Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mtn Lodge Savanah.1992TO: Mayor and City Council / THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager l/ FROM: Robert Gish, Public Works Director 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. :e Rink: City Council will hear Ordinance 12 on March 9, 1992 as part of the regular ouncil agenda. : The project has an excellent safety record with no lost time accidents. 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 Tan: 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. Sum: 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 > X i 3 F � V f�0 r 3 u I N O m yv y m 22 3 N m m D r- A D m N D3 0 -4 v m n O z Z O Z c N C ? N c 0 m r N o i m c m (1) O m m Z r O m z Imo a x m Q1 m v G7 0o y o z d' 6 G) a O r v v 0 m m o (D m z n x ci a r m m z r r- W X co CD a a m N ca m r C r x O m z v- m t0 0 4 L Z R1 a r a m I ZD� a -nm- N i c? a s �n� rri0 < 0 z > =0m z m r v c r m pN i m C7 co N � N z 0 c I D N� v- m t0 0 4 L Z R1 a r a m I ZD� a -nm- N i c? a s �n� rri0 < 0 z > =0m z m r v c r m pN i m C7 co N � N z 0 c 4. CONSTRUCTION E. Personnel on Site PCL Carpenters Cement Finishers Crane Operators Laborers SUBCONTRACTORS Excavation Piing Reinforcing Steel Masonry Drywall Plaster Acoustic Tile Miisc Iron Precast Concrete Windows Ceramic Tie Resilient Flooring Roofing Electrical Mechanical Elevators TOTAL MANPOWER PCL Cement Finishers Crane operators Laborers SuperviskWorliice SUBCONTRACTORS Excavation Piing Reinforcing Steel Masonry Drywall Plaster Acoustic Tie Structural Steel Misc Iron Precast Concrete Windows Pang Ceramic Tie Resilient Flooring Roofing Electrical Mechanical Elevators Other Supervision TOTAL MANPOWER • RITZ- CARLTON, ASPEN COLORADO • PROGRESS REPORT NO. 3 DECEMBER 1991 /JANUARY 1992 ,c-s �,.c y-' MAR DAILY FORCE SUMMARY A December, 1991 V CT CE R O R R AT AA u T W T c c s u T W T F s s u T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T F A F G 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 TL ! 1410 10 10: 10 0:1 11 13;:14 13 -3 13:::13. .- :......:1..:14 ` ....218 3 3 3 ........ 3 3 3 ... 4.. .: '> >: Y' T 1 1: 1, _:.. 1 :1 1 1,: 1- ".::32 8... 8 8 8 8 4 13 13 13 13 13 6 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 .. 13 13 .. 265 7 'T T 1.;; 1 7 ::7 8 g: 8 2,;;2 1Q `1ll 1Q 4' T 4 4:: 6 :;:;:4 6, B '::....,..150 :.:7..,:.::.7. 26 2.0 0 5 5 5 5 5 4 44 4 4 .. 4 5 5 5 5 5 86 ... 4.. .: '> 65 :...: .:..... ....: ".::32 0 4 :4... 3 2 2 2` ;: .1T. ... 24.:...: 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 26 2.0 36 36 36 36 36 11 2 ; >2 2 2..2> 45.0 2`;.: ..... ..... '. 1 1 1 1 3 ..1.i: 1 4 4 4 4 3 27 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 86 ... 4.. .: '> 65 :...: 41.. 0 4 :4... 3 2 2 2` ;: .1T. ... 24.:...: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 26 2.0 36 36 36 36 36 11 1 49 49 53 50 50 10 2 52 55 53 33 43 44 35 0 53 39 0 43 41 946 45.0 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 12131415161718192021 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3 15 15 15 17 16 17 16 17 16 16 18 17 17 20 5 18 18 20 19 9 11 11 12 12 12 5 7 7 7 7 7 2 5 6 2 2 6 6 7 5 5 4 4 4 12:12 . 1 1 1 ._ 3 3 4 Page 10 of 16 0 0 . .. ..0. ..... ....... 86 9.6 0:... . 0. 9. 0 0 98 5.2 9 17 16 17 16 16 18 17 17 20 5 18 18 20 19 9 11 11 12 12 12 5 7 7 7 7 7 2 5 6 2 2 6 6 7 5 5 4 4 4 12:12 . 1 1 1 ._ 3 3 4 Page 10 of 16 0 0 . .. ..0. ..... ....... 86 9.6 0:... . 0. 9. 0 0 98 5.2 0 C3 x m za zoo CEO Tf g C ip p 2 cow000R m i3 2 r, 'o r- :R ao go mg. C 2i -0 ... ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... ... .... ..... .... .... .... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... ... ... ..... ..... .... ..... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... ... W W::: -4 ODA): .... .... .. . .... .. - .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .... .... . ... .. . .... .... .... ...... .. .... ..... . .. .. .... ... . ..... .. . ... W:".: V. . ..... .. .... .... . ... .... .... ..... ... .. .. .. ..... N ..... 0 . .... . ... .. ... .... ... N) . .... .. . . ..... . . .. ..... ..... ..... .. .. .... ..... .... . .... ..... 4�: > .0. .. ..... .... ..... .... ... co ..... . . .... ..... .... ... ..... .... .. ..... .... .... ..... . ..... ..... ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ... ... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .... . ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... .. ... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .. .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... .... ..... ... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .. .... .... OSZ 8c .. .. ..... .. . .. . ..... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... .... ... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... ..... ..... .... ... ..... ... .... .... ... .... . . .... ..... ... I ... .... .... .... .... . .... .... .... ... .... .... L"::.:.x. .. N): :CDAD. ..... .... ..... ..... .... .... .... .... . .. ..... .... .... ..... .... .. .... ..... .... ... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... C4 .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ..... ... .... .... 0 M rri 0 ..... .... ..... . .... ... .. ..... 0 .... . . ..... ..... ... ..... ... .... . ... . .... ..... ..... ..... .... .. .... ... .... .... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... .. ... ..... ... .. .... ..... ... .... ..... ... . .... ..... c.). .. .... .... .... ... .... ... .... . — .... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... �U .. .. . ... .... .. .. .... . .. .... ... ..... .... .. .. . .... .... .... .... .... .. . ..... .... .... .... .... .. . .... .... ... ..... .... .... .... :cn CD ... .... .... ..... ..... ... ..... .... . .. ..... ..... ... ..... .... ..... .... .. .. .... .... .. .... .... ..... ... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .... .... ... .... .... -- �.. I .... .... .... ..... .... . .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... .... .... .. ..... .... ... ..... .... . ..... .... . ... .... ..... N) .... ...... .. .... ..... .... ..... .... . .. .... ... . .... ..... .... .... .... .... .. ..... .... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... .... .... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... . .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ..... :-J C.) . ... ..... ... .... .. .... .. ... . .... ..... .... ... ... ... . .... .. .. I .. .... .... .. .... . . ..... ... .... .... ..... ... ..... .. ..... .... ..... .... .. ..... ..... .. . . .... ..... .... .... .... .. ..... .... ..... .... .. .... ..... .... , .. : : .. ... .. . ..... . .... ..... .. .. .... ... .... .. I .. .... ..... ... . .... ... ... . .... ... : ra .... .... ... .... .... 00 .. .... ..... ..... .... . ..... .... ..... .... ... .... .... .... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... .. .. .... ..... ..... .... rl .... .... .— I ... .... ... d C& . . .... ..... . ..... . ..... .... ..... .. .... ..... ... ... ... .... .... .... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ... .... .... ..... .... ... .... h). : ... ..... . . .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ... .. . . .... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... . .... ..... .... . .... ..... ... .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... C', 03:: Pj CIXX: Of 4,n:W:A: C4 Ni .... ... - ..... .... ..... .... .... .... pa 0� -4 .... ... .... .... .... . .... .... ..... ..... ... ..... .... . .. .. .... .... .... ..... .... .... ... .... . ..... .... ..... .... ..... .. ..... .... ..... ... .... . .... . .... .... .. . ..... .... .... .... .... - .. .... ..... .... - - .... .... ..... .... .... ..... . .... ..... . . .... ..... . .... .... ... .... ... ..... .. .. .... .... ..... ... .. .. .... .... . . ..... .... ..... ... I . .... ..... .... ... . ... .... ..... .... ..... ..... .... . . .... . .... ..... . .... ..... .... .... ..... .. .... ..... ... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... ... .... .... ... .. .... ..... . .... ..... .... .... .... ..... .. .... ..... ..... .... .... .... ..... . ... .. .. .... .. .... ..... .... .... .... I . . ..... ... ..... .. ..... .... . — . .... .... I .... ..... .... .. . ..... .... .... ... .... .. - .... . .. ..... . .... ..... .... ... ..... V co ..... .... .... 184: 8 C) :0: 0:4, 4-: W, =::Ci:!! 0 .... ..... .... .. . .... .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .. .... ..... . . 0 :-4 ..... .... ..... W.rs: -4. CA, .... . . .... ..... .... ... .... ..... .... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ... ..... ..... - . ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... .... .... ..... ..... .... .... .. . .... ... .... . I .. ..... .... .... .. I . ..... .... .. .. . .... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... .... ..... .... . .... ..... . ... ... .. . . ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ... ..... ... .... . .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .. . .... .... .... ... -0 NN W Of N to fA W -4 4 n > .0. n 0 z > n m c) nor- M 0 8 00 OSZ 8c (D X m N 0 PO 3) M rri 0 IT! N3 �U N) 'm > = 0 > --10 � -{T>=0 m 0 > m m < > TO: BECI ITEL. CoR AT7ENT|0N: D Ou DATE: fax (303)925-5V47 _--PROJECT MANAGERS ENGINEERS 4- OFFICE-STAFF __2 SUBCONTRACTO 1-1 03 REINFORCING STEEL 9_ 03/04 MASONRY / PRECAST CONCREI E_ 26_ 05 STRUCTURAL STEEL /MISC. IRON 10 06 MILLWORK — Rieder 06 MILLWORK — SIW 5- 07 WATERPROOFING 07 ROOFING 08 MIRRORS 2 08 WINDOWS 09 PLASTER 09 DRYWALL 17 09 CERAMIC TILE 09 ACOUSTIC TILE RESILIENI FLOORING NTING 14 ELEVATORS 15 __—MECHANICAL — FIVAC 15 —PLUMBERS -12. 