Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273504101001, 273503201002 (1993)PARCEL ID: 2735-041-01-00127 �DATE RCVD:CASED CASE NAME: East Owl Creek Employee S/D Amendment to Detailed/Final Plat Planners PROJ ADDR: 80 Thistle Ln 161 Thistle Ln 400 Badger Hollow 381 Badger Hollow OWNIAPP: McKenzie; Dinsmoor ADRF— C/SIM100 PHN:r REP:I ADR:F— CISIZ:� PHN:r Email Addr: IALLOCATED HOURS FEES DUE:7 FEES RCVD:F— % OVER: REFERRALSI REF:F—BYF— DUE: I' - MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: 4/15/1992 4115/1992 BOCCNO— BOCC Reso: 92-122'X344196 93-56 No E F - No BOCC Ord: REMARKS no vesting New PIDs 2735-041-01-702 2735-D41-01-701 2735- PZ: 032-01-702 2735-032-01-701: BOCC Reso #93-66 #356208// HRG OFF: CLOSED: BY:I — � HO INDEX: ADMIN: �— PLAT RECORDED PLAT (BK,PG): n/a ADMIN INDEX: VR APPROVAL DATE: F^ VR EXPIRES: F— CASETYP: IAmendment to Detailed/Final Plat CASE TYPS: F CASE TYP2;1 CASE TYP6: CASE TYP3: ICASE TYP7: CASE TYP4: Date Scanned: 4121/15 File Location: FF Boxes 44356208 04/2-tV-'3 11:13 Rec s.00 BK 709 PF ''01 Silvia Davis',,-'itkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ESTABLISHING FIVE (5) DEED RESTRICTION OPTIONS FOR EAST OWL CREEK LOT OWNERS E1 - E4 Resolution No. 93-.y4- RECITALS 3-3G RECITALS 1. Since last fall the Housing Board and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) have met with the East Owl Creek lot owners in an effort to resolve a wide variety of issues surrounding the experimental program which allows lot owners to construct their own affordable house; 2. The BOCC held five meetings in an effort to develop an equitable solution to the many issues which the lot owners have brought forward for BOCC consideration; 3. As these meetings progressed, the BOCC realized that no one solution was capable of addressing the wide variety of issues which the lot owners brought forward; 4. The BOCC made several findings: a. The concept of owner built housing is an experimental program and as in any experiment adjustments must be made; b. No one solution will address all of the issues associated with this experimental program; C. The BOCC developed a list of five (5) different options for the lot owners to select from. This list was developed with the -intent of meeting the different needs of each lot owner; d. The BOCC made it clear that this list of options was not a policy precedent, but only an adjustment to an experimental program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the BOCC are creating five (5) deed restriction options from which the individual lot owners can select one option. The five (5) options offered to the lot owners are summarized as follows: option #1 * Maximum Resale Price: $185,800 or actual cost, whichever is less. 000001 of 3 9 a #=6206 04/26/97-11:1- Rec 2. Vi BK. 709 FG W Silvia Davis, Pfv-:in Cnty Clerk, Doc �.OU * Appreciation Cap: 3% or CPI, whichever is less; appreciation will start at the time of building permit (Lot 1 - 2/91; Lot 2 - 6/91; Lot 3 - 7/90; Lot 4 - 8/91) * Capital Improvements: none. Option #2 (Housing Board Resolution 92-8) * Maximum Resale Price: $135,800 plus $30,000 adjustment. * Appreciation Cap: 6% or CPI, whichever is less; however, appreciation is only permitted on $135,800: the $30,000 adjustment is never appreciated. Appreciation starts at the time of Certificate of Occupancy (Lot 1 - 4/93, Lot 2 - 1/93, Lot 3 - 3/91, Lot 4 - 7/92). * Capital Improvements: none. y Option #3 (Original Executed Deed Restriction) * Maximum Resale Price: $135,800 * Appreciation Cap: 6% or CPI, whichever is less. Appreciation starts at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. * Capital Improvements: none. Option #4 (BOCC Resolution #92-122) * Maximum Resale Price: $165,800 or actual cost, whichever is less. * Appreciation Cap: 3% or CPI, whichever is less. * Capital Improvements: 10%. Option #5 * Maximum Resale Price: $135,800 plus lot and site preparation costs. Approximate prices based upon lot owner estimates: Lot 1 - $152,800 Lot 2 - $169,800 Lot 3 - $155,800 Lot 4 - $169,800 * Appreciation Cap: 6% or CPI, whichever is less; once the value of the home reaches $185,000, then the appreciation cap changes to 3% or CPI, whichever is less. Appreciation will 2 1�1 •#756'2(_)E 04/26/93 11: 17,' ec s. on Df�. 709 FG 703 . Silvia Davis, Pitkin G.wy Clerk, Doc $-0(_) ou start at the mid -point between the time of building permit and Certificate of Occupancy (Lot 1 - 3/92, Lot 2 - 3/92, Lot 3 - 11/90, Lot 4 - 1/92). * Capital Improvements: none. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the lot owners will have ninety (90) days from the adoption of this resolution to select their preferred option; if no option is selected within ninety (90) days, then the existing deed restriction will remain in effect. APPROVED BY the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado at their regular meeting on April 27, 1993. PU LISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN THE ASPEN TIMES on the 3O � DAY OF1993. ATTEST: _ BOARD OF COUNTY COMM' SSIONERS ATN OF PITKIN COUNTY,,,COORADO nette Jon uty Clerku Recorder AS TO FORM: By: , Chairman Date: MANAGER APPROVAL: ;Fa -mo y IE. �Whitsitt Reid Haughey J rmi v Attornev County Manager J APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Fifty 9 Thomas M. gaker Executive Director, Housing eoul.rso 3 000003 ,-Itj 0344196 04/30/92 14,25 Rec 0.00 BK 676 PS 3" . Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clark, Doc s.00 OF THE BOARD OP COUNTY COMMISSIONERS yRESOLUTION 08 PITKIY COUNTY, COLORADO, MRABTING AN AI®lOM8111' TO $.�; -. ". DETAILED/FINAL PLAT APPROVALS OF TSE EAST OWL CREEK`^-``' EMPLOYEE LOTS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE �G• ' - SUBDIVISION IMPR0VENEN'1S AGREEMENT Resolution No. 92- WERREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County (hereinafter -Board') has reviewed a request by Patricia McKenzie, Eliot Dinemoor, at al (hereinafter -applicants") for an amendment i to the deed restrictions for East Owl Creek POD Employee Lots 1- ( 9 .' 4; and WHEREAS, the Board granted approval of General Submission, ' pursuant to Resolution No. 88-171, and Detailed/Final Plat, c pursuant to Resolution No. 89-55, for the East Owl Creek ^' Subdivision PUD, including conditions limiting the resale of Al , employee lots to the moderate income level; and - WHEREAS, the approval, and the subdivision improvements .� agreement which vas approved simultaneously, alloyed for they development of live (5) affordable housing lots, and four of these lots were subsequently conveyed to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and were provided to four qualified local families for the development of single family homes; and r `( WHEREAS, the applicants request that the deed restrictions on _.1.. their four (4) affordable houses and lots be amended to increase the maximum base price from $105,800 to $165,800; extend the date �l!' of a Certificate of Occupancy for six (6) months from the date of y. 21 1 A i ,-Itj J. 1 #344196 04/30/92 14,25 Rec $.00 BK 676 PO 33O Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc a.O0 Resolution No. 92-Z2�1- Page 2 this approval, and raise the rate of capitol improvements from O2 to 10t, subject to a stringent schedule of permitted improvements as set forth by the Eousinq Authority; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's have submitted information verifying that of the three hoes completed orpartially constructed, the actual cost of construction has far exceeded the $135,800 maximum base price for resale; and WHBRERS, the cost overruns appear to be associated with a number of causes, including foundation and excavation costs, additional square footage, and individual homeowner construction costs; and WHHRRRE, an increased base resale value of $165,800 is still below the coat of similarly constructed subsidized single family homes Such as Twin Ridge; and WHBRRAB, an adjusted base value of $165,800 will be available to approximately half of the qualified Category 3 income levels and all of Category 4 levels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that it does approve an amendment to the East 0wl Creek Final Plat approval and subdivision Improvements Agreement as they pertain to Employee Lots E -i through E-4 as follows: 1. Amend condition fl the Detailed/Final Plat approval (condition 03)G.1. OF Revolution e9-131) and the provisions of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement by raising the moderate income category limit on lots E-1 - 8-4 to income categories 3 and 4, with a priority to Categories 3 when all other eligibility items are equal. Allow employee lots E-1 through E-4 to increase their base price from $135,600 to $165,800 or the lesser of the actual costs. M 0344196 04/30/92 14:25 Rec $.00 SK 676 PH 331 ... - Silvia Davis, Pitkin Casty Clerk, Doc e.00 4. Resolution No. 92-zlp—y Page 3 2. Extend the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for six (6) months from the date of BOcc approval. 