HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Aspen_Lift 1A Assessment Report_10.18.2017GroupEditsCover Letter
introduction
SE Group (SE) has been engaged by the City of Aspen (COA) to undertake a 3rd party assessment of the Lift 1A replacement project as it relates to proposed developments of the Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge properties, and creating a skiers’ link to the original ski area portal near Dean Street. SE’s assessment involves evaluating potential optional lift configurations, and outlining regulatory, physical and operational considerations for providing enhanced skier access to the original mountain portal near Dean Street.
Initially, this assessment of the Lift 1A replacement was to investigate four optional scenarios:
Extending the Lift 1A alignment proposed by the Gorsuch Haus project further down the slope closer to Dean Street.
Extending the current Lift 1A alignment further down the slope closer to Dean Street, with a skier return to the west.
A surface lift or people-mover option linking a Dean Street skiers’ portal to the Lift 1A bottom terminal location proposed by the Gorsuch Haus project.
An alternative alignment that could include using the S. Aspen Street right-of-way, Willoughby Park and adjacent properties, other than the Dolinsek property.
Following a mapping exercise and initial evaluation of these four scenarios by SE, a meeting was hosted by representatives of the COA and attended by representatives from Aspen Skiing Company (SkiCo), Gorsuch House (GH), Lift One Lodge (LOL), and SE. During this meeting, SE presented plans and initial opinions regarding the original four scenarios listed above. Following the presentation there were questions from the group and general discussion regarding the four scenarios and potential additional scenarios that the group felt should be considered.
Subsequent to the first project meeting, the COA, SkiCo, GH and LOL collectively decided to expand the scope of SE’s original work program to include additional analysis of the original fourscenarios, full analysis of two additional scenarios, and partial analysis of three additional scenarios. Analysis of a “Rubber Tire Solution” scenario was not included in this analysis becausethe scope was limited to lift-based solutions.
The additional scenarios that were analyzed are listed below.
Lift 1A spanning over buildings (Partial Analysis)
Flipping the Lift 1A alignment and Gorsuch Haus building in Scenario 4 (Full Analysis)
Placing the lift over the S. Aspen Street Right-of-Way (Partial Analysis)
Extending the current Lift1A alignment further down the slope closer to Dean Street, with a skier return to the east utilizing a portion of the Dolinsek property (Partial Analysis)
Lift One Lodge Approved Solution (Full Analysis)
Following the initial mapping evaluation of these additional scenarios by SE, a meeting was hosted by the COA and attended by representatives from SkiCo, GH, LOL, and SE. During this meeting, SE presented plans and initial opinions regarding the additional scenarios listed above, and similar to the initial meeting, after the presentation there were questions from the group and general discussion. The group also provided verbal and written input regarding issues and planning elements that should be addressed in the final project report. It should be noted that this is an initial study of options related to Lift 1A, and had a limited scope that did not include a detailed engineering analysis, commercial / lodging impacts and viability, or neighborhood outreach. If an option is selected to move forward, additional design analysis will be required. In all of the scenarios, there is an impact to neighboring properties that is different than current conditions or existing approvals which will also need to be part of on-going analysis.Finally, depending on the level of proposed changes to Willoughby Park and Lift One Park, a public vote may be required to implement a selected scenario.
The following report presents: 1)a description of SE’s evaluation process – a general overview, and an explanation of the planning determinants considered; 2) the evaluation of each of the nine scenarios analyzed – a detailed description of the scenario, illustrative plans, assessment discussion, and conclusion; and 3) additional information regarding optional lift technology and dimensioning, and regulatory standards for lift clearance requirements.
evaluation process
The following chapter describes the evaluation process that was undertaken, and the planning determinants considered, for the nine scenarios that were analyzed.
General Overview
To initiate the Lift 1A Assessment, a planning base map was produced to identify and locate existing structures, buildings, key properties, parcels, easements, rights-of-way, roads and vegetation. The planning base map also shows proposed building footprints for the GH and LOL projects. The source data for this planning map is Google Earth imagery dated 6/23/2017, topographic data (1 foot contour interval) provided by SkiCo, property and planimetric data supplied by Design Workshop, and the recorded Lift One Lodge PUD Subdivision Plat map supplied by the COA. This planning base map is intended to be a basic, locational site plan for orientation, and is not represented as being a fully surveyed and dimensioned map, such as an ALTA survey map, depicting all existing conditions, utilities, legal interests, etc. The COA, SkiCo, GH and LOL reviewed the base map for accuracy and completeness and provided comments, which were addressed in the final version of the map.
As described earlier, of the 9 scenarios evaluated in this assessment, six scenarios were the subject of a “full analysis,” and three scenarios were the subject of a “partial analysis”. The 10th scenario – the Rubber Tire Solution – was not analyzed based on the lift-based scope of the project.
