Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutdraft_meeting summary_12.1.17Hello Lift 1 team, Thank you again for meeting last week to discuss a phase 2 scope of work for the Lift 1A study. Below are the notes from the City, which we have shared with Chris Cushing to verify that the commentary on the proposed scope will be covered in the costs outlined below. We will keep you posted as we hear back from him. In the meantime, please take a look at the summary below and let me know if you have any questions or suggested changes if I missed something. 12/1/2017 Lift 1A Stakeholder Meeting Attendees • City of Aspen: Jennifer Phelan, Justin Barker • ASC: Rana Dershowitz • Lift One Lodge: Michael Brown, Bart Johnson, Stan Clauson • Gorsuch Haus: Jim DeFrancia, Richard Shaw Overview • City staff provided a draft scope developed by SE Group, along with the physical parameters that were provided by ASC (document), Gorsuch Haus (document), Lift One Lodge (email) for the scope of work. Chris Cushing had reviewed the scopes and had initially determined that the scope he had drafted, at an anticipated cost of $35,000.00 should include the details from the three stakeholders with the exception of 3-D modeling brought up by Lift One Lodge and the pulse gondola option brought up by Gorsuch Haus. • 3-D modeling is an add-on estimated at $7,500.00 for the three scenarios. • A pulse gondola evaluation is an add-on estimated at $5,000.00. • Showing he potential impacts to the sites will be shown but showing the area for potential relocated space is not included in the scope. • Qualitative comments were received from ASC and Gorsuch Haus prior to the meeting to ensure that issues that may be more qualitative rather than physical in nature, such as the minimum physical width needed for a ski run compared to a level of service that ASC desires, were initially discussed. We will need to ensure that as the project moves forward these items are addressed, potentially with check-ins and within the report. • Once a contract is executed the initial scope was estimated at 8 weeks, changes to the scope (modeling) may affect the timeframe. Option 1 (Gilbert) • No major issues were noted with regard to the scope, other than 3-d modeling would be needed. • Ticketing /guest services would need to be shown per the ASC requirements of 1,000 – 1,500 sq. ft. Option 7 (Dean) • No major issues were noted with regard to the scope, other than 3-d modeling would be needed. • Ticketing /guest services would need to be shown per the ASC requirements of 1,000 – 1,500 sq. ft. • Clarity on how the design encourages travel from the east part of town to the site, based on a council person’s comments at the October work session, will need to be included potentially just showing circulation patterns. • Ski patrol and mountain operations are anticipated to be located in the Gorsuch Haus building. Option 7A (Dean with mid-station) • The group discussed this option to a great extent as both Gorsuch Haus and ASC provided qualitative comments that the mid-station is not supported. Staff outlined that council directed that a mid-station be studied and that the option needs to be addressed in some form in the report. After further discussion, the group discussed conducting a partial analysis, similar to those conducted in the initial study, to outline whether a mid-station is feasible regardless of the proposed Gorsuch Haus location and considering a reasonable geographic area. • Staff will follow-up with the consultant and have him provide an email to the stakeholders on initial thoughts with regard to the feasibility of a mid-station. Depending on the results, the stakeholders will need to agree upon the level of study that should be undertaken: full or partial analysis. Pulse Gondola • This option was also discussed to a great extent, as the idea of a pulse gondola was raised in the proposed scope provided by Gorsuch Haus. Although the pulse gondola may be physically feasible, Lift One Lodge raised concerns that this option is too similar to a surface mover, creating an unacceptable guest experience as one would need to either walk up to the lift or walk down to the pulse gondola loading station. At the end of the discussion the stakeholders agreed to this not being included due to qualitative issues raised by Lift One Lodge. Follow-up • Some discussion on how the preferred technology will be established occurred. Rana will follow- up on whether ASC is fine with any technology or has operational requirements. • Rana will follow-up on a geographic area for consideration of a mid-station, regardless of qualitative concerns. • Staff is targeting a January 16th work session to finalize the scope and approval of expenditure of funds with council. Prior to the work session, a draft scope will need to be agreed upon by the stakeholders. Initial thoughts on funding is to divide the cost of the study equally.