3. Reduce the rate of appreciation from 64 to 34 per year or the CPI, whichever is less. 4. Add Fannie Nae financing provisions as appropriate. 5. For the purpose of determining maximum sale price, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction Agreement and Covenant, shall allow the cost of Permitted Improvements (as specified by the Housing Authority) to be added to the unit sale price in a total amount not to exceed $16,580, which is ten percent (10%) of the sale price of $165,800. In calculating this amount, only those Permitted Improvements identified by the Housing + Authority and attached to the resale agreement shall qualify. All such Permitted Improvements installed or constructed over the life of the unit shall qualify. However, the allowance permitted is a fixed amount which shall be calculated an a cumulative basis applicable to the owner and all subsequent purchasers and shall not exceed $16,580. The individual lot owners may retain their current deed restriction or voluntarily agree to the amended deed restriction at their sole discretion. APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting on April to 1992. 1S BOARD OF COUNTY CONIISSIONmRS, PITNIN COMITY, COLORADO HY�J • R. True, Cha Date '//3e z? T: 'I 6L nnette Jona eputy Clerk d Recorder � R r s MEMORANDUM TO: APCHA Board FROM: Jim Curtis, Acting Director DATE: February 20, 1992 SUBJECT: Request to Amend Deed Restriction for East Owl Creek Employee Lots ISSUE Four (4) employee lots were created as part of the East Owl Creek Subdivision approved in June 1989. These were the first employee lots created as part of the affordable housing program and it was acknowledged at the time the lots would be an experiment in the housing program. Patricia McKenzie and Eliot Dinsmoor, the owners of Lot E2, with the support of the other three lot owners, have requested amendments to the deed restriction which would apply to all the lot owners as described below: 1. The Deed Restriction requires the lot owner to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the house within 18 months of the date of recording the Deed Restriction, which was November 2, 1990 (Page 2, Item 5). The 18 -month period ends April 2, 1992. Lots E3 and E4 will comply with the April 2, 1992 date, but Lots E1 and E2 will not be able to comply with the date. 2. The Deed Restriction sets a total maximum base price for the lot and house not to exceed $135,800 for resale calculations independent of the actual cost of the lot and house (Page 3, Item 8). All but one home (Lot E1), which is not completed at this time, will significantly exceed the $135,800 maximum base price. 3. I wish to highlight the Deed Restriction also provides for a 6% versus 3% annual rate of appreciation or CPI, whichever is less (Page 4, Item 12), and permits the recapture of the cost of capital improvements only when they are required by a governmental body or homeowners' association (Page 4, Item 12). 4. McKenzie/Dinsmoor have also requested they be permitted to duplex their house between the upper and lower floors and preferably rent the lower floor and/or sell the lower floor. This request only applies to their house due to their financial problems and would not apply to the other houses. 000003 Y East Owl Creek Employee Lots February 17, 1992 Page 2 The heed Restriction, the McKenzie/Dinsmoor request, a<letter from Charlie Tarver (Lot E4), and a plat of the subdivision are attached as Appendices A,, B, C, and D. Any amendment to the Deed Restriction will require an amendment to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Protective Covenants of the subdivision which were approved by the County Commissioners. The APCHA action will therefore only be a recommendation to the County Commissioners. BACKGROUND A'brief chronology of the employee lots is given below: 1. June 1989. The East Owl Creek Subdivision was approved and four employee lots were conveyed to APCHA. A fifth employee lot was created and retained by the developer as a ranch manager lot as part of the subdivision approval. The four' lots were approved as Moderate Income (subsequently Category 3) and the homes were restricted to a maximum size of 1,400 s.f. net livable plus a maximum 500 s.f. garage. 2. December 1989. The lottery winners of the lots processed an amendment to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement approved by the County Commissioners which permitted the homes to be a maximum size of 2,000 s.f. net livable plus a -maximum 500 s.f. garage. The lots remained Moderate Income (Category 3) and the amendment stated that the resale price of the homes would be, based on a "residence of no more than 1,400 s.f. of living space plus a 500 s.f. garage even if the actual constructed living area of the residence exceeds that amount." 3. November 1990. The lot sales were closed and the Deed Restrictions executed. A cooperative- review of the Deed Restriction had been on-going between the purchasers and APCHA prior to executing the final Deed Restriction. 4. Summer 1991. Construction on the homes started with each individual lot owner proceeding at varying construction schedules. CURRENT STATUS The following; information comes from a meeting I had with the homeowners on February 12, 1992. 00000 `-e East Owl Creek Employee Lots February 17, 1992 Page 3 Lot E1 - Owners Jan and Roy Holloway and family. Foundation work completed; prefab, manufactured home under contract; scheduled delivery date May; expected move -in date of August. LOL hL — UWIaCi.7 Log structure house approximately 70% complete. Completion and expected move -in date dependent .1 n finding additional funds to complete the structure. hQy,7 bac. LLOL MJ — UWIM and occupied. LOU L4 VWIMZ . �.aaa a.iy.c c approximately 95% completed Actual Constructed Lot House Size E1 2,000 s.f. net E2 2,000 s.f. net E3 1,966 s.f. net E4 2,000 s.f. net Home completed Kim Tarver. and Ruth Baxter. Home th an expected move -in date by April. Actual or Estimated Actual Lot & House Constructed Development Garacre Cost Lot Price 500 s.f. $104,000 $13,700 500 s.f. $195,800 $13,700 Garage $17,900 planned $160,000 500 s.f. $165,600 $17,900 I wish to note the low cost estimate for Lot E1 is based on a prefab, manufactured home which is under contract but which has not been delivered or set at this time. I therefore feel the cost estimate is subject to change until the house is completed and occupied. The other homes are more custom designed than the proposed E1 home which appears to have added to their increased cost. All of the owners have encountered topsoil, excavation, foundation and subsurface water problems which have added anywhere from $10,000-$20,000 of additional unexpected cost. See Charlie Tarver (Lot E4) letter in appendix C. The owners agree this is where the major surprises of their cost overruns occurred. The owners also experienced frustration and delays in processing their building permits, which delayed their construction starts and increased their costs. This should be addressed as a separate item with the County Commissioners and the Building Department. 