15 FITTERS 16 FIRE PROTECTION xC MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council. THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Robert Gish, Public Works Director off' 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 /m1.92 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 Dear Bob, CEIVED DEC 16 1991 4 r TY E' G:1�4 E9 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 mechanieaUelectrical backgrounds. In addition to their management responsibilities, Bechtel will assume the' role of quality assurarue 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 back(M 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 Firsts 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 Aspen, CO. 8161 1 • 303/925 -4272 • FAX 925 -4+387 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 minimise 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 t Total # of Units Aspen Country Inn 57 Units _ Aspen Meadows 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 The Grand Aspen Hotel The Bavarian Inn Barbee Mine Dumps Total # of Units 150 Units (approx.) 19 Units (approx.) 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 ifyou have any further questions, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Ferd Belz Savanah. . ted Partnership cc: Omar Benjamin Perry Harvey Rick Burcham Paul Donohue Jack Donovan Bob Hughes 1bg1002.7m BANK STABILIZATION BLDG A SHELL BLDG B STRUCTURE BRIDGE STRUCTURE COMPLETE WATER/SEWER TAP FEES PAYMENT DISMANTLE TOWER CRANE BLDG B SHELL MEP ROUGH IN FACADE COMPLETE BLDG 'C' FINAL CURB /GUTTER — MONARCH /MIL INTERIOR FINISHES BLDG A ICE RINK CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONING INTERIOR FINISHES BLDG B LANDSCAPE COMPLETE RITZ- CARLTON HOTEL ASPEN, COLORADO ' MILESTONE SUMMARY SCHEDULE December 17,1991 1992 ..... ..... It ILI fill Al IrS CFP OCT NOV 0 ��■���� iii �a��� 0 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. 3. 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. 8. 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 Mill and Monarch. 1L 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: 1. 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.. . 0 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: • RE�EoVE© 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, SERVICES, INC. .Y.T. Donovan Construction Manager JTD /cd cc: John Cunningham /PCL �C c..:.— Ann PCL Carpenters Cement Finishers Crane Operators Laborers Sups rvisio n]Oflice SUBCONTRACTORS Excavation Piling Reinforcing Steel Masonry Drywall Plaster Acoustic Tile Structural Steel Misc Iron P recast Concrete Windows Painting Ceramic Tile Resilient Flooring Rooting Electrical Mechanical Elevators Other Supervision TOTAL MANPOWER A RITZ— CARLTON HOTEL V ASPEN, COLORADO C T C E DAILY FORCE SUMMARY November, 1991 R O R R AT AA F S S M T W T F S 8 M T W T F S S M 'T W T F S S M T W T F S F A F G 1 9 % a S a 7 N 0 In 11 19 1Q i! 14 1R 17 iR 14 91f 91 " In 91 9±S 99 97 99 99 An T 1 T F ... Y2 ry. ••�T. ao... a.!yw' M #Y •.. • .y ... . invq,::�r.%t' _'S' i x.: •• i' i'waC,YK.�L.oa �{.TMV wv�.+i... '' �v.. %«J•wb.4.•3Yw&« A' :.Xw m.. ..�: .Fi v .��w .n Vi, i.. ... 4PnxS x k %3.'w.T,xF.�.`..v: .. . ...... !.[M .�l �.s.Y'�✓�o.' .:fit .K y,Hy 7%Yfei - -inv 5.ti 3$x 'u'� y i 7 "xt Q'• ) <a.,.iJi l 1 ; ^S: ."" .x aro,,,,,•�� •ky�iiE, gr. � .%a $ i� -e. • ! yt '••.r. �YS ' ��{� ° ?owS'n° f ne..x b rt .r xy. a +GM ..r. . ,�.«rri _ A, >x . .. x.... .,.5. ..!au.'xe!k ..XS..c: /�ZA ........ u� a Y.u..a F:";#�x o.a.:.�..KL�L,.I. ..1. :7.a.eYk%..ro. 8 4 8� 9 9 8 9 4> 9 9 9 9 >9 6 9 r�9 �9 �9 7 9 9 .��`:�S»x$x.xW 171 ...c...�.:•%.W::$.` 8.1 11 •��+ ��a•' �•� _�> ,�• �, y( fir_ : l. a.:. S.r n.% Ti•". X s' ?•[, 7c�,, C:..•. tY".. r:: o''. =: -� [% n '. ;kII v"xir'm"•''i"% sj�t"rs.1!v..as�av agar. 'tx"; a. Fs.�� .,...$ %'. °x 1 1 zw x' ^'• x 'S.'� •>�.°.�!:a27� � "1►1 �w.�:. K•' i^yl.X>M1M4wLv4 -'xJ [� .aa >ix:?k zvw a�.r.. ..._.v. 9.¢x %dti #G.,..a_.�'�. o.iaowa"+c�i$Ifi$enx E...._ w.w r. rv. w. .w...a.. .. .. . .X..i. 101' x� 4 :.Ya:w. �irvn. i £.SRiCY- 4 .�. vMYSV: �.RSRwaa,',VisiGcri f RY.' $iiq. .y FYn'sn 'R>f' � yi K xZ. f '. yfx' Ycx&Y»isic Yw. . .x '�' . .e #4..xy, x.4 >a� i. .✓.1�OSGVxIV Eis�'iF.' �•• OY�i[.%Lic>Y. wR% A# OJ fY�% •:: %- ...... .. .. :....:...S�,wr Y. s." �' �.a.:ax:,�•.:<ns�t.,ff3i§'`+waX :. te> xtxE. E.. �.' 3is• 9a:; �at3�� :o:;�r %°.;:°:ss.,sL?isss.w :..."5:.�::.:'�+�..'.:.��'w t.:;.r,Sii''� � . %� e�vy�"'^.Obe Nv�Y .aaw��a3: &zx w,=Y S iYV':Y� t «.pr:�_ .k Y 4 b.E'%.• .#. -%,%Kaa : a..:.° ... �i� ":'%nz:>."5b+^.>°r �f. e > 'a. ' `alq:.x:i. , i":�.T:! OHM. #x a #Sa 3 x• R: - R : n' a : ara 7!Y t^!?% wc� . .s.»$ x wxSMfsa eso %z . , 2r f!'.. a -. 'i1c -3.-. m �C••a t' x 4a= ei t. ii °., % q x_:kY. i r .S°�.m «tl.35K•a .:iX..+' �y?keiiu °z.: #oxs•�°>a.`j:..%4°:fw.r...r 6 +i ..�' z ..SaS .. L.Ya�+ �a�". Sialxne +YS: ,_Y...... .u._.v. x x'` ,atx &.' •xws., ? x �`_;$# -'. .Y w. M .orw$St x`c0` x 3 t# �� 3:•a. 3' „ct,::z..: 7 '..... -:.. �. x. w. ;i�$'.sitiL, �..rSr_x�.zi,;"i�°.• «q' 'S.�. �..�.. >?" a. ...- x as> 4 s _xy'xa .'w- .. .e. x•'.:�...!3... �+ k. Y,. Y,. »a'""•at�'"o�._... ;; zk ...a. �axa .,n.,..,o.a.3,,....«..%.. .%«,.. F._ .... ... ..._r...., ..,.. _..r #v �s$•. i. r.- sx•4 ?x.' x4MY. )aaai:it %ox%i:%xy..�g t �. ... ,'..w�'3 �s. %. ! -E 'Y r�k.. ,�. O. i. i ✓X} : . i i :.wXV.511' 3 R $1.i1... -�� �7 'f'Y '>Lit%. k„ }.Sao. %.q c: iq!-1t .• � »�v 'w.y. '.' $v 't�'S >f•',lVY..x. .:5ti '.avert° # ? go f ME M-2 y�y4 e•x"i .a " %.Y."efN M M7".+o-`:.'$"%i i <w»'xg °'k �w...:. IRK, •14wgvr .....:??: .-u. :z'.Y' ac!' w X-.,k• .%oi%' �r�. n'�'... �w'�EY..fuYk,%,X,w:Y.d ...... .... . •n»•rsvP` %+a .w... %. ..... w'.ti.l:X , •akxr.. P.;; it:H . >: .y y} : wit. %3.' ..�,.. t s.Y�yy� yyr '. {yY: « s5 :.k .'�.�°�'�r "Y«11l LU. 'CF •x MOM' ����.�iwi,v...'.v.�.:.LC'C 'a�^.:F�:Y.eY.4 .nw%rY/�..M... I� ':.1���.,�it s•. fn cn'.W leis ..: >.. .'IIFS. Y�wM 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 8 6 6 80 5.7 % .,....... ..... ... w.. ry..YV rw.. . ,.. 1 .. y..w X 0.K✓. .%Y %. �. �Y�!^"' � a y"" •X:t�"''+ eY �!?va�..� ..o„.w.x' o..c• xx '!• �F4. �1�SCi :wi��zia.a.�•io.'waoo "f>f••t—d_`SiT.7X�iXo'+iX�Sl.f si:i..Go�.%ww�"�S. » > �/y� :Y.n.:,.. _ 7�°.A4.°. � ��a.. .r ..eSb..w.iew�«.m:os w�..•'�'P,:... ma�' QYY�S: S��! %..v...' 3 ,a. ... .. , t "*•m`. $ � `fix ::......'�.:.:.�q i -a x- ��",��"X.'""'°f .a. -�..�. ,.p: : '.' a v?` i•%..- bmw..,.:i cx.... w asoa,,'ioP a :1 xw y�� ;.�. �ItWxr «w , %!wr 13L��....... - J"" 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 5 5 3 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 73 33 20 7 0 41 40 39 39 26 6 0 42 41 44 42 28 15 9 0 44 41 41 13 0 0 40 43 42 0 0 01 702 1 43.3 C r C r c r r i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CONTINUED MEETING MAY 29, 1991 5:00 P.M. ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD 0 0 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager!/ 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 ' /4I4 i 1 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 the Bavarian Inn is not legally tied to the Aspen Mountain PUD. . The PUD does have a provision for an audit to be performed on the Ritz - Carlton Hotel after its second full year of operation to determine the actual number of full time equivalent employees working in -the Ritz - Carlton Hotel. If the audit determines that the Ritz - Carlton Hotel has a higher full time equivalent employees count, then Savanah shall provide employee housing for sixty (60) percent of the excess number. Savanah has indicated that they would build employee housing on the Bavarian Inn site in anticipation of this audit. Staff reviewed the employee housing mitigation provided in the Aspen Mountain PUD during the reconsideration of Ordinance 69 in December of 1989 and recommended additional employee housing mitigation. However, when it was placed before the voters, it was subsequently denied. -1- 1n -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: 1. Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink /Park 2. Certificate of Occupancy Ritz - Carlton Hotel 3. Building Permit Issuance Ute City Place 4. Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 5. Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel -2- FROM TO 10/1/91 10/1/92 10/1/91 10/1/92 10/1/91 4/1/.92 8/1/92 8/1/93 10/1/94 10/1/95 0 0 The Effectiveness of the Extensions Shall Be Contingent Upon Savanah Is 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 PDD /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- 6 46 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- n 17. Savanah shall comply with all as contained in its letter dated Belz and J. Imbriani, and addresse - 5- • representations and conditions May 1, 1991, submitted by F. d to the City Attorney. Rev ATTACHMENT`I RITZ— CARLION ASPEN Page 1 of 2 DUNS I RUU I IVN bUitUULt LEGEND SAVANAF -4, LTD. PARTNERSHIP Planned ASPEN, COLORADO 5 Day work week May 7, 1991 1B91 1992 May 2 3 , 19 91 — — --- J F M A M J J A S O N 0 J f M A M J J A S O N 0 OBTAIN FIIIAL BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN FINAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT OBTAIN FINAL MECAHNICAL PERMIT 087AIN FIINAL PLUMBING PERMIT ' COMPLETE BACKFILL ENTRY LEVEL SLAB (COMPLETEI BALLROOM ROOF STRUCTURE (COMPLETE) PARKING GARAGE ROOF STRUCTURE BUILDING A STRUCTURE (COMPLETE) BUILDING 8 STRUCTURE BLUE SPRUCE FOUNDATION (COMPLETE) BLUE SPRUCE STRUCTURE BUILDING A SHELL BUILDING B SHELL BLUE SPRUCE SHELL REMOVE CRANES (COMPLETE) MEP ROUGH IN BUILDING A MEP ROUGH IN BUILDING 8 MEP ROUGH IN BLUE SPRUCE MEP ROUGH IN PUBLIC AREAS' INTERIOR FINISH BUILDING A INTERIOR FINISH BUILDING B INTERIOR FINISH BLUE SPRUCE INTERIOR FINISH PUBLIC AREAS 0 L, Rev RITZ- CARLTON ASPEN ��a�r. Tee• •�T��a� n�� �rr�� Page 2 of Z • v � �iEiGG jG�� FUTZ-CAnLTON COMMISSION BLUE SPRUCE RITZ-CARLTON COMMISSION PUBLIC AREAS ICE RINK CLEAN UP ICE RINK CONSTRUCTION SUMMIT PLACE SECURE Atil) CLEAN UP 0W,f SIREET PATCH AND CLEAN UP MEN 0 IN NOOSE IN MENEM IN IN No 0 0 IN MINE NEON SEEN 0 El ME0 MO 0 C IN 0 MEN IN 0 • v Revised 5/24/91 SCHEDULE 9 UPDATE Residential and Lodge Unit verification ASPEN MTN NUMBER OF UNITS SUBDIVISN DEMOL- DATE REMAIN- UNITS TO BE EXPIRATION OF PROJECT LOT NO. LEGAL / ADDRESS TOTAL ISHED DEMO'd ING RECONSTRUCTED RECONSTRUCTION Residential Units: A. Blue Spruce Lodge, North 1 Lots A -D, Block 84, Townsite 2 2 07/03/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 Wing (303 East Durant Avenue) B. North Aspen Inn Apartments 1 Lots 7 & 8, Block 3, Connors 6 6 07/03/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 Addition (711 South Mill Street) e 1 Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Connors -- ". 