Evaluation Process for Full Analysis
For each of the six scenarios that were the subject of a full analysis, the evaluation process began with laying out the different lift alignment and ski slope configurations over the planning base map. The configuration and layout for each scenario were conceived based on meeting the intention of the scenario, addressing important operational considerations, and being responsive to various site factors and planning determinants including building locations and heights (both existing and proposed), pedestrian and skier circulation, lift setbacks, property boundaries, and other physical and regulatory conditions.
The physical feasibility of each scenario was thentested by studying the spatial requirements and vertical clearances for lift terminals, structures and slopes, and grading requirements for construction (i.e., cuts, embankments, retaining walls, etc.)This physical feasibility assessment is demonstrated by plan-view illustrations, and north-to-south site sections depicting vertical information and relationships, with elevations, contours, grades, towers and presumed lift profiles, to more clearly illustrate the feasibility and impacts of ski infrastructure on the surrounding landscape and development proposals.
Initial draft plans of each scenario were delivered to the COA and subsequently to SkiCo, GH and LOL for review and comments, and revisions were made as necessary to finalize the plans for each scenario.
The following section – Evaluation of Scenarios – provides a written description of each full analysis scenario, an assessment of how the scenario conforms to the identified planning determinants, the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario, and a conclusion. The written description and evaluation of each scenario is accompanied by a plan and site section illustration.
Evaluation Process for Partial Analysis
The partial analysis involved a general mapping assessment similar to the one undertaken for full analysis, and a study of the physical feasibility and practical limitations of each scenario when considering the intention of the scenario, addressing important operational considerations and site factors, and conforming to the identified planning determinants.
The following section – Evaluation of Scenarios – provides a written description of each partial analysis scenario, asummary assessment of the scenario, and a conclusion as to whether the scenario is worthy of further evaluation or should be abandoned from consideration.
Planning Determinants
A number of important planning determinants helped inform and guide the assessment of the Lift 1A replacement project scenarios. These key determinants are listed and described below. Generally, they fall into four categories: Skier Experience, Functionality and Operations, Land Ownership, and Regulatory considerations.
Skier Experience Planning Determinants
Overall Skier Experience– While improving public accessibility from the Aspen core area is the primary driver of this analysis, it must be achieved by a scenario that maintains the high-quality skier experience to whichthe SkiCo has committed significant efforts and resources to maintain within the highly competitive ski resort marketplace in Colorado. A potential skier portal closer to the Dean Street public transit drop-off should follow the same ski area design standards that are used elsewhere at the resort, and should not compromise a skier’s desire to use Lift 1A on a regular basis for access onto the mountain, repeat-ski use, or competitive events.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation–An important aspect in the design of ski area improvement projects is ensuring that optimal skier circulation is maintained in a safe and efficient configuration. Likewise, pedestrian access in and around the ski area improvements must be unimpeded and, to the extent practical, facilitate pedestrian access to and away from the ski area lifts and trails.
Functionality and Operations Planning Determinants
Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – A primary COA objective of the Lift 1A replacement project is to improve public accessibility to the bottom of Lift 1A from the Aspen core area, via the proposed public transit drop-off on the corner of Dean Street and South Aspen Street.
Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – Existing operations covers a wide variety of items, including ensuring adequate ticketing and guest services located at the base of the lift, grooming and cat operations, and general access. The existing operational access road onto Aspen Mountainenters the mountain at the top of South Aspen Street. This road is used for winter and summer accessibility onto the mountain for grooming and cat operations, staging, ambulance and emergency vehicle use, truck and equipment transport, and other functions.This mountain access route is critical to the operational functioning of Aspen Mountain and must be maintained as an operational portal onto the mountain. Ticketing and limited guest services are available at the base of Lift 1A and need to be maintained or expanded in any scenario.
Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Each scenario must be responsive to the practical limitations and requirements of basic ski area operations, including slope grooming, snowmaking, and lift operations.
Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – A fundamental determinant regarding the feasibility of any lift installation project is that there is adequate space for the lift terminal structures, circulation space at each terminal, and queuing and milling space. These spatial requirements vary based on the lift technology employed (e.g., Chairlift, Telemix, Gondola, surface lift, etc.)
Vertical Clearances – Similar to meeting spatial requirements, theassessment of vertical clearances is also fundamental to evaluating the feasibility of lift installation projects. Vertical clearances must be met for ski-under conditions, regulatory standards for clearance to vehicles and structures, practical situations for ski area operations, and guest experiential situations (e.g., fear of heights.)