000010 East Owl Creek Employee Lots February 17, 1992 Page 4 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The relevant items of the, proposed 1992Guidelines for Categories 3 and 4 are compared below: Lot Minimum Category Income Range House Prices Prices House Size #3 $55,000- 70,000 $102,000-140,000 $ 1 1,400 s.f. net #4 $70,000-100,000 $140,000-200,000 $25,000 1,400 s.f. net 2. The Twin Ridge13single-family homes are the only other single-family homes in the housing program. The Twin Ridge (Category 4) house sizes and base prices are given below; House Sizes Garage Base Price Low 1,350 s.f. net Yes $172,500 Average 1,700 s.f. net Yes $179,615 High 2,200 s.f. net Yes $186,500' 3. The Eagle Pines Subdivision will convey threeemployeelots, approved as Category #4, i.e.-$70,000-$100,000 income range and .$140,000-$200,000 house ,price range. The Eagle, Pines homes are proposed to be restricted to a maximum 1,600 s.f. net livable size without mention of garages. 4. Based on rough estimates from staff,, the total development costs on -single-family homes with garages will likely range from $100 ,to $110 s.f. net livable (excluding lot and utilities cost). This cost is, highly dependent on the amount of sweat equity ,the owner and friends can put into the house' and if the ,house is custom designed and built, or a predesigned, prefab, manufactured home. Therefore, if 1,600-2,000 s.f. net livable homes are constructed, their development cost will range from $160,000 to $220,000. Owners of single-family homes generally desire, and require, larger homes of-1,600,to 2,000-s.f.'net livable. Single-family homes in the downvalley market are usually, minimally, this size or larger. The larger homes and the resulting higher house price' require Category 4 incomes to purchase the homes, be approved for mortgages, and meet our affordability target of a household not paying more than 28% of their income for housing. 000011 East Owl Creek Employee Lots February 17, 1992 Page 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Amend the Deed Restriction to extend the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by six months from the date of the County Commissioners' action. 2. Amend the Deed Restriction to make it more comparable to the Twin Ridge Deed Restriction as follows: a. Raise the Moderate Income Category to Category 4. b. Increase the maximum base price from $135,800 to $165,800 or the lesser of actual cost. C. Reduce the rate of appreciation from 6% to 3% per year or the CPI, whichever is less. d. Raise the capital improvements from 0% to a 10% cap with a very stringent schedule of permitted improvements. The permitted capital improvements would be very limited and would be prepared by staff working with the lot owners. e. Do not add Fannie Mae provisions at this time. These provisions may be added at any time as with a refinancing. The amendments would bring the Deed Restriction more comparable to Twin Ridge, Fairway III and Williams Woods. The $165,800 maximum base price would be slightly below the mid- point of Category 4 sales prices ($140,000-$200,000; mid -point of $170,000). The $165,800 maximum base price would be below the Twin Ridge lowest price of $172,500 and average price of $179,615. The $30,000 increase in the maximum base price would be approximately equal to the cost overruns for excavation and subsurface drainage, and their land payment. The reduction in the rate of appreciation from 6% to 3% annually or the CPI, whichever is less, should help keep the homes more affordable in the long-term and give greater protection against higher CPI increases as shown below. a. $135,800 base price @ 6% simple interest/year at 10 years _ $217,280. b. $165,800 base price @ 3% simple interest/year at 10 years _ $215,540. 3. The individual lot owners may either retain their current Deed Restriction or voluntarily agree to the amended Deed Restriction at their sole discretion. 000012 East Owl Creek Employee Lots February 17, 1992 Page 6 4. Do not permit the McKenzie/Dinsmoor house to be,duplexed and the lower floor rented, or sold. Even though this is primarily a land use issue, the affordable, housing .concept of the subdivision was to provide lots for single-family detached homes. Duplexes were actually discussed during the approval process and rejected because this was a "GMP opportunity to create individual lots. 5. Ask the lot owners to volunteer their time to review the proposed Eagle Pines Deed Restriction, Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Protective Covenants with staff. 6. Review the proposed 1992 Guidelines to ensure adequate soils and subsurface water testing and 'financial escrows are, required by the,lot developerprior to acceptance of the lot by APCHA. 000013 EXHIBIT A #37713 11/02/90 14:27 Pec $5r^00 Bk: 633 FG 376 Davis, Pitkin Cnty C1e rr, Doc $.00 OCCUPANCY, SALES, DEED RESTRICTION AGREEMENT AND COVENANT FOR SALE OF AN EAST OWL CREEK LOT THIS OCCUPANCY, SALES, DEED RESTRICTION AGREEMENT AND COVF,PjANT FOR SALE OF A PMH LOT (the "Ag Bement") is made and imposed this 2r)& day of lVoLPMb&r , by �� ivSmaoRA{o¢TPrC-iA(.m�KEn�Zz� ("Owner"), for the benefit of and enforceable by the ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, It APCHA" a duly constituted Multijurisdictional Housing Authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Owner owns the real property more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. For purposes of this Agreement, the Real Property and all appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, Owner agrees to restrict the acquisition and ownership of the Property to employees, residents and their families who fall within the moderate income sale guidelines established and indexed by the APCHA from time to time. In addition, the Owner agrees that this Agreement shall constitute a resale agreement setting forth the Maximum Sale Price, amount of appreciation and the terms and provisions of the resale of the Property, should Owner desire to sell the Property at any time after the date of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for value received, the -receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The use and occupancy of the Property, described above, shall henceforth be limited at the time of an Owner's initial occupancy exclusively to housing for individuals who are employed or reside in Pitkin County, their dependents, and who meet the definition of "qualified moderate income employees or residents" as that term is then defined by the most current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Annual Employee Guidelines or its substitute as adopted by APCHA or its successor. 2. This agreement shall constitute covenants running with the property as a burden thereon for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Owners, APCHA, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin, and or the City of Aspen, their respective successors and assigns as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction of non- complying tenants. 3. In the event the Owner desires to sell the Property, Owner must execute a standard Listing Contract with the APCHA on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission. The APCHA shall promptly advertise 000014 Silvia Davis, rit[::in Cnty Cler--:, Doc $.00 the property for sale by competitive bid to Q91ified Purchasers. Owner shall at closing pay a fee to the APCHA in an amount equal to two (2) percent of the -Purchase Price. 4. Owner agrees to apply for a residential building permit- for said property, from the Aspen/Pitkin County Building -Department within six (6) months of the date last shown herein. Failure to apply for said Building Permit required, shall result in sale, (through APCHA of the property to a "qualified purchaser" as defined by APCHA), by the Owner with no appreciation of the property except improvements, thereof, unless said failure `is -determined by APCHA to be through no fault ofapplicant in which case an extension of time in which to sell may be granted in APCHA's sole discretion. 