1. 1 04/15/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 Addition (300 East Juanita St.) (320 East Juanita Street) 1 1 04/15/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 C. Hillside Lodge 61 Lots A & B, Block 91, Townsite 14 14 10/15/90 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 2 (403 East Durant Avenue) D. Townplace 61 Lot C, Block 91, Townsite 4 4 10/15/90 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 2 (409 East Durant Avenue) E. Chase 61 Lots D through I, Block 91, 2 2 10/15/90 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 2 Townsite (415 East Durant Avenue) F. Paas 5 Lot K, Block 91, Townsite 2 2 04/15/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 (602 South Mill Street) G. Melville #2 5 Lots 17 & 18, Block 2, Dean's 1 1 04/15/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 Addition (680 S. Mill Street) H. Black 3 Lots 3, 4 & 5, Capitol Hill 2 - -- 2 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 2 Addition (918 S. Mill Street) I. Summit Place 2 2 - -- 2 Lot 2 See Note 2 J. Previously Demolished: 700 Galena 4 Lots 16 & 17, Anthony Acres 3 3 Reconstructed 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 (700 South Galena Street) as 4 -plex with 4 GMQS units Snowchase 3 Lots 16 & 17, Capital Hill Addn. 1 1 06/81 0 Lot 3 or 5 See Note 3 3 Lot 21, Capitol Hill Addition 1 1 Pre 1981 0 Lot 3 or 5 See Note 3 42 38 4 159 Lot 1 & 5 0 Lot 1 159 See Note 2 Ig See Note 2 NOTES: 1 Lot 6 is the proposed lot for the park to be subdivided from Lot 5. 2 Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 24-11.2(a), the owner has the right following their demolition, to reconstruct within the Aspen Mountain PUD, the verified total within five (5) years of the date of demolition. 3 The owner shall have a one -year period for reconstruction of the 18 previously demolished residential units, commencing on the date of demolition permit for demolition of Grand Aspen Hotel on Lot 5. cic /dm.sched9 ASPEN MTN 1 -3, NUMBER OF. UNITS Block 3, Connors Addition 07/03/85 SUBDIVISN South DEMOL- DATE REMAIN- UNITS TO BE EXPIRATION OF PROJECT LOT NO. LEGAL / ADDRESS TOTAL 1SHED DEMO'd ING RECONSTRUCTED RECONSTRUCTION D. Previously Demolished: Lodge Units: Blue Spruce Lodge, South 1 Lots 1 -5, Block 2, Connors Addn. 17 17 07/03/85? Wing A. Blue Spruce Lodge, North 1 Lots,A through D, Block 84, 15 15 07/03/85 0 Lot 1 See Note 2 Wing Townsite (303 East Durant Ave.) B. Aspen Inn 1 Lot 6, Block 1, Connors Addition 65 65 04/10/85 0 Lot 1 See Note 2 159 Lot 1 & 5 0 Lot 1 159 See Note 2 Ig See Note 2 NOTES: 1 Lot 6 is the proposed lot for the park to be subdivided from Lot 5. 2 Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 24-11.2(a), the owner has the right following their demolition, to reconstruct within the Aspen Mountain PUD, the verified total within five (5) years of the date of demolition. 3 The owner shall have a one -year period for reconstruction of the 18 previously demolished residential units, commencing on the date of demolition permit for demolition of Grand Aspen Hotel on Lot 5. cic /dm.sched9 Lots 1 -3, Dean's Addn & Lots 1 -6, Block 3, Connors Addition 07/03/85 (611 South Mill Street) C. Contential 5 Lots L -S, Block 91, Townsite & 178 19 -- Lots 1 -3, Block 1, Anthony Acres Addn (515 East Dean Street) D. Previously Demolished: Blue Spruce Lodge, South 1 Lots 1 -5, Block 2, Connors Addn. 17 17 07/03/85? Wing (300 East Lawn Street) 275 116 159 Lot 1 & 5 0 Lot 1 159 See Note 2 Ig See Note 2 NOTES: 1 Lot 6 is the proposed lot for the park to be subdivided from Lot 5. 2 Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 24-11.2(a), the owner has the right following their demolition, to reconstruct within the Aspen Mountain PUD, the verified total within five (5) years of the date of demolition. 3 The owner shall have a one -year period for reconstruction of the 18 previously demolished residential units, commencing on the date of demolition permit for demolition of Grand Aspen Hotel on Lot 5. cic /dm.sched9 Revised 4/91 RITZ- CARLTON COMPLETION DATES FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONS 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 611/91 7/1/91 8/1/91 9/1/91 10/1191 cis MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney RE: Ritz - Carlton Section M Amendment is EN 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 recycled paper 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: (i) Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink /Park (ii) Certificate of Occupancy Ritz - Carlton Hotel (iii) Building Permit Issuances Ute City Place . (iv) Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place (v) Demolition Permit Grand Aspen Hotel 2 From To 10/1/91 10/1/92 10/1/91 10/1/92 10/1/91 10/1/92 8/1/92 8/1/93 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 0 0 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 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. 5 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 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. 5 • 0 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. N. 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 X/ �r Rev. ATTACHMENT 1 �I 11I12— CARL10N ASPEN Pape 1 of 1 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE LEGEND SAVANAI -1, LTD. PARTNERSHIP Plenned ----- A 5 vey Work week ASPEN, COLORADO May 7, 1991 lest test May 23,199.1 — — "" J F M A M J J A S O N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 OBTAIN FWAI BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN FINAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT 087AIN FINAL MECANNICAL PERMIT OBTAIN FINAL PLUMBING PERMIT _ 1 COMPLETE BACKFILL E14TRY LEVEL SLAB (COMPLEIEI BALLROOM ROOF STRUCTURE {COMPLETE) PARKING GARAGE ROOF STRUCTURE BUILDING A STRUCTURE (COMPLETE) BVILOING B STRUCTURE BLUE SrRUCE FOUNDATION (COMPLETE) _ BLUE SPRUCE STRUCTURE BUILDING A SHELL BUILDING B SHELL BLUE SPRUCE SHELL REMOVE CRANES (COMPLETEI MEP ROUGH IN BUILDING A MEP F10UGH IN BUILDING B MEP ROUGH IN BLUE SPRUCE MEP ROUGH IN PUBLIC AREAS INTERIOR FINISH BUILDING A INTERIOR FINISH BUILDING B INIERIOR FINISH BLUE SPRUCE INTERIOR FINISH PUBLIC AREAS r � Rev. RITZ- CARLTON ASPEN. Page Z of 2 LEGEND Manned - IL 5- DaY Work WQfk: ON fUTZ-CARLTON COMMISSION BLUE SPRUCE ICE RINK CLEAN UP ICE RINK CONSMUCTION OF-Aff SlREET PATCH AND CLEAN UP IMMUNE Mammal 0 • 7 ATTACHMENT 2 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 FAY: (303) 925 -4387 i J(-,Cl Caswell Section M Amendment Request Page two 5/1/91 4. See attached Construction Schedule for this work. i 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. �e1 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 biL 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, I Ferdu and/L. efz,/ i Joe Imb} � . X cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution AFJ// 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 2 RE: Aspen Mountain PUD: Request for Extension of Date of Submission for the Ice Rink and Park (Lot 5) DATE: June 5, 1991 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. 0 C W DID Aspen Holdings, 111.. June 5, 1991 Ms. Amy Margerum Director of Planning City of Aspen 130 S* Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Amy, n rl ? 16619- NW t� j Y 1' 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 imo DATE: May 17, 1991 t� MEMORANDUM SPEN s treet Y 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, 1-etter 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); recycled paper 7. "Notice" of continued hearing (2 pages). Memorandum to Mayor and City Council May 17, 1991 Page 2 The above - listed 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 I S ,1 LEONARD N. OATES ROEEPT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZE VIC4 OF COUNSEL. JOHI: THOMAS KELLY Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CC 81611 s (0 LAw O�nCES OATES, HUGHES & 1) -\EZEV1.Cii PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING !33 EAST HORe.INS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81,511 May 2, 1991 AREA CODE !0! TELEPHONE 920.1700 TELECOPIER 920.1121 RE: First Amended & Restated PUD /Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Mountain Subdivision Section 1\2 Amendment Request of Savanah Limited Partnership (11Snvanah ") 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 I\T Agreement granted by the City on Tune 11, 1990, the current cons _uction deadlines in the Aspen Mountain Subdivislon/PUD Agreemeni are as follo-ws: Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rini: 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 U'tc Citv Place (20 months from 10/1/91) 6/ 1/93 Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/11/94 S +� TES, H UGHES & KNEzOCH, P. C. Aspen City Council ;::ay 2, 1991 Page 2 Building Permit Issuance Top of Mill 10/1/95 Building Permit Issuance Hotel Phase II 1011196 Certificate of Occupancy Ton of Mill (20 months from 10/1/96) 6/1/97 Certificate of Occupancy Hotel Phase II Lot 5 (20 months from 10 /1 /91) 6/1/98 Savanah requests extension of these dates as follows: Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink and Park 10/1/92 (Revised) Certificate of Occupancy Ritz- Carlton Hotel 1011192 (Revised) - Buildinsz Permit Issuance Ute City Place 4 /1/92 (Revised) Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 8/1/93 (Revised) Certificate of Occupancy Ute City Place (20 months from 10/1/91) 6/1/93 (Not Revised) Demolition Permnit for Lot 5 Grind Aspen Hotel 10/1/95 (Revised) Building Permit Issuance Top of ATill 10/1195 (Not Revised) -r ES, HvCHES &c KNEzFALH, P. C. Aspen City Council I`.ay '', 1991 I'a�e a Building Permit Issuance Hotel Phase II Certificate of Occupancy Top of I`Iill (20 months from ]0/1/96) Certificate of Occupancy Hotel Phase II Lot (20 months from 1011191) 0 10/1/96 (Not Revised) 6/1/97 (Not Revised) 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 25, 1991, of the date for final plat submission for the Ice Rink and earl: comoonent of the PUD and extension of the conditional use authority eariier granted by the City Council for use of the Grand Asper, Hotel for construction office purposes. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, I OATES. HUdrHE I& 'EZEVICII, P.C. Robert W. Hughes Attorneys for Savanah Limited Partnership RW'H/ rak a., pn:itr'.0! cc: 1001, Inc. /HDC Distribution AEI /I��I Distribution Marc Hayutin, Eso. 9 I IA Huldin�s, Inc. May 1, 1991 Mr. Edward M. Caswall City Attorney City of !:spen 130 S. Galena Asper, CO 81611 Subject: The Ritz - Carlton, Aspen Section M Amendment Request Edward M. Caswall letter of April 10, 1991 Dear Ivir. CaswaL, Based upon discussions at the City Council h"Leeting 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 Pa,-tnerstip, presented their request for a one year extension of the completion date in the PITD for the Ritz - Carlton Hotel. Savanah also stated that it is not, at this time, abandoning the project and is continunnD construction:, albeit at a slower pace. N ork 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. U. The lower sump pumps will not require automatic activation as the construction workers vUI 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. 606 Cooper atrve: JUitr 200 A= zpen Coioradr ?01] (303: K5 -42 "2 F: \: c3031 92,j -43Q' v d ed C;as1A'ell Section IN! Amendment Request Page two 5/11/91 4. See attached Construction Schedule for this work. 5. Openings \;U be protected during the continuing construction, according to OSHA requirements. In addition, concrete work AU be done on the "garage roof.' Tlds work will eliminate a lot of the open, unsafe conditions on the hotel plaza area. The construction cranes have been removed. 6. The contractor AU continue their temporary utility, services as required for construction. Since construction is continuing, a diagram illustrating utility systems on site at thus interim stage is not appropriate. As -built, underground utility drav,-ings in public right of ways, have been provided to Bob Gish. There is one outstanding as -built that needs to be prodded, and that will be provided within the next 30 days. I Temporary buildings, trailers and stored materials ,`ill still be required since we are continuing construction. This ii-icludes those items on the Top of IYM Street and the Ice Rink parcel. «Vith 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 vdll be upgraded visually. Fugitive mud and dust prevention measures have always been required of our contractor and «-ill be aggressively enforced. S. Since we are continuing construction, there AU be some temporan construction welding, shoring and bracing in place, but only as part of the construction work. It vdll not be left as a permanent situation. Most of this temporary work vi1 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 b ", 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 tliat is currently in place. 12. This wort: µz11 take place ..:th 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 Nall 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 µ-ill be poured Aititin the next three months. This AU eliminate most of the debris, temporary scaffolding and form work. See the attached Construction Schedule. Jr.i - ,asweD Section M Amendment Request Page three 5/1/91 15. The Grand Aspen Hotel rill 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 lip. Security persons from the Ritz- Carlton site will molllLor 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 NaU 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-ille of the Mountain Chalet to address some of their concerns. Other than the above items, we are not aware of any other Citv recuests 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 prcject.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, / -�i :• is ^ / _ ��,. /` ! � I V�.1��� ,t eratnand ;-L Belz,,1D Joe "imbr" `/ cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution AEI`/ NEI distribution. Bob Hughes, Esq. Marc Hayutin, Esq. m co ¢ I cr I¢ i c I m i m (Z f m i C C. C: C: 7, m �r C, V, 1 M m c- C 7-, V C ; to .7 O rl, C) > I C) L> m. tr m r' I I m m I~ �� iV ? CID IIiII�Iii iiil .i �;�� r n, s • n =-r D �v �D G j i D D I r1 J 1➢ gym. O G. �i� in i� � m n m m co C c W c I —� C m I r TI i N T' T I I I 1 1 1 i�Ii i I �i i �jil •iii± �iI I I 1 11!!I I i li! I iliii�v 1 • I I 1 I I ! ' 1 I I I 1 C I n =-r D �v �D G "o: The Mayor, City founcil, tanager, ttorr:e� ' & Planner, Aspen, CO From: Steve Goldenberg - Date: April 30, 1991 Subject: Extension Hearing for the Ritz 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 a- concerned that: 1. the developers may not have the money or the economic desire to Finish the project, 2 that the Ritz Carlton Hotel management company may not have the desire or the regal commitment to run the hotel as a Ritz for the initial 10( ?) year period and, '. that there is a list of other unfulfilled commitments that might not ever be satisfied. A conditional extension to the P.O.D. agreement should be granted if the developer agrees to satisfying these points: _. A bonafide, irrevocable completion bond in an amount large enough to guarantee prompt completion of the project (approximately S,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 Asper; PrOUerty t0 satisfy the council that the city will be able t0 generate Wl5-25 million from the sale of the deeded collateral. Any recently granted deeds of trust will- have to be taker, care by the developer or the extension should be invalidated. The Meadows, the Continental Inn, Top of Mi11, and the Ritz _tsel_ are examples of possible collateral located in '.spen. 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. ? A review of the current Fitz- Carlton managemen._ contract be made to _nsure ,. .- -__, force. A corresponding performance bond should be recui red. Other unfulfillec -commitments that you- feel-are essential -le a . the skating rink and p2rl: ( due 10/1/91? ) b. Tap and other delinquent _ees (due 12/31/90 ?), c. Bavarian lnn land use application (due / /90 ?), d. Ute C. _lace (due / / °0 ?), etc. signing of the Meadows agreement. etc. , - ':o'uld all be made part of any extC sion agreement and the extension should atOmatiCally lapse iF the agreed Jtems are not completed b3 the dates p;c =:d. There should also be an explicit agreement p~or._b -_ting free mauve-, ^c::dcs a d /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 hay 16th,_ +he decision will be left to the new Cayor and Council. Now 1s the time LO be _firm and fair. You have the cards that count. The ,_rOen t., perform 1s on their shoulders. 1F they can, fine, If not, the P.U.D. iould be left to exP_4re on 10/1/91. S e v G o I d en be- c JJ3o �,, m CURTIS ASSOCIATES ,o :`lpril ? �, :991 C) 0 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street `f' Aspen CO S1611 Re: Comments On The Extension Request Aspen i\iountain PUD and Ritz Hotel Denr 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 con;menis are offered in a positive manner given that the City and Council finds itself in a Catch -22 dilemma through no fault 04.7 its own. In summan,, I would grant the 1 -year extension with the follo\ving conditions: 1. Posting a performance bond to cover the cost of completing the project plus inflation and contingenci °s. The bond must be Dosed in 60 days or the Brant 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 PU.D ACTtemert -w'lh ]'is 10/1/91 completiori -date. If the 10,!1/91 ce17_pletion dale is defaulted on. -then tine PUD aDprOvals would lapse and become null and void. The bond amount should be set by the Building DeDartment working COOperallv,Iy with the developer. Requiring the bond would make the developer make a Rood faith commitment to the COmmunitV tl;at he is prepared and abi- to complele� the project. Placin` a deed in escrow for the ice rink and park property with the deed, free of any ccbt and liens. accruing to the Clzv. If the ice rink and park is not issued a C.O. by 10/1/92 the extended opening date of the hotel, the DrOpeTT-V is transferred to City ownership through non - performance by the developer. This allows the City to use tike pr ODer t�, IS represented even If he hotel is not completed In -I Timely fashion due to contlnuto partnership problems, bankruptcy••etc. Also, li the ho tl proceeds under co in. structien tend or, schedule for the 10/1/92 openin,. no C.O. shall be issued on the i;otel until C.O. for the ice rink and Dark is issued as cetnmitted to in rile current PUD Agreement. 117 South 'I1(-)narch Strm Asnrn, Colorado 81611 503'920.1: 9 5 Aspen City Council Apri! 23, 1991 0 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- do%vn" construction period based on the applicable items outlined in tht City Attorney's 4/10 memo. Granting the extension with the suggested conditions is based on the following comments and thoughts. 1. As shorn 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 thin` to reduce density on the current Ritz. Phase I1. Top of ?dill 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, anv subsequent party must deal with the underlying zoning of the pro-,)e,-t\ and a approval process. As part of the extension; I wou d ask the City Atto, nev to protect the City's interest as much as pOSSlbIt- if t ^,: F,FOt-)ert \' `oes into ban1,rubtcv. quttstlons art, could the City draw from the performance bond to fully button -up the construction site «•bile J n 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 practical)v means. 5. Independent of what occurs with the hotel. I feel the City must protect the public's expectation and developers commitment for the ice rank and park. If the developer does no, 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. Aspen City Council � • April 23, 1991 Pale Three 6. The employee housing oblipations of the PUD Acreement should be re- examined as to: a. Copper Horse and AJpina Haus - what are the appropriate employee capacities of these properties? b. Uie City Place - Does the developer own this property, have it under option or contract, can he actually fulfill his oblieation 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 Attor nev's memo of 4!10. S. 