator Kathy Reeves, Rehab Technician Mr. Tom Dinkel, First Interstate Bank II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that Minutes of the meeting of May 4, 1982 , were to be considered for approval. Tanguma moved: Gilchrist seconded: The Minutes of May 4, 1982, be approved as written . AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Becker, Gilchrist, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti ABSTAIN: Barbre, Carson The motion carried. III. HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM. Ms. King introduced Englewood Housing Division staff memb ers Linda Knopinski, Housing Administrator, and Kathy Reeves, Re h ab Technician, a nd Mr . To m Dinkel of the First Interstate Bank who serves on the Rehab Loan Comm it tee . Mrs. Knopinski reviewed the programs which are administere d b y the Hous ing Division of the Community Development Department, and point ed out that these programs include the Simon Center, a 104-unit elderly complex; Orchard Place, a 100-unit elderly/handicapped complex; the Housing Assis - tance Program (.Section 8) which has 137 units in the private s e cto r ; and the Housing Division is in the process of developing five duplexes (10 units) for low-income family housing. These programs are in addition t o the Housing Rehabilitation Program, which is designed to bring exist ing sub-standard housing stock up to minimum housing standards • Mrs. Knopinski reviewed the history of the Rehab i litation Program, wh i ch was begun in 1976 with the p urpose of as sisting low-income elderly people to live in standard housing, and to rehabilitate substand a r d dw el ling units to meet the minimum local standards. Mrs. Knopinski p o inte d out that the program was later expanded to include rehabil itat ion of low-income -2- family housing as well as that of the elderly. Mrs. Knopinski pointed out that 75% of the housing stock in Englewood was built prior to 1956. In 1979, a survey was undertaken by the Building Division, which found that 19% of the 13,00o+ units in the City were substandard. Mrs. Knopinski then discussed the funding for the Housing Rehabilitation Program, and stated that funds have been obtained from the City, from HUD CDBG funds, from the State Housing Division, and a line of credit from a consortium of local banks --First Interstate, First National of Englewood, Republic National, and Community Bank & Trust. The initial funding for the Rehab Program in 1976 included $90,000 from the City, and $40,000 from the State. In 1977, $150,000 in HUD CDBG funds was received, which funds were used to leverage a $450,000 line of credit from the consortium of Banks, at that time Continental National Bank (First Interstate), First National Bank and Republic National. An additional $226,000 in CDBG funds was received in 1979, and the State Housing Division contributed $35,000, which funds were again used to leverage an additional $350,000 line of credit from the four banks which were then participating in the program. In 1981, $390,000 in CDBG funds was received, and the program was expanded to in- clude "grants" in addition to the various loans. Mrs. Knopinski pointed out that the "grant" program is done with non-bank funds, and is offered to low-income homeowners, only. In 1982, the City of Englewood allocated $100,000 to the program. The Housing Authority has used the $100,000 and the 1981 CDBG funds to leverage a $500,000 line of credit from the bank consortium. Mrs. Knopinski stated that the total amount of funds that the Rehab Program has had to work with is $2,331,000. Mrs. Knopinski then discussed the types of loans and grants available through this pro- gram. There are deferred loans, subsidized loans, pass-through loans, and investor loans, as well as the grants which may be obtained through this program. Mrs. Knopinski pointed out that the Deferred Loan and the Grants may be approved by the Housing Authority Executive Director; the Subsidized Loans, Pass-Through Loans, and Investor Loans must be approved by the Rehab Loan Cormnittee. Mr. Barbre asked what the median income is for the City of Englewood? Mrs. Knopinski stated that the median income for a family of four in Arapahoe County is presently $21,700. Mr. Allen stated that he understood some of the loans were interest-free. Mrs. Knopinski stated that the deferred loans are interest-free, and are not repaid until such time as there is a transfer of property, conveyance, or death. This type of loan is offered to low-income, has a maximum of $5,000, and is made out of non-bank funds. The Grant program is offered to low and very-low income; there are restrictions on assets, the location of home and the eligible work items depending on the source of the funds available. A deed of trust is filed on the property, which deed of trust contains a declining lien provision on the grant; the grant amount declines 20% per year, and is totally eliminated after a five-year period. The repayment of the various loans was discussed. Mr. Gilchrist asked to whom the capital gains went when a rehabilitated property was sold? Mrs. Knopinski stated that they would go to the property owner. Mrs. Knopinski pointed out that applicants for the Pass-through Loans and the Investor Loans do not have to be low-income, but do have to be in one of the Target Areas. There is no subsidy on these loans, and only the bank money is used. Mrs. Knopinski stated that Investor Loans have more stringent • -3- requirements the applicants have to me et , i ncluding p resenting proof they have been denied a loan for this purpose by two lendi ng