5. it is acknowledged that the Owner agrees that owner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for said; property from the Aspen/Pitkin County Building Department withineighteen (18) months of the date last shown herein. Failure to receive the Certificate of Occupancy required shall result in the sale of, said property to a "qualified purchaser" through the APCHA by the Owners with no appreciation of the property except the actual cost or then current market value, whichever is lower, which must be verified by receipts, unless said failure is determined; by APCHA to be through no fault of Owner in which case an extension may be granted in APCHA's sole discretions 6. If at any time the current Owner of the Property also owns an interest in any other developed residential property, or dwelling, unit within Pitkin, Eagle, or Garfield Counties, State of Colorado,_ Owner agrees to immediately list said other property or unit for sale at a'sales price comparable to like units or properties in the area, until sold.' In the event said property or unit has not been sold by Owner within ninety (90) days of its 'listing, or within sixty (60) days of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Property in the case of the original Owner who already owned such other property at the time of his 'purchase of the Property, then Owner hereby agrees to immediately list the Property for sale ;pursuant to the sale provision. of this Deed Restriction. Itis understoodbetween the parties hereto that the prohibition of this paragraph is not intended to apply to an Owner whose business is the construction and sale of such residential properties or units, or the purchase and resale of such units, where such units or properties are not held for rental by Owner for periods exceeding six months. 7 All of the Original Owners must remain in title, as originally, approved unless waived by the APCHA. Except in the circumstances set forth in this paragraph, the sale of an interest by one joint owner shall require the sale of the property by all joint owners. Owners agree that the provisions of this paragraph shall be waived by APCHA in the event of death, a court ordered or approved property settlement among owners, leaving at least one owner in residence, or in the case where one owner desires to sell his interest and a Qualified Purchaser is presented to the APCHA for approval by the remaining Owners. In the last case, the 2 000015 Si l via ]Davis r-4 t PF' 633 PG 378 ... in Cnty Cler•4::, f:Qc $.C)o �.r Qualified Purchaser must satisfy any qualifications then in existence, must be acceptable to the remaining Owners and must purchase the interest subject to the provisions and restrictions set forth in this agreement. 8. "Original Purchase Price" is defined as the sum of: a. for land and associated infrastructure, plus b. The actual cost of construction of the Original Owner's dwelling located on the premises including all charges actually paid by Owner for architects and engineers fees, labor, materials, supplies and contractor's fees. Provided, however, that the Original Purchase Price, as calculated herein above shall in no event exceed the lesser of: a. The 1989 moderate residential housing guidelines set by APCHA of $97.00 per square foot for each are foot of net constructed, calculated pursuant to APCHA guidelines; livable space b. A total maximum price of $135,800.00. At the time of the issuance of the original Certificate of occupancy for the Property; APCHA agrees that it shall prepare, for acceptance by owner, as an addendum it this Agreement, a computation of the exact amount of the "Original Purchase Price" as defined herein and according to the documentation provided to APCHA by the Owner verifying same. 9. Owner represents and warrants that the Property is Owner's sole and exclusive place of residence. 10. Owner agrees that, in the event Owner changes Owner's domicile or ceases to .utilize the Property as Owner's sole residence, the Property shall then be offered for sale pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Owner shall be deemed to have changed owner's domicile bybecoming a resident or accepting permanent employment elsewhere, or residing on the Property for fewer than nine (9) month's per year without the express approval of the APCHA. The provisions of this paragraph shall be waived by APCHA in the event of a transfer of an interest of a joint Owner by reason of death and may be waived by APCHA in the event of a court ordered or approved property settlement among Owners, leaving at least one owner in residence. 11. Qualife"those meeting the qualifications set fytheAPCHA atthe t 3 000016 #32771_- 1/0 2490 .14 Rec $50.00 Pk:: 633 F6 3,i9 Silvia vis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk., D $-00 MAXIMUM RESALE PRICE 12. In no event shall the Property be sold for an amount in excess of the lesser of:` a. The Owner's original purchase price (see paragraph 8)plus an increase of six (6)percent of the purchase price per year from the date of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (prorated at the 'rate of .5% for each whole month for any part of a year); or b. an amount (based upon the Consumer Price Index All Items, U.S. City Average, Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (Revised) published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of -Labor Statistics) calculated as follows: the Owner's original purchase price multiplied by the Consumer Price Index published two (2) months prior to the date of owner's notice of desire to sell, divided by the Consumer Price Index published two (2) months prior to the date of issuance of the original Certificate of Occupancy, WHICHEVER "IS -LESS. Maximum Resale Price shall include the Property improved with water, septic, roads, telephone, and electrical, in-place, plus The cost of any Capital Improvements made subsequent to the issuance of the. original Certificate of Occupancy with regard to the Property, which Capital Improvements have been made, and paid for by Owner pursuant to the requirement of any governmental body or agency or, the Homeowner's Association. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE A GUARANTEE BY APCHA THAT ON RESALE THE 'OWNER ,SHALL OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM RESALE PRICE. 'RATHER IT SHALL CONSTITUTE ONLY, THEMAXIMUM'RESALE PRICE FOR WHICH THEPROPERTYMAY BE SOLD BY OWNER, IF A QUALIFIED BUYER IS FILLING TO PAY THAT PRICE. 13. All'disputes between Owner and APCHA administrative staff shall be resolved in accordance with, Grievance Procedures as outlined in the APCHA Guidelines as they are adopted from time to time. 14. Owner shall not permit any prospective purchaser to assume any or all of the Owner's customary closing costs nor accept any other consideration which would cause an increase in the purchase price above the bid price or Maximum Sale Price so as to induce the Owner to sell to suchprospective purchaser. 15. In the event a bid is received equal to or in excess of the Maximum Sale Price herein established, the 'Property shall be sold to such bidder at the Maximum Sale Price; and in the event Owner receives two or more bids equal to or in excess of the 'Maximum Sales Price, qualifying bidders shall be selected according to the Priority for Sale Units set forth in the APCHA Guidelines, as adopted from time to time, and, if necessary, a bidder shall be selected by lottery,. 4 000017 Silvia Davis, Fitk:in CntClerk:, Doc $_(ND whereupon the Property shall be sold to the winner of such lottery at the Maximum Sales Price. Owner shall have a period of two (2) days in which to consider and accept or reject any purchase offer less than the Maximum Sales Price. 16. The APCHA retains the right to exercise the right to purchase pursuant to the right -of first refusal over all offers for property made by a non-qualified purchaser, in the event of a foreclosure sale. In the event that no bids are received at a foreclosure sale, and may in such event purchase the property for ninety-five (95) percent of the Maximum Resale Price. BREACHES 17. In the event.that the APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner is violating the provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA by its authorized representative, may inspect the Property between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, after providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours' prior written notice. 