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 cleanini : -up the surrounding streets and parking. Taking the cranes down did more than Ein thing to clean -up the site. In closing. I feel it is tine current Council's obligation. to activote on this request without passrn,2 it to the newiv e)ecied Council. You know the history of the project and the players involved. The elected Council will assu,, e 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 siruggle with this dilemma. I \viii be happy to discuss my thouchts with you in more detail. As always, thank you for your consideration of my comments. J Cib cc: :�, y ?�iarReru,i, Jed Caswall Carol O'Dowd Respect" "sly t Jim Curtis � I LEONARD M. OATES ROSERTW,HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY I -IAND DELTVERED Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 LAW OFFICES- to OATES, HL GHES c Ii�EZr.� icx PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA PUILDING 577 CAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO SIF 11 May 8, 1991 AREA CODE 310: TELEPHONE 920.1700 TELECOPIER 9201121 RE: Section M Amendment Request - Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Plan Unit Development Dear Mayor Stirling and Council 1,4embers: 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 Linnited Partner ship, to continue the May 16 hearing to May 21, 1991, con.mencing 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 Asper: 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 Mav 16 date for a site inspection of the hotel under construction. R`VH /rak r.spn -iIN .0? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, OAT4S, HL}GHES �- KN? ZtVICH, P. C. A a Rooert `,��.-Hu_ "yes Attorneys for Savanah Lim ted Partnership /• v V � �1 I-I oldinh�, May 9, 1991 Mr. Edward M. City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81 Subject: Caswall HAND DELIVERED 611 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 ccns.��ruction trailers, temporary buildincs 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 buildincs 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. Since elv Ferdinan,� %��Belz, III Representing 1001, Inc. FLB.kms cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution AEI / NEI dis�ribution Robert W. Hughes, Esq. Marc I. Havutin, Esq. GUO L.... Coops: ie: Suit, 200 :?sprn Coiu:.;6c _ (303. 92,5-4272 ...... (303 92i ;3S; 0 : 0 NOTICE This is to a&jise that, the public hewing set for May 16, 199' at 5:00 p.m. concerning the proposed Section 1,1 amendment fer the Ritz Carlton Hotel has been continued by the ;�,.spen City Council to and until May 2!, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Cha- mbers. This continuance was granted by City Council at its r.eetinc in open session on May 13, 1991, on its consent acenda pursuant to the recuest of the applicant, Savanah Lim'ted Par`) nership, and Section 24- 6- 205(C)(5) o_` the �-:sper, 2,unicipai Code. i:at�.leen S:.ricklandv - Deputy City Geri~ �E 7 � CITY�., IcFt�,",Street 30'�J {t'- 'JQCc`tts; nc� MEMORAN DU;� 1 -"A. T E: May 7, 1991 `.•'0: N,avor and Citv Council R0!.: Jed Caswa_L City At" orney !.�. COntiri'.:anCe arici Resetting O Ritz Sect- on 1i :iTlendmEnt tiEar- inC. T}sis ma t,ter is on ycur consent agen^:a at the remaest of Savanah Partnership for a continuance and resetting Of the nresentl \' s- ne--:�uled May 16th Continued public hear-. nc On the uroposed Ritz - C on Section N amendment. Savana'i has made the reouest so as . o c:.rC.ommodate direct. Consulta tions between 2._. havu -_n and hl client L.hat are to occur in Europe on the 16th.. (See attached) S, -_n 4 -6-2 05 (C) (_^,) Of the ?iL'r:_cipa' Code :ro rides that 'pan r r' '" to re0lleSt and be granted One I i•cant- srial_ have the Bch. Con - _nuance" o: _ -:r or wi -hou- good cause. ^.e YECUes as made b }. S.av nah : ^ ere in _s _ -s __rs -. .,_..: ........ to pre-, _cus conversat_c -s c: ._s =_ub j EC , the pa t s 7e d ',r)C;? a rESC.:eculeG hear_ng date Oi ? a \r 5 -- a CC he per -_es have fur�her agreed that we car, ut ze a_' rea;._ set as On tiaV 16 -_R -0 un�er -aY.e a s_ to 1 our cr _ the hole _s being Zs} :eG to fC` a'i l_V 2P^=OVe an : e c= -_,n *,Lance G_` the Mai% _6th hear_ng t0 h`zv 21St c' 00 _1.c ^;tested act =. - nove a con- inuan•ce and resettinc• or the Mlav .:EGr_nc on he pYCUosed _._tz- Carl -on Sec-,on ?: amendmen_ �o :00�n.m. ti•. 1 v _ . _ _ _r:n•ind Direc -or f }.ca ac er Esq. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Directo 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 e. 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 extensions) 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: Existing Proposed Deadline Deadline 1. Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink and Park 10/01/91 10/01/92* 2. Certificate of Occupancy Ritz - Carlton Hotel 10/01/91 10/01/92* 3.. Building Permit Issuance Ute City Place 10/01/91 04/01/92* 4. Certificate of Occupancy Summit Place 08/01/92 08/01/93* 5. Certificate of Occupancy Ute City Place (20 months from 10/01/91) 06/01/93 06/01/93 6. Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/01/94 10/01/95* 7. Building Permit Issuance; Top of Mill 10/01/95 10/01/95 8. Building Permit Issuance; Hotel Phase II 10/01/96 10/01/96 9. Certificate of Occupancy; Top of Mill 06/01/97 06/01/97 (20 months from 10/01/96) 10. Certificate of Occupancy; Hotel Phase II Lot 5 (20 months from 10/01/91) 06/01/98 06/01/98 *Revised Dates 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 l) 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 128,9.41 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 n. 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 approval and will require an amendment to the PUD agreement. . . .Lot Four (Galena Place) 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 riot 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 ofthe 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 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 improvements such as sidewalks, curb the adjacent streets.. Again, Mr. Ca: 1991 highlights concerns regarding Juaniata, Durant and Monarch Streets. this work will take place with construction. 3 would be the delay in site and gutter, and paving of ;wall's letter of April 10, the restoration of Mill, Savanah has responded that the normal sequence of 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. 7 • 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. C. 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 11 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. I 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 0 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 19891 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. I 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, $6.50,000.00 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 delays) 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 (Grand 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 #1 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 I fees owed to the City for processing of any applications shall be paid by October 1, 1991. 15 ATTAC ML?NTS 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. 5.1 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 RITZ- CARL.TON ASPEN Page 1 of 2 r OBTAIN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ iiii� .: FINAL MECAHNICAL PERMIT iii� ..rr..- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ i�■! OBTAIN FINAL PLUMBING PERMIT COMPLETE MEMEMOMMENEMMEMEEMEMM ME LEVEL SLAB • ■■ ■■ ■ ■■s■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ BALLROOM ROO ■ ■■r ■■■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■ : r ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ BUILDING B BLUE SPRUCE • r.. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■ BLUE SPRUCE STRUCTURE ■■ ■ ■C- ii -'i' -� ■■■ ■ ■■■. iiiiiii �.�■ - ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■: i' BLUE SPRUCE SHELL ■ ■ ■■■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■.� - ■■■ ■�■ • ■■■■■■■■■■■■■_ ■ ■■■ ■■ r . c ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ IN ■■■■■ ■■ ■ ii MEP ROUGH IN BUILDING 6 MEP ROUGH IN BLUE SPRUCE ■■■■■■ ■ ■■■ ■■■= ■■■■■ ■ :_■ ME;E;%,T.UGH IN PUBLIC AREAS INTERIOR FINISH BUILDING A • • MENEM NONE, • 0 RITZ- CARLTOJN ASPEN /%r%vLq .Tf1. ■J1TNAMKI ~ %] 4rn. no r Page 2 of 2 1 l 1 ' ■ l • ■ , SITEWORK LANDSACPING RITZ-CARLTON COMMISSION BUILDING A RITZ-CARLTON COMMISSION PUBLIC ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■.. MEN ■ ■■■ ■ ■ =■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■■■_E■_■_■ ■■ ICE RINK CONSTRUCTION ■ ■ ■ ■ ■. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ilii� ■■ SUMMIT PLACE SECURE AND CLEAN UP . ■ ■�C ■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ MINE —1-011ME ■i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ MN M ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ d r a W DID 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 � c 19 9, • jea 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. dea 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, M7 , Gam, �er cc: 1001 Inc. / HDC distribution Bob Hughes, Esq. Ic AFB/ NEI distribution Marc Hayutin, Esq. Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 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) 6/1/93 Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/1/94 LAW OFFICES GATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 920.1700 RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TELECOPIER 920-1121 May 2, 1991 OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 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) 6/1/93 Demolition Permit for Lot 5 Grand Aspen Hotel 10/1/94 DATES, HUGHES .