agencies. There is a maximum loan amount of $40 ,000, the property mu st be within a Target Area, cannot be more than four units, and there must be an agreement signed by the property owner that the rentals on these units will be held below the Fair Market Rent for one year following completion of the construct ion. Upon a question by Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Knopinski stated that Fair Market Rents are published once each year; these are the maximum rents that the Housing Division may use in signing contract s on the Housing Assis tance Payments (Section 8) program; these rent guidelines are established by the Federal Government, but are based on local i nf ormation. Mrs. Knopinski stated that as she recalled, the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom uni t in this area is approximately $395, including uti lities. Mrs. Knopinski stated that the utility allowance is not realis tic . Mrs. Knopinski stated that on the Investor Loans, there is a maximum of 30% of the total loan that can be fo r general property improvements; there must be Code items or energy conservation type improvement s that are made to the property. Mr. McBrayer inquired how the banks could make any money when the interest charged on the loans is at 11.5%? Mrs. Knopinski stated that Mr. Dinkel would more fully discuss the financial aspects of the program. Mr. Stoel asked for a definition of "substandard" what guidelines were used in determining substandard housing? Mrs. Kathy Reeves stated that this determination was made by the Building Division in their survey they made in 1979; housing which was not up to grade to provide a healthy en- vironment for the occupants, or which had visual hazards were classified as substandard. Mrs. Reeves stated that a lot of the determination was made on visual aspects of the properties. Mr. McBrayer asked if funds that were being repaid were put back into the loan system and reloaned to other individuals? Mrs. Knopinski more fully discussed the repayment of the loans granted through the program, and did state there is minimal repayment so far in the program. She noted that the economy is very poor, and that the loans are being granted to persons who would not be eligible for loans through the convent ional lending process. Mrs. Knopinski pointed out that there are two closings on all loans; there is a construction loan closing, and a permanent loan closing after the re- habilitation work is completed. Mrs. Knopinski then discussed status of current funding for the program ; she noted that the funds from the bank consortium are not recirculated and reloaned when repayment is made. On the second letter of credit from the banks, there is a $7,000 balance remain i ng in the program. The third letter of credit, for the $500,000, has no funds connnitted from it, and approval from HUD is still pending. Of the City funds, $35,400 has been repaid; from the $100,000 which the City pledged for 1982, no funds have been used to this date, but $15,000 is committed. There is $5,700 re- maining of the funds from the State. Mr. McBrayer asked if HUD, the state and/or the City took into account the pay-back rate on the loans in approving further allocations? Mrs. Knopinski stated that this had not been the case in the past; however, these agencies were beginning to consider the pay-back rate. -4- Mrs. Knopinski stated that from the CDBG funds --all allocations, there is a balance of $44,000, which includes some repayments. Mrs. Knopinski stated that there are 10 rehab jobs under construction at the present, and 162 rehab jobs have been completed since the inception of the program. Mrs. Knopinski referred to a map of the Target Areas, and stated that these areas were designated as "Areas of Concern" in the 1969 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gilchrist asked who chooses the contractor, and who supervises the work? Mrs. Knopinski stated that Mrs. Reeves would address this issue in her portion of the presentation. Mrs. Knopinski then discussed future funding of the rehabilitation program . An application was submitted to the State in March; the application was turned down, but we were told the City was #1 in line for this type of funding assitance, and to check back in June. Mrs. Knopinski indicated that future requests for assistance from the City would depend on what other revenue resources are available. Mrs. Knopinski stated that the regulations for the CDBG funds for 1982 were not yet available; she dis- cussed the changes that are being instituted in the application process which will go from a preliminary application and a final application to a one-step process. The propos~d regulations on the new process will be published in mid-June, and will then have to be approved by Congress. Mrs. Knopinski stated that it appeared the State of Colorado would remain at the same level of assistance from the Federal Government, and could receive $8,000,000 to $9,000,000 state-wide. Mrs. Knopinski stated that the City of Englewood would be competing for discretionary funds for non- entitlement cities --under 50,000 population .. Mrs. Knopinski stated that another reason for the delay in availability of 1982 CDBG funds was that when the States were given the option of taking over the administration of the CDBG funds by the Federal Government, Colorado did not choose to do so; this has contributed to the delay. Mrs. Knopinski discussed the new requirement that will become effective in 1983 when Colorado assumes control of the funds; they will be on state-wide competition, and