18. In the event a violation is discovered, The APCHA shall send a notice of violation to the Owner detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the Owner fifteen (15) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner may request a hearing within this fifteen (15 ) days to determine the merit of the allegation. REMEDIES 19. There is hereby reserved to the parties hereto any and all remedies provided by law for breach of this Agreement or any of its terms. In the event that the Owner fails to cure any breach, Owner agrees that the APCHA may resort to legal action, including, but not limited to specific performance of this Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring sale of the property by Owner. The costs of such sale shall be taxed against the proceeds of the sale with the balance being paid to the Owner. 20. In the event the Property is sold and conveyed without compliance herewith, such sale shall be wholly null and void and shall confer no title whatsoever upon the purported purchaser. Each and every conveyance of the Property, for all purposes, shall be conclusively deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants herein contained, even without actual reference therein to this Agreement. 21. In the event of a breach of any of the terms or conditions hereof by Owner or the transfer of the Property to a Non - Qualified Transferee, the Original Purchase Price of the Property, as defined herein, shall upon the date of such breach or transfer 5 000013 22 23. #3277f 13 1' /-Q,^/90 14:ecCse+)4::, Dom �5.+, Si a Davis, itb::in Cnty 0 automatically cease to increase as set o in paragraph 12 hereof, and shall" remain fixed until the date of cure of said breach or disqualification. GENERAL PROVISIONS Any notice which is required to be given hereunder shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested, to any address provided herein or given as the current mailing address of the party. All notice, consents and approvals required by this agreement shall be in writing and shall be posted in the U.S. Maiil, certified, return receipt requested, properly addressed, and with full postage prepaid. Said notices, consents and approvals shall be deemed received on the earlier of (i) the date actually received, or (ii) two business days, after being mailed as aforesaid. Said notices, consents, and approvals shall besentto the parties hereto at the following addresses unless otherwise notified in writing. To APCHA: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 39551 Highway 82 Aspen, Colorado 81611- To Owner: E'lot U �5 MCOr 24. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party hereto brings an - action or. proceeding for a declarationof rights of the parties under this agreement, for injunctive relief, or specific performance for an alleged breach or default of, any other action arising- out of. this agreement :or the transactions _contemplated - hereby, or in the event any party is in default. of its obligations pursuant hereto whether or not suit is filed or prosecuted to final judgment the non -defaulting party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, _expert witness fees and other costs in addition to any court costs incurred in any 'actual proceeding brought to enforce its rights and, in addition to any damagesor relief awarded. 25. Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto are incorporated by reference and made apart hereof. 26. Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this agreement and any other related document shall be interpreted in such manner as to be valid under applicable law; but, ifanyprovisionofany of the foregoing shall be "invalid or prohibited under said applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective to the extent 6 000019 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerl.:, Doc x.00 of such in$alidity or prohibition without invalidating the remainder provisions of such document. 27. Choice of Law. This agreement and each and every related document is to be governed by, performed in and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin. 28. Successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions and covenants contained herein shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties. 29. section Headings. The headings of the sections in this agreement are inserted solely for convenience of reference, and are not intended to govern, limit or aid in the construction of any term of provision hereof. 30. Waiver. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of this agreement shall be made against any party hereto except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the parties to this Agreement. However, the party for whose benefit a condition is herein inserted shall have the unilateral right to waive such condition. 31. Gender and Number. Whenever the context so requires herein, the neuter gender shall include masculine and feminine and the singular number shall include the plural. 32. Personal Liability. Contrary to any provisions of prior agreement or understandings to the contrary, Owner agrees that Owner shall be personally liable for any of the transactions contemplated hereby. 33. Further Actions. The parties to this Agreement agree to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the provisions and intent of this agreement or any agreement or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. 34. Modifications. The parties to this agreement agree that modifications to this agreement shall be made only by writings signed by both parties and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. 7 000020 ,t3-7713 1 /rat/9 14:27 Rea $50.00 Pk. 33 PG 38:3 Silvia Davis, pi"kin Cntf clerk, Doc $_iiia IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the arties hereto have executed this instrument on this day of o e-t '1990 OWNER BY-4 Y, / /� NAME: F!i IY�i/vSrrrdcr.� / f���/C- it C �jSL>✓V "1FL TITLE Mailing Address: aox -,�F-t7 /fSfJi�W; lr� STATE OF Culozaod ) ) ss. COUNTY OF CiA4 ) /The foregoing instrument wa acknowledg before me his a day of --�' 1990, by �iofr�smn�r div �� L. (�c��ar:t; Witness my hand and official seal. My 77�ssion expires- Notary xpires Notary Public ACCEPTANCE BY HOUSING AUTHORITY The foregoing document and its terms are accepted by The Aspen/Pitkin_ County Housing Authority. THE ASP/EN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY BY TITLE. � MAILING ADDRESS: 39551 Highway 82 Aspen, Colorado 81611 8 000021 f #3 27 13 11/x-/90 14 `5 t U ^r Rec $ L'h.. ti33 ru ocY ^Salvia Davis, F'it4::in Cnty C1 4;. Doc $-00 -L✓ STATE OF COLORADO) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN Th .foregoing instrument was ack owledged before me this day of �• - , . 1990, by ra S cc tt witness my band and official seal. ;r LX e9mmission expires: o► c ary Public = eoc.dr REV. 03/15/90 9 000022 ',#3 x713 i/02/90 14:27 Fec ASO OV 0633 PG 385 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 EXHIBIT "A^- LEAS, A.SCRIFTION LOT E-2." EAST C(WL CREE SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, ISCORDED JUNE 29: 1969 IN PLAT_ BOCK 22 AT PACE 62. COUNTY CC PITYIN, STATE CC COLORADO. 000023 EXHIBIT B v MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority FROM: Patricia L. McKenzie and Eliot R. Dinsmoor DATE: February 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Lot E2 in East owl Creek Subdivision At the end of summer 1989 we won the right to purchase Lot E2 in the newly created subdivision in East Owl Creek. After reviewing the Deed Restrictions with the three other winners in the lottery, we petitioned the APCHA and County Commissioners to allow us to build up to a 2,000 s.f. home plus a 500 s.f. garage. We all believed that with our "sweat equity" we could do so and remain within the deed restricted value of $135,800 which had assumed a building cost in 1988 of $97/s.f. for 1,400 s.f. During the submission, review and subsequent approval of our request, we lost the ability to add $20,000 worth of capital improvements. In our case, we intended that money to pay for the 500 s.f. garage which we understood at the time to be acceptable. Following months of getting the approval for 2,000 s.f. we were finally able to purchase our lot on November 2, 1990, for approximately $14,000. That then gave us six months in which to apply for a building permit and 18 months in which to receive our Certificate of Occupancy. We contracted for a log shell to be