& KNEZEVICH, P. C. Aspen City Council May 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) Savanah 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 • I 10/1/95 10/1/96 6/1/97 6/1/98 10/1/92 (Revised) 10/1/92 (Revised) 4/1/92 (Revised) 8/1/93 (Revised) 6/1/93 (Not Revised) 10/1/95 (Revised) 10/1/95 (Not Revised) OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. G. Aspen City Council May 2, 1991 Page 3 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) 10/1/96 (Not Revised) 6/1/97 (Not Revised) 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 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. RWH /rak aspncity.01 cc: 1001, Inc. /HDC Distribution AEI /NEI Distribution Marc Hayutin, Esq. Sincerely, OATES, VICH, P.C. By: V\/ V v Robert W. Hughes Attorneys for Savanah Limited Partnership ll � ! 4 _�_/ ____/ �IiKf1 1 i� "—_].Dement C;71, !.: ...... Companies N'hA ^'ELECOPIER March 14, 190-1 Honorable mavor-William Stirling 1 -.spen City Council 130 Sou--h Galena Aspen, CO 61611 RE: Ritz- Carlton Hotel Dear,Bill: I have just been informed that Savanah Limited Partnership's construction lender and ny financial partner, Sheikh Abdulaz z Ibrahiirt A1- Ibrahin, has unilaterally and without consulting i,ith re ! decided to cease funding the Ritz - Carlton Hctei project. ._ understand that this decision will cause the cenerai cpntractc PCL Construction Services, Inc., to cease construction activ_-�ies at the site. As you know, the Hadid organization has worked diligently and closely with the City and the citizens of Aspen on this project over the last several vears. _ I had hoped that the :;ctel i.,culd have been COmDleted and reaC_ ' ic- occupancy -by the latter part of t ~ =s Vear. In fact, per50ially believe the construction scheGile should have been accelerated. Unfortunately, ny financial par�ner annears to have other vie -,,'s. believe the nroject is well conceived, ; =oulc. be a trem ndo• -, lonc -tern asset to the Aspen community, and should proceed as nlanned. I believe the cessation of funding, even on a nreliminar }l bas-is, to be a serious mistake by the lender, bui _ i am u%�aZle a this ti=me to prevent the lender from making this .dec, s on in each of his obliaations to me. I understand ,hlat SiCley n Austin, `._he She_.'_h's la -, see't.�nc a neet�nc �; it:i the C= tv today or in the near 1 Sidley & Aust_n and other t representaives cf the Sh,e -L have n right, either as construction lender or as ncn- :,,anagin partner , t Spea }: O:, behalf O Savanah L1mlted Partnership. 10C. -1 Inc., u. whJci I an President, �s the nanaging general partner of the _� ' partnershi_ - ATTACHMENT B ....-... ronoi- Able mayor. Will iam Stirling p:':Jr' _v'o XA a C h _ _4 , 19 9 1 I regret that this situation has occurred. I hope that the existing litigation between the partners and the lender v,iil resolve these issues in the near -future. Sincerely, 1('01, Inc., a District of Columbia ccrporati n T I 2;+Joha 1�! H did, President M-kH /dj e cc: William Johnson Forst Schulze E'ward M. Caswall, Esr. Carol O' Dowd 1-Si y Marge-rum Robert W. Hughes, Esq. Marl. London, Esc. "Philip E. Himeistein, Esq Marc I. Hayutin, Esq. Y_]�'IORANDUY_ - 2�0 : mayor and City Council T11RU- k °Cirol °O' Dowd, City Manager Any Margerum, Planning Directcr( Jed. Caswal l , County . Attorney RP,: Aspen Mountain PUD: Section H 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 "`,`.:: other deadlines in the PUD. Section "^." of the PUD allows the owner to petition the C_-,-_\, Council for an extension of one or more of the time periods rq Council euired for performance.. The City Ccil may grant such extensions of, time as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. The PUD goes on to state that: "The parties_ exuressly acknowledue -and agree that the "Cite 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 Owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner." V.`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 report for City Council outlining the liabilities and planning concerns associated with another time extension on this development agreement. ATTACHMENT C REQUEST: Stiff requests that city council pchadule a public hearing preferably at a special hearing to consider. the Section ti wandment request. ® • , CITY �S N 13 Alk, out ' tuna . treet �pe _,; C9lprac�o``8�G1.1 30 .92 = 5055.ECift Attornc`, (� 197 fax i'.'kX TRANSMILTTAL 10, 1991 Scvanah Ltd. Partnershin �:-D0 North Seventeenth Street Suite 1100 ?,.- sslyn, Virginia 22209 Ritz- Carlton Hotel Section jr Amendment Request. Dear Sirs: Ln 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, an forwarding you the following information wwt c.h fi s various concerns and CleStiO?5 which. the Cit` Staf f highlight has relevant to your request for an extension of the existing construction schedule for the Ritz- Carlton Hotel. Please be advised that these questions have been generated at the staff level and are in no wav intended to constitute Or' limit the areas of inquiry or concern of the Citv Council when it conducts the he-aring.on your Section M.amendment request. A you know, the City has not yet been apprised as to the lencth of time Savanah wishes to extend the current const_uction dead _ine(s). Media rEports indicate that work on the hotel, which has a:lreadv ceased, may, not recommence fcr some months or longer. :ssum inC a. lengthy suspensl0n of construction activlty on the r_c-tel, the Public Works and Building Departments would like to Aee the following matters addressed and /or compiled with as a precondition to .any extension _.'_n the construction completion 3eadl. i_ne (s) pursuant to your Sections_ amendment reaeust : _. The shell of the hotel structure shall be enclosed anu made water t_ght by cor:.plet_ng exter_or brickwork and precast completing insulation, waterprooflna below grade, . and ins a! l.'_na windows and necessary caulking., The hotel must have a C.�mol•. <ted annearance. C �i re�ycied PaAe� -n mm'n nvnrtrrim v Letier to Savanah•,td. Partnership 4`r4l 10 1991 - ?r qe 2 2.. _1 bu -Icing maters a I s shat_ be •stored _ns_de o _he hotel's structural franework'or otherwise hidden from public v_e;: with a_propriate and acceptable screen_ng - Lower sung pumps with automatic act— vati.on shall be Zed so as to insure against the accumulation Cf water :..'' the st'_uctu e below grade. The two dry well sys`.ems C.; c conSt and west Sides o_` the construction site shall be con- — with permanent piping and ce±_ectien s }stems to ccn.rol and Ii:'_n_n1Ze water runoff iron the site. e OUts_d= perimeter foundation wall must be brought 1::` to a ninlmum of iinl`_s!1 gYaC+E elevation _seas a-CngS_ce foundation walls shall be bac:L_ =filled and compacted. 5 . . rill_ internal and external shat open rocs shall be secured and main:.a_nea in a save condition and she constr:1c icn cranes shall be re=moved. 6. - :�1 util_Ly ser ices to the hotel (water, see• :shall er anc Gas) sa11 be shut off t t o :ne nearest utility scarce eXcent for t. ^.Cse services necessary to maint-a - and protect he =aci- ity. Unused hot or live utili -v lines shall not be per:.._�- ted and a certificate of inspection executed by each sa-t SfaC- r,7 d =sconneCts or shutoffs shall- be prov=.ded a' -e'- _nsloe_ct_c c' agram 1't?Si'"? . i :fig the L_ i 1 i ��, S' ✓St ° ^S C:^ .s_te�sn.al l be tirovided, to the�C-ity and Fire Marshall. =urthe_- %:: 'E a5-bL'ilt underground _ Ut �L \' �OCatJ0::5 =..L:bl_C �"_Qr:tS -G =- ,:av and service connections must be accurately .sapped and re=er- e. ced . i . r_1 temporary :,u.4ld_ngs and trailers associated w_..-. the cons truc ibn as Well as all construction ii at °r =al5 not able to be sacred wit'_:_:: the hotel structure shall be remove- from:, the S -te as well as from the top of Mill Street and ice rink parcel. the MI, -L Street an4 ice rink parcels s :gall be cleared, Graded and a nrc,:Dri ate v landscaped. Fugitive _ .._o v mud and des- preven` ' :: ~easu_.:s shall_ be devised an=d i. ^le:^enzea �. 7 _1 temocrary const_ucticn. tack weI,.. terp r sho_ina, and ..e,; : -aCrar`' braclncg shat, be inspected and cert___ead as secure and sa=e 'ov t^e aeneral contractor. nrotec.._cn plan i ` d" c-atIng - T'.gr eSs an-5 egress rcutes , ,.cY_1c ma ter_ -_ data s''1e? _s and s . crage e_ e—a s , _ cc C_ Letter ro Eavanah Ltd. Partnership Apri! 10, 1991 PELge 3 r� U flamina!�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 _Installed and activated. 11. An aestheticaily.acceptable security fence shall be maintained around all construction sites. 12." rill, Juanita, Durant and Monarch Streets shall be cleared, cleaned and restored to their original unobstructed .,, -dths with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Necessary repairs as c:etermined by the Streets Department Director shall be satisfac- c.rily completed to all paved surfaces damaged as a result of construction activities. 13. All Jersey barriers shall be removed from in or around 'Lhe construction site(s) and all public rights -of -way, except as oI..herwise deemed necessary by the Streets or Public Works Depart- ments for public safety purposes. 14. The Blue Spruce structure and site shall be cleared of cc:nstructio-n materials and debris and temporary scaffolding and forms shall be removed. 15. Use of the Grand Asnen Hotel as a construction .head- ouarters and housing unit shall cease by 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 annrooriately razed and cleared or secures:. 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 constituL-es a oublic nuisance and :resents a serious public safety problem. The City is seriously contemplating .legal action relevant to Summit Place apart from PUD remedies. 17. The Barbee oarcel must be cleared of trash and debris and steps taken to maintain vegetation and ground cover to r in .- 4 run -Off. 1�. All signage shall conform to the sign code sections cr the Municinal Code. 0 0 Sa,lanah Ltd. Partnership fip,-:i1 10, 15S -1 acts 4 I . r),nLn Strest in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel shall be ,rleareo, Yeszored and repaired to no less than minimum street standards. A yet of sepia as- k.