HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit D_Lift One Lodge qualitative memoLIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC
LIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC
605 W MAIN ST, SUITE 2
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611, USA
T: +1 (970) 544-4187
10 January 2018
Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
By email: jessica.garrow@cityof aspen.com
Re: Role of SE Group in Providing an Independent Analysis
Dear Jessica:
On behalf of Loft One Lodge (LOL), we have reviewed ASC’s and Gorsuch Haus’
“Qualitative Criteria and Functional Requirements” notes. We are hesitant to lay
down prescriptions for the lift and to restrict the work of SE Group in this way. Our
position is that SE Group should offer design recommendations for a lift and site
plan that best fits the space available for each option, getting as close to valid
qualitative criteria and functional requirements as possible. Keep in mind that the
points made by ASC and GH are not equally-weighted and that some may not be
absolutely necessary, but rather may be a perspective put forward in order to reach
a certain outcome and couched as a “requirement.”
Our role is to make commercial judgements about our development in the context of
the lift options, and we understand that there are certainly very valid safety and
functional requirements in the context of a ski lift and mountain access – SE Group is
fully aware what they are. At the same time, we are all free to agree or disagree on
whether and to what extent any of ASC’s or GH’s “Qualitative Criteria and Functional
Requirements” are actually valid or required at all. Some may be required, some
may not, and should be subordinated to the overall goal, which is to move the lift
down the mountain and to create a second, vibrant mountain portal, to complement
and support the Gondola at Little Nell. To be clear, we view the priority as
creating a vibrant, sustainable second mountain portal.
It is SE Group’s role to independently design the lift program according to their
experience and what they think is reasonable under the circumstances. We will
then evaluate that work relative to the requirements of our development. If we
need to iterate with everyone to get it to work, we will. One example of our point is
ski grooming. I think ASC contemplates ski grooming in the ski corridor by its
Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP
10 January 2018
Page 2
largest and probably loudest equipment, in the same manner that it might groom
Ruthie's Run. While we don’t want to be definitive at this stage, that is unlikely to
work in any lift option scenario. At the same time, there must be a compromise in
terms of grooming equipment and grooming times (and this could equally apply to
snowmaking) that would work for us, GH, and ASC. It is SE Group’s role to apply
that type of independence, creativity, and mediation to this process rather than
applying ASC’s and GH's “Qualitative Criteria and Functional Requirements” as a
strict rulebook.
Once SE Group has completed its additional stage of work we will need the physical
specifications of all the lift equipment and 3D or CAD models/BIM drawings of
everything (lift elements, terrain, mazing, ski corridor, foundation requirements of
base and tower structures). We plan to model the lifts into our Revit models and to
start to make judgements about how we can get the lift to work with our
development, or how each might need to be adjusted in order to be commercially
acceptable.
In terms of scope of work, we have the additional following thoughts, which we
believe need to be incorporated into the work by SE Group:
Option 1:
1. In addition to general grading for skier access and maintenance, how does the
grade change specifically adjacent to the east and north edges of our building?
2. How does the slope improvement affect / support the utility corridor / easement
and the proposed or possibly ongoing work at Hill Street?
3. Provide section and elevations of equipment for each option, including structural
and load requirements to allow for study of below grade building elements.
4. Detail maintenance and skier services requirements for study in LOL
superstructure, or as needed.
Option 7 and 7A:
1. What kind of grade changes would be recommended for the corridor space
between the buildings?
2. What are required buffer / safety zones at the edges?
3. What can be done to the south edges of the building (relative to skier access and
maintenance) to mitigate the grade change?
4. What is the variability of the lift / tower height and how can we modify to best
relate to the adjacent structures (need section / elevation details)?
5. Detail maintenance and skier services requirements.
Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP
10 January 2018
Page 3
In conclusion, we strongly recommend that the “Qualitative Criteria and Functional
Requirements” not be included with any charge to SE Group for further work. We
recommend that all options under further consideration be accorded an
independent analysis by the SE Group, without any constraints from third parties.
Kindly share these comments with the City Council at their 16 January Work Session
on this matter.
Very truly yours,
Aaron Brown
For Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC
Cc: J. Bart Johnson, Esq.
Stan Clauson, AICP