Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain Lodge Savanah.1992FD Mc�- O� Aspen Mtn Lodge - Savao� Section M Amendment memo: 1401e� �/� Ul 4 0 )< a..- A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council / THRU: Amy Margerum, City Managers �V 1� FROM: Robert Gish, Public Works Director ;l DATE: March 4, 1992 RE: RITZ CARLTON - CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE I reviewed the construction progress of the Ritz Carlton on March 2, 1992 with staff from Savanah Limited, Bechtel Group and PCL for compliance to their approved construction schedule and areas impacted on the City of Aspen and our citizens. We reviewed the CPM schedule in PCL's office which was in too much detail to comprehend in a short period of time however the critical date for a Certificate of Occupancy is shown as October 1992. I approved minor changes to the construction schedule which had no impact on the Certificate of Occupancy or completion date. The changes allowed for the best utilization of manpower, equipment and construction activity scheduling. Their construction activities and finish schedule indicates beneficial use of the structure sometime after October 1992. The scheduled Certificate of Occupancy and key milestone dates are consistent with Council's approvals. Attached is a copy of the latest construction schedule dated February 28, 1992. Areas of discussion included: Manpower Staffing: Attached are copies of the manpower staffing for the months of December 1991, January 1992 and February 1992. The November 1991 average staffing was 43.3, December 1991 was 45.0, January 1992 was 62.0 and February 1992 was 132.1. On March 2, 1992 there were a total of 205 craftsmen and managers on the project per the attached breakdown. The best estimates are that the peak staffing will exceed 300 in the months of May through July of 1992. Neighborhood Tour: Savanah Limited is presently scheduling a tour of the project for neighbors of the construction site. This tour will be scheduled sometime in the month of March. Parking Impact: Savanah continues to implement a transportation program that minimizes the impact to the available parking spaces in town. To date the Public Works Department has not had any parking complaints specifically related to the Ritz Carlton construction activities. Ice Rink: City Council will hear Ordinance 12 on March 9, 1992 as part of the regular Council agenda. Accidents: The project has an excellent safety record with no lost time accidents. • a Mock -Up Rooms: Two mock-up rooms should be completed in the next month for Ritz Carlton approval. Work Hours: There is some activity on the site seven days per week with the majority of the work completed on Monday thru Friday, working four ten hour days plus five hours on Friday. Environmental Issues: I stressed the importance of full compliance with environmental issues such as fugitive dust, tracking mud, noise and air pollution with the PCL, Bechtel and Savanah staffs. Building Department Inspections: With the shortened construction schedule I stressed the importance of communicating with the Building Department on the inspection requirements. The staff of the Building Department must be scheduled to meet all inspections. Water Tap: The payment of the Water Tap Fees remains due the first week in May. Crane Dismantle: The tower crane is scheduled to be removed in May. Bechtel: The Bechtel Corporation continues to act as the Project Manager for the project with a total staff of four in Aspen with on -call support in Vienna, Virginia. PUD Review: City staff monitor the PUD Agreement continually for compliance with Council approvals. Construction Craft Shortages: PCL feels that they have not had a major impact on hiring local craftsmen except in the area of carpenters and laborers. Due to the magnitude of the work most local subcontractors were not able to meet the project time schedule and staffing requirements. Housing Impact: Savannah is still on schedule to transfer a portion of the workforce to the Grand Aspen Hotel, Bavarian Inn and Barbee property per their December 16, 1991 letter to the City. Maroon Creek Bridge Weight Limits: The costs of the project continue to be affected by the weight limitations of the Maroon Creek Bridge. The additional concrete costs will be approximately $200,000 plus indirect costs associated with light loads, staffing and longer pours. There is no way to place a cost on the financial impacts to the project due to the load limitations, however it is a significant figure. Summary: The Ritz Carlton continues to have activity in each of the approved scheduled areas. Savanah has not missed any of their milestones with their scheduled date to receive their Certificate of Occupancy remaining in October 1992. RFG/sp/m21.92 0 z r N m IL CV O W cm w J D 0 J W Z W = 800 N z°Go}C�' s 0= O � N O U Z = I WNa L W HaZ a oc O F- J_ Q m LL LL �U �j w a z QO N J m FQ- N Y ¢ N a W C7 W 20 ccm t9 J W 2 N m C7 a J m r- 2 C7 O ¢ a w i U a J m W ru a O U w a Q a LL G z M U ¢ Y O z 2 W Z i m m N W 2 N Z LL ¢ O 2 W Z W t a i O U W a Q N O 8 Fa 0 4. CONSTRUCTION E. Personnel on Site PCL Carpenters Cement Finishers Crane Operators Laborers SUBCONTRACTORS Excavation Piing Reinforcing Steel Masonry Drywall Plaster Acoustic Tie Structural Steel Misc Iron Precast Concrete Windows Painting Ceramic Tie Resilient Flooring Roofing Electrical Mechanical Elevators TOTAL MANPOWER PCL Carpenters Cement Finishers Crane Operators laborers SUBCONTRACTORS Excavation Ping Reinforcing Steel Masonry Drywall Plaster Acoustic Tie structural Steel Misc Iron Precast Concrete Windows Painting Ceramic Tie Resilient Flooring Roofing Electrical Mechanical Elevators Other Supervision TOTAL MANPOWER RITZ-CARLTON, ASPEN COLORADO • PROGRESS REPORT NO. 3 DECEMBER 1991 /JANUARY 1992 DAILY FORCE SUMMARY December, 1991 y" C1t� MAR 0 Z 199Z R M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 k A V C T C E R O R R AT AA F A F G 6 6 6 6 6 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 13 14 13 1 13 13 14 14 211 9.6 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 3.0 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1: 1 1 1 1' 1 16 1.0 8 8 8 8 8 4 13 13 13 13 13 6 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 15 265 11.5 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 7 7 8 8 8 2 2 10 10 10 4 7 4 4 6 4 6' 6 150 &0 0 0 2 2 2., 2...2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 32 1.9 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2: 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 33 1.9 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 4 4 4 3 27 2-5 _. _ 0 0_. _... _..... _ 0 .; - .... 0 0 0„ 0 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 —4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 86 4.5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 65 4.1 0 4 4 3 2 2 2 17 2.4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 26 2.0 January, 1992 W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 14 8 15 15 15 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 6 16 17 18 17 18 21 20 20 358 16.3 _ 6 6 6.0 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 1.0 15 3 15 15 15 17 16 16 17 16 17 16 16 18 17 17 20 5 18 18 20 19 19 365 15.9 6 6 8 & 8 9' 8 9 10 9 10 9 4 10 10 10 12 11 2 9 9 10 10 10 207 8.6 0 0 _ 0_ 3 9 10 10 9 2 2 2:, 3 3 6 6 6 71 5.5 5 5 9 9 11 11 12 12 12 86 9.6 _ 0 0 0 , 9 9 .. . 0 _ .... 0 0 _ 0 0 5 7 7 7 7 7 2 5 6 2 2 6 6 7 5 5 4 4 4 98 5.2 4 4 4 4 4 1 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 7' 7 11 10 12 12 12 130 6.2 1 1 1 3 1.0 3 3 4 10 3.3 0 48 17 50 50 50 63 43 64 61 65 69 54 4 55 64 63 73 66 13 78 78 80 78 781 1364 62.0 Page 10 of 16 a>Wm<ow UQau.H CisaL6 cli v. I, tv j I' A o N JN N LL N F' N 3 �1 J O F Go a) OON F,. O w z ow� LA.v7 UZpLL o. N N Q J F— Q LL O I— M 3� H � O N Ol ow LL r� H ID 3� F � (A N r.rryCOr 0wrn0 v Un O corn a N r r 0 N O c0 r N h N �n r N N N r r r r N M NQ N N Cl) NO (NV N O O O O N O O O O 000 y Mr rco r rM M N O r r r N 12 N^ l D N r a r co N r N N D N r r M r ^ M Ui w ID N CO co M N r N M h rrn ID Go O co NN N r r (v O E fD c0 O O coCV N N co 1O N r N N N (D r r O r ^ r cp co M r N N r N N v In r r N r r (p n N N r N N N R V h N N N r N M ID co t D7 00 <D r CO r a0 I!N In ID co CV N r v 0— r (D r O iA O co M N N r N v O) r M O O Q1 1n 1n N (D N CV N r C7 O 0 � rD rD � 00 N N r O of r N 0 O (D 'n in O O N N N N r N!� O O r i n v 0 O N O r cn 0 C. O r- M co W N O O) r O) Of c0 N M "T O) .N-• O y 2 5 W A0 0 c~i 0 8 CL z Q oLL sa EO e:la ? 0'� o c- Y m o�c Q�3^ �.SimZh2 �UUv�cr> ydS��°� a�v?� r1U ono �r TO: BECIITEL CORP. ATTENTION: DOUG REED ) PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. I ED ASPEN RITZ-CARLTON �-, ' �� DATE : _ 03/02/92 �/ JOB NO. D0206D fax (303) 925-5947 MAR U 2 1992 DAILY LABOR IIEPUI1T - MANGO UN T PROJECTION R FOIL MONDAY 3 / 2 / 92 _ SUPERINTENDENTS PROJECT MANAGERS ENGINEERS OFFICE STAFF I I LIBE y_ 2 _ 14 _ 7 1 _ 11 — 41 2 4 2 s1.1r3C.or� rrtnc r c:1r�s 03 fiEINFORCING STEEL 03/04 MASONRY / PRECAST CONCRETE 05 STRUCTURAL STEEL / MISC. IRON ALI- ARCAs 9 26 10 06 MILLWORK - Rieder 06 MILLWORK - SIW 5 07 WATERPROOFING 07 ROOFING -- 08 MIRRORS ' 08 WINDOWS 09 PLASTER _ 09 DRYWALL 1I 09 CERAMIC TILE 09 MARBLE / INT. STONE 09 ACOUSTIC TILE 09 RESILIENT FLOORING 09 PAINTING 4 14 ELEVATORS 3 15 MECHANICAL - HVAC 11 15 -PLUMBERS 12 15 - FITTERS 12 _ 16 CONTROLS 16 ELECTRICAL 12 16 FIRE PROTECTION 5 -- - >`TOTAL`MANCOUNT '=: 205 J-_ L 13 A A 0 0 XC MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Robert Gish, Public Works Director#f/,& DATE: January 2, 1992 RE: RITZ CARLTON SECTION M AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- City staff has continually monitored the Section M Amendment to the Planned Unit Development/Aspen Mountain Subdivision Agreement approved by City Council on June 10, 1991. Savanah Limited has been in full compliance with the approved amendments. Staff has felt that valuable construction time has been lost due to delays and low manpower levels. We have felt that the Certificate of Occupancy date of October 1, 1992 cannot be met based on past performance activities. The supplementary information and schedule attached were requested by staff to define milestones, review impacts to the City of Aspen, emphasize environmental issues, advise us of changes anticipated to the approvals and confirming that the Certificate of Occupancy date of October 1, 1992 could be met. Savanah Limited has hired the Bechtel Corporation as consultants to monitor the construction activities and schedule. The construction schedule has not been changed and the Certificate of Occupancy is scheduled for October 1, 1992. Savanah will also provide manpower staffing levels by craft groups similar to the November summary attached. Savanah anticipates manpower staffing levels to increase starting in January 1992. City staff anticipates that the Certificate of Occupancy can be issued by October 1, 1992 however we do not feel that the hotel will be occupied by that date. After the Chief Building Official inspects the buildings and finds no violations of the Building Code or other variations from the approvals, then a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Generally a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued if all life and safety issues are satisfied and the major construction activities are completed. This is the Building Department's responsibility in working with Savanah Limited. The Water and Sewer Tap Fees are scheduled to be paid on May 1, 1992. Water Tap Fees have not been finalized and are dependant on the final approved Plumbing and Mechanical Permits. A full PUD Compliance Review of the original October 1988 approvals will be completed by City staff in January. Staff will report any noncompliance items to City Council if they are found. • • Mayor and City Council January 2, 1992 Page Two City Council has scheduled a Ritz Carlton site visit on January 6, 1992 at noon. City Council will meet in the lobby of the Grand Aspen Hotel to pick up hard hats and start the tour. Savannah Limited, Bechtel and PCL representatives will be available throughout the visit to answer your questions. RFG/sp/ml.92 2 SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 16 December 1991 Mr. Robert F. Gish Director of Public Works City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 DEC 16 1991 i CITY rE'.''G'`_-- ! Per your Section M Amendment status review letters, we are enclosing a revised Ritz -Carlton Milestone Schedule for your use. PCL and Bechtel have been working to finalize their CPM strategy over the past two months. The schedule presented to you today is a culmination of that work and represents our latest thinking to achieve the project objectives. I would also like to take this opportunity to formally update you on the project, its current status, and the team we have assembled for the Ritz's completion. As you know, Savanah Limited Partnership hired Bechtel Corporation as Project Manager for the Ritz - Carlton project for budgeting, cost and schedule control as well as to manage the design consultants, PCL and construction. Bechtel has staffed the Aspen Office with four, multi -disciplined personnel of both civil/architectural and mechanical/electrical backgrounds. In addition to their management responsibilities, Bechtel will assume the role of quality assurance inspector, monitoring both PCL's field engineering inspections and Heery's quality control inspections. Since the Section M hearing Savanah, PCL, the Consultants and Bechtel have been busy preparing the ground work to complete the project in an orderly manner. Many items which were critical to the schedule have been completed which are not obvious from the street. All of the Central Plant equipment has been set and the required piping is starting. The roof shell has been completed and waterproofed to allow for moderately dry work on the interior. The retaining walls and backfill on the south end of the site have been completed to stabilize the perimeter of the site. The main electrical duct banks have been installed and the switch gear put into place. Sanitary and Storm Sewer work in Mill Street have been completed. Construction of Building B structure is proceeding. The list goes on and on. Enclosed for your information you will find Bechtel's First Daily Force Summary. This report will help to show the kind of staffing that was in place in November doing this work. You will note that the schedule is made up mostly of items from the earlier Section M schedule that are in progress or have yet to be started. Three items that were added to the schedule for additional clarity are: a) Water and Sewer Tap Payments, b) Perimeter street construction completion and c) Tower Crane Removal - As always SLP, PCL and now Bechtel will continue to work closely with the City to mitigate reasonable Environmental Impacts on the City of Aspen and the project's surrounding neighbors. Construction noise will of course be present but we will follow the guidelines and hours established in the PUD. The Top of Mill and Ritz sites will be planted with drought resistant grass this spring to reduce their fugitive dust potential- PCL has assured SLP that it will redouble it's efforts to monitor and discourage the tracking of mud out of the site. 600 E.Cooper St. Suite 200 0 aspen. CO. 8161 1 • 303/925-4272 • FAX 925-4387 Mr. Robert F. Gish 16 December 1991 Page 2 Savanah is very aware of the critical housing shortages and transportation problems that exist in the Roaring Fork Valley. One of our top priorities was to mitigate the impacts caused by our construction workers on these two areas of concern. We have developed a short and long term construction housing and transportation program that will minimize the effect of our manpower needs in the entire valley. Our housing program goal was to fulfill our housing needs by utilizing our own properties or converting under utilized short term properties into long-term housing. Beginning January 1,1992 through approximately March 31,1992 we will provide housing for our construction workers in the following properties. These properties are all new to the long term housing bed base of Aspen. We are not utilizing existing long term housing and taking it away from the Aspen workforce. Pro Aspen Country Inn Aspen Meadows Total # of Units 57 Units 28 Units On or about April 11992 we will transfer all existing workforce and new hires to the following properties, all of which are owned and operated by Savanah. Property Total # of Units The Grand Aspen Hotel 150 Units (approx.) The Bavarian Inn 19 Units (approx.) Barbee Mine Dumps 18 Units (approx.) We are also in discussion regarding a Master Lease with two other properties within the City Limits of Aspen. We will utilize these properties if our manpower needs dictate additional housing over and above the units we have available for our purposes. Our transportation program will fulfill all of our transportation needs to and from our housing properties and the Ritz site. Because we are utilizing properties within the City Limits of Aspen or nearby (ACI) our main goal of limiting our impact on Highway 82 has been achieved. It must also be noted that our scheduling of work hours will also help to lessen our impact on our highway road system during peak rush hour periods. We currently have an agreement with Aspen Limo to provide transportation on a daily basis to and from the Ritz site for the start and end of each work day. We will utilize Dean Street as the drop off point for the workers to minimize our impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. In the same vein Dean Street will also be utilized for project material deliveries further limiting traffic disruption. Mr. Robert F. Gish 16 December 1991 Page 3 Bob, I hope this information begins to show you the effort we are undertaking and the commitment the project team has to the timely completion of the Ritz. If I can be of further help or if you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 5 rld � Ferd Belz Savanah Lt Partnership W. Omar Benjamin Perry Harvey Rick Burcham Paul Donohue Jack Donovan Bob Hughes 1bg1002.7m 11 / 2 \ u u w 7� � O _ LU � � 2U n— _ m 2 0 C« o � � . -00� . E 5w 2 cc 0 S ' - ; 5 x x x � x � : x x x x � 1xi [ x x 0 u k � \Ir/ / ƒ k \ j j / \ \ \ >z z a R � , z ± w § « a § z < m CL co zw CI \ k § E q § I � u E E CL § § 2 § \ 2 j § § / z z \ § } j \ } \ 2 \ \ \ § § \ § e < .3 w v z . 2 § . § § / \ § \ / 2 � R / \ / w . 2 % z m 3 in� m m Milestone Schedule Terms and Qualifications: Terms: 1. Bank Stabilization - Complete today. See attached letter from PCL. 2. Bldg A Shell - Brick up, guestroom windows in, some trim missing, first floor storefront not in, Bldg A basically closed in, roof tile not installed. Bldg B Structure - C.I.P. concrete structure complete. 4. Bridge Structure Complete - self explanatory 5. Water/Sewer Tap Fees Payment - Payment by SLP for Sewer and Water Tap Fees. 6. Dismantle Tower Crane - The new tower crane is disassembled and removed from the site. 7. Bldg B Shell - Brick up, guestroom windows in, some trim missing, first floor storefront not in, Bldg B basically closed in, roof tile not installed. & MEP Rough in - All plumbing roughed in, finish plumbing underway but not complete. 9. Facade Complete Bldg C - Brick up, guestrooms windows in, some trim missing, first floor storefront not in, Bldg C basically closed in, roof tile not installed. 10. Final Curb and Gutter - Monarch and Mill - Curb and Gutter as well as final street paving work complete on Krill and Monarch - IL Interior Finishes Bldg A - Millwork, Paint, Wallcoverings in place on guestroom floors. 12. Ice Rink Construction - Ice Rink Construction complete for Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Commissioning - all MEP and Life Safety Equipment activated, on line and rung out by the City of Aspen Building Department. Extensive Building Department representatives time and participation will be critical for this item's timely completion. Following completion of this item all building code issues will be complete allowing for a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued. 14. Interior Finishes Bldg B - Millwork, Paint, Wallcoverings in place on guestroom floors. 15. Landscape Complete - Finish grades set, landscape materials that can be placed successfully in late fall will be in, sprinkler system complete. Qualifications: Schedule does not take into account weight restrictions at Maroon Creek Bridge. We however do not anticipate this to effect the C of O completion date at this time. 2. Schedule does not take into account extreme weather conditions and the delay they might cause. 3. The Milestone Schedule is also representative of the construction work progressing on a four -ten hour day and one -five hour day work week. We of course do reserve the right to work weekends if we decide it is needed, while meeting city codes and ordinances.. • O PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. Construction Since 1906 December 16, 1991 Mr. Paul Donohue Bechtel Corporation c/o Grand Aspen Hotel 515 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Ritz -Carlton Aspen Dear Sir: D-206-B 2.A 992016 In accordance with your previous directives regarding slope stabilization, we wish to advise you that these slopes are stabilized as of December 15, 1991. All backfill currently in place has been placed, compacted and tested in accordance with the specifications and will require only minimal work to accomodate final grading and landscaping. Please contact this office if you require additional information in this regard. Yours truly, PC N UCTION SERVICES, INC. . Donovan Construction Manager JTD/cd cc: John Cunningham/PCL ^ nn [.....L /',. t.__,.J ., DL..J C..:. .. inn rn,...,...._ QW)"'I T..In 1. L....,n "2h7 7C'2 GLOM P­;,4f- W)-4_7C•2_(_07'1 >LUC< (D 0 a: < LL 0 LL. LL 0 zq� LL. 086 rn U. CA) LU p0 i.rya P ffi CD Rig �!V 421 AN: '6P Rif 25 If,: MI 1. Olt Lo WN mq�; W Q se) co 0 Rt i A IM ..:vj ifg I N f Mm R' -' '8 S ji:lj 110 f flf 1 "m .—. V. k;51 N.I. 0 AM. TA CD W. 1R R, MI .4i; ap 1% ca fjV CY W) C14 X Lo Cj R", i(b V iE -4 MI 0 rig 1. TO - 'o '3 4"If V� Fut V? ;t "n M. -WE un iX k W-F to -P CD Ali C, U3 in Hu, 1J) OR cm cm U- C3 cm to 0 a. 620- a. ir m 0 0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CONTINUED MEETING MAY 29, 1991 5:00 P.M. ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD �J • 1104 e) N141 Z11Uu TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager W, THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Diane Moore, Deputy Director of City Plannin RE: Aspen Mountain PUD: Request for Extension Under Section M of the PUD Agreement DATE: May 23, 1991 Staff has prepared a supplemental staff report to address those issues raised at the May 21, 1991 public hearing regarding Savanah's request for an extension to the existing construction schedules of the Aspen Mountain PUD. ISSUES: Bavarian Inn - The Bavarian Inn is not a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. However, during the citizen's vote on February 13, 1990, on the Ritz -Carlton Hotel, Savanah indicated to the community that they would purchase the Bavarian Inn site for employee housing. It is our understanding that Savanah has purchased the property and they have met with staff in pre - application conferences to discuss a pending application. The provision of employee housing via th, legally tied to the Aspen Mountain PUD. provision for an audit to be performed on t after its second full year of operation ti number of full time equivalent employees Carlton Hotel. If the audit determines Hotel has a higher full time equivalent Savanah shall provide employee housing for the excess number. Savanah has indicated employee housing on the Bavarian Inn site i audit. Staff reviewed the Aspen Mountain PUD December of 1989 mitigation. Howev was subsequently denied. Bavarian Inn is not The PUD does have a he Ritz -Carlton Hotel > determine the actual working in the Ritz - that the Ritz -Carlton employees count, then sixty (60) percent of that they would build n anticipation of this employee housing mitigation during the reconsideration of and recommended additional er, when it was placed before provided in the Ordinance 69 in employee housing the voters, it -1- Although Staff continues to believe that the employee housing mitigation associated with the project is below that which would be required today, we feel this issue was settled last year. If City Council believes that additional time extensions exacerbate the employee housing shortfall further than that which was determined to be the case last year, then additional conditions related to employee housing may be justified. It is within Council's discretion to add conditions to the Section M amendment if Council finds that it is appropriate in the granting of the extension. If a condition regarding the Bavarian Inn is added, then it should require them to apply for development review for employee housing on the site. At this point, the City cannot require Savanah to build employee housing as the project must undergo various development review procedures prior to actual construction on the site. Subdivision/Condominiumization - Staff was asked to investigate the possibility of requiring a deed restriction to prevent the further subdivision and condominiumization of Lot 1 or Lot 5 of the PUD. It is staff's opinion that a deed restriction should not be placed on these parcels as the existing PUD regulations outline the type of development and permitted uses within the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Pud Agreement does not permit the further subdivision or condominiumization of Lots 1 and 5. If further subdivision and condominiumization of the Lot 1 and 5 is ever contemplated, then the applicant could request an amendment to the PUD Agreement and the appropriate review process by the Planning Commission and City Council would be initiated. REVISED ALTERNATIVE 5: The City shall grant Savanah the following extensions to the construction schedule as presently in effect: FROM TO 1. Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink/Park 10/1/91 10/1/92 2. Certificate of Occupancy Ritz -Carlton Hotel 10/1/91 10/1/92 3. Building Permit Issuance Ute City Place 10/1/91 4/1/92 4. Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 8/1/92 8/1/93 5. Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/1/94 10/1/95 -2- The Effectiveness of the Extensions Shall Be Contingent Upon Savanah's Compliance as Determined by City Staff With Certain Specific Interim Measures as Set Forth Below. In the Event the Interim Conditions as Set Forth Below Are Not Substantially Complied With, Then All Extensions as Granted Above Shall Be Automatically Rendered Invalid and Such Failure(s) to Comply Shall Constitute Non -Compliance With the Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement. Savanah Shall Thereafter be Entitled to a Hearing to Determine Sanctions or Penalties for Its Non - Compliance Which May Include Revocation or Termination of Any or All Approvals Contained Within the PUD Agreement. The request for an extension to the demolition permit for the Grand Aspen Hotel would be granted as Savanah would have a one year period (as opposed to a two year period) for reconstruction of the eighteen previously demolished residential units, commencing on the date of demolition permit for demolition of Grand Aspen Hotel. A separate condition addressing the issue of reconstruction credits relating to the demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel is included within the revised conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Alternative 5 with the following REVISED CONDITIONS: 1. Savanah shall upgrade the entire exterior fence (with screening) adjacent to the Ritz -Carlton Hotel construction site and Ice Rink/ Park site. With regard to the visual appearance of the Ice Rink/Park parcel, the fence will be moved approximately twenty feet to the South off the Durant Street curb, and all areas exterior to the fence shall be seeded. A gravel path shall also be installed in this area. Fugitive mud and dust prevention measures will be utilized on these sites. All construction materials stored on the Ice Rink/Park site shall be removed from public view. All of these items shall be completed by August 1, 1991 and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. The construction entry to the Blue Spruce off of Durant Street shall be cleaned up and not utilized for construction activities. This shall be completed by September 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The Blue Spruce structure shall be cleared of construction materials and scaffolding from the public view. These items shall be removed by September 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. A safe pedestrian path shall be installed on the east side of Mill Street between the Ritz -Carlton construction site and the Grand Aspen Hotel. This shall be completed by July 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. -3- 46 6 5. Temporary patch work shall be placed on Mill Street between the Grand Aspen Hotel and the Ritz -Carlton construction site. This work shall be completed by August 15, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 6. The patch work on Dean Street (in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel) shall be completed by July 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. Bank Stabilization work on both the South and West side of the project shall be completed by September 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 8. Savanah shall apply for rezoning to Park for the Ice Rink/Park by July 1, 1991. If Savannah does not apply, the City will initiate rezoning with all fees paid by the applicant. 