Land Ownership Planning Determinants
Interface with Proposed GH and LOL Developments – The Lift 1A replacement scenarios should provide a seamless and spatial transition area from the ski lift and slopes into the snowfront skier valet areas of the proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodgeprojects.
Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The Lift 1A replacement project should not unduly hinder access to existing and proposed residential buildings/projects, access routes, easements, or rights of way in the vicinity of the project.
Regulatory Planning Determinants
Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – The two regulatory institutes that apply to lift installations in Colorado are the federal American National Standard (ANSI Section B77.1-2017) and the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB). While variances are not allowed for the ANSI standards, they are permissiblewith CPTSB standards. CPTSB will review variances, but at this time a variance cannot be guaranteed for any of the scenarios.
Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Each scenario will be evaluated regarding its impact to historic Lift 1 structures (base terminal and three towers.)
Evaluationof Scenarios
Conditions common to all Scenarios
The following conditions are common to all scenarios evaluated:
The top terminal of Lift 1A would be positioned in the location conceived by SkiCo in its most recent Master Development Plan.
Lift 1A would continue to function primarily as an out-of-base access and repeat skiing lift.
Lift 1A would continue to function as the primary access lift for international Alpine ski racing competitions.
The LOL and GH buildings would be located and configured as per the most recent plans provided by the two development groups. There are some scenarios that examine viability of a lift that would require LOL or GH buildings be moved or eliminated, as described later.
A skier services building or function would be located at the base of the lift.
The historic Lift 1 base terminal structure would not need to be removed. The scenarios impact the historic Lift 1 towers to varying degrees, as described later. All of these structures are on the National Register of Historic Places.
Scenario 1 – Bottom Terminal South of Dolinsek Property
Description
The alignment of Lift 1A would be the same as the alignment proposed by GH (slight clockwise rotation of the existing alignment), but the bottom terminal would be moved downhill (north) as close to Dean Street as possible. The covenant restrictions on the Dolinsek property preclude any lift infrastructure within that property, so the bottom terminal would be located just south of the Dolinsek property and Gilbert Street right-of-way, approximately 350 feet south of the Dean Street proposed transit drop-off (see Figure 1).
The ski connection from existing Aspen Mountain slopes to the Scenario 1 Lift 1A bottom terminal would be achieved via a 250 foot extension of the Schuss Gully ski run, as depicted in Figure 1. This run extension would be suitable for all skier ability levels and would not significantly compromise skier access from the upper Aspen Mountain slopes to the new Lift 1A terminal location.
Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit stop would walk from the drop-off area to the Lift 1A bottom terminal. This walk would be 350 feet in length over a vertical rise of 50 feet, which falls within an acceptable standard for pedestrian access to out-of-base lifts with return skiing.
To return to the Dean Street transit drop-off, skiers would ski to the base of Lift 1A and then either walk or ski (if natural snow conditions permitted) to the transit stop.
[Figure 1 (Plan) + Figure 1a (Section View)]
Assessment of Planning Determinants
Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario moves the Lift 1A terminal approximately 250 feet closer to the proposed Dean Street public transit drop-off, and reduces the elevation difference between drop-off and lift terminal from 75 feet to 50 feet. While this location of the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be considered an “acceptable” walking distance from the Dean Street drop-off location based on industry standards, it is likely that the vertical climbing would deter some guests from viewing this as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
Overall Skier Experience – Because of the negligible shift in the Lift 1A bottom terminal location and the ability to extend the existing ski slope to this location without significantly compromising skier circulation for all skier ability levels, this scenario does not create an overall negative impact to the on-slope skier experience. However, the upper historic Lift 1 tower, if left in place, would occur in the middle of the return ski slope extension and present a skier hazard. The milling space at the lift maze would be quite constrained, which would impact the overall ski experience. The confined nature of the bottom terminal location relative to buildings proposed by LOL limits the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this location (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.). Adequate space for such a facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is not significantly compromised by this scenario, but milling space at the lift maze would be quite constrained.
Pedestrian circulation is compromised by the 50 foot vertical climb from the proposed public transit drop-off at Dean Street and the confined nature of the bottom terminal location relative to buildings proposed by LOL.
Interface with Proposed GH and LOL Developments – Interface with the GH proposed building is very good under this scenario because it creates the opportunity for a relatively large, flat snowfront area adjacent to a potential ski valet entrance.
Interface with the LOL proposed buildings is significantly impacted in this proposal. While the lift terminal is located directly adjacent to the buildings, this requires the entire eastern LOL building be moved or more likely eliminated. Additionally, the close proximity of proposed buildings to the lift terminal, mazing area and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. It is common for a 20-foot setback to be maintained between ski trails and nearby buildings. The proposed 40-foot ski easement passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed LOL buildings.
Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario allows for the opportunity to realign the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location and continue up the mountain to the east of the GH building as proposed in the GH site plans.
Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Slope grooming operations would be challenged under this scenario by two situations. First, the upper historic Lift 1 tower is located in the middle of the proposed return slope to the bottom of Lift 1A. In order to groom around the historic lift tower, a specialty narrow-width groomer may need to be utilized. Second, because of the narrow width between the bottom terminal and the proposed LOL buildings, the turn-around area for grooming vehicles would be limited, which would cause excessive wear to the snow surface from multiple-point turns, and extended noise impact to the residential units from snowcats backing up and maneuvering in the tight area.
The narrow width of the return trail to the bottom of the lift (~40 feet wide) would require special snowmaking operations to prevent noise impacts to nearby residential units and to mitigate snow drifting conditions that would create operational challenges in snow removal and storage at the LOL buildings. It is projected that the only viable approach to applying machine-made snow to the ski slope extension would be to make and store snow in an area above the slope extension, and then push the pre-made snow down into the narrow section of the slope extension. This push of approximately 250 feet would be a significant hardship to grooming operations but is considered a reasonable solution.
No significant lift operations concerns are envisioned for this scenario.
Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – In order to create adequate space for the Lift 1A terminal and associated queuing in this scenario – whether detachable chairlift, telemix, or gondola – the proposed eastern LOL building would need to be moved or eliminated. Assuming the east LOL building is moved or eliminated, there is adequate space for a lift terminal and associated queuing, though it is very confined.
Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under and vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road can be achieved for this scenario.
Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – Regulatory standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario with no need for variances (assuming elimination or raising of the east LOL building).
Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Operational challenges and skier safety concerns related to the upper historic Lift 1 tower (described above) suggest that its removal would benefit this scenario. This scenario would have no impact to the lower two historic Lift 1 towers or the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – This scenario would have no adverse impacts regarding access to adjacent existing and proposed properties.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Shifts the Lift 1A bottom terminal approximately 250 horizontal feet and 25 vertical feet closer to the Dean Street proposed public transit drop-off.
Has minimal negative impact on the overall skier experience (confined maze area and skier hazard from Lift 1 tower) or skier and pedestrian circulation.
Improves the ski interface w/ GH property by eliminating the spatial requirements of the lift terminal and mazing space.
Allows for an acceptable realignment of the SkiCo operations mountain access road.
Meets necessary vertical clearances.
Meets regulatory standards for lift clearances (assuming the east LOL building is eliminated or raised in elevation.)
Only impacts the upper historic Lift 1 tower.
Disadvantages
While the Lift 1A bottom terminal in this scenario is closer to the proposed Dean Street transit drop-off than the existing terminal, and would be considered an “acceptable” walking distance from the Dean Street drop-off location based on industry standards, it is likely that the vertical climbing would deter some guests from viewing this as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
Pedestrian circulation is compromised by the 50 foot vertical climb from the proposed public transit stop at Dean Street and the confined nature of the bottom terminal location relative to buildings proposed by LOL.
This scenario requires a significant reconfiguration of the LOL project proposal, involving the elimination of the easternbuilding.
The close proximity of the LOL proposed buildings to the lift terminal, mazing area and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable.
Under this scenario, the upper historic Lift 1 tower would be located in the middle of the proposed return route to the bottom of Lift 1A. Unless the historic lift tower was removed, either permanently or temporarily during the ski season, it would cause challenges to grooming and snowmaking operations and a skier hazard.
The narrow width of the return ski slope precludes normal snowmaking operations on the slope itself and wouldlikely require snow to be made elsewhere and transported onto the slope by machine.
Conclusion
Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 1, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario1is considered a viable alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A. It results in a measurable improvement to public accessibility to the bottom of Lift 1A from the Aspen core area, although the public access is not ideal due to the vertical climb from the proposed Dean Street public transit drop-off. Additionally, this scenario requires a significant reconfiguration of the LOL project, including the likely elimination of one of their buildings, and creates ski area operational challenges for grooming and snowmaking.
Scenario 2 –Extending the current Lift 1A alignment, Western Skier Return
Description
This scenario extends the current alignment of Lift 1A down toward Dean Street with a western skier return. This scenario was included to examine how a moved lift with no skier use of the Dolinsek property might be accomplished.The alignment of Lift 1A would not change from the current alignment, but the bottom terminal would be moved downhill (north) as close to Dean Street as possible. The Lift 1A extension would follow the 40 foot wide ski easement. In order to preserve the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure, the new Lift1A bottom terminal would be located just south of the historic lift base structure.