built over the winter on December 14, 1990, and made a down payment. We did so at that time because we received a 15% discount by doing so and also to secure our place in their construction schedule. We were due to receive the shell in the.spring of 1991. We designed the house ourselves on grid paper and turned these floor plans and elevations over to someone who had been a designer, builder and building inspector to engineer the house and foundation for the site and draw up blueprints. This person consulted with the log home company before finalizing the plans. We then submitted our plans to the Building Department on April 4, 1991 for approval.; We were told that the turnaround time for approval was 4-6 mohths at that time, but because our project was deed restricted affordable housing that it would be fast tracked, taking 2-3 months. My husband works on the ski patrol through late April then farms in the summer. Our plan was for him to use his equipment to excavate the foundation, lay a block foundation and 000024 McKenzie-Dinsmoor February 7, 1992 Page 2 pour the concrete for the foundation during the month of May. The log shall was to have been delivered the first week of June and my husband was to have helped the two people we hired to build the house until he, got busy with haying in July. We also had several friends lined out to help us over the summer. However, we did not receive our building permit unit June 27, 1991. By then we lost our crew and subs to other jobs and my husband was getting ready to start his busy haying season. Nevertheless, he dug when he could in August. He hit topsoil to China and water and more water. We had to move our building site and hire an excavator, put in a French drain, re-engineer the foundation, hire concrete subs to pour footers, etc. This cost us approximately $10,000 more than budgeted. But more importantly, it set us back in time. The shell wasn't able to be delivered. until October 1, 1991. By the time we got our power in and our crew back from their other jobs, we were attempting to put the roof on in what turned out to be an early winter.- Because it is a log home with chinking that needs to be appliedin above 32 degree temperatures, the crew has been working in the cold which has slowed their effectiveness. Also,, all of our friends that were able to pitch in over the summer were busy meeting their own deadlines in the fall, then back at work on the mountains for ski season. We would have waited, but we couldn't because the ranch we live on was sold and we had to move out. We had budgeted for $30,000 over the $135,800 deed restricted value, i.e., $165,800 (our original construction estimate for $145,453 plus land cost ($13,700) plus an additional $5,000 for loan interest and closing costs) Since that time a number of other 'problems have arose and the overages, we now.estimate, bring the total cost of the house to approximately $195,800, i.e. another $30,0`00 over budget., During this same period, I'became unemployed and my husband lost his ranch manager job. We have both been seeking employment. --so far unsuccessfully. By next week we will have exhausted our construction loan. We are faced with the choice of walking away from the house unfinished and losing everything we have in it or working out some form of creative solution with you. I have, spoken with both Stan at Alpine Bank, through which we received our construction loan, and Dee Dee at Aspen Mountain Mortgage, through which we are getting our permanent financing. our construction loan expires March 17, 1992, but may be extended if we can show that we can afford to complete the house. our permanent financing has been extended to July 1, 1992. We are being evicted February 29, 1992. 000025 McKenzie-Dinsmoor February 7, 1992 Page 3 If we were able to continue to pay the subs we would be able to meet the conditions for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy and our permanent financing by the end of March to move in. We could stay with my mother in her small apartment until that time but no longer because there are five of us! I have looked into several options but have learned from Dee Dee that none of them would be acceptable with the exception of the two I am proposing. It is not in our interest or the APCHA's interest to increase the deed restricted value beyond what either we or others who might qualify could afford to pay per the lender. However, the drop in interest rates since 1989 has helped. Therefore, we are requesting that the APCHA add $10,000 to the value for costs incurred for lack of proper soil tests by the developer and add $20,000 for the lost capital improvements, making the deed restricted value $165,800. Then request that you consider allowing us to duplex the house for either sale or rental. Our preference is to rent so that when our girls become 12, 12 and 13 years old we can remove the kitchen in the garage, move the girls into their own space downstairs and have some sanity. However, we would prefer to sell the downstairs half and remain in the upstairs rather than lose it altogether. We realize this is an exception and that it would require the approval of the East Owl Creek Homeowners' Association, as well as the APCHA. We also realize that we got ourselves into this. We appreciate your consideration and anything you can do to help. We are open to any suggestions and are willing to meet with you at any time. 000020 McKenzie-Dinsmoor February 7, 1992 Page 4 POSSIBLE SCENARIOS NOTE: $20,000 includes costs for duplexing. 1) Duplex - Purchase - Total cost approximately $210,000 - Top floor $120,000 for 1,250 s.f. - 20% down = $24,000 - 80% financing = $96,000 - Monthly mortgage @-9% = - Monthly taxes and insurance = $80 - Monthly maintenance dues = $55 - Total monthly payments $ - Bottom Floor $90,000 for 1,100 s.f. - 20% down = $18,000 - 80% financing = $72,000 - Monthly mortgage at 9% Monthly taxes and insurance = $70 Monthly maintenance dues = $45 Total monthly payments = $ 2) Duplex - Own Top Floor - Rent Bottom Floor - Total cost approximately $210,000 - Deed restricted value raised to $165,800 ($10,000 additional cost due to soil test and $20,000 capital improvements) - Difference to subsidize $45,000 - 9% interest = $4,050/year - 1,100 s.f. at $1,000/month = $12,000/year - Pay off subsidy in six years. 000027 EXHIBIT C TO: Aspen/ Pitkin Ccuntyl Housing u 2 F mr: C h a rl i e T a ry e r, E a � t 'Al1 C i -e e k Subject Cost overages due to site preparation on lot E-4 Dear, APCHA, As per Our conk..ersations earlier this surnmer� here are the circurnstances, and costs involved -vith the On' tr .;_tion problems of our employee unit due to the sail conditions. TO bring you Up to data .%19 bought One of the East Owl Creek ennpl oyee lots (E-4) in Jure of 19,90. e designed a hioiuse that best fit in the prewcNbed building envelope., taking into consideation the hillside, the size limitations, and the dollar value restrictions. Ho% -%'ever' const-ructitin began, vve found that the buli 1 ding envelope '-A� ' not - -�ring loads of a .. 2-3 Situated On- _'.oil deposits that are nt adequate for be residential Structure. The recults of a subsoil study bgl Chen Northern (Soil Engineers) indicated that the building envelope placed or. lan'. with nine feet Of non-bearing topsoil under the proposed house. This finding required nevy stuctural engineering, and a nevv foundation design by Maggert and Associates (Structural Engineers). Th -9 ne%.L-'-,-' foundation required more excav-_T.icn as %Aieil a: rnorg cr-increl-9 than expected. cus �-o the soil abnormalities 2nd subsequent site preperation found On lo* ti u. project put uncer severe but et stralm. The follo'!-t'ing is the jrrreaaed cost directly caused by the Soil condithuns. Paid to date QncreU 1;1_'91_ -00 Excavation $1 o5 o O-Ou. Soil Engheer $83210 Structural Engineer $149600 Soil overrun Current estimate originil design bid %., ar ane I am asking the AP HA iand/or the Hcusing Eoar �j to please r-evic-,-'..' the additional expenses incurred due to the unusual and urforseen. sell conditions associated 'HIth to E-41. 