9. Savanah shall submit a final development plan for the Ice Rink/Park to the City by September 25, 1991. 10. Savanah shall submit all applicable information to the Building Department for a #1 Building Permit by July 8, 1991. 11. Savanah shall obtain a #1 Building Permit from the City by August 8, 1991 and necessary fees and applicable taxes shall be paid at this time. 12. Savanah shall properly secure and fence Summit Place and remove the debris from the site. The west wall shall also be repaired. These items shall be completed by August 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Alternatively, Savanah may elect to demolish Summit Place and this shall be completed by August 1, 1991. 13. The construction schedule submitted by Savanah (Attachment 1) shall be substantially adhered to as determined by City staff. 14. The posting of adequate financial assurances for demolition of the Hotel site in an amount no less than Four (4) Million Dollars shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Attorney within thirty (30) days of the date of Council's Resolution approving the extension. 15. All fees owed to the City for processing of any applications shall be paid by October 1, 1991. 16. Savanah shall have a one year period for reconstruction of the eighteen previously demolished residential units, commencing on the date of the demolition permit for demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel on Lot 5. This condition shall constitute a formal amendment of Section L of the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement executed between the City and Savanah Ltd. Partnership on October 3, 1988. -4- 17. Savanah shall comply with all representations and conditions as contained in its letter dated May 1, 1991, submitted by F. Belz and J. Imbriani, and addressed to the City Attorney. - 5- • • IW r r IY 4 La CC r O ] Z frrl U w J W C- � r C W I W LU LU L. J I C L p U r { U Q m W = 1WLj Q W = U y I fJ U j N W z O LL,l K p i b U) 4 w Q I - b w G Q M _2 II LL Q Z O m r-i Qom. r-I D � I C J � U ¢ O w C C. H O p U 1 O I C O W U � � N j U m ►—o U JI v, aI r Z U ��m > J �l Cil J w J 1` W+ W L l C w N I w T cn W + U in I L% a Q C y m( J c az f r I w i U U LU — ti N I U, LL u r 1 w I C� I Q m C C( Q m J t� 0 0 0 10 Q LLa 2 2 3 2 1 y 0 2 �_ I N �_ �_ I 0 O 0 pO 0 0 a: �N _z C.. J C ✓ 4 co m m I m m O C (n Q G O O O U w m C. I O m J I= m p J m = O m I p O J m m{ i W ¢ L W i L W c L w a j d W c W z W = W z l w I I U CD • a IO Z ! � Y ��3 0 I I J C ! C A � e IIXI I I I 1 1[ i. I I m1 1 14 I-T I ( I aI I! i i I i ilil LL I I ! I I s � I _ m I 1 11 T I i FFT i I III I li I 1 1!J Ihu � U N a I! I T Q m w � a in to m a U J Q O I O o_ O o U N to N Q O O =U - Z z o z 0 z 0 x o o Q M C � r r ¢ r C r C J U o U �- w a I Q LU o QdQ > CL r W g N N N N 0< 2 c L) u a� a N Lf) b W � Z • • 00 M W1 M M N N N M M N N M W1 M H Z U W W 41 W 41 40 W W W W W W W .1 •-• OC O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O H F Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z 2 < N 2 41 W W W W W W W W W W W W W — O W W W W W W W W W W W W W W iL O_ U N N N (Afn N V7 N N N N N N N x W W w O W W m H U In In 0 M to to to to to to to to In to In 1 L L- a ail ail a8 WI eN ay aN O O N N F Z M M M M M M1 M M M M N M M M • • O W O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O OC J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 2 .••• C7 O O O O O O O O O N N O O OI ,T 6 2 _ •+ L W ✓ OC W ••- N ✓ 3 ✓ u •C 7 X _ Vl In In In to O O O to In L W 7 O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 4) G N 40 Z W O M M to V1 Vl In In In In C • O \ O 1- S O O 0 It S 10 W < W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u 0 O L. O O l� A S O O O �? �t W 41 d O O O O 0 O Co. OC 41 It GC W C LO , O N •O r- r- ^ J N N r- M AIM Z z= W p •+ u W 'L <I N •O r- r- S N N '- N N M .-- a -IN � W 0 > > d ✓ 7 C y✓ W VsC1 W N L ON '41 > ✓ -CO ✓ L✓ C .< C W -+ W Vl •✓ 7 J •y O N C 41 C W W -+ W W O C O✓ 3 W 0P ✓ W W L. L. i. W C� C= U•� ✓ O�• ✓� C ✓ 0✓ x ✓ u✓ •� = N 3 W 0 C W 1.- W W •(A Y t0 �— (A (A < 4) x 'O U a u1 O 7 U.- CO W 7 7 u L.•V) ✓ W < (A WI-- C Z rn 7 L . C C C O 7 C W N 0- T L 2 W ✓ r- W 3 W -+ C 3 W ✓ C✓ W W O .> M L Y N P> O> m O L. Y— .a O N ✓ in.t 6 ✓ U✓ < r< ✓ 1•.. ✓ u S 2 L •a -C co Y 7 O N W .Y . IA N O 0✓ W ✓ u 0 to ✓ u ✓ ✓ •-• W ` u C C W J Y C O N m W • O C C ui _ _ CQN N < Wu U W C W P ld L 0,- O J O L C0 C,41 m L L Im Y1 . C, to Co . 47 ✓ N O 7 7 Y 7 7 -W S 40 M O N t9 m 0 M • 0 u O O u .0 �L 09 W O0v v m O L. OL v v W J . ✓ ai1 ✓ ✓ ✓ L -• ✓ ca ail ✓ aN U O N *a C C 4) aN tll CO (a ✓ W cG 7 C C 7 O r- O 0W 4 ✓N O O •.O•- WW < < WW •{OP•O eO (A ✓ ✓ U Y ✓ ✓ N N M •<6 •<6 O M P N W •6 N 4) O 4) ✓O ✓ ✓ N ✓O 0 3 0 ✓ ✓ O ✓ ✓ O O'D O'D O Zv O O O O O l�- O O J JN JN) v JW J v J0 !C- J v J< J< -J v J J Z Z H N > 2 2 W O 1 .O 'O •O to to M N J M 1+1 n. m O U) 7 J 6 N 47 ✓ L C ✓ (D L E O ✓ 2 L W 14 L a m W < OI 0 C O o c W E L) U •• J W W 4! a W O � ✓ W C O Ncc U 'C J Ix 7 a 4) C W a M L. Vl W u W d 47 W 4) a < v m 7 to _ N 'N ✓ O W L 41 L d W •> Y .E •W C7 u •✓ E 7 C L 3 41 41 W O O C O O L W W 7 L O C W: to ot Z x I.- U d S 40 V/ 0. 1�- V! O • • C � 2 O� O 00 N N N N 2 Y r •- Z L) 0) 0) 0) 0) C O� Y Y Y Y O -- oc O o 0 o m E r r z z z z Y a) Q �n c K z W 0J 0) 0) 7 •-• O 0) 01 0) 0) O v- 0. L.)() (n to U) O X 111 u) 0r C 0) v Y a m p Q w w ar m r w L U L Y O m LA Y r or C r on C O fn W O Y C Z U Y Y Y Y W O O O O 2 U OC J J J J C Y 0! U E 7 E L O Z Y U •-• (.7 O O P O P V) Q 2Ln in C i O V1 W U Y K 0) L C 7 n• O N In In Ln 1n Y 00 00 00 00 W \ \ \ \ z w re)O M M C Y O r m O O o O C Q w \ \ \ \ N W O O % It h Y 'p O o o O o •� .N d' O 0) w E L. m d f J p 'a •D O O W V1 Z f 2 10 L L W (n V) p r (U L Y O J O) 0) �I - O N 3 r O N 7 O O v- O 0) C > ojJ L Y () 0) Y u U L L > - V) 0/ Q Q O) n. .Q 0 Y Y •L .t 'o O - >. Y V) a0 co Y Q J C N C 0) L In C C O C O 0) O 0/ O N Y m V)oa 3L L c Y L•- 0) V) U L L Y Y O Y Y c O Y Y L W O 7 O C.- 0) r C to O Y .J - Y Of o C "O V 0) Q U 0) In � p m C-0-0 L. C 0/ E m O w p Y O Q Q Y m L o L E O Q M U fn P -• 0) N Y L- Q) in m V) V) p V) w L C W L -V Y -Vy O L — c 0 -� U U Y U c V C `�- J m M 07 C •- O O V) O 2 0) 3 0 Y Q 7 0 Y 0) c i J O J O � O U C7 O M U p 0 m CO W m J 0) 7 W L v O U L > U Y L V1 J L Y .V1 .Y •- L 07 Y Y W mM � 7 NM � 1/'1 Vl -O NY Y M O In M L C O Q ^ V) J v e- W 7 0) O J V) � -VVf L U W C Y 3 W U Y Y (A V) C Y Y N C) Y C) 0) W Y 0) C L O O O J r O O .2 .O J J m O O 'O J J Q O v J -0N v- . O L. O O 0) Y 'A Y Y L O r (n L. O O i •-• O N N A •- C > z a L 0r z2 W p r ^ 01 Ov+ v a n. m O Y v N= J En Y u L O N >•N V- L L O 012 Ow Y Y U L O L 7 Y lO O U O O _ •3 C Z 0) V) a a7 0) O L V > •- 0) W •- 0) O a _a U 07 O Y L •- O) V O OI 'O O L Y C O -• O r O E O a 7 E U J c) J 3- W 0) W p 0) 'O L -0 L O 01 Vl O u i, u Y Y •- L 7 c Ia. L c 5 L y Y•- Nw a N (A c O (A 07 a 3 Y Y C 0) 10 7 > O •- •C w rn w Y > d rn (n E 7 C a C Qt 7 C Y L 4) y L V! O L O 7 L L 0) m 7 Q U a m :3 � u w O Q m U p O N M J Z Revised 04/91 0 RITZ-CARLTON COMPLETION DATES FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONS 6/1/91 7/1/91 8/1/91 9/1/91 10/1/91 1. Exterior fence improvement and removal of materials 2. Blue Spruce construction entry 3. Blue Spruce scaffolding 4. Pedestrian path on Mill St. 5. Mill Street patch work 6. Dean Street patch work 7. Bank stabilization of west and south side of project 8. Submittal of ice rink/park rezoning 9. Submittal of ice rink/park final development plan 10. Info for #1 building permit 11. Obtain #1 building permit 12. Summit Place repairs 13. Adhere to construction schedule 14. Post adequate financial assurances 15. Payment of all City fees �r CITY SPEN 1 outh Galen eet Colorado 816ll 30 -5055 City Attorney, 3-920-5197 Fax MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney RE: Ritz -Carlton Section M Amendment Attached hereto is a proposed draft document reflecting findings and an awarding of extensions in the construction schedule relevant to Savanah's requested Section M amendment prepared at your request following the last hearing. The document provides for one year extensions in regard to the deadlines as referenced by Savanah in its request subject to terms and conditions as previously set forth in Alternative 5 of the Planning Staff memo of May 21, 1991. The basis for awarding the extensions is a finding that Savanah has been able to demonstrate by a preponder- ance of the evidence that the Gulf War adversely impacted its ability to finance its ongoing construction efforts and that such financing difficulties caused delays that were beyond its con- trol. EMC/mc Attachment cc: Planning Director Public Works Director City Manager recyc/edpaper BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN RE THE MATTER OF SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S REQUEST FOR A SECTION M AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION. This matter is before the City Council upon the petition of Savanah Limited Partnership ("Savanah") pursuant to Section M of the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivi- sion Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision ("PUD Agree- ment"), seeking certain extensions in the construction scheduling for subdivision development. Pursuant to Savanah's petition, a public hearing was convened upon notice on April 17, 1991, which was continued for further proceedings to May 21st and 29th, 1991. Savanah appeared, with legal counsel, and produced testimony and other evidence in support of its petition. Additional testimony and evidence on the matter was submitted by the City staff and members of the public. Having heard all of the offered testimony and argument and having reviewed the documentary evidence as submitted and made part of the record herein, the City Council finds as follows: 1. On March 15, 1991, Savanah submitted a written petition to the City pursuant to Section M of the PUD Agreement seeking an extension in the present construction schedule deadlines govern- • ing construction and development within the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. 2. Section M of the PUD Agreement provides as follows in its relevant part as pertinent hereto: "... the Owner or its successors or assigns may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council for a vari- ance, an amendment to this Agreement, or an extension of one or more of the time periods required for perfor- mance under the Construction Schedules or otherwise. The City Council may grant such variances, amendments to this Agreement, or extensions of time as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the time peri- ods for performance indicated in one or more of the Construction Schedules if Owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate such extension(s) are beyond the control of the Owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner. 3. Savanah seeks extensions in the current construction schedule deadlines as follows: From To (i) Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink/Park 10/l/91 10/l/92 (ii) Certificate of Occupancy Ritz -Carlton Hotel 10/1/91 10/l/92 (iii) Building Permit Issuances Ute City Place 10/1/91 10/1/92 (iv) Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 8/1/92 8/1/93 (v) Demolition Permit Grand Aspen Hotel 10/1/94 10/1/95 • • 4. Savanah has alleged that the following facts and/or circumstances have caused delays in the progress of construction of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel component of the subdivision develop- ment and that such facts and circumstances were beyond its control: (i) The Persian Gulf War and resulting adverse impact on Savanah's principal financing resources situat- ed in Saudi Arabia, including the non -liquidity and non -transferability of Saudi Arabian currency. The general economic slow down and recession im- pacting the economy of the United States and, particularly, the hotel and resort segment of same. 5. City Council finds that Savanah has been able to demonstrate by a preponderance of the testimony and evidence as established in the record that the Persian Gulf War and its resulting impact on the Saudi Arabian currency (riyal) has adversely affected Savanah's ability to finance its construction activities associated with the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and that such factors have caused delays in the progress of construc- tion that were beyond the control of Savanah despite its good faith efforts to perform. 6. City Council further finds that Savanah has not been able to demonstrate by a preponderance of the testimony and other evidence presented that general economic or recessionary condi- tions existing in the United States economy have caused delays in its construction activities or schedules associated with the 3 development of the subdivision, or that alleged adverse economic conditions as may be affecting the project were the result of facts or circumstances beyond Savanah's control. 7. City Council further finds that the testimony and other evidence as reflected in the record before it establishes by a preponderance that internal legal disputes and management dis- agreements between the partners have exacerbated and contributed to the delays in the project's construction schedules and that such factors were within the control of Savanah. 8. The delays in the construction schedules for the Ritz - Carlton Hotel have and will cause significant disruption in the City's downtown core area by extending construction activities and the adverse traffic, dust, noise and visual impacts associat- ed therewith. 9. The preponderance of the evidence presented by Savanah does not demonstrate that Savanah will complete the construction of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel, thus, warranting the imposition of additional financial assurances upon Savanah to protect the City and the citizens of Aspen from the adverse impacts of an unfin- ished construction project. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING, City Council does hereby grant to Savanah Limited Partnership the following extensions to the construction schedule deadlines for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, which extensions shall be incor- porated into a written amendment to the PUD Agreement pursuant to Sections M and 0(6), subject to those terms and conditions as set forth below: EXTENSIONS FROM TO 1. Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink/Park 10/1/91 10/1/92 2. Certificate of Occupancy Ritz -Carlton Hotel 10/1/91 10/1/92 3. Building Permit Issuance Ute City Place 10/1/91 4/1/92 4. Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 8/l/92 8/1/93 5. Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/1/94 10/1/95 CONDITIONS 1. Savanah shall upgrade the entire exterior fence (with screening) adjacent to the Ritz -Carlton Hotel construction site and Ice Rink/Park site. With regard to the visual appearance of the Ice Rink/Park parcel, the fence will be moved approximately twenty feet to the South off of the Durant Street curb, and all areas exterior to the fence shall be seeded. A gravel path shall also be installed in this area. Fugitive mud and dust prevention measures will be utilized on these sites. All construction materials stored on the Ice Rink/Park site shall be removed from public view. All of these items shall be completed by August 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. The construction entry to the Blue Spruce off of Durant Street shall be cleaned up and not utilized for construction activities. This shall be completed by September 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 9 3. The Blue Spruce structure shall be cleared of construction materials and scaffolding shall be concealed from public view. These items shall be completed by September 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. A safe pedestrian path shall be installed on the East side of Mill Street between the Ritz -Carlton Hotel construction site and the Grand Aspen Hotel. This shall be completed by July 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 5. Temporary patch work shall be installed on Mill Street between the Grand Aspen Hotel and Ritz -Carlton construction site. This work shall be completed by August 15, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 6. Patch work on Dean Street shall be installed in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel and shall be completed by July 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. Bank stabilization on both the South and West sides of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel construction site shall be completed by September 1, 1991, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 8. Savanah shall apply for rezoning of the Ice Rink/Park parcel to a "Park" zoning designation by July 1, 1991. If Savanah does not apply for such rezoning, the City shall initiate rezoning with all fees to be paid by Savanah. 9. Savanah shall submit a final development plan for the Ice Rink/Park parcel to the City by September 25, 1991. 10. Savanah shall complete submission of all necessary informa- tion for a "Number 1" building permit for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel to the Building Department by July 8, 1991. 11. Savanah shall obtain its "Number 1" building permit from the City by August 8, 1991, and all necessary fees and applicable taxes shall be paid by Savanah at that time. 12. Savanah shall secure and fence Summit Place and remove all debris from the site. The West wall shall also be repaired. These items shall be completed by August 1, 1991, and to the satisfac- tion of the Public Works Director. Alternatively, Savanah may elect to demolish the Summit Place structures provided that said demolition is completed by August 1, 1991. 13. The construction schedule submitted by Savanah (Attachment 1) shall be substantially adhered to as determined by City staff. 2 14. Savanah shall post financial assurances for demolition of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel site in an amount not less than Four (4) Million Dollars and in a form that is satisfactory to the City Attorney, within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision. 15. All fees owed to the City for the processing of any land use application shall be paid by October 1, 1991. 16. Savanah shall have one (1) year from the date of issuance of the demolition permit for the Grand Aspen Hotel to reconstruct the eighteen (18) residential units previously demolished pursu- ant to the subdivision development. This condition shall consti- tute and be incorporated as a formal amendment to Section L of the PUD Agreement. 17. Savanah shall comply with all representations and conditions as contained in its letter dated May 1, 1991, submitted by F. Belz and J. Imbriani, and addressed to the City Attorney (Attach- ment 2). 18. The effectiveness of the extensions as granted herein shall be contingent upon Savanah's compliance, as determined by the City Staff, with all of those conditions as set forth above. In the event that any condition as set forth above is not substan- tially complied with, then all extensions as granted herein shall automatically be rendered invalid and such failure(s) to comply shall constitute non-compliance with the First Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement. Savanah shall thereafter be entitled to a hearing before City Council to determine sanctions or penalties for its non-compliance, which may include the revocation or termination of any or all approvals contained in the PUD Agreement. ATTEST: City Clerk Done this day of , 1991. City Council of the City of Aspen By: 7 Mayor 0 C> I I III I 4 i I I I I 1 I (I►II II Illl II I I I III � LLI i I I I I ►, I I I I I LH !z �� I I I I !►! f i l l I I I I I I I! i I i i► 1 QLu io N ^�HIM -I I I I II I I I I I I TTTTTI ! II I Ez }i I► I I ! I I I I I '< Ll.. L'! Z Gcn ro to Q ` C4 .y t C ~ w L - a � W w J U =m io v v� C < Q m W I W J ' ` m o m o J I O O U w W r W � I �J D w C � w W •�- U LU U C C O N N S U U z W O W C C I p C C C �- r E I ID U C U � O V i v U ZZf = N < < I m L G I© I m w < m o r� 2 oo_o N © m CD U 1 C C U j I N O O I CL m m C I G C • 0 III II TFi I t J O r G O l A { I 1 f H4 � I t N � a I!I I III W u N Q W w J � W G z In ca 3 I W � In m m ILJ Q Q z _O O_ z O z O Q! L) D QD lL N FAfA �• `Q _ N VI N T O W � U U F— C) Q� Q� O _ O U O U O L.)_ a C W N C .r 0 -A z z =W ~ y U z O O O O O C W _ 1 1 O N U U U U N N N N rW- • ATTACHMENT 2 . 1-111VIA-1) :aspen Holdings, Inc. May 1, 1991 Mr. Edward M. Caswall City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: The Ritz -Carlton, Aspen Section M Amendment Request Edward M. Caswall letter of April 10, 1991 Dear Mr. Caswall, Based upon discussions at the City Council Meeting of April 17, 1991, on the referenced subject and a meeting with the City staff on April 22, 1991, on the referenced subject, the following are our comments on your letter of April 10, 1991. In the City Council Meeting, the Owner of the Ritz -Carlton site, Savanah Limited Partnership, presented their request for a one year extension of the completion date in the PUD for the Rit z-Carlton Hotel. Savanah also stated that it is not, at this time, abandoning the project and is continuing construction, albeit at a slower pace. Work on the site has not ceased, but has been adjusted pursuant to this slower pace. The Partnership, at this time, does not envision a suspension of construction activity. Therefore, in accord with our meeting, the following are our comments on each individual item. 1. As part of continuing construction on the project, work on the shell of the hotel will occur. (See attached Construction Schedule for the exact work and timing thereof.) 2. Most of the building materials at this time are stored inside of the hotel structure. The remainder will be hidden from public view in their present location behind fencing with screening. Some of these materials are not within the hotel structure. 3. The lower sump pumps will not require automatic activation as the construction workers will monitor the level of the sump and pump it as required. This is the process that has been going on throughout the construction of the hotel. 600 East Cooper Strect Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387 U ,i • j Caswell Section M Amendment Request Page two 5111/91 4. See attached Construction Schedule for this work. 5. Openings will be protected during the continuing construction, according to OSHA requirements. In addition, concrete work will be done on the "garage roof." This work will eliminate a lot of the open, unsafe conditions on the hotel plaza area. The construction cranes have been removed. 6. The contractor will continue their temporary utility services as required for construction. Since construction is continuing, a diagram illustrating utility systems on site at this interim stage is not appropriate. As -built, underground utility drawings in public right of ways, have been provided to Bob Gish. There is one outstanding as -built that needs to be provided, and that will be provided within the next 30 days. 7. Temporary buildings, trailers and stored materials ihU still be required since we are continuing construction. This includes those items on the Top of Mill Street and the Ice Rink parcel. With regard to the visual appearance of the Ice Rink parcel, we propose moving the fence approximately twenty feet to the South off the Durant street curb, provide seeding and a gravel sidewalk in this area. In addition, the fence parallel to Durant street wrill be upgraded visually. Fugitive mud and dust prevention measures have always been required of our contractor and will be aggressively enforced. 8. Since we are continuing construction, there will be some temporary construction welding, shoring and bracing in place, but only as part of the construction work. It will not be left as a permanent situation. Most of this temporary work will be eliminated by the construction that is to take place over the next four months. 9. The items indicated under this request are not required since we are continuing construction. 10. Three of the four fire hydrants required by the PUD are installed and activated. For the fourth one, see the attached Construction Schedule. 11. We intend to clean up and straighten up the security fence that is currently in place. 12. This work will take place with the normal sequence of construction. See the attached Construction Schedule. It does not make sense to install curbs, gutters and sidewalks at this time, as they will just be torn up by the continuing construction. 13. Jersey barriers will need to be maintained for public safety. 14. The Blue Spruce second level slab will be poured within the next three months. This will eliminate most of the debris, temporary scaffolding and form work. See the attached Construction Schedule. i eu Caswell Section M Amendment Request Page three 5/1/91 15. The Grand Aspen Hotel will need to continue as a construction headquarters and housing facility for the construction workers. 16. Summit Place will be properly secured and part of it will be fenced to prevent any access. In addition, all of the site will be cleaned up. Also, the west wall Kill be repaired and cleaned up. Security persons from the Ritz -Carlton site will monitor the property to make sure that unauthorized entry does not take place. 17. The Barbee parcel is currently fairly clean. Any minor clean up will be taken care of. The parcel currently has vegetation and ground cover. 18. The contractor will maintain the construction signage, as required. 19. Dean Street in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel will be patched. 20. A set of sepia as-builts at this interim stage is not appropriate. 21. We know of no outstanding fees or bills due to the City at this time. We are researching one bill for the Ice Rink that Amy Margerum pointed out in our meeting of April 22, 1991. In addition, we are meeting with Tim Clarke of the Dolomites and Ralph Melville of the Mountain Chalet to address some of their concerns. Other than the above items, we are not aware of any other City requests with regard to construction work on the job site as part of our Section M Amendment request. If there are others, please notify us immediately. We understand the City's concern about the impact the project has had on the town of Aspen. In part, that is why we have decided to continue construction, hopeful that we will proceed to complete the project. Obtaining a one year extension for completion will facilitate our analysis and the opportunity for completion of the project. Let us know if there is further information with which we supply you. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ,��7;1��' "r'erdinand'L. Belz,/M Joe Imbri ni \l cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution AE3// NEI distribution Bob Hughes, Esq. Marc Hayutin, Esq. • • - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager FROM: Amy Margerum, Planning Director�� RE: Aspen Mountain PUD: Request for Extension of Date of Submission for the Ice Rink and Park (Lot 5) DATE: June 5, 1991 SUMMARY Hadid Aspen Holdings has requested a ninety day extension for submission of the Final Development Plan for the Ice Rink and Park portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Ice Rink and Park received Conceptual approval on June 25, 1990. The Land Use Code ( Section 7-903 (c) (1) (c), states that an applicant has one year from the date of conceptual approval to submit a Final Development Plan. Unless an extension is granted by the City Council, failure to file such an application within this time frame renders null and void the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. The Code does not specify any findings or standards which must be met to obtain such an extension. Staff recommends approval of an extension to September 25, 1991 for submission of the Final Development Plan for the Ice Rink and Park. This deadline and extension was discussed by City Council during the recent Section M extension hearings on the Aspen Mountain PUD and agreed to by City Council. ' 16615 ` NX f fIA111) .