Having worked in architecture, I've walked projects through approval processes, zoning, community meetings, etc... so long as people are paid, work continues. Contracts bind the client to financials. The municipality does not sign off on or approve any loans. That's the bank's job. Large projects don't happen without planning and financing in order, but projects can and do stop when things go sideways with the larger economy as a whole. Seattle had several holes in the landscape for a awhile after the housing meltdown, but most are built out now.
Though Aspen is a private company, they have their best financial interests at stake and a successful track record. Im guessing this is an argument about impact and scale. I'd guess the company/hotelier has asked for a variance and the residents/planning board are not ready to accept the added impact of scale/traffic/etc... , but the company needs to justify lift infrastructure upgrades. Anyhow, sorry to pick at the scab.
I currently work in the municipal planning approval process... So as we both know, games go on between developers and municipalities. And so does money. Jurisdictions are different, but I can tell you funding is a consideration for development. And so is perceived intent. We have developers rezoning for hotels who then turn around and sell the land in a rezoned state for someone to build rental units on. And once the rezoning is approved for the first, we can't stop the second. As I say, this is not the final factor, but it is considered. And sometimes development is approved with seemingly horrific financials..and you have to ask yourself how that happens.... End of the day, council is trying to hold the best interests of the community in mind and promises from developers mean nothing, you need legal docs with money behind them to get things done. Build the pedestrian bridge first, THEN you can build your condo.