HUD will require that there be a 10% match on funds that are awarded. Mrs. Knopinski stated that she had discussed this with Mrs. Jonas, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, earlier in the day, and Mrs. Jonas has expressed the opinion that the new regulations will simplify the entire process, and there will be more flexibility in the program to meet the local needs. Mrs. Knopinski stated that Mr. Tom Dinkel of the First Interstate Bank would discuss the role of the banks in the rehabilitation program. Mr. Dinkel stated that the consortium of banks is composed of the First Interstate Bank, Community Bank & Trust, Republic National, and the First National Bank of Englewood. Mr. Dinkel stated that the officials in the banks have seen the need for the rehabilitation program, and th~t the "health" of the community is important to them. Mr. Dinkel stated that he had attended the dedication of Orchard Place on May 16th9 which is the new 100-unit building for the elderly and handicapped; he stated that the cost of this building breaks down to approximately $40,000 per unit; he stated that this is pretty expensive compared to the rehabilitation pro- gram. He stated that with a little money and a little help, the existing housing stock can be fixed up and become comfortable homes; he stated that he feels it is a worthwhile program. • -5- Mr. Dinkel stated that in 1977, the first line of credit from the banks for $450,000 was loaned to the Housing Authority at 6-1/2% interest; the second line of credit in 1979 for $350,000 was loaned at 8% interest, and the latest $500,000 line of credit from the banks will be loaned at 10-1/2%. The Hous ing authority takes these funds and loans them to prop- erty owners and will collect 11-1/2% on the $500,000 line of credit. Mr. Dinkel stated that when a homeowner would apply through a conventional lending agency for a home improvement loan, they would pay about 20% in- terest; this makes the Housing Rehabilitation Program very attractive at the current 11-1/2% interest rate. Mr. Dinkel stated that he felt the rehabilitation program is a good combination of private enterprise and governmental entities to leverage funds and make them available for the improvement of the community. Mr. Dinkel stated that while the Housing Authority staff does the majority o f the paperwork, the bank staff does have considerable work on the program also, The Housing Authority staff does collect the payments from the h ome owners. Mr. Tanguma asked why more funds are not made available from the banks. Discussion ensued. Mr. Dinkel then discussed the return the banks look for on funds that are loaned, and noted that today's prime rate is 16%. Mr. McBrayer asked if the bank consortium worked on a similar basis with other municipalities? Mr. Dinkel stated that they do not. They do bid on funds made available by CHFA (Colorado Housing Finance Authority), which could be loaned in other areas. The banks try to work with a "territory" such as that area within a ten-mi nute drive of the bank. Mr. Dinkel stated that if a proposal was presented that made econom ic, social and civic sense, they would consider it if it was in another municipality in the immediate area. Mrs. Becker asked how leveraging worked? Mr. Dinkel stated that the rehab program initially began with funds from Federal, State and local govern- ments, which funds were limited and therefore limited what could be accomplished in the program. The banks were approached and asked if they would be willing to participate in the program, which result was an approx imate doubling of the funds availab le to the program. Mr. Dinkel discu ssed the loans which the banks participate in, such as the subsidized loans, the pass-through loans, and the investor loans. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt the banks were performing a great ser- vice to the commun ity by participating in the rehabilitation loan program, and felt that the program should be better publicized. He stated that he did not feel many people were aware there was a program, and that every effort should be made to let the residents of Englewood know o f the ex- istence of this program. Mrs. Kathy Reeves discussed the construction aspect of the rehabilitation loan program. Mrs. Reeves stated that she and Mr. VanDemark work with the actual construction of the improvements, which work begins with the initial inspection of the property. Mrs. Reeves stated that the program is concerned with (1) Code items, (2) Energy conservation, (3) Handicap refit, and (4) General Property improvement. Three contractors are sent out to bid on each application; the contractors have to meet the insurance requirements, and must be licensed by the City of Englewood. A recent credit report on the general contractor is also required. Bids are sub- mitted, and on the loans , the homeowner may choose the contractor; on the -6- grant program, the low-bidder is selected to do the work. Mrs. Reeves stated that the Building Department, Mr. VanDemark, and she monitor the home improvement work while it is under construction; the Building Depart- ment inspectors look over the actual construction aspects of the case, and she and Mr. VanDemark look at the workmanship aspects of the job. Mrs. Reeves stated that 75 re-wires have been completed under this program, and 60 furnaces have been replaced. The majority of the work done under the program has been to correct innninent hazards; there has been some general property improvement work done as well. Mr. Tanguma asked if he understood correctly that the