-aspen Holdings, l"c . June 5, 1991 Ms. Amy Margerum Director of Planning City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Amy, The purpose of this letter is to make formal request of the Aspen City Council for an extension of 90 days to and including September 25, 1991, of the date for submission of the final development plan for the Ice Rink and Park on the northern portion of Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Chapter 24, Section 7-903 (c) (1) (c) states that "A Development Application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Unless an extension is granted by the City Council, failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan." In October of 1988, Savanah Limited Partnership (SLP) recorded the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development / Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. This agreement calls for SLP to process an amendment to this Restated PUD for Lot 5 and the anticipated Lot 6, Ice Rink and Park. As set forth in the recitals to that agreement, Lot 5 was said to be ... "still in the review process for purposes of obtaining final approval of proposed amendments to the development activity contemplated therefor as set forth in this First Amended PUD Agreement and for the replatting thereof into two separate parcels with the resulting new parcel to accommodate the Ice Rink and Park." Section G of the PUD Agreement as amended sets forth the Ice Rink and Park requirements related to the approval process. The PUD Agreement in this section states that Lot 6 is in the amendment 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387 Amy Margerum June 5, 1991 Page two approval process. Under City code an amendment to a PUD is a two step process. Nonetheless, the Owner and the Planning Director agreed that, in the cases of Lots 3, 5 and the proposed Lot 6, the review process would be four step, consisting of a conceptual and a final review to approve the amendments. A conceptual application was submitted in 1990. Conceptual approval was granted June 25, 1990, by City Council with conditions. The conditions required a complete redesign of the proposed project on the part of the owner/applicant. During the fall and winter redesign process and due to events beyond the control of the Owner, which have previously been found to have existed by the City Council in the context of the Ritz -Carlton extension, the Aspen Mountain PUD Owners suffered a temporary inability to fund the projects and thus shut down the work on the Ice Rink and Park along with the work on the Ritz -Carlton Hotel. This delay has made it impossible to comply with the June 25th final development submission date. We are making a formal request for an extension of ninety days, to September 25, 1991, for submission of the Final Development Plan for the Ice Rink and Park. While these changed circumstances regarding funding have created the need for an extension from the Owner's perspective, the granting of the extension is in the best interests of the entire Aspen Community. To delay the process of approval and require conceptual to be repeated is a delay not warranted in this case. There is no prejudice to any party regarding this issue. Further, to bring this development on line as quickly as possible is in everyone's best long term interest. Finally, the extension date was discussed and agreed to by the City staff, the City Council and the applicant during the recent Section "M" Extension Hearings for the Aspen Mountain PUD. Please notify me, as the Owners' representative, of the disposition of this request. Sincerely, Perry Ha vey, Dire or Hadid Aspen Holding, Inc. PH:ks CIT 30 DATE: May 17, 1991 SPEN t: eet _ ©rney MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney k RE: Continued Hearing Regarding Savanah Ltd. Partnership's Request for PUD Section M Amendment. Since your last hearing on the above -noted matter on April 17, 1991, several documentary items have been forwarded to the City Attorney's office for Council's review and inclusion in the hearing record. Those items, which are attached hereto, include the following: 1. Savanah's written specification of the extensions it seeks relevant to the existing construction schedule deadlines dated May 2, 1991 (3 pages); 2. Savanah's written response to the April 10, 1991, hette.r issued by the City"Attorney regarding specific hotel -site issues dated May 1, 1991 (5 pages); 3. A letter from Steve Goldenberg dated April 30, 1991 (1 page); 4. A letter form Jim Curtis dated April 23, 1991 (3 pages) ; 5. Savanah's written request for a continuance of the previously set hearing scheduled for May 16, 1991 (1 page); and 6. Savanah's letter amending its letter of May 1, 1991, dated May 9, 1991 (1 page); 7. "Notice" of continued hearing (2 pages). recvcied paper • 0 Memorandum to Mayor and City Council May 17, 1991 Page 2 The abcve-lisle: items, along with newly submitted staff memoran- da presented to Council, are to be included in the public record of the hearing. Thank you. EMC/mc Attachment cc: Robert W. Hughes, Esq. Planning Director LEONARD M. OATES ROPEPTW HUGHES PICNAPD A. KNEZEVICH OF COUNiEI, JOHN THOMAS KELLT Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CC 81611 • /• LAW OffICCS OATES, HUGHES & h�EZE�"ICfi PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA SUILDING L'J3 EAST NO►FINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO $1611 May 2, 1991 APEA CODE J02 TELEPHONE 020.1700 TELECOPIER 920.1121 P.E: First Amended & Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Mountain Subdivision Section 1\2 Amendment Request of Savanah Limited Partnership ("Savanah11) Dear Mayor Stirling and Council Members: To supplement the above -referenced request, please be advised of the following specific extensions of the PUD construction deadlines requested. By virtue of a previous Section 1\1 Agreement granted by the City on June 11, 1990, the current construction deadlines in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Agreement are as follows: Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink and Park 10/1/91 Certificate of Occupancy Ritz -Carlton Hotel 10/1/91 Buiidin- Permit Issuance Ute City Place 10/ 1/91 Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 8/ 1 /92 Certificate of Occupancy L'te City Place (20 months from 10/1/91) 6111/93 Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/l/94 );jlTES, Yi UGHES & KNr-z*CH, P. C. Aspen City Council ;•:a�2, 1991 Page 2 Building Permit Issuance Top of Mill Building Permit Issuance Hotel Phase II Certificate of Occupancy Top of Mill (20 months from 10/1/96) Certificate of Occupancy Hotel Phase II Lot 5 (20 months from 10/1/91) Sava::ah requests extension of these dates as follows: Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink and Park Certificate of Occupancy Ritz -Carlton Hotel Building Permit Issuance Ute City Place Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place Certificate of Occupancy Ute City Place (20 months from 10/1/91) Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel Building Permit Issuance Top of Mill 0 1011195 10/ 1 /96 6/ 1 /97 6/l/98 10/1/92 (Revised) 10/1/92 (Revised) 4/1/92 (Revised) 8/l/93 (Revised) 6/l/93 (Not Revised) 10/ 1 /95 (Revised) 10/ 1/95 (Not Revised) i_)ATES, H uCHES 8c KNEZ H, P. C. Aspen City Council May 2, 1991 Pac've 3 Building Permit Issuance Hotel Phase II 10/1/96 (Not Revised) Certificate of Occupancy Top of Mill (20 months from 10/l/96) 6/1/97 (Not Revised) Certificate of Occupancy Hotel Phase II Lot 5 (20 months from 1011191) 6/1/98 (Not Revised) Representatives of Savanah have and will continue to meet with City staff to discuss the rationale for extension of each component deadline and will address these revisions at the City Council meeting on May 16, 1991, in greater detail. Incidentally, under separate cover Savanah intends to request extension to September 215, 1991, of the date for final plat submission for the Ice Pink and park component of the PUD and extension of the conditional use authority earlier granted by the City Council for use of the Grand Aspen Hotel for construction office purposes. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, I OATES. HU(�HE" • �'EZEVICH. P.C. Bv. / C Robert'K. Hughes Attorneys for Savanah Limited Partnership RNVHi rak aspnciry.01 cc: 1001, Inc./HDC Distribution AEI/I-EI Distribution Marc Hayutin, Esq. a f :� ID AFper Holdings, Inc. May 1, 1991 Mr. Edward M. Caswall City Attorney City o, .Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: The Ritz -Carlton, Aspen Section M Amendment Request Edward M. Caswall letter of April 10, 1991 Dear Mr. Caswall, Based upon discussions at the City Council Meeting of April 17, 1991, on the referenced subjectand a meeting with the City staff on April 22, 1991, on the referenced subject, the following are our comments on your letter of April 10, 1991. In the City Council Meeting, the Owner of the Ritz -Carlton site, Savanah Limited Partnership, presented their request for a one-year extension of the completion date in the PUD for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel. Savanah also stated that it is not, at this time, abandoning the project and is continuing constritctio :, albeit at a slower pace. Rork on the site has not ceased, but has been adjusted pursuant to this slower pace. The Partnership, at this time, does not envision a suspension of construction a^_tivity. Therefore, in accord with our meeting, the following are our comments on each individual item. 1. As part of continuing construction on the project, work on the shell of the hotel will occur. (See attached Construction Schedule for the exact work and timing thereof.) 2. Most of the building materials at this time are stored inside of the hotel structure. The remainder Kill be hidden from public view in their present location behind fencing %,,zth screening. Some of these materials are not within the hotel structure. 3. The lower sump pumps rill not require automatic activation as the construction workers will monitor the level of the sump and pump it as required_ This is the process that has been going on throughout the construction of the hotel. 600 Eas, Coope- Strra: Buhr 200 Asper. Coiorado E1611 (303: 9"5-4272 F:',\: (303, 92;-435. lea iaswell Section M Arnendment Request Page two 5/1/91 4. See attached Construction Schedule for this work. 5. Openings will be protected during the continuing construction, according to OSHA requirements. In addition, concrete work will be done on the "garage roof." This work will eliminate a lot of the open, unsafe conditions on the hotel plaza area. The construction cranes have been removed. 6. The contractor Hill continue their temporary utility serfrices as required for construction. Since construction is continuing, a diagram illustrating utility systems on site at this interim stage is not appropriate. As -built, underground utility drawings in public right of ways, have been provided to Bob Gish. There is one outstanding as -built that needs to be provided, and that will be provided within the next 30 days. i. Temporary buildings, trailers and stored materials will still be required since we are continuing construction. This includes those items on the Top of Mill Street and the Ice Rink parcel. ``frith regard to the visual appearance of the Ice Rink parcel, we propose moving the fence approximately twenty feet to the South off the Durant street curb, provide seeding and a gravel sidewalk in this area. In addition, the fence parallel to Durant street will be upgraded visually. Fugitive mud and dust prevention measures have always been required of our contractor and will be aggressively enforced. S. Since we are continuing construction, there will be some temporary construction welding, shoring and bracing in place, but only as part of the construction work. It wz]] not be heft as a permanent situation. Most of this temporary work AU be eliminated by the construction that is to take place over the next four months. 9. The items indicated under this request are not required since we are continuing construction. 10. Three of the four fire hydrants required by the PUD are installed and activated. For the fourth one, see the attached Construction Schedule. 11. We intend to clean up and straighten up the security fence that is currently in place. 1°. This work will take place with the normal sequence of construction. See the attached Construction Schedule. It does not make sense to install curbs, gutters and sidewalks at this time, as they will just be torn up by the continuing construction. 13. Jersey barriers wit need to be maintained for public safety. 14. The Blue Spruce second level slab will be poured within the next three months. This will eliminate most of the debris, temporary scaffolding and form work. See the attached Construction Schedule. J ea Caswell Section M Amendment Request Page three 5/1/91 15. The Grand Aspen Hotel will need to continue as a construction headquarters and liousing facility for the construction workers. 16. Summit Place Kill be properly secured and part of it will be fenced to prevent any access. In addition, all of the site will be cleaned up. Also, the west wall wID be repaired and cleaned up. Security persons from the Ritz -Carlton site AU monitor the property to make sure that unauthorized entry does not take place. 17. The Barbee parcel is currently fairly clean. Any minor clean up will be taken care of. Tl)e parcel currently has vegetation and ground cover. 18. The contractor will maintain the construction signage, as required. 19. Dean Street in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel will be patched. 20. A set of sepia as-builts at this interim stage is not appropriate. 21. We know of no outstanding fees or bills due to the City at this time. We are researching one bill for the Ice Rink that Amy Margerum pointed out in our meeting of April 22, 1991. In addition, we are meeting with Tim Clarke of the Dolomites and Ralph Meh-Me of the Mountain Chalet to address some of their concerns. Other than the above items, we are not aware of any other City requests with regard to construction work on the job site as part of our Section Ivi Amendment request. If there are others, please notify us immediately. We understand the City's concern about the impact the project has had on the town of Aspen. In part, that is why we have decided to continue construction, hopeful that we will proceed to complete the project. Obtaining a one year extension for completion will facilitate our analysis and the opportunity for completion of the project. Let us know if there is further information with which we supply you. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, -li44 ,r erdinand 71L. Belz,,III Joe rimbritni V cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution AEI' / Ir'EI distribution Bob Hughes, Esq. Marc HayvtLri, Esq. N s l I I L I I I p I I ! I J of I I all I i i I I I' LU LLJ �� INiiil °z rJ i I ¢ I I a I y I E , F—o U ¢( I I I 1 r I W �I aL s LU Z S S i H F tt I V Q O W J J Z I I y � w o a: J J J m l l LL i W 1 O Q O J u An To: The Mayor, City founcil, Y,anager, .ttorree j & Planner, , As en CO Aspen, From: Steve Goldenberg Date: April 30, 1991 Subject: Extension Hearing for the Fitz P.U.D., May 16, 1991 I have been in favor of the prompt completion of the Fitz project ever since the public vote last February. Now that the cranes have been removed and work has virtually stopped I am concerned that: 1. the developers may not have the money or the econoruic desire to finish the project, 2. that the Ritz Carlton Hotel management company may not have the desire or the legal commitment to run the hotel as a Ritz for the initial 10(?) year period and, 3. that there is a list of other unfulfilled commitments that might not ever be satisfied. A conditional extension to the P.U.D. agreement should be granted if the developer agrees to satisfying these points: 1. A bonafide, irrevocable completion bond in an amount large enough to guarantee prompt completion of the project (approximately $25 million.) should be posted before any extension is granted or alternatively, the developer should be required to give the city senior deeds of trust on enough Aspen property to satisfy the council that the city will be able to generate S15-25 million from the sale of the deeded collateral. Any recently granted deeds of trust will have to be taken care by the developer or the extension should be invalidated. The Meadows, the Continental Inn, Top of Mill, and the Ritz =tself are examples of possible collateral located in Aspen. A construction completion bond should have been part of the original P.U.D. Since work has virtually stopped and the developer is requesting an extension, this is an appropriate time to insist on such a bond. 2. A review of the current Ritz -Carlton management contract be made to insure !hat it _s still -in force. A corresponding performance bond should be -required. Other unfulfilled.commitments that you feel are essential-ie. a. the sha ti ng rink and par: ( due 10/l /91?) , b. Tap and other delinquent fees (due 12/31/90?), C. Bavarian inn land use application (due / /90?), d. Ute City :lace (due / /90?), etc. e. the immediate signing of the Meadows agreement etc., s::ould all be made part of any extc::sion agreemen-, and the extension should automatically lapse if the agreed items are not completed by the dates specified. There should also be an explicit agreement prohibiting free market -=6os and/or timesharing. You and the staff really have to negotiate the terms of any extension within the next two weeks. if you are not in a position to act on May 16th, the decision will be left to the new Mayor and Council. Now is the time to be firm and fair. You have the cards that count. The burden to perform., is on their shoulders. If they can, fine, if not, the F.U.D. should be left to expire on 10/1/91. Steve Goldenberg q 13CgrJ I CURTIS AASSOCLATES April 23, 1991 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO S1611 Re: Comments On The Extension Request Aspen Mountain PUD and Ritz Hotel Dear Council, Coming from the 4/17 meeting on the Aspen Mountain PUD extension request, I wish to offer the following comments concerning the request. These comments are offered in a positive manner given that the City and Council finds itself in a Catch-22 dilemma through no fault of its own. In summary, I would ;rant the 1-year extension with the following conditions: 1. Posting a performance bond to cover the cost of completing the project plus inflation and contingencies. The bond must be posed in 60 days or the grant of the extension is void. If the bond is not posted in 60 days and tht extension becomes void, then the project would be -subject to the existing PUD Acrtemert -with its 10/1,191 completion -date. If the 10/1/91 completion date is defaulted or., .then the PUD approvals would lapse and become null and void. The bond --mount should be set by the Building Department workinu cooperatively with the developer. Requiring the bond would make the developer make a good faith commitment to the community that he is prepared and able to complete the project. Placing a deed in escrow for the ice rink and park property with the deed, free of any debt and liens, accruing to the Ciro. If the ice rink and park is not issued a C.O. by 10/1/92 the extended opening date of the hotel, the propern., is transferred to City ownership through non-performance by the developer. This allows the City to use t1,e proaerty as represented even if the hotel is not completed in a time)• fashion due to continued partnership problems, bankruptcy, etc. Also, if the hotel proceeds under construction and on schedule for the 10/1 /92 opening. no C.O. shall be issued on the hotel until a C.O. for the ice rink and nark is issued as committed to in the current PUD Agreement. 117 South .Monarch Strcct aspen. Coiorado S1611 303!920-13 95 Aspen City Council • April 23, 1991 Page Two 3. Tightening down the PUD Agreement concerning the employee housing commitments: a. Validate the appropriate employee housing capacities of the properties especially the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus. b. Include the Bavarian Inn property in the PUD Agreement. C. Confirm no C.O. is issued on the hotel until all the employee housing commitments are met. 4. Addressing the health, safety, and visual concerns of the construction site during the "slowed -down" construction period based on the applicable items outlined in the -CM, y Attorney's 4/10 memo. Granting the extension with the suggested conditions is based on the following comments and thoughts. 1. As shown by your leadership at the 4/17 meeting, the Council's first and primary obligation is to protect the interest of the City and not the financial or profit interest of a private developer. This single reason supports requesting a performance bond to guarantee completion of the project given the uncertainty of completing the project represented at the rneeting. 2. I do not support truing to reduce density on the current Ritz. Phase II. Top of Mill, etc. as part of the extension request. I feel this issue is dead unless the PUD approvals lapse and become . null and void through non-performance by the developer. Should non-performance occur, any subsequent part), must deal with the underlving zoning of the propertv and a new approval process. As part of the extension. I would ask the City Attorney to protect the City's interest as much as possible if the property goes into bankruptcy. My questions are, could the City draw from the performance bond to fully button -up the construction site «•bile in bankruptcy, provide that the PUD approvals lapse upon non-performance in bankruptcy; protect the City as a creditor if any monies are outstandin.-, etc.? fi. Keep the Ritz and ?Meadows properties separate? However, in terms of timing, planning and procedures, I do not know what this practically means. 5. Independent of what occurs with the hotel, I feel the City must protect the public's expectation and developer's commitment for the ice rink and park. If the developer does not perform on building the hotel, rink and park, the rink and park property must be deeded to the Citv free and -clear of amv debt so the City can complete the rink and park. - Aspen Cite Council . • April 23, 1991 Page Three 6. The employee housing obligations of the PUD Agreement should be re-examined as to: a. Copper Horse and Alpina Haus - what are the appropriate employee capacities of these properties? b. Ute City Place - Does the developer own this property, have it under option or contract, can lie actually fulfill his obligation on this property? C. Bavarian Inn - Incorporate this commitment as part of the PUD A. reenient? 7. As part of the slow down of the construction work, insure that the health and safely aspects of the construction site are addressed. These items are outlined in the City Attorney's memo of 4/10. 8. As part of the slow down of the construction work, clean-up the visual aspects of the construction site. To me this doesn't mean completing the shell of the building but only a nice construction fence, removing the concrete barriers, and cleaning -up the surrounding streets and parking. Taking the cranes down did more than anything to clean-up the site. In closing, I feel it is the current Council's obligation to act/vote on this request without passing it to the newly elected Council. You know the history of the project and tiie players involved. The elected Council will assume office June 10 and therefore a vote on the extension request should be accomplished prior to this date. I- offer these comments in a positive fashion'to help you struggle \yith this dilemma. I will be happy to discuss my thoughts with you in more detail. As always, thank you for your consideration of my comments. - - Respectf,>lly, ' J Jim Curtis JCio cc: Amy Mareerum Jed Caswall Carol O'Dowd ti . LAW OFFICES . OATES, HUGHES & K- EZEVICH LEONARD M. OATES ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY HAND DELTN'ERED Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 537 CAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 61611 May 8, 1991 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920.1700 TELECOPIER 920-1121 RE: Section M Amendment bequest - Aspen Mountain SuhdIN ision and flan Unit Development Dear Mayor Stirling and Council Members: In connection with the above -referenced matter, presently pending and currently set for continued hearine on May 16, 1991, please allow this to serve as the request of the applicant in the matter, Savanah Limited Partnership, to continue the May 16 hearing to May 21, 1991, commencing at 5:00 p.m. This request is made pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-205 C.5. of the Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen which, in part provides, "[A)n applicant shall have the right to request and be °ranted one continuance; >K " If the Council is inclined, perhaps we can utilize the Mav 16 date for a site inspection of the hotel under construction. RWH' rak i mpn:il)'.0'- Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. OAT4S, HWHLS � K��Zt: 71CH, P.C. Ro5ea Attorneys for Savanah Lim ted Partnership May 9, 1991 IAA)fl Mr. Edward M. Caswall HAND DELIVERED _1) City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Holduihs, Aspen, CO 81611 I11C Subject: Aspen Mountain PUD Section M Amendment Staff Meetings Dear Mr. Caswall, At our meeting last week on the referenced subject, we discussed one of our responses to your letter of April 10, 1991, on the subject of construction impacts. This was item 0, wherein our response was that coneruction trailers, temporary buildings and storage would remain on the Ice Rink and Top of Mill sites. As pointed out in the meeting, this was an error. Only construction materials will be stored on these sites. Per a conditional use permit allowing construction offices in the Grand Aspen Hotel, we agreed not to have temporary buildings or construction trailers on these sites. That is still our position. Note, however, that during certain times there will be construction trailers on the site doing deliveries and they may be present for a few days. The intent was not to have construction trailers for storage purposes which would entail long periods of time. If you have any questions on this, please contact me. Sincerely, V Ferdinan L. Belz, III Representing 1001, Inc. FLB:kms cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution AEI / NEI distribution Robert W. Hughes, Esq. Marc I. Havutin, Esq. �A;L;1�1� 6U0 EzaFt Coope:- v:rre: Suitt- 200 Asper. Coiw%.do E!C* I i3U3? 925- 272 FAX: f303. 925•4357, v 0 ! 0 NOTICE This is to ad-jise that the public hearing set For N.ay 16, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. concerning the proposed Section N. amendment for the Ritz Carlton hotel has been continued by :he Aspen City Council to and until Nay H , 1991, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chanbers. This continuance was granted by City Council at -s neetinc in open session on may 13, 1991, on its consent agenda pursuant to the request of the applicant, Savanah Limited Par` nership, and Section 24-6-205(C)(5) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Kathleen J.,l StrJ ckland t Depuv City Clerk J V- 30 I.DATE: May 7, 1991 t' Y SPEN %n =Street ^O: Mayor and City Council ROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney Contimiance and Resetting of Ritz Section M Amendment hear- a.ng ^'}_is matter is on your consent agenda at the request of Savanah Ltd. Partnership `or a continuance and resetting of -he presently srbeduled Mav 16th continued public hearing on the proposed Ritz - Section M amendment. Savanah has made the request so as to accor:modate direct consultations between ?'.r. Hayutin and his cl.ent t.hat are `Co, occur in Europe on the 16th. (See attached Secticn 24-6-205(C) (5) e- the Municipal Code provides that "an ii-ant shall have the r-aht to request and be granted one CO:a-nuance" w-Ltn Cr without good cause. . The request as made by Savanah herein is its r=rst. =o previous conversations on ti.'s su*_-jec.., the part -es' "eed uo- n a resched•�_ed hear-'ng date of ?Say 21st_ at 5. 00 J. r.m. `r':ie Darzies nave further aar-eed that we can llz-__ze e a_rea;."Set aside Cn Tia- 16th to undertake a site i riS1:=c _nor./tour or the hotel. City_ Counc__ is be-ing asked to for -malty a=?rove and a con --nuance cf the 2•.ay 16-g h hearing to May 21st at 00 J -syed action: Aocrove a continuance and resetting of the May _:ear-nq o.1 the proposed Ritz -Carlton Section M amendment to' Y•,aV 21, 1991, at 5:00�p.rl. t_77.Cac .►r.ent �nC Director Cier}; Manacer P.c .rlert W. Hughes, Esq. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Diane Moore, Deputy Director of City Planning RE: Aspen Mountain PUD: Request for Extension Under Section M of the PUD Agreement DATE: May 21, 1991 SUMMARY: On March 15, 1991, Savanah Limited Partnership (Savanah) requested an extension of the existing construction schedule for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel, and associated development as set forth in the Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. The First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement (herein referred to as the "PUD Agreement") executed between the City and Savanah Ltd. Partnership on October 3, 1988, was reconfirmed by the voters of the City of Aspen on February 13, 1990. Section M of the PUD Agreement governs requests for amendments and extensions relevant to the provisions or schedules contained in the PUD Agreement. In accordance with Section "M", "Savanah or its successors or assigns may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council for a variance, an amendment to this Agreement, or an extension of one or more of the time periods required for performance under the Construction Schedules or otherwise. The City Council may grant such variances, amendments to this Agreement, or extensions of time as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances, The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend time periods for performance indicated in one or more of the Construction Schedules if Owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate such extension(s) are beyond the control of Savanah, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner." On June 11, 1990, the City Council approved a Section "M" Amendment to the PUD Agreement, revising the construction schedule for the development project. The current construction deadline in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/Agreement as well as the proposed extension are as follows: 1. Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink and Park 2. Certificate of Occupancy Ritz -Carlton Hotel 3. Building Permit Issuance Ute City Place 4. Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 5. Certificate of Occupancy Ute City Place (20 months from 10/01/91) 6. Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 7. Building Permit Issuance; Top of Mill 8. Building Permit Issuance; Hotel Phase II 9. Certificate of Occupancy; Top of Mill (20 months from 10/01/96) 10. Certificate of Occupancy; Hotel Phase II Lot 5 (20 months from 10/01/91) *Revised Dates Existing Proposed Deadline Deadline 10/01/91 10/01/92* 10/01/91 10/01/92* 10/01/91 04/01/92* 08/01/92 08/01/93* 06/01/93 06/01/93 10/01/94 10/01/95* 10/01/95 10/01/96 06/01/97 10/01/95 10/01/96 06/01/97 06/01/98 06/01/98 On April 17, 1991, a public hearing was held with the City Council to discuss Savanah Limited Partnership's request for an extension to the existing construction deadlines. The public hearing was continued so that staff could have an opportunity to discuss new extended deadlines with Savanah and discuss various concerns relevant to the request for an extension of the existing construction schedule. Staff has had numerous meetings with Savanah to discuss these concerns. The Planning Office, along with the City Attorney's Office, has prepared a response focusing on the implications that the extension may have to the City of Aspen. Staff offers Council several alternatives to consider in their review of the request for an extension. 2 BACKGROUND: The information in this section is intended to provide Council with an overview of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. On April 20, 1985, the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD was approved by the City Council. On September 16, 1988 the Council approved Resolution 29 approving amendments to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. Subsequently, the Court held the approvals to be null and void because the approval was made by City Council Resolution rather than Ordinance. The City Council then approved Ordinance 69 (adopted at special municipal election of 2/13/90), which granted the following approvals: 1. Confirmation of the 172 lodge units growth management quota system allotment previously granted the Aspen Mountain Lodge project; 2. Amendment of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD plat substantially approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 26, 1988 and approval of the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision; and 3. A growth management quota system exemption to convert four units within the Grand Aspen Hotel to employee units. The five lots comprising the PUD (see attached Figure 1) together with a sixth lot proposed to result from the replatting of Lot 5 are presently known as: Lot One - Hotel Phase I (The Ritz Carlton site) Lot One is zoned Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) and contains 128,941 square feet of land (See Figure 2). The site is generally bounded by Durant Avenue and Dean Street to the north, Mill Street to the east, Juniata Street to the south and Monarch Street to the west. The Hotel Phase I component will be a full service hotel and comprised of not more than 292 hotel units and not more than 294 hotel bedrooms and no residential units. The total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in this component shall not exceed 190,000 square feet and the total non -FAR floor area shall not exceed 95,000 square feet. The PUD Agreement also states that the aggregate number of hotel units on Lots One and Five shall not exceed 342. Lot One originally was the site of 97 lodge rooms (in the form of the Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce lodges) as well as 10 residential units. The residential units were "relocated" from Lot One to Lot Five. The Ritz -Carlton Hotel is currently under construction on Lot One. 3 Lot Two (Summit Place) Lot Two is zoned Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) and contains approximately 5,360 square feet. It is located on the west side of Mill Street, just below Summit Street. The Summit Place component shall be comprised of three two -bedroom units containing an aggregate of not more that 7,700 square feet of floor area. The Summit Place units are replacement housing units which are exempt from the residential growth management quota system and requirements to provide employee housing. As these are considered replacement units, the deadline for initiating construction is related to demolition of the existing units. Hans Cantrup had started construction on this parcel and then it was brought to a halt when the property went into bankruptcy. The building is still unfinished with the units deteriorating and at various stages of construction. Savanah has received final plat approval for this project. Lot Three (Top of Mill) The Top of Mill site contains 242,813 square feet of land located within three zone districts. The site contains 89,161 square feet of land zoned R-15 PUD-L (Moderate Density Residential/Lodge Overlay), 49,741 square feet of land zoned Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) and 103,912 square feet of land zoned Conservation (C). The Top of Mill lies at the southern terminus of Mill Street at the base of Aspen Mountain. In September of 1984, the City Council approved Resolution 23, which granted conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for 33 residential dwelling units to the Top of Mill project. The dwelling units are replacement units exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Four existing residential units on this site have been credited to the project. The October 1988, Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision Agreement links Lot Three - Top of Mill to Lot Five - Hotel Phase II. The agreement stipulates that the 47 dwelling units may be allocated between Lots Three and Five. In other words, those units not allocated to one site may be utilized on the other, subject to zoning and subdivision approvals. Lot Three has not received final amendment to the PUD agreement. Lot Four (Galena Place) approval and will require an Lot Four is an 18,376 square foot lot zoned Lodge Tourist Residential (L/TR). Galena Place is located on the east side of Galena Street just to the south of the Tippler. Galena Place has been constructed and is 4 • • comprised of 4 three -bedroom residential units. The FAR square footage for Lot Four is 12,000. Residential GMQS approval was originally received for the 4 four - bedroom units and 12,000 square feet of FAR space. There are three replacement unit credits from previously existing units connected with this site. Lot Five -Hotel Phase II & Ice Rink/Park (Continental Inn/Grand Aspen) Lot Five is bounded by Durant Avenue to north, Galena Street to the east, Fasching Haus to the south and Mill Street to the west. The lot contains 113,685 square feet. A portion of the site (12,000) is zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) and the remainder of the site is zoned L/TR. Lot Five is the existing site of the Grand Aspen Hotel and the parking lot to the north of the hotel. The amended PUD Agreement restricts Lot Five to not more than 50 hotel rooms (with the aggregate number of hotel rooms on Lots One and Five not to exceed 342), 47 residential units between Lots Three and Five with the exact number to be established in the amended review process for Lot Five. The total FAR for Lot Five is 115,000 square feet. Lot Five has not received final approval and will require an amendment to the PUD Agreement. Lot Six - Ice Rink/Park As part of the subdivision process, Lot Six (ice rink and park) is to be created on a portion of Lot 5. The applicant is to construct and operate an ice skating rink/park as a permanent community activity center. The proposed rink and park cover the northern 27,000 square feet of Lot Five. At the eastern end of the rink is a paved plaza area with the balance of the site landscaped. Lot Six received conceptual approval from City Council on June 25, 1990. The applicant has one year from the date of Conceptual approval to submit an application for a Final Development Plan. In the May 2, 1991 letter from Robert Hughes to the Aspen City Council, Mr. Hughes states that Savanah intends to request an extension for final plat submission from the June 25, 1991 deadline to September 25, 1991. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the written information submitted by the applicant (see attached) in support of their request for an extension to the PUD construction deadlines and has met several times with the applicant to discuss the implications of the extension to the City of Aspen. Mr. Hadid, in the attached letter to the Aspen City Council dated March 14, 1991 informed the Council that Savanah's lender and financial partner had ceased funding the Ritz -Carlton Hotel project. Savanah 5 • LJ has stated that it is not abandoning the project and is continuing the construction of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel at a slower pace. The work on the construction site has been adjusted by the applicant to this slower pace and the partnership, at this time, does not envision a suspension of construction activity. Staff has the following concerns with the request and has outlined them in the following sections: A. Ritz -Carlton Hotel - Lot One (Hotel Phase One) Savanah has requested an extension of one year for the receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel; this would delay the issuance of the CO until October 1, 1992. The first concern is the visual impact of the construction site to the City of Aspen. The delay in the issuance of the CO would cause a lag in the completion of site improvements associated with the hotel construction. This delay would impact several factors such as the appearance of the project site and exterior facade. The overall visual aspects of the site need to be considered and this was pointed out to Savanah's representa- tives at numerous meetings and also conveyed by Edward Caswall's letter dated April, 10, 1991 to Savanah Ltd. Partnership (see attached). Savanah responded to the above -mentioned letter with a letter dated May 1, 1991. In order to minimize the visual impacts, staff requests that Savanah proceed with improving the exterior fencing of the Hotel construction area. Additionally, the construction entry to the Blue Spruce off of Durant Street should be cleaned up and not be utilized for construction activities. The construction activities will have to utilize another area for entry into the project site. It is also requested that the Blue Spruce structure and site be cleared of construction materials and scaffolding from public view. All building materials stored on -site should be hidden from public view. Staff recommends that Council incorporate these comments as conditions so that the visual aspects of the project site are improved during the prolonged construction period. This is important because of the proximity of the partially constructed hotel to downtown Aspen as Aspen is a resort community which relies upon its historic and aesthetic character. Other factors for Council to consider would be the delay in site improvements such as sidewalks, curb and gutter, and paving of the adjacent streets. Again, Mr. Caswall's letter of April 10, 1991 highlights concerns regarding the restoration of Mill, Juaniata, Durant and Monarch Streets. Savanah has responded that this work will take place with the normal sequence of construction. 10 Savanah has stated that Dean Street in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel will be patched immediately. It is outlined in both their letter of May 1, 1991 and the accompanying construction schedule. At this point in time, it would be unreasonable to request that the Mill Street improvements in the PUD be accelerated until the below grade foundations and structures of the hotel site are completed. The Mill Street side (East) of the hotel project cannot be completed until Building "B", the retaining structural walls, and the garage ramp are completed above grade. According to the construction schedule, Building "B" shell will be completed in May of 1992 and construction work in this vicinity will be ongoing. If, for example, Mill Street would be completed at an earlier date, construction activities would have a negative impact on a completed Mill Street. However, there are several items that could be required of Savanah regarding Mill Street, including the provision of a safe pedestrian path adjacent to the east side of Mill Street between the construction project and the Grand Aspen Hotel. Currently, a safe, accessible path does not exist. Also, some temporary patch work on Mill Street in this area would eliminate several of the potholes. The City of Aspen has determined that the rework of the asphalt on Durant Street between Galena and Mill cannot be delayed until the Hotel is completed even though it is the responsibility of Savanah. As a result, the City is currently undertaking the overlay of the Galena Street and Durant Street intersection and the entire street width on Durant Street from Galena Street to Mill Street along with some storm drainage work. The work completed satisfies some of the requirements in the PUD Agreement and will reduce the financial assurances as posted for the Ritz - Carlton project. Staff would also request that bank stabilization work on both the South side and West side of the project be initiated to prevent soil erosion and to insure the safety of adjacent residents. There are other elements of the PUD that are tied to the issuance of the CO for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel, including the schedule of amenities, such as the Ice Rink/Park, the construction of the "Alpine Trail" link and the "Aspen Mountain Trail" ski trail. B. Ice Rink/Park - Lot Six The Certificate of Occupancy for the Ice Rink/Park is proposed to be delayed from October 1, 1991 to October 1, 1992. Savanah's reason for the delay was that the site preparation for the slab would not be completed by October, 1991. Savanah still must obtain final development plan approval for the Ice Rink and Park. VA 1�1 • C. They anticipate that the slab could be poured in the spring/ summer of 1992 and this would be a more appropriate season. The PUD Agreement states that Savanah shall "apply for and diligently pursue all necessary approvals from the City for the Ice Rink and associated facilities." Additionally, an amendment to the PUD Agreement is required to incorporate the development activity on Lot Six. In order to facilitate the development activity on Lot Six, Savanah must submit an application for a Final Development Plan. Conceptual approval was granted on June 25, 1990 and Savanah has until September 25, 1991 to submit a Final Development Plan. The PUD Agreement also specifies that Lot 6 shall be rezoned by the City from the current CL and LT/R zoning classifications to Park (P) and Savanah shall apply for the rezoning within 90 days after receipt of a full building permit for Hotel Phase I, but in no event later than April 1, 1989. Staff recommends Council include a condition for the extension of the CO of the ice rink/park that Savanah submit a Final Development Plan by September 25, 1991, to insure that the project continues to move forward to its completion. The construction schedule for the ice rink depicts an April, 1992 start date with an October, 1992 completion date. In addition, staff recommends that the applicant proceed immediately with the rezoning of the parcel to Park. A condition of extension to this effect is suggested under the staff's recommendation. Ute City Place - Building Permit Issuance Savanah has requested that the issuance of the building permit for Ute City Place be extended from October 1, 1991 to April 1, 1992, which is a six month extension. The Ute City Place is comprised of twenty two (22) units, which will house a total of thirty-seven (37) employees and it will be dedicated to City employee housing. Although the Ute City Place will, be constructed to house employees of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel, the PUD Agreement states that the Certificate of Occupancy for Hotel Phase I shall not be withheld by reason of incompletion of the Ute City Place at the time the CO is sought. However, Savanah cannot receive the CO to the Ritz -Carlton Hotel until they furnish alternative employee housing for thirty-seven (37) employees and this alternative housing acceptable to the City. It should be noted that Savanah has submitted an application for a building permit for the Ute City Place, but they have not satisfied all the conditions of the application that are necessary for the issuance of the building permit. Staff does not believe that this extension would be detrimental to the City. It would still provide a minimum of six months from 8 the date of issuance of the Ute City Place building permit to the deadline for the CO of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel. D. Summit Place - Lot Two Savanah has requested a one year extension for the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy from August 1, 1992 to August 1, 1993. Summit Place is to be comprised of three two -bedroom units which are exempt from GMQS and employee housing requirements. There are two unfinished units and debris on this parcel and the current condition of the Summit Place constitutes a public nuisance. Staff has requested that Savanah properly secure and fence the property to prevent any access. In addition, they have stated that the debris will be removed from the site and the west wall will be repaired. These improvements have been identified in the construction schedule and will start in June, 1991 and will be completed by August, 1991. If the above -mentioned items are incorporated as conditions to the extension request, then staff would not object to the requested extension. E. Grand Aspen Hotel - Lot Five Savanah has requested a one year extension to the demolition permit for the Grand Aspen Hotel. The existing deadline is October 1, 1994 and the requested extension is for October 1, 1995. The Certificate of Occupancy for the Grand Aspen Hotel would remain the same at June 1, 1998. Savanah's reason for the request for the extension is that the demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel is tied to three years from the issuance of the CO for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel as stated in the PUD Agreement. The PUD Agreement restricts Lot Five to not more than fifty (50) hotel rooms and forty seven (47) residential units between Lots Five and Three, with the exact number to be established in the amended review process for Lot Five. Lot Five has not received final approval and it will require an amendment to the PUD Agreement. The schedule for the renovation of the Grand Aspen Hotel is critical to maintaining the community's lodging base and ensuring that the City of Aspen has upgraded lodging facilities in the commercial core. Savanah is still utilizing the building for temporary offices as outlined in their conditional use permit. An item that staff would like Council to consider is the Schedule 9 Update of the PUD Agreement, attached for your reference. Staff has provided the Schedule 9 Update and would request that it be incorporated as an exhibit to the Section M Amendment. Schedule 9 is the original source of reconstruction units for the 9 PUD Agreement. Schedule 9 Update also lists the date of demolition, where the units will be reconstructed and the expiration date of reconstruction. It is noted in Section L of the PUD Agreement "that pursuant to Municipal Code Section 24-11.2(a), Owner has the right, following their demolition, to reconstruct within the Aspen Mountain PUD a total of 42 residential units. . . Furthermore, the City hereby agrees and confirms that for the 18 previously demolished residential units as identified of Schedule 9 attached hereto, Savanah shall have a two-year period for reconstruction commencing on the date of obtaining a demolition permit for demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel on Lot 5." The eighteen (18) previously demolished residential units are identified in the Schedule 9 Update as "Note 3" under the column entitled "Expiration of Reconstruction." The point is that most of these eighteen (18) residential units were demolished around 1985 and Savanah has a two year period for reconstruction that commences on the date of the demolition permit of the Grand Aspen Hotel (the land use code provides for a five year time frame from demolition to reconstruction). If the date of the demolition permit of the Grand Aspen Hotel is extended from October 1, 1994 to October 1, 1995, then Savanah has until October 1, 1997 to reconstruct these units. This would represent approximately a twelve-year time frame for reconstruction. These residential units will be reconstructed on either Lot Three or Lot Five. The existing deadline for the issuance of the residential building permits for both the Top of Mill and the Hotel Phase II is October 1, 1995 and October 1, 1996, respectively. This would be adequate for the utilization of these residential units (these units are exempt from GMQS and employee housing requirements). Staff brings this to Council's attention so that Council can assess whether an extension to the demolition permit is appropriate and necessary. Staff at this time has not received information from the applicant which would indicate that an extension to the demolition permit for the Grand Aspen is appropriate. Reconstruction Credits and GMQS Allocation -- It is staff's interpretation that if the demolished units are in the reconstruction process but the expiration date has lapsed during reconstruction, then the units under reconstruction are valid as long as an active building permit is in place. Additionally, as long as an active building permit is held for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel (staged permits or a full building permit), the GMQS allotment for the hotel units is valid. However, if the building permits were to become invalid due to lack of work on the project, Savanah runs the risk of losing all GMQS allotments. 10 • Employee Housing - In December of 1989, City Council reconsidered Ordinance 69 approving the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. At that time, staff reviewed the employee housing mitigation being provided as part of the PUD and recommended additional employee housing mitigation. Staff's recommendations were adopted by City Council but put before the voters and subsequently denied. Therefore, although staff continues to believe that the employee housing mitigation associated with this project is below that which would be required today, we feel this issue was settled last year. If City Council believes that additional time extensions exacerbate the employee housing shortfall further than that which was determined to be the case last year, then additional conditions related to employee housing may be justified. Staff believes that the same shortfall identified in 1990 holds true now and has not been increased. Bonding - Based upon a review of the PUD agreement and the financial account records as provided by the Finance Department, the following information reflects the status of the financial assurances posted by Savanah with the City pertinent to the Ritz -Carlton and associated projects: Total originally posted financial assurances amounted to $1,878,000.00 (per 1988 payments). Of this sum, $650,000.00 was to secure the hotel site excavation, with the balance of $1,228,000.00 going toward public improvements and landscaping. In view of the completion of certain aspects of the hotel and related public improvements, posted assurances have been reduced to the following levels: $390,000.00 cash escrow (Central Bank of Aspen) for public improvements (streets, curbs and gutters). $250,000.00 cash escrow (Central Bank of Aspen) for Aspen Mtn. drainage study (must be spent by 4/1/94 or be returned to Savanah). $12,917.00 cash escrow (Bank of Aspen) for Galena Place public improvements. $535,000.00 irrevocable letter of credit (issued by Saudi American Bank thru Citibank, New York) for landscaping and remaining utility improvements associated with the Ritz -Carlton Hotel (effective thru 12/31/91). Total current financial assurances posted - $1,187,917.00 (for hotel and Galena Place only). 11 Financial assurances related to other aspects of the PUD as set forth in the PUD agreement are as follows: Summit Place - $4,000.00 (estimated subject to revision) for site improvements, $15,654.00 (estimated subject to revision) for landscaping, and an unspecified sum to insure against damage to streets, etc. Nothing has been posted or escrowed to date, such sums to be paid prior to issuance of building permits. Hotel Phase II - The PUD provision relevant to financial assurances on this portion of the development simply states that assurances were "premature" at the time the PUD was executed. Top of Mill - "Premature." Ice Rink/Park on Lot 6 - "Premature." (It should be noted that Savanah, at the request of the Streets and Engineering Departments, will be drawing down on the $390,000.00 escrowed for public improvements very soon so as to contribute approximately $26,000.00 to the Durant Street overlay project currently underway). While staff doubts the efficacy and usefulness of adopting bonding or financial assurances relevant to the completion of the Ritz -Carlton portion of the project (e.g., some type of performance bond to act as insurance for the hotel's completion), staff financial assurances directed at returning the hotel site to its pre - construction status. As illustrated above, $650,000.00 was initially posted to backfill and restore the hotel site in the event that construction failed to extend beyond excavation. The Engineering Department estimates it would now cost approximately $4 Million to restore the hotel site to grade. In that a demolition bond appears to be more feasible and, perhaps, more useful than some sort of "completion assurance", staff recommends that Council impose the posting of adequate financial assurances to demolish the hotel and return the site to grade as a condition to any construction schedule extension(s). ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the following alternatives with respect to the request, under Section M of the PUD Agreement, for an extension of the construction schedules: Alternative 1 - Grant the Extension of Time as Requested with no Additional Conditions. If Council granted the extension of time as requested with no additional conditions, then those specific conditions identified in the Discussion section that Savanah has agreed to adhere to and has outlined in their written responses (and accompanying construction 12 schedule) would not be a requirement of Section M Amendment. These conditions relate to the visual impacts of the continued construction activity and the delay in site improvements. Staff has identified additional conditions and issues that address the scheduling of amenities, submission of development applications, the continuation of reconstruction credits, employee housing, and the request for additional bonds. These items would address community concerns associated with each extension. The community has expressed its desire for the completion of the Ritz - Carlton Hotel and the associated convention facilities. However, the prolonged construction of the hotel has had an adverse impact on the City and the City should require Savanah to remediate those problems that have gone unresolved in view of the ongoing construction activity. Alternative 2 - Deny the Extension as Requested. This would require a finding by City Council that Savanah was unable to demonstrate "by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate such extension(s) are beyond the control of Savanah, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner." In this event Savanahs will have until October 1, 1991 to occupy the hotel at which time, non-compliance hearings would take place if the hotel were not occupied. This could result in the termination of the development approvals, in whole or in part, for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. Savanah would have to reapply for development permits under the current regulations. This could require a time frame of approximately six to eight months, assuming there were no significant time delays. Denial of the extension would increase the chances that the Hotel and associated development would not be completed in the immediate future. The impact to the community would be negative as a partially completed structure without mitigated conditions would likely remain for some time. Alternative 3 - Grant the Extension for Certain Items with Additional Conditions Related to the Extension. Under this alternative the extension for the following specific items would be granted: the Certificate of Occupancy for the Ritz Carlton, the Certificate of Occupancy for the Ice Rink/Park, the Building Permit for the Ute City Place, the Certificate of Occupancy for the Summit Place. The extension for the demolition permit for Lot Five (Grand Aspen Hotel) would be denied. The staff does not recommend an extension to the Grand Aspen Demolition Permit as Savanah has not provided staff with information in support of this request. In addition, the eighteen reconstruction credits from previously demolished buildings are tied to the date of 13 demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel. An extension of the demolition date would automatically extend the reconstruction credits another year. In granting the extensions, the City Council would require conditions that would be incorporated into the Section M Amendment. Recommended Conditions: Staff would recommend the conditions listed in Alternative 5. Alternative 4 - Grant All the Extensions with any Additional Conditions Related to the Extension. The City Council would grant all the extensions as requested and would require conditions that would be incorporated in the Section M Amendment. Recommended Conditions: Staff would recommend the conditions listed in Alternative 5. Alternative 5 - Grant a Six Month Extension with Interim Conditions and Upon Completion of the Interim Conditions an Additional Six Months Will be Extended to the Construction Schedule Deadlines. The Extension for the Demolition Permit for Lot Five 1Grand Aspen Hotel) would be Denied. Under this alternative the City would only grant six months from October 1, 1991 and at the end of six months, staff will review progress on conditions and representations of the applicant. If all the interim milestone dates and conditions are met at the end of the six month deadline, staff will recommend that City Council commit to granting the additional six months which constitutes a one year extension. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Alternative 5 with the following conditions: 1. Savanah shall improve the exterior fence adjacent to the Ritz - Carlton Hotel construction site and the proposed ice rink/park site. All construction materials stored on the ice rink/park site shall be removed from public view. These items shall be completed by August 1, 1991. 2. The construction entry to the Blue Spruce off of Durant Street shall be cleaned up and not utilized for construction activities. This shall be completed by August 1, 1991 and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The Blue Spruce structure shall be cleared of construction materials and scaffolding from the public view. These items shall be removed by September 1, 1991. 14 4. A safe pedestrian path shall be placed on the east side of Mill Street between the Ritz -Carlton Hotel construction site and the Grand Aspen Hotel. Also, some temporary patch work shall be placed on Mill Street between the construction site and Grand Aspen Hotel. This work shall be completed by July 1, 1991. 5. The patch work on Dean Street (in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel) shall be completed by July 1, 1991. 6. Bank stabilization work on both the south and west side of the project shall be initiated by August 1, 1991 and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. Savanah shall apply for rezoning to Park for the ice rink/park by July 1, 1991. If Savanah does not apply, the City will initiate rezoning with all fees paid by the applicant. 8. Savanah shall submit a final development plan for the ice rink/park to the City by September 25, 1991. 9. Savanah shall submit all necessary information to the Building Department for a #1 Building Permit by July 1, 1991. 10. Savanah shall obtain a 11 building permit from the City by August 1, 1991 and necessary fees and taxes paid at this time. 11. Savanah shall properly secure and fence Summit Place and remove the debris from the site. The west wall shall also be repaired. These items shall be completed by August 1, 1991. 12. The construction schedule submitted by Savanah (Attachment 1) shall be adhered to. 13. The posting of adequate financial assurances for demolition of the hotel site shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to October 1, 1991. 14. All fees owed to the City for processing of any applications shall be paid by October 1, 1991. 15 FNWA4W:1;15q�ky 1. Construction schedule for Ritz -Carlton submitted by Savanah. 2. Letter from Ferdinand L. Belz on behalf of Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. to Edward Caswall, dated May, 1991. 3. Letter from Robert Hughes on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership to Aspen City Council, dated May 2, 1991. 4. Letter from M Hadid on behalf of 1001, Inc., dated March 14, 1991, and previously forwarded to Council. 5. Memorandum to City Council from staff dated March 19, 1991, requesting hearing on Savanah's Section M amendment request. 6. Letter from City Attorney to Savanah dated March 26, 1991, notifying it of the hearing date, time and location. 7. Schedule 9 Update 8. Letter from Ferdinand Belz on behalf of Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc., to Edward Caswall. 16 mm - ■■imilommommmo ■■■■m■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■� .. MM■■■1!■■■■■�■■�■■■■11111111 ME■■■IIM■M■■■M■111 POEM■11111111 ■■E■■■■■■■■■■IIIIM■�ln■1111■11 ■■■■■■■■■n■■■111 AEI 111M1 IM■I ■■■■■■■■■■■■nrnl 1111n1 11101 M■■■■■M■M■E■■IIIIO 11■OII ■■ a■■E ■■■M■n■M 1 Il■■E ME■■■ ■ ©■■soonlnimiimmmm■Mll■■■■■■■■E■ . MEMO 0■11■■■llll■n■■■■0 nnn s■simom11■m■O■■ IN ■ llInlll son n■E■■ ME on 011ln EN ■■ MEN No ■ ©1 11NINE E■■■■■■n■E■■■E■■■■ 1111 MEN ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ i 111 ME■M■M■■■■■■M■■■ ■■■ Z: wC CLL (n : ac z` o: J � CC i a� NF E— c �C c C II� o E i� �a e ,o C O a` w to a N r 4 � f , E u a 1 � a J � � a n � d , cL j Q m �i � a �f Z n � U Z LU w m W 2 a to 0 m w � a --� U w � Q 0 Z O 2 O 2 O 2 O` Q U CL Q Vi FA r a Lo w E 0 O w� cr a I —J O U O v O X �- N Q i Q O z O O O I O LU Q Q a w z If a a E E Q LLt1 O < v v 0v ? z ~ th Q (n tw- z W L N w S�L t w I r� • 0 MIA 1) Aspen Holdings, Inc. May 1, 1991 Mr. Edward M. Caswall City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: The Ritz -Carlton, Aspen Section M Amendment Request Edward M. Caswall letter of April 10, 1991 Dear Mr. Caswall, Based upon discussions at the City Council Meeting of April 17, 1991, on the referenced subject and a meeting with the City staff on April 22, 1991, on the referenced subject, the following are our comments on your letter of April 10, 1991. In the City Council Meeting, the Owner of the Ritz -Carlton site, Savanah Limited Partnership, presented their request for a one year extension of the completion date in the PUD for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel. Savanah also stated that it is not, at this time, abandoning the project and is continuing construction, albeit at a slower pace. Work on the site has not ceased, but has been adjusted pursuant to this slower pace. The Partnership, at this time, does not envision a suspension of construction activity. Therefore, in accord with our meeting, the following are our comments on each individual item. 1. As part of continuing construction on the project, work on the shell of the hotel will occur. (See attached Construction Schedule for the exact work and timing thereof.) 2. Most of the building materials at this time are stored inside of the hotel structure. The remainder will be hidden from public view in their present location behind fencing with screening. Some of these materials are not within the hotel structure. 3. The lower sump pumps will not require automatic activation as the construction workers will monitor the level of the sump and pump it as required. This is the process that has been going on throughout the construction of the hotel. 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 . Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387 o ec] Caswell Section M Amendment Request Page two 5/1/91 4. See attached Construction Schedule for this work. 5. Openings will be protected during the continuing construction, according to OSHA requirements. In addition, concrete work will be done on the "garage roof." This work will eliminate a lot of the open, unsafe conditions on the hotel plaza area The construction cranes have been removed. 6. The contractor will continue their temporary utility services as required for construction. Since construction is continuing, a diagram illustrating utility systems on site at this interim stage is not appropriate. As -built, underground utility drawings in public right of ways, have been provided to Bob Gish. There is one outstanding as -built that needs to be provided, and that will be provided within the next 30 days. 7. Temporary buildings, trailers and stored materials will still be required since we are continuing construction. This includes those items on the Top of Mill Street and the Ice Rink parcel. With regard to the visual appearance of the Ice Rink parcel, we propose moving the fence approximately twenty feet to the South off the Durant street curb, provide seeding and a gravel sidewalk in this area In addition, the fence parallel to Durant street will be upgraded visually. Fugitive mud and dust prevention measures have always been required of our contractor and will be aggressively enforced. 8. Since we are continuing construction, there will be some temporary construction welding, shoring and bracing in place, but only as part of the construction work. It will not be left as a permanent situation. Most of this temporary work will be eliminated by the construction that is to take place over the next four months. 9. The items indicated under this request are not required since we are continuing construction. 10. Three of the four fire hydrants required by the PUD are installed and activated. For the fourth one, see the attached Construction Schedule. 11. We intend to clean up and straighten up the security fence that is currently in place. 12. This work will take place with the normal sequence of construction. See the attached Construction Schedule. It does not make sense to install curbs, gutters and sidewalks at this time, as they will just be torn up by the continuing construction. 13. Jersey barriers will need to be maintained for public safety. 14. The Blue Spruce second level slab will be poured within the next three months. This will eliminate most of the debris, temporary scaffolding and form work. See the attached Construction Schedule. j e:l Caswell Section M Amendment Request Page three 5/1/91 15. The Grand Aspen Hotel will need to continue as a construction headquarters and housing facility for the construction workers. 16. Summit Place will be properly secured and part of it will be fenced to prevent any access. In addition, all of the site will be cleaned up. Also, the west wall will be repaired and cleaned up. Security persons from the Ritz -Carlton site will monitor the property to make sure that unauthorized entry does not take place. 17. The Barbee parcel is currently fairly clean. Any minor clean up will be taken care of. The parcel currently has vegetation and ground cover. 18. The contractor will maintain the construction signage, as required. 19. Dean Street in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel will be patched. 20. A set of sepia as-builts at this interim stage is not appropriate. 21. We know of no outstanding fees or bills due to the City at this time. We are researching one bill for the Ice Rink that Amy Margerum pointed out in our meeting of April 22, 1991. In addition, we are meeting with Tim Clarke of the Dolomites and Ralph Melville of the Mountain Chalet to address some of their concerns. Other than the above items, we are not aware of any other City requests with regard to construction work on the job site as part of our Section M Amendment request. If there are others, please notify us immediately. We understand the City's concern about the impact the project has had on the town of Aspen. In part, that is why we have decided to continue construction, hopeful that we will proceed to complete the project. Obtaining a one year extension for completion will facilitate our analysis and the opportunity for completion of the project. Let us know if there is further information with which we supply you. Thank you for your consideration. Sin rely, �e4er �III cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution Bob Hughes, Esq. ition Marc Hayutin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH May 2, 1991 OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920-1700 TELECOPIER 920-1121 RE: First Amended & Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Mountain Subdivision Section M Amendment Request of Savanah Limited Partnership ("Savanah") Dear Mayor Stirling and Council Members: To supplement the above -referenced request, please be advised of the following specific extensions of the PUD construction deadlines requested. By virtue of a previous Section M Agreement granted by the City on June 11, 1990, the current construction deadlines in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Agreement are as follows: Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink and Park 10/1/91 Certificate of ,Occupancy Ritz -Carlton Hotel 10/1/91 Building Permit Issuance Ute City Place 10/1/91 Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 8/1/92 Certificate of Occupancy Ute City Place (20 months from 10/1/91) 6/l/93 Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/1/94 GATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. Aspen City Council May 2, 1991 Page 2 Building Permit Issuance Top of Mill 10/ 1 /95 Building Permit Issuance Hotel Phase II 10/l/96 Certificate of Occupancy Top of Mill (20 months from 10/l/96) 6/l/97 Certificate of Occupancy Hotel Phase II Lot 5 (20 months from 10/l/91) 6/l/98 Savanah requests extension of these dates as follows: Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink and Park 10/l/92 (Revised) Certificate of Occupancy Ritz -Carlton Hotel 10/ 1 /92 (Revised) Building Permit Issuance Ute City Place 4/l/92 (Revised) Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 8/l/93 (Revised) Certificate of Occupancy Ute City Place (20 months from 10/l/91) 6/1/93 (Not Revised) Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/1/95 (Revised) Building Permit Issuance Top of Mill 10/l/95 (Not Revised) OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Aspen City Council May 2, 1991 Page 3 Building Permit Issuance Hotel Phase II Certificate of Occupancy Top of Mill (20 months from 10/l/96) Certificate of Occupancy Hotel Phase H Lot 5 (20 months from 10/1/91) 10/1/96 (Not Revised) 6/l/97 (Not Revised) 6/l/98 (Not Revised) Representatives of Savanah have and will continue to meet with City staff to discuss the rationale for extension of each component deadline and will address these revisions at the City Council meeting on May 16, 1991, in greater detail. Incidentally, under separate cover Savanah intends to request extension to September 25, 1991, of the date for final plat submission for the Ice Rink and park component of the PUD and extension of the conditional use authority earlier granted by the City Council for use of the Grand Aspen Hotel for construction office purposes. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, OATES, HU ZEVICH, P.C. By: Robert W. Hughes Attorneys for Savanah Limited Partnership RWH/rak aspncity.ol cc: 1001, Inc./HDC Distribution AEI/NEI Distribution Marc Hayutin, Esq. • << C _ velapment C;71' %ompanies N71A TELECOPIER March 14, 1901 Honorable Mavor William Stirling l.spen City Council 130 South Galena Aspen, CO £16=1 RE: Ritz -Carlton Hotel Dear Bill. I have just been informed that Savanah Limited Partnership's construction lender and my financial partner, Sheikh Abdulaz_z --in Ibrahim A! -Ibrahim, has unilaterally and without consulting with re ! decided to cease funding the Ritz -Carlton Hotel project.. I understand that this decision will cause the general contractcr, PCL Construction Services, Inc., to cease construction activ_ties at the site. As you know, the Hadid organization has worked diligently and closely with the City and the citizens of Aspen on t-r.is project over the .last severalrvears.. . I had honed that the :ictel:oLLd have been completed and readv for_occupanc;- by the latter part of this year. In fact, 7 personally believe the construction schedule should have been accelerated. Unfortunately, my financial partner appears to have ether views. I believe the project is well conceived, ::Dole be a tremendous long-term asset to the Asper. community, and should proceed as Manned. I believe the cessation of funding, even on a preliminary basis, to be a serious -wistake by the lender, but I aril unable at :.his time to urevent the lender from making this decision in 'react, of his obligations to me. I understand tiiat Sldley & 2-.us tin, - e S'hE_.:i'S lar �'., -S seeking a meeting with the C_ty today cr in the near =utur-e Sidlev & Austin and other representatives of the Sheikh have no right, either as construction lender or as nett--„anaq-:Lng partner, to speak on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership. _OC1, Inc., c_ i whirl I an, President, is the managing general partner of t?:e partnersh4^. ATTACHMENT B ronor,,hle Mayor Will lam Stirling P:: a e ",IV, O Marr.h 14, 1991 I regret that this situation has occurred. I hope that the existing litigation between the partners and the lender will resole these issues in the near future. Sincerely, i ool, Inc., a District of Columbia ccrporati n n'ohame'c A. H did, Presiden ?-_H/dje cc: William Johnson Horst Schulze r Edward M. caswall, Esq. Carol O'Dowd ,kmy Margerum, Robert W. Hughes, Esq. Mark London, Esq. hilliD ... Himeistein, Esq. Marc I. Hayutin, =sq. I r r Y-EMORANDUM - 2 Ci 133 Mayor and City Council Ti=. k i Cirol °O' Dowd, City Manager F %L O�:: Amy Margerum, Planning Director(j: -r; Jed Caswall, County " Attorney' I RE: Aspen Mountain PUD: Section(M Amendment D:,' _'E : March 19, 1991 On March 15, 1991, Savanah Limited Partnership submitted a letter t(D Mayor Stirling requesting an extension of the construction deadlines outlined in' the Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. The Ritz -Carlton hotel is only one parcel in the overall PUD, however, the completion of the Ritz Carlton hotel drives the r" other deadlines in the PUD. Section 'I"' of the PUD allows the owner to petition the Cite Council for an extension of one or more of the time periods required for performance. The City Council may grant such extensions of time as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. The PUD goes on to state that: "The parties- exrressly _acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend one or more of the Construction Schedules if Owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate such extension(s) are beyond the control of the O%,rner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner." i•;hile the PUD only technically requires a public hearing in the went the City Council determines the applicant is in "non- compliance" with the terms of the PUD, it is staff's opinion that the City_ Council should hold a public hearing to consider the request for an extension from the applicant. In the interim, we will be requesting more information from the owner as to the specific timeline extensions they are requesting for each element of the PUD. Staff will prepare a complete 1 report for City Council outlining the liabilities and planning r concerns associated with another time extension on this development agreement. a ATTACHMENT C • 1 REQUEST: C4_aff requests s:h t. Cz.y Cour. �_1 so_,-k,ule a public hearing prt!ferably a`., a special hear,:i4 zo consider the Section 2: s:-:::rdmert request. � t CITE' SPEN 13(� vut teIM eet �pe raclo8�G11 30 ttornq 17.X TRANSI• ITTAL Foil 10, 1991 Savanah Ltd. Partnership -L:00 North Seventeenth Street Suite 1100 T,.- sslyn, Virginia 22209 ?:_: Ritz -Carlton Hctel Section M Amendnen�L: Reouest. Dear Sirs: -n an effort to focus and, perhaps, expedite to a certain extent the hearing on the above -noted matter which is to be conducted on April 17th, 1 an forwarding you the following information. which G g highlights various concerns and questions Which the City stag has relevant to your request for an extension of the existing construction schedule for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel. Please be advised that these cruestior.s have been generated at the stair level and are in no way intended to constitute or 'limit the areas of inquiry or concern of the City Council when it conducts the hearing on your Section M.amendment request. rs you know, the City has not yet been apprised as to the lencth of time Savanah wishes to extend the current construct_on dead- _ine(s). Media reports indicate that work on the hotel, which has already ceased, may not recommence for some months or longer. :ssurlwnc a lengthy suspension: of construction activity on the hotel, the Public Works and Building Departments would like to see the following matters addressed and/or compiled with as a precoziditier. to any extension in the construction completion .ieadli_ne(s) pursuant `Co your Section 11 amendment regeest: 1. The shell o: the hotel structure shall be enclosed and made water tight by completing exterior brickwork and precast., completing insulation., waterprocfinc below grade, and installing Y_�fing, windows and necessary caulking. The hotel must have a C•_mol�ited auuearance. i T mm-n rvnRrrlm u 7e- t er to Savanah Ltd. - a -ne_ sh ip 10, 1991 a 2 2.. A_1 bui_dIng mate_ials shall be stored _ns_de of :he hotel's structural irameworrz or otherwise hidden from public vie;- with appropriate and acceptable screening. . - Lower sump pu:rps with automatic activation shall be e:,2rg1zed so as to insure against the accumulation of water the structure below grade. The two dry well sys`.ems or. .._:e past and west sides of the construction site shall be com- tletad with permanent piping and collection systems to control_ and minimize water runoff from the site. 4.he outside perimeter foundation wall must be brought "r to a mof finish grade elevation. _.teas alongside fourdati�n wads shall be bac;_f i lled and compacted. 5. r ll internal and external shaft openings s1nall be secured and maintained in a safe condition and the construction cranes shall be removed. util_Ly, scr: ices to the hotel (water, e_ectr_c_LV, sewer and cas) shall be shut off to the nearest utilit-v source except =or those services necessary to maintain and protect the =aC_'_ty. Unused hot or live utility 1-nes shall not be Der..._t- ted and a certificate of inspection executed by each uzi1_ty e :n.L it' ng satisfactory d_scOnnsects or shlitc=fs sisal'_ be -orOv=ded c- zer _P.55eC`_O.^.. is d' agram _ i 1L:strati he L'i i 1 i iy .s'✓s emms o.n - -s:.te shall be provided to Zhe Laity and F_re Marshall. = ur-.-er- :cre, as -built underground utility locations in public rights-of.:av and service connections rust be accurately .sapped and refer- e, ced . temncrary buildings and.trailers associated w the construction as well as all ,construction wateria_s not able stored -� hotel _,-.,^-'•re shall be remove--' from the to be s..�_e w_�_._:-: the .,ems s:._u......_ d __.,.;� ...._ site as well as from the top of Mill Street and ice rink parce". The 1•I'L_1 Street and ice rink parcels shall be cleared, grade~ and appropriately landscaced. Fugitive mud and dust prevention -:ea Surz.s s'.^.ail be detT_sed a::d i^p' e-�e need. 8. �:11 to^perary construction tack we=d_rg, ten-ocrary shor4na, and teroorar`., bracing shall be inspected and certeO as secure and safe by the general contractor. 9• A fire ^Yetect_cn n an ind_cat_ng ingress and egress routes, toxic material data S^eels and storage arias, lccatO- Letter ro Ez;vanah Ltd. Partnership Apri! 10, 1991 PZLge 3 flamma1)le materials, lighting panel boxes and knox box for keys, shall be established with the Fire Marshall. 10. The four fire hydrants called for in the PUD shall be _;istalled and activated. 11. An aesthetically acceptable security fence shall be :maintained around all construction sites. 12. Tall, Juanita, Durant and Monarch Streets shall be '•eared, cleaned and restored to their original unobstructed ,-,idths with curbs, gutters and sidewal}:s. Necessary repairs as c.etermined by the Streets Department Director shall be satisfac- _c.rily completed to all paved surfaces dammed as a result of construction activities. 13. All Jersey barriers shall be removed from in or around the construction site(s) and all public rights -of -way, except as ot.herwise deemed necessary by the Streets or Public Works Depart- F me.nts for public safety purposes. 14. The Blue Spruce structure and site shall be cleared or c.cnstructio,z materials and debris and temporary scaffolding and forms shall be removed. 15. Use of the Grand Asm_en Hotel as a construction -head- aua?'t.ers and housing L`ni-_ shall cease b\' a date certain. as .agreed '.:c between the parties. All future uses of the hotel shall conform to all underlying zoning and land use controls. 16. Summit Place must be appropriately razed and cleared or securec:. The trash and debris accumulated as x.,ell as the soil subsidence and erosion on the site are unacceptable. The current condition of Summit Place constitutes a public nuisance and presents a serious public safety problem. The City is seriously contemplating legal action relevant to Summit Place apart from PUD remedies. The Barbee parcel must be cleared of trash and debris and steps taken to maintain vegetation and ground cover to I:.inin._ze run-off. 18. All signage shall conform to the sign code sections cr the M.unici pal Code. • • 1--•.. t f ar tc• Savanah Ap3':il 10, 151;;1 'r'-aae 4 Ltd. Partnership i� • D,-.Z.n Street in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel shall be cleareo, res-cored and repaired to no less than minimum, street standards. A set of sepia as-hiJ.1ts reflecting all work to date shall : e provide:_ and kept on f_ le with the Building Department. '411. All outstanding bili: and fees due the City shall be ,.:)a .! --I _ mgediately-. itAs listed above do not �c�nstitute a final and complete agenda of matters that: must Lt-. :addressed and satisfied and addi- i;anal _ _ems may be identifies: as they become known. r.s you can see from the list :-f concerns provided above, the City's intent is to insure that the Aspen Mountain PUD site is restored to a condition of nc-'malcy to the maximum extent possi- ble. The construction of the hotel has had an enormous adverse impact on the City and the City is now going to insist that Savanah mitigate a-d remediate those problems which have in the east been allowed to go unresDlved in view of the previous on- going construction activities. As a resort community which s i.�.nafscantly rsl Z es upon 1t,. ._:.stori c and aesthetic character for its economic survival, the City of Asper, cannot any longer tolerate the disruption of a major portion of its downtown area. The City locks forward to Savznah's responses and assurances on Awr_1 17 th* relevan t to the matters listed herein. Thank vou. %'e=-v '.truly -sward I.. Caswall Ci,_y Attorney cc: City Manager Director of Public Works C Lief" Building Official P anr.ing Director • 0 I-ctte'., to Samanah Ltd. Pa-tne:shil) t? "ice 1C•, '`E: 7e tic,-n 0 of the PUD i1-ol,a� t W. Hughes, Lsq. Perry A. Harvey HavL'cin, Esq. FAX ' .::.:::.`�i� :;�;I�'r' = 1C/91 f:v J LL 2 00 r Z U O = .. oc rr < N tr z a_ U X W W ad G W W mr U O � r o: r V1 =I.- Z u 7 W ac Z < z i •-.. W a: W O rw < W O O J O x i W V) 0— rn M M M N N N N1 M N N M M M 0 0 z O7 O z 0 0 z 0 ♦Y 0 z 0 ♦/ 0 z 0 0 z 0/ ♦j 0 z O! 1+ 0 z 0 i+ 0 z 01 a/ O z 01 O z 0 V 0 z 07 V o z 01 V O z 0! 0) Vl 0! Ol fA 01 01 Vl 47 07 (A 01 01 N 0 01 V) Ol V V) Ol 01 (A 01 01 Vl 47 0! V) 0 01 fA 01 O1 V1 01 0! CA 0 01 fA ult un V1 Vl V1 V\ V1 V\ V1 V1 Vl V1 V1 L. L. nb oB o8 0a all oa ca -a -a -5 oe O O M M M M M M N1 M M 1+1 N M M M i+ i+ ♦+ i+ ♦+ 41 M i+ ♦.