The ski connection from existing Aspen Mountain slopes to the Scenario 2 bottom terminal would be achieved via a 550 foot extension of the Schuss Gully ski run, as depicted in Figure 2. This run extension would average about 40 feet in width, would be suitable for all skier ability levels, and would not significantlycompromise skier access from the upper Aspen Mountain slopes to the new Lift 1A terminal location. The proposed ski run returning to the base terminal of Lift 1A would conflict with the western LOL building and the proposed affordable housing building.
Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit stop would walk from the drop-off area to the Lift 1A bottom terminal. This walk would be 100 feet in length over a vertical rise of 10 feet, making it a very convenient skiers’ connection.
[Figure 2 (Plan) + Figure 2a (Section View)]
Assessment of Planning Determinants
Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario moves the Lift 1A terminal approximately 550 feet closer to the proposed Dean Street public transit stop, and reduces the elevation difference between drop-off and lift terminal from 75 feet to 10 feet. The close proximity of the Lift 1A bottom terminal to the proposed Dean Street drop-off location would cause the new drop-off and extended lift to be an attractive portal onto Aspen Mountainfrom the Aspen core area.
Overall Skier Experience – This scenario adds a 550-foot runout trail from the current base of Lift 1A to the new base location. The trail would be 40 feet wide with an average slope gradient of about 12%. These slope characteristics are satisfactory for such a runout, in terms of accommodating anticipated skier flows and creating an enjoyable return route to the base of the lift. While a wider return route would be more desirable for skier comfort and mountain operations, this scenario does not create a significantly negative impact to the overall on-slope skier experience. However, the upper historic Lift 1 tower, if left in place, would occur in the middle of the return ski slope extension and present a skier hazard. Additionally, the somewhat confined nature of the bottom terminal location relative to the Dolinsek property, the proposed Aspen Historic Society Ski Museum and the historic Lift 1 base terminal structure limits the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) without cooperation from the COA relative to the proposed location for the Ski Museum. It appears that adequate space for a skier services facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is not significantly compromised by this scenario. Multiple ski runs would be funneled into one run that is about 40 feet wide with an average slope gradient of 12 percent, but this combination of width and gradient on the return skiway is adequate for a Lift 1A hourly capacity of 2,400 people per hour.
Pedestrian circulation is compromised by the ski run that runs between the two LOL buildings, which would preclude the creation of a ground-level, hardscape connection between the two buildings during the winter.
Interface with Proposed GH and LOL Developments – Interface with the GH proposed building is very good under this scenario because it creates the opportunity for a relatively large, flat snowfront area adjacent to a potential ski valet entrance.
Interface with the LOL proposed buildings is good from the perspective that the lift terminal is located just to the north of the buildings so there would be easy access, but there would be adequate separation between the LOL buildings, the lift terminal and the mazing area so the area would not be quite as confined as under Scenario 1. As with Scenario1, the proposed 40-foot ski easement passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed LOL buildings and does not allow for any setback (typically 20 feet minimum) from the ski trail edge to the face of the building. Additionally, the return ski trail conflicts with the western LOL building and the proposed affordable housing building, and would require a redesign or relocation of those two buildings.
Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario allows for the opportunity to realign the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location and continue up the mountain to the east of the GH building as proposed in the GH site plans.
Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Slope grooming operations would be challenged under this scenario by two situations. First, the upperhistoric Lift 1 tower islocated in the middle of the proposed return slope to the bottom of Lift 1A. In order to groom around the historic lift tower, a specialty narrow-width groomer may need to be utilized. Second, because of the limited area that is available for the bottom terminal and maze area, which is defined by the Dolinsek properboundary, the historic Lift 1 base structure, and the proposed Aspen Historic Society Ski Museum, the turn-around area for grooming vehicles would be limited, which would cause excessive wear to the snow surface from multiple-point turns, and extended noise impact to the residential neighborhood from snowcats backing up and maneuvering in the tight area.
The narrow width of the return trail to the bottom of the lift (~40 feet wide) would require special snowmaking operations to prevent noise impacts to nearby residential units and to mitigate snow drifting conditions that would create operational challenges in snow removal and storage at the LOL buildings. It is projected that the only potential approach to applying machine-made snow to the ski slope extension would be to make and store snow in an area above the slope extension, and then push the pre-made snow down into the narrow section of the slope extension. This push of approximately 550 feet would be an extreme challenge to grooming operations that would commonly be considered as unreasonable. Additionally, the volume of snow that would need to be made and stored to cover the slope extension (about 0.25 acres) would be substantial, which further puts to question the operational practicality of such a solution.
The lower historic Lift 1 tower is located about 70 feet uphill of the proposed Lift 1A terminal location, and it is unlikely that the lift carriers would have clearance over the historic tower structure. Because of this, it may be necessary to remove the lower historic tower structure, either permanently or just during the ski season, for unimpeded lift operations.
Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – In order to create adequate space for the Lift 1A terminal and associated queuing in this scenario – whether detachable chairlift, telemix, or gondola – the proposed Aspen Historic Society Ski Museum building would ideally be relocated. If theproposed Ski Museum building were eliminated or relocated, there is adequate space for a lift terminal and associated queuing, though it is relatively confined.
Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under and vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road can be achieved for this scenario.
Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario.The GH building and the two LOL buildings infringe on the chairlift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required. The granting of a variance by CPTSB involves their review of a wide variety of factors including details on proposed fire mitigation, operating procedures, lift type, specifications, and precise dimensioning, and this information has not been developed for any of the Lift 1A replacement scenarios. For that reason, it is not possible to accurately predictthe likelihood for success onobtaining the variances required for the replacement of Lift 1A.
Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Operational challenges related to the twoupper historic Lift 1 towers (described above) suggest that their removal would benefit this scenario. The lower Lift 1 tower occurs at the location of the proposed Lift 1A replacement bottom terminal, so it would need to be permanently removed. This scenario would have proximity-related impact to the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure, but would not require its removal.
Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – This scenario would have no adverse impacts regarding access to adjacent existing and proposed properties.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Shifts the Lift 1A bottom terminal approximately 550 horizontal feet and 65 vertical feet closer to the Dean Street proposed public transit drop-off, and creates an attractive portal onto Aspen Mountainfrom the Aspen core area.
Does not create a significantly negative impact on the overall skier experience (confined maze area and skier hazard from Lift 1 tower) or skier circulation.
Improves the ski interface w/ GH and LOL properties by eliminating the spatial requirements of the lift terminal and mazing space.
Allows for an acceptable realignment of the SkiCo operations mountain access road.
Meets necessary vertical clearances (with the possible exception of the middle historic tower structure.)
Meets ANSI B.77 standards for lift clearances.
Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Disadvantages
Pedestrian circulation to the eastern LOL building is compromised by the proposed ski return trail, which precludes a ground-level, hardscape connection between the two LOL buildings during the winter.
The proposed return ski run conflicts with the western LOL building and proposed affordable housing building, and would require a redesign or relocation of those two buildings.
This scenario requires the removal or relocation of the proposed Aspen Historic Society Ski Museum building in order to leave adequate space for the lift terminal and maze area.
Under this scenario, the upper historic Lift 1 tower would be located in the middle of the proposed return route to the bottom of Lift 1A. Unless the historic lift tower was removed, either permanently or temporarily during the ski season, it would cause challenges to grooming and snowmaking operations and a skier hazard.
The narrow width of the return ski slope precludes normal snowmaking operations on the slope itself and would likely require snow to be made elsewhere and transported onto the slope by machine. Given the length and area of the ski slope extension, this potential snowmaking solution would commonly be considered impractical.
Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings.
Conclusion
Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 2, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, it is considered to be a marginally viable alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A, subject to one condition: that a practical solution can be derived for applying machine-made snow to the ski run extension. If a practical snowmaking solution can be established, this scenario results in a significant improvement to public accessibility to the bottom of Lift 1A from the Aspen core area without significantly degrading the overall skier experience. However, the alignment of the return ski trail requires a reconfiguration of the LOL project and relocation of the affordable housing building.
Scenario 3 – Scenario 1 with 2-way surface lift to dean street
Description
Scenario 3 would be identical to Scenario 1, except a two-way surface lift would be added connecting the proposed transit drop-off with the lower base terminal of new Lift 1A (see Figure 3).A traditional skier surface lift (e.g. platter lift, T-bar, conveyor/magic carpet, etc.) would not work along this alignment because there is not adequate width for a return ski route alongside the surface lift. Instead, a two-way lift is necessary so that skiers can ride both up and down the lift. A description and pictures of a sample two-way surface lift are provided in the Additional Information chapter at the end of this report.
Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit drop-off would walk from the drop-off area to the surface lift bottom terminal and ride up to the Lift 1A bottom terminal queuing area. They would then transfer to Lift 1A to ride up the mountain.
The ski connection from existing Aspen Mountain slopes to the Scenario 3Lift 1A bottom terminal would be achieved via a 250 foot extension of the Schuss Gully ski run, as described for Scenario 1 and depicted in Figure 3. To return to the Dean Street transit drop-off, skiers would ski to the base of Lift 1A and then ride down the surface lift.