1 hope that Sume kind Of ati-justment to the value Of the property can be made. if Lou nave any questions arGOU1. the project p! ease cal 1 me at 925-75918 ! %-yi 11 he happif to s peak %;,!i th ijou, at your convelnence. Thank 1-lo411 :harp e -7 1 Kier A -Z n- 72s US 000028 $12.1500.00 $!500.00 $7000.120 $Smmo M210 V 441E.00 $241 00 $1 Tf 5.00 I am asking the AP HA iand/or the Hcusing Eoar �j to please r-evic-,-'..' the additional expenses incurred due to the unusual and urforseen. sell conditions associated 'HIth to E-41. 1 hope that Sume kind Of ati-justment to the value Of the property can be made. if Lou nave any questions arGOU1. the project p! ease cal 1 me at 925-75918 ! %-yi 11 he happif to s peak %;,!i th ijou, at your convelnence. Thank 1-lo411 :harp e -7 1 Kier A -Z n- 72s US 000028 EXHIBIT D /.el.T SEn 00 DA .. 2 (7® Ooloa. z 'e. �.. $ caysEaaanoN ,. a ) WAV ng H i 1 e)\�"� rn m -R 8 i. wry_ �' O t� Fm`"•' vx gym t �J Oft CJ O() O 8 OO Oapn ✓ ,S�� •f\. ,.W,J $� va R kR $ g.4 f' y'�^ F 8.. S'\ Lt•\. � A , 3 � \ N f. SSRk °Z v /Ps J w - Dm - O GOO OU O U y JF` s� �� > ern '•' 'g. 3 � aq zp n lel eww e —x m O � �' Xx o„ z y G8v 2 emoem f14'� u lie Uz i ^" J1—'1, 31".�'s."� o W su F,a €a� y p �•' o .q f v fta a O 6A> L O 1) ,k A8 Kim v g'� q 8 J cr] � � DID r ♦^� �.! £ n o 0 " O y ion - z Nln e Z m t a /.Qtlpb / 666FjG 66�6�666C66t 6666 D SD'13'S5'W ML1oJW •5015) W D n m/s�+�a ��.� 00 OC) 00 00 O 00 00 \ ? J u F F fi F x F F g F °+6 &@ % ;'I'n' J"'" �'', 8x v .; £ ETm 4 �A�v C fit; -Ni cb�' P E -K 1i g A 9 u—s t5 C?A—. 00 00. v0 00 8 P1, O\ a 8 Jg L)- o Go 00 00 00 0 (De) (D(!)gke�8R OEa C�F 8B €1£5r88�"` c £ O.{. $, oyngBP`- RtFi f0-Dp����. $�N.x- caa x r48� a�F u` FpaR$xx. £'FSxR F�tS >O i mZ � Im � r t Z 3 8F6 Y81 d� eaxFB p8 8£8 -8 xaax x g8 n0 P tl e 00 OU On OO 00 OO 0@ 00 OG ©OO 00 v t7© - uo�'yy7sr X ts'�m o e R8= t.Bmee."�8 ePy8 �8 88R �8 88x oyes 0000129 s %©- COUNTY ,�jo,�,eo mf ,oc�ev�y f�N/is s1 EN ,Foes' �� � ✓ i MSE -NOME/✓% O�.�Q U,�Si (/�� � QTi�f� -UN®��Sl Gdu�p R�4'1 U6Si 7"ft6�T 60uNTy Su80-1v/J10.41 196WA<�MrC 7- /9 y /cie.CA) �l/ /T,,�/�J (�Fl (/Ar7Y /o V S'lAJ 6�' (//7u ✓'h`O R/�' .C', y ,Q/®cJJ.f'O�t o o R f �% �I�N' x-i,� r9Av O Agi 71-0� //;�Alvx e.S 7— J �rP�'a�TE� Q / 1 / y 7 .s4E. 1'%GH,00g '06 COAC oov y/l6oe1LrogA,-1 JAM (.v`ft� /s� isvT.��e�ra ZJ��tiR FbR �l�L/�� 1s F�rtwR�lnrG JF-�'H�}T�ty 09 clopy �AR6tO 7"0 7749 �cAvU61/�DV (�F�ic+£ RNp (iGC . 000030 7R;`v^ yo v lcoR yo v,e Go�vs�� �ro�v �Is/ 6w.,E go : �7, / 4 � .-2 /0s AC -1 ,/�+�o✓oJM�J'i �(1 VIESi /� ®r � - y 000031 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority FROM: Patricia L. McKenzie and Eliot R. Dinsmoor DATE: February 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Lot E2 in East Owl Creek Subdivision At the end of summer 1989 we won the right to purchase Lot E2 in the newly created subdivision in East Owl Creek. After reviewing the Deed Restrictions with the three other winners in the lottery, we petitioned the APCHA and County Commissioners to allow us to build up to a 2,000 s.f. home plus a 500 s.f. garage. We all believed that with our "sweat equity" we could do so and remain within the deed restricted value of $135,800 which had assumed a building cost in 1988 of $97/s.f. for 1,400 s.f. During the submission, review and subsequent approval of our request, we lost the ability to add $20,000 worth of capital improvements. In our case, we intended that money to pay for the 500 s.f. garage which we understood at the time to be acceptable. Following months of getting the approval for 2,000 s.f. we were finally able to purchase our lot on November 2, 1990, for approximately $14,000. That then gave us six months in which to apply for a building permit and 18 months in which to receive our Certificate of Occupancy. We contracted for a log shell to be built over the winter on December 14, 1990, and made a down payment. We did so at that time because we received a 150 discount by doing so and also to secure our place in their construction schedule. We were due to receive the shell in the spring of 1991. We designed the house ourselves on grid paper and turned these floor plans and elevations over to someone who had been a designer, builder and building inspector to engineer the house and foundation for the site and draw up blueprints. This person consulted with the log home company before finalizing the plans. We then submitted our plans to the Building Department on April 4, 1991 for approval. We were told that the turnaround time for approval was 4-6 weeks at that time, but because our project was deed restricted affordable housing that it would be fast tracked, taking 2-3 weeks. My husband works on the ski patrol through late April then farms in the summer. Our plan was for him to use his equipment to excavate the foundation, lay a block foundation and 000032 McKenzie-Dinsmoor February 7, 1992 Page 2 pour the concrete for the foundation during the month of May. The log shall was to have been delivered the first week of June and my husband was to have helped the two people we hired to build the house until he got busy with haying in July. We also had several friends lined out to help us over the summer. However, we did not receive our building permit unit June 27, 1991. By then we lost our crew and subs to other jobs and my husband was getting ready to start his busy haying season. Nevertheless, he dug when he could in August. He hit topsoil to China and water and more water. We had to move our building site and hire an excavator, put in a French drain, re-engineer the foundation, hire concrete subs to pour footers, etc. This cost us approximately $10,000 more than budgeted. But more importantly, it set us back in time. The shell wasn't able to be delivered until October 1, 1991. By the time we got our power in and our crew back from their other jobs, we were attempting to put the roof on in what turned out to be an early winter. Because it is a log home with chinking that needs to be applied in above 32 degree temperatures, the crew has been working in the cold which has slowed their effectiveness. Also, all of our friends that were able to pitch in over the summer were busy meeting their own deadlines in the fall, then back at work on the mountains for ski season. We would have waited, but we couldn't because the ranch we live on was sold and we had to move out. We had budgeted for $30,000 over the $135,800 deed restricted value, i.e., $165,800 (our original construction estimate for $145,453 plus land cost ($13,700) plus an additional $5,000 for loan interest and closing costs). Since that time a number of other problems have arose and the overages, we now estimate, bring the total cost of the house to approximately $195,800, i.e. another $30,000 over budget. During this same period, I became unemployed and my husband lost his ranch manager job. We have both been seeking employment --so far unsuccessfully. By next week we will have exhausted our construction loan. We are faced with the choice of walking away from the house unfinished and losing everything we have in it or working out some form of creative solution with you. I have spoken with both Stan at Alpine Bank, through which we received our construction loan, and Dee Dee at Aspen Mountain Mortgage, through which we are getting our permanent financing. Our construction loan expires March 17, 1992, but may be extended if we can show that we can afford to complete the house. Our permanent financing has been extended to July 1, 1992. We are being evicted February 29, 1992. 