• ♦+ ♦+ i+ 41 ♦+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 J J J J J J J J J J J J J J O O O O O O O O O N N O O OIa L •3 (A 1 3 41 u •C 7 K _ V1 N V1 V1 O O O V1 V\ L- ao 00 00 00 of O• P 00 00 41 -' O• \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ to O. M 00 M W) V1 V\ N V1 . C • O \ O O . O .t z •O 01 O C, It .t 0 N a- O O CD O — — O O of W S N •O r' •- .3- 1 N N — . M co M N .0 It N N — N N rn SIN d C 0! L V N N �'• C 0! N L O Vl •N > - ++ ++ < O a+ L a+ C . < C 01 0 N •.- •N O (A C W C W 0) 0 c C O M �. 3 07 O• a+ 0) W L •.• L.L.i. •� C �. C u •� ++ O ++ �• c ++ O a+ x a+ U 41 •� 3 01 O C 01 r 01 •r 01 -he W •N V/ (A < 01 x -a O 7 U •� . W 41 7 N 7 U L i+ 01 < r C Z M 7 L C C C 0 7 C 0N -+ O -� A L -� N w e- 01 3 N O 3 01 C ♦+ W .> M L -VV1 P> O> m O L -W♦+ .a •� O (a ++ .t < �+ u 4+ S L 00 -V7 O N W Y • N V) O W W a 2 i+ u O W a+ u a+ ++ •-• W • u • C C W -V C O N 00 W •- •C O c c W _� _ m N Vl < 01 u U W W P W L P -+ 0 W m L L Ol Ln O 11 co W 41 7 N O 7 7 Y 7 7 � Y Z 00 00 ti 07 ^• •O- rn '� • O U O O �T u � 0 a P � 0 0 v v to L v O L v v L W .4. oil 41 41 -� 41 L — 4, as .t 077 a+ WJ u O N ca C c N an N 00 N 00 7 c C 7 W O O W W W M O 0 .0 �a 0 •O < W P, W < W W O •� • U) M •� Vl �+ �+ U• N N M w N NM O• N C N N•� N•� NO to 41O ♦+ ♦+ 'D N M CD,a+ O ♦+ 3 ++ O •+ •D 4• i+ O a+ ♦+ OM O'D 010 M O.t O.t 00 010 O•D 0-0 o!-_ O 0 J v J< J< v J v J v J r J v J< J< J v J J e- .O 'O .O V1 V\ M N M M N Y — Z O O N N (Ii N d 4) Z U 41 41 47 4! C V C) D .-. d Y O Y O Y O Y O ^ /-- O C w C d Z W 4! 4/ Gr 7 c d U V) V/ V1 y 3• x W C y� w d U a 7 N L y W W 4/ O J mu L O U O O M V N C p. -aC L O N N 1- Z .- r• L L 4/ O Y O V Z U Y Y V Y ^ W O O W O O O O 3 x d' J J J J Y '0 C U 0 7 L a L y N C) o OI c �� Ln L O co C W u y m Q) T L L � C7 n O 0, Vl Vl V1 V1 LA �' N O 1- .0 CO \ CO co \ \ co \ C C m 0 Z U, O Z M C) O M CD M O O ••- Q W \ \ \ \ Y u_OO ti v � � V > •^ O O O O O t O Of o E w E W m d O i J O m U O w L Vl L Z i t 10 L N 0 to N C E OI L J QI in pp rlw% C O v L O N 3 O CO O Y 10 O 4! C - • .- 1J aL � Y of O ar Y > 1 '0 0 0 ^ A V ,N N L 40 Y Q J C C 47 L V1 C O C O W O 4! O L O O Vl U L L Y Y O V Y C� O V V 47 W O 3 O C.- 4! 'D 1.- C Vl O Y 0 J •^ A- Y O m K O m C- w C U B L Q C U N E m 0 V O O in Y o Q Q Y m . L o c E O Q N O m LU N V N P 41 O N V V1 L v y L y L W - L� -le Y Y 4! .0 V J m M m C •- O O N 0 3 4/ 3 0 V C Q 7 0 -le 0) C x m -� m O m 0 C7 OM U 0 0 mm W mJ 4! LLJ L v O U L > (D �' m •^ L V 4J mM 7 NMI N N V V M O Vl m 7 (DE y U C Q •^ N V) �O -leN J .- .. r w � r- Y 0)a,N E C Y 2 N U Y Y O N N C Y Y a N (Dv Y O 47 y L E O O O 0.21O O O 'O O M N `F- OI O J H -i J m v J J Q J v O . O Q U Y � N L O N H V) L N d .c O f m > T C > Z a c^ U 7 z - w a 1- Lr, w O � ^ J a m o L V v c m rnOJ �' N EY Q N L y> Q C O V) 4! O ^ Y V U t P L L 7 Z 47 Vf v m 3 � 47 t N a 7 L N O N 41 •^ 4! a U m y .^ CT OI O ^ V O a L C O U O o E o a 7 Y y E U J w J 4/ W O 4) y O O v U T 41 U = V O Y •^ �' �, Or 7 C m 7 d L C •. N L N V •^ N a .-. � 7 a •^ c L c c 7 N (n C O N m 4) m 0 Y C 4! 10 7 > 7.2 4) Of 41 V > 4/ Of N (A> C 7 C a C 4) 7 C Y L W L 47 N O L O 7 L 7 L m 7< Q U d d a 41 N W O Q m U O O N M J 0 U M E M O R A N D U M Date: May 15, 1991 To: City'Council Thru: Jed Caswall From: Gary Lyman P`_ Re: Ritz's One Year Extension Request This is being written to memorialize concerns and recommendations of the Building Department in regard to the Ritz Carlton project. 1. Status on Permit Applications We have identified several needs to the applicant which are needed to finish the plan check process on the #1 building permit application. After discussions with the owner's representatives and other city staff, it seems reasonable given present circumstances, to allow the applicant sixty (60) days to submit all needed data and an additional thirty (30) days to finish the plan check process and have the building permit issued (for a total of ninety (90) days.) The concern here is that the loose ends in the plan check process should be brought to closure in an effort to minimize impacts of slow downs or stopage. 2. Status of Work Completed Due to the fact that some of the work in place has not been inspected because it has not reached the completion of rough -in levels, we recommend that the Building Department inspect all work in place in an attempt to have a better handle on compliance issues. 3. Level of Activity On May 14, 1991, Building Department staff did two visits to the site, one mid -morning and one mid -afternoon. On both it was observed that there was no activity or workman present, the perimeter fence was locked at all entrances. During these visits we also observed that the offices in the Grand Aspen have been vacated by architects and the contractor except for one secretary. Relative to those offices, the Building Department is aware that Savanah has been taking bids to remove the offices and restore the conference facility. The Building Department will continue to monitor the level of activity on the site. 4. Construction Schedule Status The project is in non-compliance with the current schedule, which called for them to obtain the final building permit by March 15, 1991, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing rough -ins to be complete in Building A by May 3, 1991. There are also numerous items where it is very unlikely that they can meet their, schedule. 5. Conclusion The recommendations herein are an attempt to get to a clean line with the project which would be beneficial no matter what the future brings. If the project moves ahead, these measures will only, enable that and if it does not, then we would be in a much cleaner position to shelve the project. Either way these loose ends need to be dealt with. M E M O R A N D U M TO: DIANE MOORE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: ROBERT GISH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 15, 1991 SUBJECT: RITZ CARLTON -- CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COORDINATION My Memo to Jed Caswall dated March 18, 1991, and Jed's Memo to Savanah dated April 10, 1991, basically outlines the scenario of a complete Ritz Carlton Project shut -down for a considerable length of time. This scenario includes a "button up" and "improved appearance" to the community, with the understanding that the Hotel would eventually be completed. In our last two meetings with Savanah, they discussed a one -year - plus delay to complete the Hotel. If this approach was taken, and the City of Aspen could be assured that it is only a delay, then many of the items discussed in the March 18th and April loth Memos are not practical to complete out of a planned construction phasing. That is, the roads could not be completed until the below grade foundations and structures are completed. The City could request that the roads and right-of-ways carry a higher priority and be completed as soon as work to grade has been completed. There is bank stabilization work located on the South side and bringing the job site up to grade on the West side of the Project, which could be completed earlier in the construction sequence. We could also request that all impacts to the adjacent condominiums on the South and North side of the Project be completed earlier in the construction sequence. The Mill Street side (East) of the Project cannot be completed until Building "B", the retaining structural walls, and the garage ramp are completed above grade. There is no practical way to replace the Mill Street Road without bringing all of this work above grade. Construction activities would have a negative impact on a completed Mill Street Road and would be a safety hazard to pedestrians and traffic. The road would still be barricaded until the Project is completed. If the Hotel was to be completely demolished and the hole filled, the approximate estimate would be as follows: DEMOLITION/LOADING .......................... $1,750,000 21,000 C.Y. CONCRETE - REMOVE 1,500 TRUCK LOADS AT $80 EACH.......... $ 120,000 DUMP FEES AT $2.00 PER C.Y............. $ 42,000 20,000 C.Y. MIXED TRASH - REMOVE 1,500 TRUCK LOADS AT $80 EACH.......... $ 120,000 DUMP FEES AT $12.15 PER C.Y............ $ 243,000 100,000 C.Y. FILL PURCHASE OF FILL AT $4.00 PER C.Y...... $ 400,000 5,000 LOADS AT $90 PER LOAD............ $ 450,000 COMPACT/PLACE FILL AT $2.00 PER C.Y.... $ 200,000 TOPSOIL - LANDSCAPING ....................... $ 100,000 CONTINGENCY ................................. $ 500,000 T O T A L D E M O L I T I O N/ F I L L. . $3, 925, 000 It appears to me that a complete demolition and teardown of all of the structures would not be practical. The existing shells, as constructed, have a value far exceeding the demolition costs. The shell could be completed as its original use or a change in use should be considered. The underground parking garage could be completed and used independently, the hotel could be converted to housing or office space, and, the park plaza could be completed and maintained as open space. Joe Imbriani informed me yesterday that they are also putting together an estimate for partial or total demolition. I have asked him to share that information with the City of Aspen when it is finalized. I have reviewed the Construction Schedule dated May 7, 1991, and offer the following comments: 1. Savanah should continue to obtain all building permits on a schedule to have them available for issuance by July, 1991. 2. The Schedule shows work on the Parking Garage roof, the Blue Spruce structural frame, and the Building "A" shell. The Parking Garage roof and the Building "A" shell will help in getting the structure up to grade, allowing road work completion on Mill Street. 3. The Contractor will not fully utilize, and will loose, the Summer Construction Season of 1991. 4. From a construction standpoint, the schedule appears reasonable and could be completed by November of 1992. 5. To meet the completion date of November, 1992, all craft group contracts should be in place and the Contractor mobilized no later than September, 1991. • 6. The structural work on the Blue Spruce and Building "B" must maintain a priority in construction as they are lagging far behind the main Hotel structure. 7. The clean-up of the Dean Street patch, the securing and clean- up of Summit Place, and the clean-up of the Ice Rink should be completed as soon as possible to improve the visual impact of the area. 8. The exterior fencing of the Hotel construction area should be improved for safety reasons and visual appearance. 9. The East side of Dean Street, between the Construction Project and the Grand Aspen Hotel, should be cleaned and maintained for pedestrian and vehicle safety. 10. The construction entry to the Blue Spruce off of Durant Street should be cleaned up and not be used for construction activities. I also feel that the City of Aspen should transfer the $250, 000 Cash Bond for drainage on the top of Mill Street to a general, non - designated escrow, which could be utilized by the City as they see fit to offset any negative impacts caused by a delay in construction or by not completing the Project. The existing escrow is adequate to complete the site work, sidewalks, utilities, and right-of-way work if the work is completed with the Construction Schedule. It is not practical to repair the streets without bringing the surrounding elevation up to finished grade. My opinion is that we need a completed Hotel as designed and approved by the City of Aspen. This Hotel needs to be completed as soon as possible. My preference is not to allow any extension of time; however, from a practical standpoint, they have already lost five to six months on the previous Schedule. A late 1991 Completion cannot be met. If an extension is granted, it appears that the logical extension is for one year to meet the Winter Season opening of November, 1992. RG:11 cc Carol O'Dowd, City Manager Jed Caswall, City Attorney Amy Margerum, Director of Planning Gary Lyman, Director of Building May 9, 1991 1A_1.J1-D CityEAttoaney M. Caswall HAND DELIVERED City of Aspen Aspen 130 S. Galena Holdings, Aspen, CO 81611 Inc. Subject: Aspen Mountain PUD Section M Amendment Staff Meetings Dear Mr. Caswall, At our meeting last week _on the referenced subject, we discussed one of our responses to your letter of April 10, 1991, on the subject of construction impacts. This was item #7, wherein our response was that construction trailers, temporary buildings and storage would remain on the Ice Rink and Top of Mill sites. As pointed out in the meeting, this was an error. Only construction materials will be stored on these sites. Per a conditional use permit allowing construction offices in the -Grand Aspen Hotel, we agreed not to have temporary buildings or construction trailers on these sites. That is still our position. Note, however, that during certain times there will be construction trailers on the site doing deliveries and they may be present for a few days. The intent was not to have construction trailers for storage purposes which would entail long periods of time. If you have any questions on this, please contact me. Sincerely, a XE::? Ferdinan L. Belz, III Representing 1001, Inc. FLB:kms cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution AEI / NEI distribution Robert W. Hughes, Esq. Marc I. Hayutin, Esq. 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303)920-4272 FA?:: (303i 925-4387 • MAY 21 '91 18:516 GA AT 24G1H1_ITELEC!P`r PIT_ HID # P. THE Rin-CARLioN HOTEL COMPANY HORST K SCH= PREMENT CFIEF OPERAT 40 OMCZR May 21, 1991 Honorable William Stirling, Mayor The Aspen City Council City Hall Aspen, Colorado RE: The Ritz -Carlton, Aspen Gentlemen: At the request of Savanah Limited Partnership, the Owner of this project, we wish to express to you and the city Council our continued interest and support for this hotel project. While the financial difficulties of the owner do not involve Ritz -Carlton, we are working with the owner in its efforts to resume construction. We continue to believe that this project represents an important addition to your community. HHS:1j Sincerely, 3414 PEACHTREE ROAD, N.E., SUITE 300, ATLAIN TA, GEORGIA 30326 (") 237-5500 MAY --1 '?L 1G:56 1 A AT PIT= 0.: P. THE Rirz-CARI.TDN Hora. COMPA.'4y HOR3r K SCHU M M=ENT CKU OMLAMNO OFFICER May 21, lggl Honorable William Stirling, Mayor The Aspen City Council City Hall Aspen, Colorado RE: The Ritz -Carlton, Aspen Gentlemen: .At the request of Savanah Limited Partnership, the Owner Of this project, we wish to express to you and the City Council our continued interest and support for this hotel project. While the financial difficulties of the owner do not involve Ritz -Carlton, we are working with the owner in its efforts to resume construction. We continue to believe that this project represents an important addition to your community. HHS:lj Sincerely, 3414 FEACHTRg ROAD, N,E., SLTIE 300, AT L AIWA, GEORGLA 30326 (4C4) 237-5500 • • DECLARATION The undersigned being the a Vice President of Aspen Enterprises International, Inc. ("AEI"), hereby declares the following: 1. AIE is a partner in Savanah Limited Partnership ("SLP"), the owner and developer of the hotel and related developments described in the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision between SLP and the City of Aspen (the "PUD"). 2. During the period of the battle to liberate Kuwait from its Iraqi invaders (from approximately Fall, 1990 through Spring, 1991), Saudi Arabian currency, the Rial, became illiquid in the international financial markets. It therefore became difficult, if not impossible, to transfer Saudi Arabian denominated currency out of Saudi Arabia for conversion to other currencies, including U.S. dollars. Similarly, Saudi currency would not be accepted for dollar -denominated obligations. 3. For example, Security Pacific Bank on one occasion refused to confirm a letter of credit from Saudi American Bank, which letter of credit was required as a financial assurance for the Aspen construction project. Moreover, Citibank, which is a partner in Saudi American Bank, was reluctant to confirm letters of credit from Saudi Arabian financial institutions. The inability to provide financial assurances required by the construction contracts had the immediate effect of causing a slowdown by the contractors and demands for other assurances. 4. The uncertainties caused by the Iraqi invasion caused economic discrimination against Saudi Arabian currency which suspended AEI's, the principal financial source for the Project, ability to fund project operations. S. I understand that this declaration will be submitted to the Aspen City Council in connection with hearings with regard to the proposed amendment of Section M to the PUD. This declaration is made as of the 7ti day of May, 1991. Charles Wallace DECLARATION The undersigned declares as follows: 1. I am a property manager at Newfield Enterprises International, Inc. ("NEI"). NEI acts from time to time as a property manager for Aspen Enterprises International ("AEI"), a general partner in Savanah Limited Partnership ("SLP"). 2. In the past year, the project budget for the Ritz -Carlton, Aspen hotel development has skyrocketed from about $70,000,000 to a current estimate of $126,000,000. 3. These escalating costs have resulted in part from construction delays and design changes which were beyond the control of SLP. Given the magnitude of the changes, the economic viability of the project is at issue. 4. The cost escalations are, in part, related to lost time due to circumstances beyond the control of the partnership. For example, the initial mechanical engineer, William Thompson, was inadequately disbursing design information to the field and, in November, 1990, the situation had become in the eyes of the partnership so severe that William Thompson was replaced by M & E Engineering in order to get the project back on track. 5. I understand that this declaration will be submitted to the Aspen City Council in connection with hearings with regard to amendments to Section M of the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision between the City of Aspen and Savanah Limited Partnership. • • DECLARATION The undersigned hereby declares the following: 1. I have more than five years experience in hotel operation, development and management. 2. It is a view held by many respected experts in the industry that the hotel industry, in general, has suffered a substantial decline the last year. 3. For your information, enclosed herewith are articles from respected trade publications which describe in more detail the current poor health of the industry. 4. I understand that this declaration will be submitted to the Aspen City Council in connection with hearings that are being conducted relating to an amendment to Section M of that certain Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision between the City of Aspen and Savanah Limited Partnership. 0 Figure 17 Hotels and Motels MEDIAN OPERATING RESULTS FOR FASHION MALLS, 1989 (Per Square Foot of GLA) Fashion Combined Regional/ Malls Super Regional Centers Tenant Sales $247.87 $189.42 Operating Receipts 26.60 16.58 Operating Expenses 8.96 5.77 Net Operating Balance 14.06 9.86 Source: Dollars & Cenu of Fashion MalLt. 1990. boutiques, and custom -quality, high -quality, and high-priced goods. Figure 17 compares the fashion malls' performance with those of traditional regional and super regional malls. Other Trends to Watch Entertainment, either as a major at- traction or as an anchor, is a focus of many center developers/owners today. Cin- cinnati's Forest Fair Mall, which opened in late 1989, signals the official arrival of this concept in the United States, although West Edmonton Mall in Alberta, Canada, pioneered the concept. A seven -acre theme park is being included within the new Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota (under construction), and the recently opened River Falls Mall in Clarksville, Indi- ana, has 100,000 of its 750,000 square feet dedicated to a family fun park. Off -price centers, such as the new Sawgrass Mills in Broward County, Florida, are plugging into this concept as well, particularly with the idea of capitalizing on tourists. In addition, some centers, in an at- tempt to keep and attract tenants and shop- pers alike, are specializing in theme shop- ping. Most notable among these is the home center or do-it-yourself center, which clusters shops catering to homeowners. Towne Center Village, a 190,000-square- foot center in Marietta, Georgia, and the 240,000-square-foot Philadelphia Home & Design Center, located at Franklin Mills super regional mall, are two new examples of this type of specialty center. Each con- tains a mix of home furnishings stores, offering customers a one -stop shopping site and creating a synergism among tenants. four-year slowdown in hotel/motel room completions continued through the first half of 1990, as lenders and the industry reacted sharply to rising delinquencies and foreclosures, over- building, competitive pressures on room rates, and falling profit margins. Unfortu- nately. since mid -year 1990, data from Smith Travel Research indicate that com- pletions are rising again and that 1990 has wound up with a sharp increase in total rooms completed over 1989 (see Figure 18). Figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce echo the general increase in construction for the year, showing that, for the first 10 months of 1990, the annualized value of hotel construction increased 9.5 percent over 1989 levels. Increases in room supply have been most pronounced, according to Smith Travel Research, in the Economy Upper sector (+7.8 percent), which contains hotels above the median room rate for limited service properties; and in hotels in subur- ban locations (+4.6 percent). The increase in new room completions should continue through the second quarter of 1991 and then decline, according to Randy Smith of Smith Travel Research. Most experts ex- pect the industry to remain troubled until at least 1992 or 1993, or until the supply/ demand equation becomes more balanced. Occupancy Up, but Room Rates Lag Inflation Five-year trend data show that occu- pancy reached its lowest point in 1987 at 61.8 percent and has been climbing ever since. During the past year hotel occupancy rose from a year-to-date figure of 65.0 per- cent in September 1989 to 65.7 percent in September 1990, an increase of 1.1 percent, according to a Smith Travel Research re- port (see Figure 19). The overall 1989- 1990 improvement, however, was not uniform throughout the country or amon,r hotel types. The New England, Middle Atlantic, 26 March 91/Special Trends Issue 0 • and Pacific states experienced occupancy declines in 1990, while the remaining re- gions showed increases, led by the West South Central region, where occupancy in- creased by 7.2 percent. Occupancy was highest in 1990 in the Pacific and Mountain states (70.2 percent and 68.6 percent) and lowest in New England and the East North Central states (60.6 percent and 62.2 percent). Among hotels segmented by price and amenities, occupancy grew most (+2.8 per- centage points) in the lowest rate category, Economy Moderate hotels, which now have the highest occupancy rate (69.1 percent) (see Figure 20). Luxury and upscale hotels increased their occupancy rates by .3 per- centage points or less. Basic hotels, which are at or below the median room rate among full -service properties, had the low- est occupancy rate at only 63.2 percent but managed a 1.3 percentage point increase since 1989. Hotels occupying special niches, such as resort and airport locations, continue to have the highest occupancy rates by loca- tion, while highway hotels have the lowest. Resort and highway hotels saw occupancy rise by 1.8 and .9 percentage points, respec- tively, but urban hotels managed only a .2 point increase. Room rates have not kept pace with inflation, and competition has led to deep discounting that increased occupancy at the expense of revenues (see Figure 21). The average room rate grew by only 3.3 percent from $56.77 in 1989 to $58.64 in 1990. Rates grew fastest in the Pacific and West South Central areas. Among product types, all had rate increases of 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent except for Economy Moder- ate facilities, which had almost no growth (see Figure 22), and urban hotels, which had higher rate increases than other loca- tion tines, with healthy 5 percent growth. Of most immediate concern to the industry, and one of the major current causes of hotel unprofitability, has been a deep discounting of room rates (or the acceptance of low occupancy rates without discounts) induced by oversupply and sub- sequent cutthroat competition. In addition, recent demand increases may be due par- tially to this discounting and other incen- tives, such as weekend packages. Whatever the real causes of the industry's decline have been, the current national economic slowdown is likely to make the situation worse in the coming year. A number of economic factors con - Figure 18 HOTEL ROOM SUPPLY TRENDS, 1987-1990 Total Percent Year Roomst Change Change 1990 3,048,000 114,000 3.9% 1989 2,934,000 87.000 3.1 1988 2,847,000 90,000 3.3 1987 2,757,000 - 5.02 Includes properties of 20 or more rooms. ' Esti mate. Source: Smith Travel Research. Figure 19 HOTEL OCCUPANCY RATE TRENDS September September Percent 1989 1990 Change United States 65.0% 65.7% 1.1% New England 62.4% 60.6% -2.9% Middle Atlantic 66.8 66.1 -1.0 South Atlantic 65.8 65.8 0.0 East North Central 62.2 62.2 0.0 East South Central 62.6 64.0 2.2 West North Central 62.9 64.3 2.2 West South Central 58.3 62.5 7.2 Mountain 66.0 68.6 3.9 Pacific 71.1 70.2 -1.3 Source: Smith Travel Research. Figure 20 HOTEL OCCUPANCY RATE TRENDS. BYSERVICE TYPE AND LOCATION September September Percent Category 1989 1990 Change Service Type Luxury 67.4% 67.6% i %c Upscale 65.6 65.6 t) Basic 62.4 63.2 1 3 Economy Upper 67.3 67.7 u 6 Economy Moderate 67.2 69.1 2 3 Location Urban 64.8% 64.9% 0 2% Suburban 64.1 64.6 U 8 Airport 69.2 69.5 u 4 Highway 63.4 64.0 Resort 71.7 73.0 1 8 Source: Smith Travel Research. Special Trends Issue/March 91 27 • nized as an important growth strategy. As Barry Hilton, chairman of Hilton Hotels, stated to a group of Wall Street analysts earlier this year, the firm intends to make "timely acquisitions at attractive prices." In the United States the 25 largest chains are said to control 50 percent of the hotel rooms. Major recent transactions have included the acquisition of Days Inn by Tollman-Hundley, EconoLodge by Friendship Inns, Ramada by Prime Motor Inns, and Amfac by JMB. Others involved in recent sale speculation include Hilton, Red Lion, Fairmont, and Met -Hotels. Hotel experts disagree on the future of merger and acquisition activity in the hotel industry. A recent Laventhol & Horwath study projected it to continue into the 1990s, but Pannell Kerr Forster has stated that most of the possible major mergers have already occurred. Hotel chain acquisi- tion activity in the United States by foreign investors, however, is likely to continue, as will investment in individual trophy proper- ties. While foreign investors continue to shop for U.S. hotel properties, though, it is now apparent that many major U.S. inter- ests are looking abroad —to Western and Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim countries, and Latin America —for new opportunities. Opportunities for the Future? The results of a 1990 ULI member survey indicate that hotels currently have the least attractive development/investment potential of any sector in the real estate industry. Furthermore, over three -fourths of the respondents said that hotels in their markets are losing value; less than 5 percent reported increasing hotel values. Despite this gloomy outlook, the hotel industry can point to a number of factors in its favor going into the 1990s. First, until 1990 new hotel room completions had dropped consistently for several years. Pro- jections indicate that by mid-1991 comple- tions should start to fall off again, perhaps rapidly. Second, demand growth remained steady, if not spectacular, at about 5 per- cent for the past four years, helping during that time to cushion some of the effects of overbuilding. Third, foreign tourism has Hyatt Regency Beaver Creep Beaver Creel, Colorado. been growing at 15 percent per year, partly because of the weakness of the dollar. Fourth, senior citizens are a rapidly grow- ing lodging market sector; they account for a third of today's activity. Fifth, outside the Northeast and Far West, occupancy and room rates both have been going up since 1989, although slowly. Finally, an unex- pected impact has been and will be hotel management improvements, because of the industry's frantic efforts to improve performance to salvage the current situation. Among investors still interested in ho- tels, clear favorites emerge among the dif- ferent lodging products. Preferences for limited -service hotels (in all regions) are overwhelming among investors, followed by resorts and all -suite hotels; the least pop- ular are mid -priced, full -service hotels, ac- cording to Lodging Hospitality. Investors view the Far West and the South Atlantic