[Figure 3 (Plan) + Figure 3a (Section View)]
Assessment of Planning Determinants
Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario places the surface lift lower terminal directly adjacent to the Dean Street transit stop, providing a mechanical connection to Lift 1A about 250 feet away. Given the short walking distance from the transit stop to the Lift 1A terminal (estimated to be about a 3 minute walk), and the relative aggravation of waiting in a lift line twice and transferring from one lift to another, it is unlikely that the surface lift would offer a considerable functional benefit to skiers under this scenario. The “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration would preventmost guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
Overall Skier Experience – The complicated nature of this access and egress system from Lift 1A to Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. The top terminal of the surface lift would consume valuable space in the confined area at the bottom of Lift 1A and cause further crowding. The bottom terminal spatial requirements limits the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) It appears that adequate space for such a facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A.
Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift could be ridden by foot passengers. However, the alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Gilbert Streets.
Interface with Proposed GH and LOL Developments – As with Scenario 1, interface with the GH proposed building is very good under this scenario because it creates the opportunity for a relatively large, flat snowfront area adjacent to a potential ski valet entrance.
Interface with the LOL proposed buildings is not good because the top terminal of the surface lift sits directly in front of the western LOL building, effectively blocking the building from Lift 1A and the return ski trail.
Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario allows for the opportunity to realign the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1 bottom terminal location and continue up the mountain to the east of the GH building as proposed in the GH site plans.
Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – The ski area operational comments for Scenario 1 also apply to Scenario 3. Slope grooming operations in Scenario 3 would be further challenged by the presence of the surface lift terminal adjacent to the Lift 1A bottom terminal.
Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – The comments about Scenario 1 lift terminal spatial requirements also apply to Scenario 3. The two additional terminals and associated queuing space for the surface lift consume already limited spaces at the Dean Street transit stop and the bottom of Lift 1A.
Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under and vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road can be achieved for this scenario.
Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The GH building and the two LOL buildings infringe on the two-way surface lift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required.As described in Scenario 2, it is not possible to accurately predictthe likelihood for success onobtaining the variances required for the replacement of Lift 1A, although it can be assumed that variances for surface lifts would be easier to obtain than for chairlifts because surface lift riders are on the ground and it is easier to quickly evacuate from the lift.
Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Operational challenges related to the upper historic Lift 1 tower (described above) suggest that its removal would benefit this scenario. Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of themiddle historic Lift 1 tower.This scenario would have no impact to the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure and lower tower.
Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The alignment of the two-way surface lift would create a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Gilbert Streets, which could impact access to adjacent existing and proposed properties.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Provides mechanical access from the Dean Street transit stop to the base of Lift 1A.
Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift could be ridden by foot passengers.
Improves the ski interface w/ GH property by eliminating the spatial requirements of the lift terminal and mazing space.
Allows for an acceptable realignment of the SkiCo operations mountain access road.
Meets necessary vertical clearances.
Potentially easier to obtain lift clearance variances from CPTSB.
Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Disadvantages
The “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration would prevent most guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
The complicated nature and spatial requirements of this access and egress system from Lift 1A to Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience.
Skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A.
This scenario requires a significant reconfiguration of the LOL project proposal, involving either the elimination of the eastern building or raising it above the proposed lift terminal.
The close proximity of the LOL proposed buildings to the lift terminal, mazing area and circulation will create a confined situation that would feel uncomfortable.
Under this scenario, the upper historic Lift 1 tower would be located in the middle of the proposed return route to the bottom of Lift 1A. Unless the historic lift tower was removed, either permanently or during the ski season, it would cause challenges to grooming and snowmaking operations and a skier hazard.
Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of themiddle historic Lift 1 tower.
Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings.
Conclusion
Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 3, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario 3 is not considered a viable alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A. The benefits created by establishing a mechanical connection from the Dean Street transit stop to Lift 1A do not outweigh the skier experience, operational and circulation constraints created by the two-way surface lift installation and footprint.
Scenario 4 – Gorsuch Proposal with 2-way surface lift to dean street
Description
Scenario 4 would be similar to Scenario 3, except the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be adjacent to the GH building, as proposed by GH, and the two-way surface lift would be extended to connect the proposed transit stop with the higher base terminal of new Lift 1A. This alignment for the surface lift follows the ski easement corridor, and in order to preserve the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure, the surface lift bottom terminal would be located just south of the historic lift base structure. The surface lift would be 480 feet long (see Figure 4).
Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit drop-off would walk from the drop-off area to the surface lift bottom terminal and ride up to the Lift 1A bottom terminal queuing area. They would then transfer to Lift 1A to ride up the mountain.
The Lift 1A bottom terminal would be located at the base of the existing Aspen Mountain slopes. To return to the Dean Street transit drop-off, skiers would ski to the base of Lift 1A and then ride down the surface lift.