>>.its reflecting all work to date =_11.,_11 e provider and kept on J---"le with the Building Department. I. All oui. standing b-"-1 end fees due the City shall be d �),iediately. itRTns listed ahove do not �cr.stitu .. a final and complete sge-,da matters that must Lt-. :addressed and Satisfied and addi- i;anal __toms may ie identifier;. as they become known. .',;s ,Tou can see from the . list concerns provided above, the City's intent is to insure that the Aspen Mountain PUD site is ,.estored to a condition of nc;.-m :alcy to the maximum extent possi - b =El. The construction of the hotel has had an enormous adverse` impact on th° City and the C1,�Y is now acing to insist that Savanah. mitigate a::d remediate chose problems which have in the 1:,ast I)een alloyed to go unre=,:ji :,ed in view of the prev-ious on- going construction activities. As a resort community which :; _ r. nA f lcan% ly r?�.� ES upon it:.: ._Ist -oric and aesthetic character for its economic survival, the City of Aspen cannot any longer tolerate the disruption of a major portion of its downtown area. Ci`y lo_c :s for:jard to Sa,;,a.nah'_s responses and assurances on :i' 17th relevant to the matters listed herein. Thank vou. very truly yours, Edward I.. Caswall C--,'-y Attorney E-IiC cc: Clt-N, Manager L irectcr of Public Works c : :ie� Builc;i ^� Of_`icial _ _an'ail :? D_ � ector t Ltd. Ld. Pa----nershio -ertic,*n of 't-1--e PUD �rt W. riugnes, Lsq. Perry A. Harvey cc- (7,,untes- (--n- 2. Ha.,,/Lcin, Esq. X T --k j . = z: ,.tic; 91 } SCHEDULE 9 UPDATE Residential and Lodge Unit Verification ASPEN MTN NUMBER OF UNITS SUBDIVISN DEMOL- DATE REMAIN- UNITS TO BE EXPIRATION OF PROJECT LOT NO. LEGAL / ADDRESS TOTAL ISHED DEMO-d, ING RECONSTRUCTED RECONSTRUCTION Residential Units: A. Blue Spruce Lodge, North 1 Lots A -D, Block 84, Townsite 2 2 07/03/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 Wing (303 East Durant Avenue) B. North Aspen Inn Apartments 1 Lots 7 & 8, Block 3, Connors 6 6 07/03/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 Addition (711 South Mill Street) 1 Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Connors 1 1 04/15/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 Addition (300 East Juanita St.) (320 East Juanita Street) 1 1 04/15/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 C. Hillside Lodge 61 Lots A & B, Block 91, Townsite 14 14 10/15/90 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 2 (403 East.Durant Avenue) D. Townplace 61 Lot C, Block 91, Townsite 4 4 10/15/90 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 2 (409 East Durant Avenue) E. Chase .61 Lots'D through I, Block 91,. 2 2 10/15/90 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 2 Townsite (415 East Durant Avenue) F. Paas 5 Lot K, Block 91, Townsite 2 2 04/15/85 0 Lot 3 &5 See Note 3 (602 South Mill Street) G. Melville #2 5 Lots 17 & 18, Block 2, Dean's 1 1 04/15/85 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 Addition (680 S. Mill Street) H. Black 3 Lots 3, 4 & 5, Capitol Hill 2 - -- 2 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 2 Addition (918 S. Milt Street) I. Summit Place 2 2 - -- 2 Lot 2 See Note 2 J. Previously Demolished: 700 Galena 4 Lots 16 & 17, Anthony Acres 3 3 Reconstructed 0 Lot 3 & 5 See Note 3 (700 South Galena Street) as 4 -plex with 4 GMQS units Snowchase 3 Lots 16 & 17, Capital Hill Addn. 1 1 06%81 0 Lot 3 or 5 See Note 3 3 Lot 21, Capitol Hill Addition 1 1 Pre 1981 0 Lot 3 or 5 See Note 3 42 38 4 NOTES: 1 Lot 6 is the proposed lot for the park to be subdivided from Lot 5. 2 Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 24- 11.2(a), the owner has the right following their demolition, to reconstruct within the Aspen Mountain PUD, the verified total within five (5) years of the date of demolition. 3 Pursuant to Schedule 9 of Amended PUD Agreement dated October 3, 1988, the owner shall have a two -year period for reconstruction of the 18 previously demolished residential units, commencing on the date of demolition permit for demolition of Grand Aspen Hotel on Lot 5. cic /dm.sched9 ASPEN MTN NUMBER OF UNITS SUBDIVISN DEMOL- DATE REMAIN- UNITS TO BE EXPIRATION OF PROJECT LOT NO. LEGAL / ADDRESS TOTAL ISHED DEMO'd ING RECONSTRUCTED RECONSTRUCTION Lodge Units- A. Blue Spruce Lodge, North 1 Lots A through D, Block 84, 15 15 07/03/85 0 Lot 1 See Note 2 Wing Townsite (303 East Durant Ave.) B. Aspen Inn 1 Lot 6, Block 1, Connors Addition 65 65 04/10/85 0 Lot 1 See Note 2 Lots 1 -3, Dean's Addn & Lots 1-6, Block 3, Connors Addition 07/03/85 (611 South Mill Street) C. Contential _. 5 Lots L-S, Block 91, Townsite &. 178 19 -- 159 Lot 1 & 5 See Note 2 Lots 1 -3, Block 1, Anthony Acres Addn (515 East Dean Street) D. Previously Demolished: Blue Spruce Lodge, South 1 Lots 1-5, Block 2, Connors Addn. 17 17 07/03/857 0 Lot 1 See Note 2 Wing (300 East Lawn Street) 275 116 159 NOTES: 1 Lot 6 is the proposed lot for the park to be subdivided from Lot 5. 2 Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 24- 11.2(a), the owner has the right following their demolition, to reconstruct within the Aspen Mountain PUD, the verified total within five (5) years of the date of demolition. 3 Pursuant to Schedule 9 of Amended PUD Agreement dated October 3, 1988, the owner shall have a two -year period for reconstruction of the 18 previously demolished residential units, commencing on the date of demolition permit for demolition of Grand Aspen Hotel on Lot 5. cic /dm.sched9 • Date: May 15, 1991 M E M O R A N D U M To: City Council Thru: Jed Caswall From: Gary Lyman Re: Ritz's One Year Extension Request 0 . 4P 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 Activitv 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. 9 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: DIANE MOORE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: ROBERT GISH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORRS.� 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 10th 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 City a -��� -� EAttoaney 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 storagn 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, 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. ,t � (c i� 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 51611 (303) 925 -4272 FAX: (3031 925 =4367 MAY 21 '91 16:56 GA AT us 2461HOTELD-DiP'Y RITZ Hid #Z • THE RITZ.C,RuTo� HOTEL COMPANY Honorable William Stirling, Mayor The Aspen City Council City Hall Aspen, Colorado RE: The Ritz - Carlton, Aspen Gentlemen: May 21, 1991 .At the recmest 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., SUIT 300, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30326 (404) 237 -5500 N MAY 2'1 191 18:56 ;A AT 1 THE Ri Tz -CARL HOTEL COMPANY HORST K SCHL= PRESIDENT CHU OPERATM OMCER 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:lj Sincerely, 3414 FEACH TREE ROAD, N.E., SUITE 300, ATLAWA, OEORGIA 30326 (404) 237.5500 P.2 • DECLARATION 0 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 Iraq_ i 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. 5. 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 70 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. Urban �a40 1,,S+,, +ufe. 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: Dollar & Cents of Fashion Malls.• 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. 26 March 91 /Special Trends Issue A 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 in 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-clate 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 among hotel types. The New England, Middle .-atlantic, • 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 types, 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 - 5.0" Includes properties of 20 or more rooms. 66.1 -1.0 ' Esti mate. 65.8 65.8 Source: Smith Travel Research. East North Central 62.2 Figure 19 HOTEL OCCUPANCY RATE TRENDS: HOTEL OCCUPANCYRATE TRENDS BYSERVICE TYPE AND LOCATION September September Percent 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`70 3% Upscale 65.6 65.6 ' 1 0 Basic 62.4 63.2 1 3 Economy Upper 67.3 67.7 0.6 Economy Moderate 67.2 69.1 2.8 Location Urban 64.8% 64.9% 0.2% Suburban 64.1 64.6 u 8 Airport 69.2 69.5 i 4 Highway 63.4 64.0 ) Rcsort 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 Creek, Beaver Creek, 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 Issue /March 91 29 r The Hotel Valuation 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. Table 1 on the following page shows 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. In This Issue Sales Prices of Hotels Decline p.7 Hotel Development Costs P. 7 I HVS Teaches at Cornell University p.3 HVS Financial Services P.4 Hotel Development Costs by Stephen Rushmore, CRE, MA1, 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 1% 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. 1991 Winter Issue The Hotel Valuation Journal 2 Table 1 - Hospitality Market Data Exchange: Hotel/Motel 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 ales !'rites Decline, continued from p.1 unavailability of financing, the dif- ficulties of raising money through syndications, and general decline in the real estate industry. Itshouldbe 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 Bel Aire Hotel in Califor- nia. This transaction brought a price of almost $1,200,000 per room, break- ing the million dollar barrierby 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 illustratcd 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 1000 7so Indexed vew. (1980 - 1oo1. soo 2so 0 19W 1981 1682 1983 1984 teas 1999 1667 1999 1989 Yew Indexed Average Prke Per Room ._._. Indexed Fllghpl Pdu Per Room 1%11 vVinter l."ue HVS Teaches at Cornell University July 2116, 1991 The Computerized Approach to Hotel Valuations and Market Studies Instructor: Stephen Rushmore, CRE. MAI, CHA Sponsor. Professional Development Program Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (607) 2554919 Objectives This seminar and student manual demonstrate the logic and use of the following Lotus templates: Room Night Analysis. 