regions as having the most promise, while the least attractive are New England and the oil -producing states. As would be expected, Hawaii, California, and Florida are the best areas for luxury and resort investments, and the Mid -Atlantic is seen as the only viable area for mid -price, full -service hotels. Two long-term trends will help sustain the industry into the 1990s. First, the aging, affluent United States population will en- sure that resorts remain a major activity in the next decade. In fact, resort segmenta- tion may increase with innovations such as senior citizen and budget resorts. Other specialized resorts may include more sports -oriented activity resorts and smaller properties with fewer rooms. New growth Special Trends Issiie/March 91 29 The Hotel Valuation i H=-= 1-V � VALUATION SERVICES This Issue's Authors: Roger S. Cline Winter 1991 Stephen Rushmore, CRE, MAI, CHA Sales Prices of Hotels Decline by Roger S. Cline The continuous increase in hotel sales prices came to an end in 1989 when the average sales price (measured on a per -room basis) de- clined approximately $11,000 per room between 1988 and 1989. This downturn represents a decrease of over 12%, indicating that hotels are not commanding as high prices as in the past. In spite of the recent downturn in prices, the average sales price for a hotel room increased over 120% since 1980, showing an average annual compounded increase of 9.17% per year. In real terms, after eliminating the effects of inflation, hotel values have increased a total of 41% since 1980, or approximately 3.9% compounded per year These findings are the result of the latest updated Hospitality Market Data Exchange (HMDE), a central clearinghouse of market sales infor- mation relating to transactions involving hotels and motels. Compiled by Hospitality Valuation Services, Inc., the HMDE has accumu- lated data on more than 4,700 sales of lodging facilities throughout the United States. In This Issue Sala Prices of Hotels Decline p.l Hotel Developrnent Costs P. l I HVS Teaches at Cornell University p.3 HVS Financial Services p.4 Hotel Development Table 1 on the following page shows Costs the data accumulated by the HMDE for the past ten years. Between 1980 and 1989, the HMDE has gathered data on 4,132 hotel trans- actions representing over 662,000 guestrooms. The average property size was approximately 160 rooms. During that time period the sales price per available room ranged from a low of $1,500 to a high of $1,195,652. The number of transactions recorded by HMDE peaked at 621 in 1986, declining to 360 sales last year In 1989, the average sales price was $75,928 per room, which compares to $86,794 during 1988. This decline can be attributed to many factors such as the softness of the hotel market, the continued on p. 2. by Stephen Rushmore, CRE, MAI, CHA In today's gloomy hotel industry there is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that hotel development costs rose only 176 during 1990, while the bad news is that because of the recent overbuild- ing no one is developing, so these favorable cost trends are going un- realized. These are the latest find- ings of the annual hotel development cost survey performed by Hospitality Valuation Services, Inc. (HVS). During the past 15 years HVS has monitored hotel development costs throughout the United States. The 1990 information is based on more continued on p. 4. l991 Winter Issue The Hotel Valuation Journal 2 Table 1 - Hospitality Market Data Exchange: HoteVMotel Sales for the United States Total Average Number of Number of Size Lowest Price Highest Price Average Price Year Sales Rooms (# of Rooms) Per Room Per Room Per Room 1989 360 46,898 130 $2,152 $1,195,652 $75,928 1988 445 78,348 176 1,807 967,742 86.794 1987 356 57,475 161 4,565 767,308 81,141 1986 621 106,417 171 2,367 517,110 64,340 1985 531 86,888 164 3,104 698,148 56,500 1984 471 77,784 165 2,459 469,508 55,031 1983 451 71.829 159 2,016 595,745 47,723 1982 373 54,218 145 1,500 345.000 38,264 1981 313 47,523 152 2,000 192,593 34.457 1980 211 35,338 167 1,560 128,571 34,480 Source: Hospitality Market Data Exchange Sales Prices Decline, continued from p.l unavailability of financing, the dif- ticulties of raising money through syndications, and general decline in the real estate industry. It should be noted that the HMDE is based on actual transactions occurring during the year and includes many forced sales such as bankruptcies and foreclosures. The indicated sales price of a hotel does not necessarily reflect the property's market value. The greatest increase in the average sales price occurred between 1987 and 1988, when the price per room rose from $64,000 to $81,000, or by approximately 26%. The highest sales price recorded by the HMDE occurred in 1989 with the sale of the Be] Aire Hotel in Califor- nia. This transaction brought a price of almost $1,200,000 per room, break- ing the million dollar barrier by near- ly 20%. Most of the other high priced hotel sales occurring over the last ten years were large resort properties in Hawaii such as the Wes- tin Maui, Hyatt Maui, Maui Marriott and the Westin Mauna Kea. During the past decade, the HMDE recorded 258 sales where the price per room was in excess of $100,000. During the 1980s, the attention given to "trophy" properties by certain buyers willing to pay significant premiums for choice hotels was reflected in the growing spread be- tween "average pricing" and the top bids accepted by owners of the most sought-after deals. This is illustrated in Chart 1 below. The HMDE also sorts its data base by hotel chain affiliation. Table 2 shows the average sales price per room for some of the leading U.S. hotel chains based on HMDE sales occurring between 1987 and 1990. continued on p. 3 Chart 1- Hospitality Market Data Exchange: Trophy vs. Average Pricing loco 750 rdexed vek,e (19W - 100) soo zso 0 1990 1981 19e2 1963 l9a4 1963 19ea 16e7 19ea 19e9 Year - Indexed Avw" PdC* Per ROo,n .----- Indexed Higheel P,k.e Per faoom I`rJl Is- A1vlc1 Val Ua uU11 UUI 11,11 J HVS Teaches at Cornell University July 21 26, 1991 The Computertzed Approach to Hotel valuations and Markel Studies Instructor: Stephen Rushmore, CRE, MAI, CHA Sponsor. Professional Development Program Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (607) 2S5-1919 Objeclirxs This seminar and student manual demonstrate the logic and use of the following Lotus templates: Room Nig t Ana ysls_ A supply and demand pro- gram that quantifies the current hotel market area demand and forecasts future demand. Theprogram calculates the subjects probable percentage of oc- cupancy for one or more projection years. Fixed and Variable Income and ExMnw Forecasl- ine Model. Includes many different types of ac- counts which must be individually considered when forecasting financial performance. This pro- gram uses a fixed and variable component analysis that provides a basis for forecasting a hclel's net income before debt service. Hotel Capitalization Software. Hotel investors typically use a discounted cash flow vztuation model to develop an indication of value via the income approach. This model utilizes the Simul- taneous valuation Formula that takes into account both the debt and equity rates of return employed in structuring hotel investments - Table 2 — HMDE: Average Sales Prices of Leading U.S. Hotel Chains Average Chain Price Per Room Westin i330.465 F yall 194,635 Embassy Suites 157.061 Marriott 108,426 Residence Inns 80.261 Hihon 74.239 Sheraton 65,695 Radisson 59,M5 TraveLodge 41,359 Holiday Ms 38,827 Hampton Inns 36.755 Ramada Inns 33,489 Days hits 32.412 Econo Lodge 27.530 Comfort Inns 26.939 Best Western 26.901 Oualfy Ins 26.354 Super 8 24.955 Rodeway lens 19,891 Howard Johnson's 16.792 Topics The use of personal computers to facilitate and en- hance the data analysis phase of the hotel market study and valuation: full supply and demand analysis forecasting income and expenses; cash - flow valuation procedures; and using Lotus 1-2,3 computer models to evaluate projects. The course will include several comprehensive case studies to demonstrate different processes; participants will receive copies of templates for their own use. A comprehensive case study is illustrated via a large screen computer display which allows the students to see how the data is input, calculated and analyzed. In addition, students will have extensive hands-on computer time working with these programs. June 24-28, 1991 Hotel Economic Feasiblltty Study and Appraisal Process Instructors: Daniel HL Lesser; CRE, NW and Defier E Wood, Jr. Sponsor. Professional Development Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (607) 2554919 This seminar explores the widely accepted United States methodology for performing economic feasibility studies and valuations of existing and proposed lodging facilities. The case study ap- HMDE continued from p. 2 The highest average sales price per room was posted by Westin Hotels, which benefited from the sales of several Hawaiian resorts- Hyatt Hotels and Embassy Suites were also near the top of the list as a result of several resort transactions. During these three years, Westin, Hyatt Hotels, Embassy Suites, Marriott Hotels, Residence Inns, Hilton Hotels, Sheraton and Holiday Inns all had at least one sale of over $100,000 per room. Even some of the budget properties had some significant sales prices. For example, a Super 8 sold for $41,000 per room, an Econo Lodge sold for $39,000 and a Comfort Inn brought $37,000. proach is used to demonstrate how to perform market analysis, financial projections, and deter- mine the economic value of a hotel/motel property. This "how-to approach' is reinforced by ci5u3l graphics and a wealth of take-home and hand-out materials. Strong communication skills in English are required. Professional Development Program School of Hotel Administration Cornell University June 10-July 26, 1991 The Professional Development Program is a series of over 60 seminars conducted each summer by the Cornell Hotel School. The program is cu,lonii/,d to industry executives, managers or investors by selecting the seminars most useful to each in- dividual. For Professional Development Program information and a course catalogue, please contact: Maria Nieolaides, Director Professional Development Program Cornell University School of Hotel Administration 257 Statler Hall, Ithaca, NY 14953-6901 (607) 2554919 Having a chain affiliation does not always result in the highest sales price. The average price per room for an independent hotel during the period of 1987 to 1990 was just over $97,000, which was higher than most chains. The HMDE contains significant sales data as far back as 1975, when the average sales price per room was $23A%. If you are interested in receiving a complimentary copy of the entire HMDE containing data on over 4,700 hotel sales, management contracts and ground leases, write Roger S. Cline, Hospitality Valuation Services, Inc., 372 Willis Ave, Mineola, NY 11501 The Hotel Valuation journal 4 HVS - Financial Services Formed Hospitality Valuation Services, Inc. is pleased to announce the forma- tion of HVS— Financial Services, and the appointment of Roger S. Cline as its President. Mr. Cline has also been appointed Executive Vice President of Hospitality Valuation Services, Inc. HVS — Financial Services has been -established to respond to the i growing needs of HVS clients and others involved in the hotel in- dustry for investment banking, portfolio management and financial consulting services. The new com- Development Costs continued from p.I than 400 hotel/motel appraisals per- formed by HVS over the past 12 months_ A number of these assign— ments pertained to recently con- structed lodging facilities, which enabled us to obtain numerous examples of actual cost data for the survey. The cost data is presented on a per - available -room basis and is arranged Publisher Stephen Rushmore, CRE, MAI, CHA Contributing Editors Stephen Rushmore, CRE, MAI, CHA Suzanne R. Mellen, CRE, MAl Michael Cahill, CHA Daniel M. King Roger S. Cline Managing Editor Sharon R. King General Manager Brenda S. Axelrod Graphics/Layout Magaly Hernandez Subscription Rate: $125.00 per yr. Circulation: 15,000 For subscription info/address change: The Hotel Valuation Journal 372 Willis Ave., Mineola, NY, 11501 (516) 248 - 8828 pany will be dedicated to delivering such financial serviceswith a profes- sionalism maintained in our ap- praisal practice by individuals who understand the hotel business and have dedicated their careers to hotel finance, real estate, development and management Roger Cline brings to this company a wealth of experience in operations, consulting, development, finance and management Mr. Cline is a graduate of the Westminster Hotel School in London, England and Columbia Business School in New by three rate structures: luxury, standard and economy. The costs are then subdivided among the six primary development categories: im- provements (i.e., building com- ponents), furniture and equipment, land, pre -opening, operating capital and the total. Table 3on p.5illustrates the results of the past 11 surveys. During 1990, the construction cost for new hotel improvements rose ap- proximately 217o. With the massive slow -down in the building industry, many contractors are cutting prices in order to have work and stay in busi- ness. In some parts of the country where the recession is more severe, construction costs for new hotel projects have even declined. Even if the national inflation rate should pick up, we do not foresee any rapid in- creases in construction costs for the next several years. Furniture and equipment costs in- creased by approximately 3% during 1990. This component is somewhat less affected by the lack York His experience includes training at the Ritz Hotel in Paris and the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York, as well as a long career as the Senior Principal and National Director of Pannell Kerr Forster's Management Advisory Services Practice and as Senior Vice President for Development with Omni Hotels. For more information write: Roger S. Cline HVS — Financial Services 372 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 (516) 248-8828 Ext 263 of new hotel development because owners must maintain their existing properties and purchase replace- ment furnishings. For the first time since this survey started, we are reporting a significant decline in one of the development components. Land cost, which generally represents between 10% to 15% of the total project expense, fell approximately 10% during 1990. This trend reflects the seriousness of the recession plaguing the real estate in- dustry. Owners of land and all types of properties are finding few oppor- tunities to sell, so heavy discounting is necessary in order to consummate the transaction. For hotel developers with cash, the savings in land costs can be substantial. Pre -opening costs and operating capital requirements have shown a relatively strong increase since addi- tional funds are necessary to open, market and operate a new hotel in a difficult market continued on p. 5. {1�\.l v{L{ vLL1ULLUVlI {Iltll J Table 3 - Hotel Development Costs (Dollars Per Available Room) Furniture 3 Improvements EWVff ent Land Pre-operirrg Operating Capital Total 1976 LLmi y 32,000- 55,000 5,000-10.000 4,000-12,000 1,000-2.000 1,000-1,51M 43,000- 80,500 Standard 20,000- 32,000 3,000- 6,000 2,500- 7,000 750-1,500 750-1,000 27,000- 47.500 Econorrry 8,000- 15.000 2000-.4.000 1,000- 3,500 500-1,000 500- 750 12,000- 24,250 1979 L=,ry 36.000- 65,000 8,000-15,000 5.000-20.000 1.500-3.000 1,500-2.000 52,000-105,000 Standard 25.000- 36,000 5.000-10,000 3,000-11,000 1.000-2,000 1,000-1,500 35,000- 60.500 Economy 10.000- 20,000 3,000- 5,000 1,500- 6,000 750-1,000 750-1.000 15,750- 33.000 1981 Luxury 45,000- 80,000 10.000-20.000 8.000-22.000 2.000-3,500 2,000-2,500 67.000-128,000 Standard 25,000- 40.000 7.000-13.000 4.000-12,000 1,200-2,500 1,200-2,000 38,400- 70.000 Economy 13,000- 25,000 4,000- 7.000 2,000- 7,000 700-1.200 900-1,200 20.600- 41.400 1983 LLDaxy 55,000-100.000 12-500-20,000 10,000-24,000 2,300-4,000 2.000-2,800 81,800-151,000 Standard 35.000- 50,000 9,000-15,000 5.000-13,000 1.400-3.000 1,300-2.200 51,700- 83,200 Economy 18 000- 32.000 5,000- 8,000 3,000- 8,000 800-1.500 900-1,300 27,700- 50,800 1984 Luxury 58,000-110,000 13,000-21.000 10.500-25,500 2,500-4,200 2.000-2.900 86,000-163,600 Standard 37.000- 55,000 9,000-16,000 5.300-14,000 1,500-3,100 1.300-2,300 54,100- 90,400 Economy 19,000- 35.000 5,000- 8.500 3,200- 9,000 900-1.600 900-1,400 29.000- 55,500 1985 Lowry 60.000-115.000 13.400-30,000 11,000-26.500 3,000-5,000 2,100-3.000 89,500-179,500 Standard 38,000- 57.000 9,500-16,500 5.500-14.700 1,900-3.600 1.400-2,400 56,300- 94.200 Econonry 20,000- 36,000 5,000- 8,800 3,300- 9,500 1,000-1,700 1,000-1,400 30,300- 57,400 1986 LiDaxy 62.000-120.000 13.700-30,600 11.500-27,800 3,100-5,200 2.200-3,100 92,500-186,700 Standard 39,000- 60.000 9.700-16.800 5.800-15,400 2,000-3,800 1,500-2.500 58,000- 98,500 Econorry 21,000- 37,000 5,100- 9.000 3,500-10,000 1,000-1,800 1.000-1.500 31,600- 59,300 1987 LtDuy 63.000-122 000 13.800-30,900 11,900-28,600 3,300-5,500 2,300-3,200 94.300-190,200 Standard 40,000- 61,000 9,800-17.000 6.000-15,900 2,100-3.900 1,500-2,600 59,400- 1 00,400 Ecorxxny 21,000- 39.000 5,200- 9.100 3,600-10,200 1,100-1,800 1,100-1.500 32,000- 61,600 1988 LrDaxy 65,000-125,000 14.000-31,000 11.900-28,600 3.300-5.500 2,300-3,200 96.500-193,300 Standard 41,000- 63,000 10,000-17,100 6,000-15,900 2,100-3,900 1.500-2,600 60,600-102,500 Econorrry 22,000- 40.000 5,200- 9,200 3,600-10,200 1,100-1,800 1,100-1,500 33,000- 62.700 1989 LtDaxy 66.000-126,000 15.000-32.000 11,900-28,600 3,300-5,500 2 300-3,200 98,500-195.300 Standard 41.000- 64,000 10.500-18,000 6,000-15.900 2,100-3,900 1,500-2,600 61,100-104,400 Economy 2Z000- 40.000 5.500- 9,700 3,600-10.200 1,100-1,800 1.4 00-1,500 33, 300- 63.200 1990 LtDuy 67,000-128.000 15,400-33.000 10.700-25.800 3,500-5.700 2,500-3,500 99,100-196,000 I Standard 42,000- 65,000 10.800-18,500 5,400-14,300 2,200-4,000 1,600-2,800 62,000-104.600 i Economy 22.500- 41.000 5.600-10.000 3,200- 9,200 1,200-1,800 1, 200-1,600 33, 700- 63.600 I Source: Hosp4afty VakraUar Services, Inc. I Development Costs continued f am p. 4 One interesting opportunity that benefit from a well -executed facelift. The end result is a total hotel develop- presents itself by these trends is Owners should use available funds ment cost that increased an average of taking advantage of the lower and reserves to lock in a cost savings approximately 1% during 1990. We development costs by renovating and by commencing any work when do not foresee any short-term chan- upgrading existing properties. Most prices are favorable. I ; ges that will alter this picture for the market areas do not need additional next couple of years. hotel rooms, but most hotels can Table 3 - Hotel Development Costs (Dollars Per Available Room) Furniture 6 Improvements Ewlxnert land Pre-op")g Operating Captal Total 1976 Luxury 32,000. 55,000 5,000-10,000 4.000-12,000 1,000-2.000 1,000-1.500 43.000- 80,500 Standard 20,000- 32,000 3,000- 6,000 2,500- 7,000 750-1,500 750-1.000 27,000- 47,500 Economy 8,000- 15.000 2,000- 4,000 1.000- 3,500 500-1,000 500- 750 12.000- 24,250 1979 I luxury 36,000- 65.000 8.000-15.000 5.000-20,000 1,500-3,000 1,500-2.000 52.000-105,000 Standard 25,000- 36,000 5,000-10,000 3,000-11,000 1,000-2,000 1.000-1,500 35,000- 60,500 Economy 10,000- 20,000 3,000- 5,000 1,500- 6,000 750-1,000 750-1,000 15,750- 33.000 1981 Luxury 45,000- 80.000 10.000-20,000 8,000-22,000 2.000-3,500 2,000-2.500 67.000-128.000 Standard 25,000- 40.000 7.000-13,000 4.000-12.000 1.200-2,500 1,200-2.000 38,400- 70,000 Economy 13,000- 25.000 4,000- 7.000 2.000- 7,000 700-1,200 900-1.200 20,600- 41,400 1983 Luxury 55.000-100,000 12.500-20,000 10,000-24,1>00 2.300-4,000 2.000-2.800 81,800-151,000 � Standard 35.000- 50,000 9,000-15,000 5,000-13,000 1,400-3.000 1,300-2,200 51,100- 83,200 Economy 18.000- 32,000 5,000- 8.000 3,000- 8,000 800-1.500 900-1,300 27,700- 50,800 1984 Luxury 58.000-110.000 13,000-21,000 10.500-25.500 2.500-4,200 2.000-2.900 86.000-163.600 Standard 37,000- 55,000 9.000-16.000 5,300-14,000 1,500-3,100 1,300-2,300 54.100- 90.400 Economy 19,000- 35,000 5,000- 8.500 3.200- 9.000 900-1,600 900-1,400 29,000- 55,500 1985 ltxaxy 60,000-115.000 13.400-30.000 11.000-26,500 3.000-5.000 2,100-3,000 89,500-179,500 Standard 38,000. 57,000 9.500-16,500 5,500-14,700 1,900-3,600 1.400-2,400 56,300- 94.200 Economy 20,000- 36.000 5,000. 8,800 3,300- 9.500 1,000-1.700 1,000-1.400 30,300- 57,400 1986 Luxury 62,000-120,000 13.700-30,600 11.500-27,800 3,100-5,200 2,200-3,100 92.500-186.700 Standard 39,000- 60.000 9,700-16,800 5,800-15,400 2,000-3,800 1,500-2,500 58,000- 98,500 EcxmW 21,000- 37,000 5,100- 9.000 3,500-10,000 1,000-1,800 1,000-1.500 31,600- 59,300 1987 ltDary 63,000-122.000 13.800-30,900 11,900-28,600 3,300-5,500 2,300-3,200 94,300-190,200 Standard 40,000- 61,000 9,800-17,000 6,000-15,900 2,100-3,900 1,500-2,600 59,400-100,400 Economy 21,000- 39.000 5,200- 9.100 3.600-10,200 1,100-1.800 1.100-1,500 32 000- 61.600 1988 Luxury 65,000-125,000 14,000-31.000 11.900-28,600 3,300-5,500 2.300-3,200 96.500-193.300 Standard 41,000- 63.000 10.000-17.100 6,000-15,900 2,100-3,900 1,500-2.600 60,600-102.500 Economy 22,000- 40,000 5,200- 9,200 3,600-10,200 1,100-1,800 1,100-1,500 33,000- 62.700 1989 luxury 66,000-126.000 15,000-32,000 11.900-28,600 3,300-5.500 2 300-3,200 98,500-195,300 Standard 41,000- 64.000 10,500-18,000 6,000-15,900 2,100-3,900 1,500.2,600 61,100-104.400 Economy 22,000- 40.000 5,500- 9,700 3,600-10.200 1,100-1,800 1,400-1,500 33,300- 63,200 1990 lLDU-1` 67,000-128,000 15,400-33.000 10,700.25,800 3,500-5.700 2,500-3,500 99,100-196.000 Standard 42,p00- 65.000 10.800-18.S00 5,400-14,300 2,200-4,000 1,600-2,800 62,000-104.600 Economy 22.500- 41,000 5, 600-10.000 3,200- 9,200 1,200-1.800 1.200-1, 600 33, 700- 63.600 Source: Hosptafty Valuamon Services, Inc. Development Costs continued front p. 4 The end result is a total hotel develop- ment cost that increased an average of approximately I% during 1990- We do not foresee any short-term chan- ges that will alter this picture for the next couple of years. One interesting opportunity that presents itself by these trends is taking advantage of the lower development costs by renovating and upgrading existing properties. Most market areas do not need additional hotel rooms, but most hotels can benefit from a well -executed facelift. Owners should use available funds and reserves to lock in a cost savings by commencing any work when prices are favorable. a 11 a- ♦ LLaULLUVII Vu111111 J Table 3 - Hotel Development Costs (Dollars Per Available Room) Furruttre 3 j Improvements Equipment Land Pre-Operrng Operating Capital Total JI 1976 Lrnvey 32,000- 55,000 5,000-10,000 4,000-12,000 1,000-2,000 1.000-1,500 43,000- 80.500 Standard 20,000- 32,000 3,000- 6,000 2,500- 7.000 750-1,500 750-1.000 27,000- 47.500 Economy 8,000- 15,000 2,000- 4.000 1,000- 3.500 500-1,000 500- 750 12.000- 24,250 1979 L uxury 36,000- 65,000 8.000-15,000 5.000-20,000 1,500-3,000 1.500-2.000 52.000-105,000 Standard 25,000- 36,000 5,000-10.000 3.000-11.000 1,000-2.000 1,000-1.500 35,000- 60,500 Economy 10,000- 20,000 3,000- 5,000 1,500- 6,000 750-1.000 750-1.000 15,750- 33.000 1981 Luxury 45,000- 80.000 10,000-20.000 8.000-22,000 2,000-3.500 2.000-2.500 67.000-128.000 Standard 25.000- 40,000 7,000-13.000 4,000-12,000 1,200-2,500 1.200-2,000 38,400- 70.000 Economy 13,000- 25,000 4,000- 7.000 2.000- 7,000 700-1.200 900-1,200 20,600- 41.400 1983 Luxury 55.000-100,000 12,SW20,000 10,000-24.000 2 300-4,000 2.000-2,800 81,800-151.000 Standard 35.000- 50,000 9,000-15,000 5.000-13,000 1,400-3,000 1,300-2.200 51,700- 83.200 Economy 18.000- 32,000 5.000- 8,000 3,000- 8,000 800-1.500 900-1,300 27,700- 50,800 1984 Luxury 58,000-110.000 13.000-21.000 10.500-25.500 2,500-4.200 2.000-2,900 86,000-163.600 Standard 37,000- 55.000 9,000-16,000 5.300-14,000 1,500-3,100 1.300-2.300 54,100- 90.400 Economy 19,000- 35,000 5,000- 8,500 3,200- 9,000 900-1,600 900-1.400 29,000- 55.500 1985 Lrnnuy 60.000-115,000 13.400-30.000 11,000-26.500 3,000-5,000 2,100-3,000 89,500-179.500 Standard 38,000- 57.000 9,500-16,500 5,500-14,700 1.900-3,600 1.400-2 400 56,300- 94,200 Economy 20,000- 36.000 5,000- 8,800 3,300- 9.500 1,000-1,700 1,000-1,400 30,300- 57.400 1986 Luxury 62.000-120,000 13.700-30,600 11.500-27,800 3.100-5.200 2,200-3,100 92,500-186,700 Standard 39.000- 60.000 9.700-16,800 5,800-15,400 2,000-3,800 1,500-2,500 58,000- 98,500 Economy 21,000- 37,000 5,100- 9,000 3,500-10.000 1,000-1,800 1,000-1.500 31,600- 59.300 1987 LLnauy 63,000-122,000 13.800-30,900 11,900-28,600 3,300-5,500 2,300-3,200 94.300-190,200 Standard 40.000- 61.000 9,800-17,000 6.000-15,900 2,100-3,900 1,500-2,600 59.400-100,400 Econortty 21,000- 39,000 5,200- 9,100 3,600-10,200 1,100-1,800 1,100-1.500 32000- 61,600 1988 Luxury 65,000-125,000 14,000-31.000 11,900-28.600 3.300-5,500 2.300-3,200 96.500-193.300 Standard 41.000- 63,000 10,000-17,100 6.000-15,900 2,100-3,900 1,500-2,600 60,600-102,500 Economy 22,000- 40.000 5,200- 9,200 3,600-10,200 1,100-1,800 1,100-1.500 33,000- 62.7D0 1989 LLDaxy 66,000-126,000 15.000-32,000 11,900-28,600 3,300-5,500 2.300-3,200 98,500-195,300 Standard 41,000- 64.000 10.500-18,000 6,000-15.900 2,100-3,900 1.500-2,600 61,100-104,400 Economy 22,000- 40,000 5,500. 