program used only three contractors? Mrs. Reeves stated that three contractors are sent out on each application; they have a pool of 15 -20 contractors which are sent out to bid on jobs on a rotating basis. Mrs. Reeves stated that the contractors are held to the bids they submit, and cannot draw more than 80% of the funds due them until the job is 100% completed and signed off by the Building Department and the homeowner. Mrs. Reeves stated that they try to work mostly with local contractors. Mr. Allen asked what the average construction job ran? Mrs. Reeves stated that the average job is about $8,000. There is a maximum of $17,500 that may be obtained on a loan. Mrs. Reeves then presented slides of homes that were in need of rehabilitating; of homes that have been rehabilitated under the program, both before and after photo$, and of the work in progress. Also shown were areas of deterioration, such as crumblin~ foundations. Mrs. Reeves stated that the grant funding ~ has been concentrated in Northwest Englewood, and that a great many of the homeowners in Northwest Englewood have taken advantage of the rehabilitation loan/grant progr~m. Mr. Dinkel suggested that this activity would also en- courage private development which is taking place in the Northwest Englewood area. Mr. Allen asked how much could be obtained under the grant program? Mrs. Reeves stated that $15,000 is the maximum amount available under the grant portion of the program. Mr. Allen stated that he felt this is a very worthwhile program. Mrs. Knopinski stated that regarding the funds from the bank consortium, there is a limit on what may be lent to any one entity, and the limit may be increased at such time as some of the loans are repaid. Mrs. Knopinski then further discussed leveraging of funds. Ms. King stated that this concluded the Housing Rehabilitation Program presentation, and expressed the appreciation of the Planning Staff and Commission to Mrs. Knopinski, Mrs. Reeves, and Mr. Dinkel for their attendance and presentation. Mr. McRrayer also thanked Mrs. Knopinski, Mrs. Reeves and Mr. Dinkel for their attendance. It was noted that Mrs. Dorothy Romans and Assistant City Attorney Holland had entered the meeting during the presentation by Mrs. Reeves. • -7- IV. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals met with the City Council at 7:00 P.M. this evening, May 18th, and one of the topics of discussion was the new Sign Code and the effect that variances to the pro- visions of the Code could have on the effectiveness of the Code. Mrs. Romans reported that the Board members were supportive of the new Sign Code, and presented some suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which would set forth guidelines for granting variances on the Sign Code. Mrs. Romans stated that if the Planning Commission members were in agreement with the need for specific guidelines, it could be dis- cussed further with the City Attorney, and incorporated into the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission members should consider the proposed amendments and be pre- pared to discuss them at the next meeting, and consider setting a Public Hearing in July. Mrs. Romans stated that the Urban Renewal Plan will be presented for dis- cussion at the meeting of June 8th. Mr. Rick DeWitt,City Attorney, would also be present at the meeting on June 8th to discuss possible amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding public buildings and facilities. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Capital Improvements Program would be con- sidered at the meeting of June 22nd. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker referred to the Commissions work goals for 1982/83, and sug- gested that possibly Item #10 could be eliminated from this list; that this problem could be handled under the Weed and Litter Ordinance which was enacted in 1981. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked that the Commission Work Goals be reviewed, and that matters which were indicated for the June 8th timing be prepared and presented to the Commission at that meeting. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had submitted a written report on the APA Conference in Dallas, Texas, which he had attended. He stated that he also has a considerable amount of literature which other members may borrow for review. He stated that he found much of interest to him in this conference, and would like to discuss with the staff some suggested chan~es and revisions in procedure that he would like to see implemented. He stated that one thing he found interesting is that in many areas, joint public hearings are held by the City Council and Planning Commission; this saves time for the applicant, and seems to work well. Mr. McBrayer stated that at the time the vote was taken whether to send a delegate to this conference there was some dissension on the part of some m~mbers as to the worth of such a conference. He stated that he found that -8- a great deal could be learned just by sitting in an informal discussion session with other delegates from other parts of the country. He stated there were 2,700 in attendance at this conference, and that in discussions he found that Englewood was much further ahead in many areas than he had previously thought. * Mrs. Becker stated that she felt attendance at the APA Conferences is most beneficial, and stated that she strongly felt two people from the City should attend these conferences. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. trude G. Welty ecording Secretar *As amended June 8, 1982 •