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- cvpancy for one or more projection years. Fixed and Variable Income and Expense Forecast - ing 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 hotel's net income before debt service. tel Capitalization Software- Hotel investors typically use a discounted cash flow valuation 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 =.465 Hyatt 194,635 Embassy Suites 157,061 Marriott . 1013,426 Residence his 80,261 Futon 74,239 Sheraton 65,695 Radisson 59,885 TraveLodge 41,359 Holiday Inns 38,827 Hampton Ms 36.755 Ramada hens 33,489 Days Funs 32,412 Ecorno Lodge 27,530 Comfort bras 26.939 Best Western 26,901 Duality Fns 26,354 Super 8 24,955 Rodeway Ms 19,891 Howard Johnson's 16,192 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 studenb 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 24-2S, 1991 Hotel Economic Feasibility Study and Appraisal Process Instructors: Daniel H. Lesser, CRIE, MAI and Dexter E Wood, Jr. Sponsor. Professional Development Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (607) 255-4919 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. i uc a iuicl v nunuuu )uurnat .5 proach is used to demonstrate how to perform market analysis, financial projections, and deter- mine the economic value of a hoteVmotel property. This 'how -to approach' is reinforced by visual 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 16,1991 The Professional Development Program is a series of over 60 seminars conducted each summer by the Cornell Hotel School. The program is custonw,d to industry executives, managers or investors by selecting the seminars most useful to each in- dividual. ForProfessiorul Development Program information and a course catalogue, please contact: Maria Nicolaides, Director Professional Development Program Cornell University School of Hotel Administration 257 Statler Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 -6901 (607) 255-4919 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 $23,850. 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 CJ The Hotel Valuation journal 4 law 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 j -established to respond to the j 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.1 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, MAI 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 services with 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.5 illustrates the results of the past 11 surveys. During 1990, the construction cost for new hotel improvements rose ap- proximately 2%. 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`ro 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;b 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. A Aic♦A -1 V0- Ua UVI&)VUl I tal J Table 3 - Hotel Development Costs (Dollars Per Available Room) fvrninxe & Improvements Emit Land Re- op� operating Capital 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 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 j 1983 Luxury 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 Luxury 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 Luxury 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 33,00.0- 62.700 1989 Lrxauy _ 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 Luuy 67,000- 128,000 15,400-33,000 10,700 - 25,800 3, 500 - 5,700 2,500- 3,500 99,100- 196,000 j 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 Econorry 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: Hospitality Valuation Services, Inc. Development Costs continued from p. 4 The end result is a total hotel develop- ment cost that increased an average of approximately 1% 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. 1110 a A-1 VLL UalUVLL )VU111A1 .l Table 3 - Hotel Development Costs (Dollars Per Available Room) Furniture & Improvements Equiprnert Land Pre -open" operating Captal Total 1975 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 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- 24,000 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 Luxury 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 Lrmry 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 9,7b0- 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 Luxury 63,000- 122000 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 Luxiffy 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 Ecorany 2,000- 40,000 5,500- 9,700 3,600 - 10,200 1,100 -1,800 1,400- 1,500 33,300- 63.200 1990 Luxury 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 Econorny 2,500- 41,000 5,600. 10,000 3,200- 9,200 1,200 - 1,800 1,200- 1,600 33,700- 63.600 Source: Hospdarty Vakiation Services, Inc. Development Costs continued from p. 4 The end result is a total hotel develop- ment cost that increased an average of approximately 1% 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. (:: 1IIl. a •V \�.l •ua UalUV1\ VUa11u1 J n Table 3 - Hotel Development Costs (Dollars Per Available Room) Development Costs continued from p. 4 The end result is a total hotel develop- ment cost that increased an average of approximately No 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. (- Improverrwits Furniture & Egtbpme l Land Pre- opening Operating Cap4al Total 1976 1 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 2,00(?- 4,000 1,000- 3,500 5001,000 500- 750 12,000- 24,250 1979 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- 24,000 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 Luxuury 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 Luxury 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 Leary 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 Leary 63,000 - 122,000 13,80D- 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 Econorry 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 Luxury 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 2,2004,000 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: Hosoality Valt atiorl Services, Inc. _l Development Costs continued from p. 4 The end result is a total hotel develop- ment cost that increased an average of approximately No 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 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 - - LAW OFFICES KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET A ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 L''" y 2 } 1991 TELEPHONE (303) 925 -63DO (303) 925 -7116 AID, ZY'S AID, TELECOPIER (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 - 0 0 Mayor and City Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 2 by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the extension are beyond Savana.h'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.1982); 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 (10th 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 0 0 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 o • 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 such 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 -inter 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 • 0 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 /Condominiu-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 LJ 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. A very 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 Council Members May 20, 1991 Page 8 • 4. Fees Owed. I have been informed Savanah owes money for certain fees, such as sewer tap fees. If this is true, these fees should be paid before any 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 assignor 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, ECHE 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:OO 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 24, 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. thleen JU Strickland Deputy City Clerk n CI'! DATE: May 7, 1991 • V10� -EN MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney 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 OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 333 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. Sincerely, OAi H i�N Z VICH, P.C. By: rt W. Hu es Attorneys for Savanah Li ted Partnership ._ . RWH /rak aspncity.02 RECEl} t CUURTIS ��� � ti 3 1991 ASSOCIATES ifv mannowir,4ayo. "s office 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 t6%" i offer the following comments concerning the request. `These Positive manner given that the City and Council finds itself in a Catch-22 is are Offered in a 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 and contin the cost of com is void, contingencies. The bond the If the bond is not nd must be posed in 60 days or the project plus inflation posted in 60 da s the project would be y and the extension bnt of the extension completion date. to the ate. If the existing of void, ther approvals would ]a 10/1191 completion as eUsn ` greement with its 10/1/e b lapse and become defaulted on Y the Building Department workin null and void. The bo , then the P[' bond would make the g coo that developer peratively with thede�emount should be. he is prepared and per make able to a good faith committee °per. Recluirinr corn lete Placing P the project. nt to the CO., debt and deed in escrow for the • . � _ m liens, "accruing to the ice rtnk a , park 10 /1 /�� the extended o e0 C- and Proper ownershi y' If the ice rink P y with the deed through non , frec the P throw � ng date of the and Park is property Performance b hotel, the not issued a to co Y asr epresented Y the property is tra' ntinued partnershi even �f the devecQPer nsferre� construction • �, p roblem5 hotel ]s Th]s allows and o p , barn not completes the �` hotel until , schedule for kntptcy a CO. for the 10/I�92 0 ,etc. Also, if the a timely fr PUD "Agreerr/rtt, the ice rink and Pening, no C• hotel PTO / park is. Issued as O• shall be committed to i Aspen City Council 0 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. 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, �W1 Jim Curtis v