000033 McKenzie-Dinsmoor February 7, 1992 Page 3 If we were able to continue to pay the subs we would be able to meet the conditions for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy and our permanent financing by the end of March to move in. We could stay with my mother in her small apartment until that time but no longer because there are five of us! I have looked into several options but have learned from Dee Dee that none of them would be acceptable with the exception of the two I am proposing. It is not in our interest or the APCHA's interest to increase the deed restricted value beyond what either we or others who might qualify could afford to pay per the lender. However, the drop in interest rates since 1989 has helped. Therefore, we are requesting that the APCHA add $10,000 to the value for costs incurred for lack of proper soil tests by the developer and add $20,000 for the lost capital improvements, making the deed restricted value $165,800. Then request that you consider allowing us to duplex the house for either sale or rental. Our preference is to rent so that when our girls become 12, 12 and 13 years old we can remove the kitchen in the garage, move the girls into their own space downstairs and have some sanity. However, we would prefer to sell the downstairs half and remain in the upstairs rather than lose it altogether. We realize this is an exception and that it would require the approval of the East Owl Creek Homeowners' Association, as well as the APCHA. We also realize that we got ourselves into this. We appreciate your consideration and anything you can do to help. We are open to any suggestions and are willing to meet with you at any time. 000034 McKenzie-Dinsmoor February 7, 1992 Page 4 POSSIBLE SCENARIOS NOTE: $20,000 includes costs for duplexing. 1) Duplex - Purchase - Total cost approximately $210,000 - Top floor $120,000 for 1,250 s.f. - 20% down = $24,000 - 80% financing = $96,000 - Monthly mortgage @ 9% _ - Monthly taxes and insurance = $80 - Monthly maintenance dues = $55 - Total monthly payments = $ - Bottom Floor $90,000 for 1,100 s.f. - 20% down = $18,000 - 80% financing = $72,000 - Monthly mortgage at 9% - Monthly taxes and insurance = $70 - Monthly maintenance dues = $45 - Total monthly payments = $ 2) Duplex - Own Top Floor - Rent Bottom Floor - Total cost approximately $210,000 - Deed restricted value raised to $165,800 ($10,000 additional cost due to soil test and $20,000 capital improvements) - Difference to subsidize $45,000 - 9% interest = $4,050/year - 1,100 s.f. at $1,000/month = $12,000/year - Pay off subsidy in six years. 000035 EXHIBIT C ww ....0th I Ilan rid .2 ' �t ::? T0: HSperl.i F'l+k;tn J_iiUnily yia"JSii":!� .'...r�i!rjtly _ ,r.J..y � •--- Fr-nrn7 Charlie Tar,+er, East Creek Subject: Cost overages due to Site preparation on lot E-4 Lear APCHA, As per: our conversati ons earlier thi s _•!Jrr;mer, here are the clrcunl.^_•tanc= _ ;and costs involved %-%.-Ith the construction problems of our employes unit due to the '_:.oil conditions. To bring you up to date, '•r;e bo-Jpit one of the East u;^!i Creek, employee lots tE-4,! In June of 1990. %'':'`e desigr•ed a house that best fit in the prescribed building envelope, taking into consideatlon the hillside, the size limitations, and the dollar value restriction_. Ho••;uever, Yihen construction began, 1"!e found that the building envelope '.oras situeted on soil deposits that are not adequate for bearing loads of a residential structure. The results of a Subsoil Study bg Chen Northern 1 Engineers) nili ,tad that the building envelope placed on land (cul.l.._.Cu�_ u � - r +frith nine feet of non-bearing topsoil under the proposed house. This finding required ne':^; stuctural engineering, and a ne,^r foundation design h l-laggert and Asseclates (S.truc:tural Engineers). The ne',^r foundation required more excavation as ';hrell as more c;incr-ete than expected Du'e to the soil nnrrmalitie`= and subsequent site preperation found on lot E -s, the project veas put under severe budget '=trains. The folio,%nng is the increaser. cost directly caused by the Soil conditions. Soil Overrun $1799'? 50 1 am asking the E:PCHA and/or the Housing Board to please re4.ie';% the additional expenses incurred due to the unu'_r.Jal and unforseen sell conditions associiated'-, ith lot E-4. 1 hope that Some kind of 10JUStMient to the value of the property can be mace. If you flat+e any questions about the project please call e at 925-,595 %Atill be happy, to speak; with you, 1• r_ 1 atm ! i ,,pp, h at your conveinence. Thank: yo- , Charlie . a ;r=r- 2 S 77 Sas 000036 Paid to date current ectirnite original design bid variarr;e Concrete $1 E91'2.00 $15912 nn $2000 .00 x3912 nn E'::83' ation $10500.00 $12500.00 $5500.00 $7000.00 Soil Engineer r. ,. �� w•��_. ( $.__ __ �0 ms_ 10 .� Structural Engineer, ati ilii $14'. $14'x6 00 $241 .00 $1255,00 w• Soil Overrun $1799'? 50 1 am asking the E:PCHA and/or the Housing Board to please re4.ie';% the additional expenses incurred due to the unu'_r.Jal and unforseen sell conditions associiated'-, ith lot E-4. 1 hope that Some kind of 10JUStMient to the value of the property can be mace. If you flat+e any questions about the project please call e at 925-,595 %Atill be happy, to speak; with you, 1• r_ 1 atm ! i ,,pp, h at your conveinence. Thank: yo- , Charlie . a ;r=r- 2 S 77 Sas 000036 n10 609 P4GE81 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ^ OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT r7 ^ FOR THE EAST OWL CREEK P.U.D. Resolution No. 89J 1 WHEREAS, The Hoard of County Commissioner$ of Pitkin County, Colorado, (hereinafter "Board") granted detailed and final plat approval to the East Owl Creek Subdivision through Resolution Number 89-55, dated June 13, 1989, and WHEREAS, that approval, and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement which was approved simultaneously, allowed for the de-olopment of five (5) ate:cdable housing on lots rangi,•,.; in -?.ze from approximately 3 acres to approximately five ac_as, and '?PEAS, four (A) of those lots were subsequently conveye` r.o ",!e ;r'�/'Pitkin Col— _' Housing Authority and were provide, _,dy to four qualified !coal residents for the deve'_::r o` :jingle-family homes, and .�, eTHEREAS, those recipients of the affordable housing 1. petitioned the Housing Authority to allow for the constr+.ic,:' .. homes with square footage in excess of that allowed by tin, Subdivision improvements Agreement, and WHEREAS, the Housing Authority has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that this increase in square footage hs allowed on the condition that the price, and appreciation In value, of the affected units, be limited by the guidelines and formulas applicable a dwelling the size of those originally approved, and f WHEREAS, this amendment to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and Final Plat will have no affect on any other aspect of ths+ ....flD003� .- , 609 PAGE817 development in that no construction Will bs allowed outside of approved building envelopes, no changes will be made in lot sizes or boundaries, and no changes will be made in infrastructure or other subdivision improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Hoard of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, ,that Paragraphs 11.1 11.A. and 11.B. of the East owl Creek Subdivision Improvements Agreement, as approved on June 28, 1989, be amended as follows: Under Para.g.ra2h "" add after ththe follawinNl " Any sale, resale or other action requiring the establishment of value for Employee Lots #1^4 will be based on a residence of no more than 11400 square feet of living space plus a 500 square foot garage even if actual living area of those residences exceeds that amount. " Under Parag_rggh 1".A. substitute �h owe g; In the first sentence, delete "a maximum of 1,400 square feet" and insert " a maximum of 21000 square feet". Under Paragraph 1I.S., subaritute t=ie following: In the first sentence, delete "a maximum of 1,400 square feet" and insert " a maximum of 2,000 square feet." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this amendment is adopted in consideration of the circumstances and conditions relevant to the East Owl Creek development and in consideration of the request of the recipients of the East Owl Creek lots and the recommendation of the Housing Authority. it does not constitute a precedent, commitment or policy in regards to the alteration or amendment of other Subdivision improvements Agreements or housing guidelines except as specific circumstances may warrant. 000033 EbbN 609 PAGE818 APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on z�' 1989. BOARD OF COUNTY CO?"Ml,S9i0t5 i or PITKSN COUNTY COLORADO BY::P- � L Colette Penne, chairwnnoman t &aanette 3onas,; eputy County Clerk ,._BROVED A3 'Phomas F.-smxtn County Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION: Raid Haugha ounty a ig� r 4Mark Fu r, \nlrL��ror Davalopment and Environmental Quality mwfdg/wp/enc 000039