9,700 3,600-10,200 1.100-1,800 1.400-1,500 33,300- 63,200 1990 Luajry 67.000-128.000 15,400-33.000 10,700-25,800 3,500-5,700 2,500-3,500 99,100-196.000 Standard 42,000- 65,000 10,800-18,500 5,400-14,300 2,200-4,000 1.600-2.800 62,000-104.600 Economy 22.500- 41,000 5, 600-10.000 3,200- 9,200 1,200-1, 800 1, 200-1, 600 33, 700- 63,600 I Source: Hospitality Vaktation Services, Inc. --J Development Costs continued front p. 4 The end result is a total hotel develop- ment cost that increased an average of approximately ITo during 1990. We do not foresee any short-term chan- ges that will alter this picture for the next couple of years. One interesting opportunity that presents itself by these trends is taking advantage of the lower development costs by renovating and upgrading existing properties. Most market areas do not need additional hotel rooms, but most hotels can benefit from a well -executed facelift. Owners should use available funds and reserves to lock in a cost savings by commencing any work when prices are favorable. B.JOSEPH KRABACHER THOMAS C. HILL JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III OF COUNSEL JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR, May 20, 1991 • • LAW OFFICES KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 him 2 1991 TELEPHONE (303) 925-6300 (303) 925-7116 CIty, P" i �LIcS TELECOPIER GF'r+CE (303) 925-1181 Mayor an City Council Members City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Section "M" Extension Request of Savanah Limited Partnership First Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Mountain Subdivision Dear Mayor Stirling and City Council Members: Our office represents several individual citizens of and property owners in Aspen who are very concerned about the request of Savanah Limited Partnership (hereinafter Savanah) for an extension of the time deadlines on the construction schedule for the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. The extension is requested pursuant to Section M of the First Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision (hereinafter PUD Agreement). The purpose of this letter is to express my clients, concerns. I request you enter this letter into the record of the hearings on the above referenced request. I regret that this letter reads like a legal brief, however as the City Attorney correctly stated in his memo to you dated April 15, 1991, you are functioning in a quasi-judicial capacity and strict legal procedures must be followed. This letter provides an analysis of the issue presented for your review and additional practical factors which we feel you should consider. Also, this letter provides a suggested resolution of the issue. I. LEGAL, FRAMEWORK A. Issue to be Resolved. The relevant portion of section M of the PUD Agreement provides as follows. "The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend time periods for performance indicated in one or more of the construction schedules if owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate such extension(s) are beyond the control of the owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner." Thus, the issue to be resolved by the City Council is whether Savanah demonstrates - satisfies its burden of proof - Mayor and City Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 2 by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the extension are beyond Savanah's control. B. Elements of the Issue. In essence there are two findings which you must make as the fact finder in this quasi- judicial proceeding in order to resolve this issue. The first issue is whether Savanah has met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The second issue is whether the reasons which Savanah alleges necessitate an extension of the construction schedules are reasons beyond Savanah's control as contemplated by the PUD Agreement. With respect to the first issue, a "preponderance" standard requires that you as fact finder determine whether the existence of a contested fact is more probable than its non-existence. Holmes v. Gamble, 655 P.2d. 405 (Colo.1962); People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d. 1127 (Colo.1980). Proof of a fact by a "preponderance of evidence" means proof which leads the fact finder to conclude that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than not. Ralston Oil and Gas Co. v. July Corp., 719 P.2d. 334 (Colo. App. 1985); Swain v. State, 717 P.2d. 507 (Colo. App. 1985). If a party has a burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and evidence presented weighs evenly on both sides, the finder of fact must resolve the question against the party having the burden of proof. Atlantic and Pacific Insurance Co. v. Barnes, 666 P.2d. 163 (Colo. App. 1983). Proof that ascends no higher than suspicion, surmise, or conjecture has no substance for satisfying burden of proof. Stull v. People, 140 Colo. 278, 344 P.2d. 455 (Colo. 1959). Preponderance of the evidence means the weight and quality of the testimony, not the number of witnesses. Garver v. Garver, 52 Colo. 227, 121 P. 165 (Colo. 1912). With respect to the second issue, you must interpret the meaning of the above quoted portion of section M of the PUD Agreement. Specifically, what are reasons "beyond the control" of Savanah as intended by the PUD Agreement. The following principals should guide you in this interpretation. The parties to an agreement and the fact finder are bound to the reasonable meaning of the agreement's terms. Sunshine v. M.R. Mansfield Realty, Inc , 195 Colo. 95, 575 P.2d. 847 (Colo. 1978). Where the language of a contract is susceptible of more than one interpretation, the court (fact finder) should construe the contract in light of the situation and relation of the parties at the time the contract was made, and, if possible, accord it a reasonable and sensible meaning, consonant with its dominant purpose. Continental Bus System Inc. V. N.L.R B , 325 F.2d. 267 (loth Cir. 1963). Agreements are to be interpreted to further the intention of the parties to the agreements. Martinez v. Continental Enterprises, 730 P.2d. 308 (Colo. 1986). Where the terms of an agreement are Mayor and City Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 3 ambiguous, they must be strictly construed against the party drafting the agreement. Greenshoe Mfg. Co. v. Farber, 712 P.2d. 1014 (Colo. 1986). C. Savanah's Reasons for Extension. At the public hearing on April 17, 1991, Savanah provided two reasons for its request for an extension of the time periods provided in the construction schedule. Additionally, Savanah provided a reason which Savanah admits is not beyond its control. The two reasons which Savanah provided for its request for an extension are the recent war in Iraq and the current recessionary condition of the United States economy. The reason for an extension presented by Savanah which Savanah admits is within its control is the lawsuit and disagreement between the partners of the Savanah. Analysis of Savanah's reasons for the requested extension within the legal framework of the issues you are to resolve leads to the conclusion Savanah's requested extension of time should be denied. Despite a very reasonable request by your City Attorney in his letter to Savanah dated March 26, 1991, for a written summary setting forth facts, circumstances, and arguments on which Savanah relies for its requested extension, Savanah has not provided any such written information. To date, Savanah has provided you with nothing more than conjecture and its own conclusions. The presumption you must make absent real evidence to the contrary is that wars in other countries and the status of the general economy do not affect a specific development project in the City of Aspen and the developer must be required to comply with its agreements contained in the construction schedule. In order to satisfy its burden of proof, Savanah should provide specific detailed financial information including audited financial statements, balance sheets and cash flow statements. Also Savanah should provide copies of its economic analysis of the viability of the project and any reports which show that, due to the recent economic downturn, the project does not make sense from a financial perspective. Absent presentation of this type of information to the City, Savanah has not demonstrated to the City by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to an extension of time because of the two reasons stated by Savanah. The more likely reason for Savanah's inability to obtain funding from its financial partner is the litigation between the partners. According to local news reports, Savanah's financial partner has sued the non -financial partner for misuse and wasting of partnership money and the non -financial partner has countersued the financial partner for a large sum of money. The financial partner very likely does not want to contribute additional money to the partnership because any such contributions may end up in the hands of the non -financial partner as a result of the litigation Mayor and City Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 4 between the partners. It would be in the City Council's best interest to direct the City Attorney to review the pleadings between the partners of Savanah and determine if se.ch pleadings show a more likely reason why Savanah is unable to meet the deadlines in the construction schedule. Without additional evidence, it is at least equally likely that the war in the Iraq has not threatened the ability of Savanah's financial partner to fund the project and the fundamental economic viability of the project has not changed despite the downturn in the United States economy. Many informed economists project the U.S. economy will be out of recession prior to the required completion dates under the existing construction schedule. The second issue you must resolve is whether the reasons which Savanah asserts are beyond its control and necessitate an extension are the type of reasons contemplated by the PUD Agreement. Clearly the war in Iraq and the status of the United States economy are beyond the control of Savanah and the City. Equally clear, the fighting and litigation between Savanah's partners are within Savanah's control and likely have a major effect on whether an extension is necessary. However, within the contemplation of the PUD Agreement, these reasons are not reasons for extension of the time limits provided in the construction schedules. The purpose of the "beyond owner's control" provision of the PUD Agreement is to allow Savanah an extension of time in the event of circumstances directly affecting construction on the property. For example, if there was a war in the United States which necessitated allocation to the war of human and construction resources which would otherwise be used for construction of the project, this would have a direct effect on the ability of the developer to meet the deadlines for construction of project. As another example, in the event there was an act of God, such as a large mudslide which damaged the property, this would be a reason beyond Savanah's control necessitating an extension of time. It is an unreasonable interpretation of the PUD Agreement to interpret this clause of the PUD Agreement to mean that any event beyond Savanah's control which may affect Savanah is a reason for an extension of time. The reasons for the extension of time provided by Savanah relate solely to the ability of Savanah's financial partner to provide funds for the project and the economic viability of the project in today's economy. The City has never been a guarantor of the financial ability of a developer or the status of the economy. To allow an extension on this basis would be a dangerous precedent. It could not have been the intent of the parties to the PUD Agreement that this be a reason beyond Savanah's control for an Mayor and City Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 5 extension of the time limitations provided in the construction schedule. On several prior occasions the City Council requested to know more about Savanah's financial ability to complete the project and Savanah repeatedly assured the Council that the permanent financing was forthcoming and that Savanah was in a financial position to complete the project. There was considerable secrecy and mystery about the financing for Savanah until the local newspapers discovered the name of the financial partner of Savanah. Also, the "beyond owner's control" provision of the PUD Agreement was a part of the original PUD Agreement executed in 1985 before Savanah owned the property. Therefore, it could not have been the intent of the parties to the contract that remote wars or financial difficulty for Savanah would be a reason for extension of the PUD Agreement. The reasonable intent of the City Council was never to guarantee the financial viability of the project or its partners. Savanah should not be allowed to change its agreement with the City based on the financial affect of a war on one of its partners and the economic viability of the project in an everchanging United States economy. Further, the original PUD Agreement, which contained the exact same language, was drafted by Savanah's predecessor and should be strictly construed against Savanah. From a legal point of view, it is my opinion Savanah has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that reasons beyond its control (as that phrase was reasonably intended by the parties executing the PUD Agreement) necessitate an extension of the time deadlines provided in the construction schedule. II. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS The remainder of this letter relates to practical considerations which the City Council should keep in mind in the event the City Council finds that Savanah has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that reasons beyond Savanah's control necessitate an extension of the time deadlines provided in the construction schedule. A. Continuing Construction. At the April 17, 1991, public hearing, Savanah asserted that they have not abandoned the project and intend to continue construction on the project but at a much slower pace. Apparently, Savanah has concluded it is less expensive for them to pay a few construction workers to show up at the construction site and perform minimal work than it is for Savanah to bring the property up to a safe and presentable level. Savanah should be required to make the project safe and presentable to the public and tourists. This should require Savanah comply Mayor and City Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 6 with the requirements outlined in the City Attorney's letter of April 10, 1991 to Savanah. B. Economic Viability. At the public hearing on April 17, 1991, at least one of Savanah's partners continually questioned the economic viability of the project. He stated he is not sure the project will ever be completed because it does not, under current models and current projections, make economic sense. According to Savanah's representatives, the project does not "pencil." Given the fact that Savanah has now questioned the economic viability of its project, the City Council should act on behalf of the citizens of Aspen to avoid the potential disaster of having a very large incomplete project at the base of Aspen Mountain. 1. Demolition Bond. It appeared at the April 17, 1991, public hearing that all council members are in favor of requiring a bond relative to this project. In fact, Margot Pendleton correctly stated that the City Council would be "crazy" to not require a bond on a project of this size. Savanah stated it can not afford a completion bond and it should not be required to complete the project if it is finally determined the project is not economically viable. A more reasonable solution to the problem would b- for the City Council to require a demolition bond. The demolition bond should be substantially less expensive than a completion bond and would provide the City with protection against Savanah abandoning the project. The demolition bond should provide that it is payable to the City in the event Savanah fails to complete a certain level of work within a certain time period or files a legal action in bankruptcy. The demolition bond should be of a sufficient amount to bring the existing structure to natural grade and to landscape the property. 2. Subdivision/Condominiui-nization/Timeshare. In the event Savanah completes construction of the hotels on Lot 1 and Lot 5 of the PUD and determines such hotels are not economically viable, it is likely Savanah will present you with an application for Subdivision, Condominiumization and Timesharing of the individual units in those hotels. The citizens of Aspen voted on and you approved construction of a "world class resort hotel" with greatly publicized benefits to the community: additional "world class" business in the shoulder seasons and substantial deed restricted affordable housing. If a future City Council is presented with a choice of an extremely distressed empty property or further subdivision of that property, such future City Council may have no choice but to allow Subdivision, Condominiumization and Timesharing of the project. Thus, the City of Aspen and citizens of Aspen would have no choice but to accept a project it has never approved and I submit never desired. As a condition of any extension of time, you should require a carefully drafted deed Mayor and City Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 7 restriction preventing further Subdivision, Condominiumization or Timesharing of Lot 1 or Lot 5 of the PUD. That deed restriction should run with the land and be strictly enforceable by any citizen in the community and the filing of an application for further subdivision of the property should trigger payment of a demolition bond. C. City Benefits. The PUD Agreement is a contract between the City and Savanah. The City has upheld its side of the contract by granting approval for construction of the project. Consequently, the City is entitled to receive as many of the benefits of its bargain as is reasonably possible. These benefits to the City are not conditioned on Savanah's finances or the economic viability of the project. These City benefits were in exchange for the discretionary grant by the City of the PUD approval. The benefits to the City include, among other things, completion of affordable housing to be constructed by Savanah, deed restriction of existing housing owned by Savanah, the rezoning of Lot 6 of the PUD to Park and the payment of fees owed. 1. Completion Bond. The City is entitled to and should require a completion bond for the completion of all affordable housing units to be constructed pursuant to the PUD Agreement. This should be a condition of any extension of deadlines. 2. Deed Restrictions. Savanah has provided deed restrictions to the City for existing housing restricting such housing to affordable income and price guidelines. However, those deed restrictions are currently being held in escrow by the City Clerk pending issuance of a certificate of occupancy for certain elements of the PUD. Since the City has complied with the requirements of the City under the PUD Agreement, the City is entitled to have these deed restrictions recorded. Since it is Savanah that seeks to breach and rewrite the PUD Agreement, Savanah should be required to record these deed restrictions prior to any extension of the PUD Agreement. 3. Rezoning of Lot 6. Avery significant inducement to the City Council and the voters of Aspen to enter the PUD Agreement was the offer of Savanah to rezone Lot 6 of the PUD to "Park" and to construct an ice rink thereon. Prior to granting any extension of the time periods provided in the PUD Agreement, the City should require Savanah to process an application for rezoning of Lot 6 to Park. If the application is insufficient and the City does not obtain the benefits of its bargain under the PUD Agreement, Savanah should not be allowed the benefit of an extension of the PUD Agreement. • • Mayor and City May 20, 1991 Page 8 Council Members 4. Fees Owed. I have money for certain fees, such as sewer these fees should be paid before any been informed Savanah owes tap fees. If this is true, extension is granted. CONCLUSION The issue before you is one of considerable importance to the City of Aspen. "The City of Aspen has a legitimate public interest in timely construction of development projects: 1) to minimize disruption in the areas of construction; 2) to insure that owners are not given unlimited immunity from regulatory changes; and 3) to guarantee that owners timely provide those agreed to amenities which directly benefit the public." Resolution #55 (Series of 1989) at Page 15. Additionally, Aspen has a tourist based economy and it is not attractive to anyone, tourists or local citizens, to have an enormous, incomplete, dirty, noisy construction project continuing at the base of Aspen Mountain. I request you find as follows: 1. Savanah has failed to demonstrate by preponderance of the evidence the war in Iraq and the U.S. economy necessitate an extension of the time deadlines provided in the construction schedule; and 2. The reasons asserted by Savanah for the requested extension are beyond Savanah's control but are not the type of reason contemplated by the PUD Agreement to justify extension the time deadlines provided in the construction schedule. Therefore, I request you deny Savanah's request for an extension of the deadlines provided in the construction schedules of the PUD Agreement. In the event you find Savanah has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that for reasons beyond its control an extension of the deadlines in the construction schedule are necessary, I request any such extension be conditioned on the following factors. 1. No continuing construction be allowed on the PUD unless all of the conditions outlined in the City Attorney's letter to Savanah dated April 10, 1991, are completely satisfied. 2. A demolition bond for demolition of buildings not completed on the PUD in an amount sufficient to provide for the complete demolition to natural grade of any such incomplete buildings and the landscaping of such property be required. Such demolition bond should be automatically triggered by the bankruptcy • Mayor and City Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 9 of Savanah or any successor or assign or the failure of Savanah or any successor or assign to complete the PUD within the time provided by any extended deadlines in the construction schedule. 3. Savanah be required to execute and record a carefully worded deed restriction preventing any future Subdivision, Condominiumization or Timesharing of any buildings constructed on Lot 1 or Lot 5 of the PUD. 4. Savanah be required to post a completion bond for the construction of all affordable units to be constructed pursuant to the PUD Agreement. 5. Savanah be required to record the deed restrictions on all existing affordable housing. 6. Savanah be required to process a complete application for rezoning of Lot 6 to "Park" prior to the grant of any such extension. 7. Savanah be required to pay any fees owed under the PUD Agreement. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 2sepKACHE HILL & EDW S, P.C. h Edwards, III t cc: John Bennett Rachel Richards Augie Reno Jed Caswall Amy Margerum NOTICE This is to advise that the public hearing set for May 16, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. concerning the proposed Section M amendment for the Ritz Carlton Hotel,has been continued by the Aspen City Council to and until May 21, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. This continuance was granted by City Council at its meeting in open session on May 13, 1991, on its consent agenda pursuant to the request of the applicant, Savanah Limited Part' nership, and Section 24-6-205(C)(5) of the Aspen Municipal Code. � ►,%, �;_...�" lip: athleen J. Strickland Deputy City Clerk CITY OSPEN 130 South Galena eet Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-920-5055 City Attorney, 303-920-5197 Fax MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney Ub RE: Continuance and Resetting of Ritz Section M Amendment Hear- ing. This matter is on your consent agenda at the request of Savanah Ltd. Partnership for a continuance and resetting of the presently scheduled May 16th continued public hearing on the proposed Ritz - Carlton Section M amendment. Savanah has made the request so as to accommodate direct consultations between Mr. Hayutin and his client that are to occur in Europe on the 16th. (See attached) Section 24-6-205(C)(5) of the Municipal Code provides that "an applicant shall have the right to request and be granted one continuance" with or without good cause. The request as made by Savanah herein is its first. Pursuant to previous conversations on this subject, the parties have agreed upon a rescheduled hearing date of May 21st at 5:00 o'clock p.m. The parties have further agreed that we can utilize the time already set aside on May 16th to undertake a site inspection/tour of the hotel. Wherefore, City Council is being asked to formally approve and grant a continuance of the May 16th hearing to May 21st at 5:00 p.m. Requested action: Approve a continuance and resetting of the May 16th hearing on the proposed Ritz -Carlton Section M amendment to May 21, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. EMC/mc Attachment cc: Planning Director City Clerk City Manager Robert W. Hughes, Esq. recycled paper • • LEONARD M. OATES ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY HAND DELIVERED Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 LAW OFFICES O ATES, HUGHES & K- EZEVICH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 May 8, 1991 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920-1700 TELECOPIER 920-1121 RE: Section M Amendment Request - Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Plan Unit Development Dear Mayor Stirling and Council Members: In connection with the above -referenced matter, presently pending and currently set for continued hearing on May 16, 1991, please allow this to serve as the request of the applicant in the matter, Savanah Limited Partnership, to continue the May 16 hearing to May 21, 1991, commencing at 5:00 p.m. This request is made pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-205 C.5. of the Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen which, in part provides, "[A]n applicant shall have the right to request and be granted one continuance; If the Council is inclined, perhaps we can utilize the May 16 date for a site inspection of the hotel under construction. Thank you for your consideration. RWH/rak aspnc11y.02 Sincerely, OAT> S, HL?�HfS f KN ;gVICH, P.C. I0 Ro5ert W: Huskies " Attorneys for Savanah LimAted Partnership Ct-RTIs - c-QASSOC LATES April 23, 1991 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Re: Comments On The Extension Request Aspen Mountain PUD and Ritz Hotel Dear Council, Coming from the 4/17 meeting on the Aspen Mountain PUD extension request, I wish to offer the following comments concerning the request. These comments are offered in a positive manner given that the City and Council finds itself in a Catch-22 dilemma through no fault of its own. In summary, I would grant the 1-year extension with the following conditions: 1. Posting a performance bond to cover the cost of completing the project plus inflation and contingencies. The bond must be posed in 60 days or the grant of the extension is void. If the bond is not posted in 60 days and the extension becomes void, then the project would be subject to the existing PUD Agreement with its 10/1/91 completion date. If the 10/1/91 completion date is defaulted on, then the PUD approvals would lapse and become null and void. The bond amount should be set by the Building Department working cooperatively with the developer. Requiring the bond would make the developer make a good faith commitment to the community that he is prepared and able to complete the project. 2. Placing a deed in escrow for the ice rink and park property with the deed, free of any debt and liens, accruing to the City. If the ice rink and park is not issued a C.O. by 10/1/92 the extended opening date of the hotel, the property is transferred to City ownership through non-performance by the developer. This allows the City to use the property as represented even if the hotel is not completed in a timely fashion due to continued partnership problems, bankruptcy, etc. Also, if the hotel proceeds under construction and on schedule for the 10/1/92 opening, no C.O. shall be issued on the hotel until a C.O. for the ice rink and park is issued as committed to in the current PUD Agreement. 117 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-1395 Aspen City Council April 23, 1991 Page Two 3. Tightening down the PUD Agreement concerning the employee housing commitments: a. Validate the appropriate employee housing capacities of the properties especially the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus. b. Include the Bavarian Inn property in the PUD Agreement. C. Confirm no C.O. is issued on the hotel until all the employee housing commitments are met. 4. Addressing the health, safety and visual concerns of the construction site during the "slowed -down" construction period based on the applicable items outlined in the City Attorney's 4/10 memo. Granting the extension with the suggested conditions is based on the following comments and thoughts. 1. As shown by your leadership at the 4/17 meeting, the Council's first and primary obligation is to protect the interest of the City and not the financial or profit interest of a private developer. This single reason supports requesting a performance bond to guarantee completion of the project given the uncertainty of completing the project represented at the meeting. 2. I do not support trying to reduce density on the current Ritz, Phase II, Top of Mill, etc. as part of the extension request. I feel this issue is dead unless the PUD approvals lapse and become null and void through non-performance by the developer. Should non-performance occur, any subsequent party must deal with the underlying zoning of the property and a new approval process. 3. As part of the extension, I would ask the City Attorney to protect the City's interest as much as possible if the property goes into bankruptcy. My questions are, could the City draw from the performance bond to fully button -up the construction site while in bankruptcy, provide that the PUD approvals lapse upon non-performance in bankruptcy, protect the City as a creditor if any monies are outstanding, etc.? 4. Keep the Ritz and Meadows properties separate? However, in terms of timing, planning and procedures, I do not know what this practically means. 5. Independent of what occurs with the hotel, I feel the City must protect the public's expectation and developer's commitment for the ice rink and park. If the developer does not perform on building the hotel, rink and park, the rink and park property must be deeded to the City free and clear of any debt so the City can complete the rink and park. 10 Aspen City Council April 23, 1991 Page Three 6. The employee housing obligations of the PUD Agreement should be re-examined as to: a. Copper Horse and Alpina Haus - what are the appropriate employee capacities of these properties? b. Ute City Place - Does the developer own this property, have it under option or contract, can he actually fulfill his obligation on this property? C. Bavarian Inn - Incorporate this commitment as part of the PUD Agreement? 7. As part of the slow down of the construction work, insure that the health and safety aspects of the construction site are addressed. These items are outlined in the City Attorney's memo of 4/10. 8. As part of the slow down of the construction work, clean-up the visual aspects of the construction site. To me this doesn't mean completing the shell of the building but only a nice construction fence, removing the concrete barriers, and cleaning -up the surrounding streets and parking. Taking the cranes down did more than anything to clean-up the site. In closing, I feel it is the current Council's obligation to act/vote on this request without passing it to the newly elected Council. You know the history of the project and the players involved. The elected Council will assume office June 10 and therefore a vote on the extension request should be accomplished prior to this date. I offer these comments in a positive fashion to help you struggle with this dilemma. I will be happy to discuss my thoughts with you in more detail. As always, thank you for your consideration of my comments. JC/b cc: Amy Margerum Jed Caswall Carol O'Dowd Respectfully, Jim Curtis \I