[Figure 4 (Plan) + Figure 4a (Section View)]
Assessment of Planning Determinants
Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario places the surface lift lower terminal about 100 feet from the Dean Street transit stop, providing a mechanical connection to Lift 1A about 480 feet away and 75 feet higher in elevation. When compared with Scenario 3, the surface lift in Scenario 4 becomes a more attractive alternative to walking because of the longer distance, and more importantly, the greater vertical climb.However, the relative aggravation of waiting in a lift line twice and transferring from one lift to another remains as a deterrent to this access and egress configuration, and would likely prevent many guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
Overall Skier Experience – The complicated nature of this access and egress system from Lift 1A to Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. The top terminal of the surface lift would consume valuable space in the confined area at the bottom of Lift 1A and conflict with pedestrian and skier circulation routes associated with the GH building. The bottom terminal spatial requirements limit the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) It appears that adequate space for such a facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A.
Pedestrian circulation is enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift can be ridden by foot passengers. However, the alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement on the slope between Dean and Hill Streets. Additionally, the top terminal of the surface lift confines pedestrian circulation at the GH building.
Interface with Proposed GH and LOL Developments – Interface with the GH proposed building is good from the perspective that the Lift 1A bottom terminal is located directly adjacent to the building. However, the close proximity of the GH building to the Lift 1A and surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable.
Interface with the LOL proposed buildings is not good because there is no direct access from the LOL buildings to the surface lift terminals, so LOL guests would need to walk to access the surface lift terminals and the Lift 1A terminal. Additionally, the surface lift alignment would create a barrier to pedestrian access between the two LOL buildings.
Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location as proposed in the GH site plans. The realigned road would need to cross under the surface lift just north of its top terminal location. The road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing so maintenance and construction trucks, cranes, fire fighting vehicles, emergency services vehicles, etc. would have access onto the mountain as they do now. This road crossing would require that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. It would also cause the surface lift to be on a high trestle or fill embankment where it passes between the two LOL buildings.
Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Because of the narrow width between the Lift 1A bottom terminal, the Mountain Queen Condominiums, and the proposed GH building, and the steep slopes into the area, the turn-around area for grooming vehicles would be limited, which would cause excessive wear to the snow surface from multiple-point turns, and extended noise impact to the residential units from snowcats backing up and maneuvering in the tight area.
Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – Planning studies prepared for the GH project demonstrate that the Lift 1A terminal – whether detachable chairlift, telemix, or gondola – can fit within the available space to the east of the GH building, but both pedestrian and skier circulation space is very tight. The additional terminal and associated queuing space for the two-way surface lift will further constrain an already challenging situation.
Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under can be achieved for this scenario. As described above,vertical clearance for vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road will require bridging the surface lift approximately 16 feet above the realigned road.
Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The GH building and the two LOL buildings infringe on the two-way surface lift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required.As described in Scenario 2, it is not possible to accurately predictthe likelihood for success onobtaining the variances required for the replacement of Lift 1A, although it can be assumed that variances for surface lifts would be easier to obtain than for chairlifts because surface lift riders are on the ground and it is easier to quickly evacuate from the lift.
Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures –Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of all three historic Lift 1 towers. This scenario would have no impact to the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The alignment of the two-way surface lift would create a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Hill Streets, which could impact access to adjacent existing and proposed properties.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Provides mechanical access from the Dean Street transit stop to the base of Lift 1A.
Doesn’t require the ski run extension to the north and affiliated ski area operations challenges (e.g., grooming and snowmaking)
Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift can be ridden by foot passengers.
Meets necessary vertical clearances.
Potentially easier to obtain lift clearance variances from CPTSB.
Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Disadvantages
The “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration may prevent many guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
The complicated nature and spatial requirements of this access and egress system from Lift 1A to Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience.
Skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A.
The close proximity of the GH building to the Lift 1A and two-way surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable.
Interface with the LOL proposed buildings is not good because there is no direct access from the LOL buildings to the surface lift terminals, so LOL guests would need to walk to access the surface lift terminals and the Lift 1A terminal.
The surface lift alignment would create a barrier to pedestrian access between the two LOL buildingsand have significant adverse impact on the appeal of and guest experience for LOL.
This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain operations access road to the north of the existing Lift 1 bottom terminal location: the road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing,requiring that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge.
Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of all three historic Lift 1 towers.
Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings.
Conclusion
Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 4, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario 4 is considered to be not a likely viablesolution for the replacement of Lift 1A, subject to two conditions: 1) additional planning studies are needed to demonstrate that the GH project can be reconfigured to provide adequate space for the surface lift terminal and associated milling/circulation space; and 2) that LOL finds the proposal acceptable when considering the compromised lift service to their buildings and the visual impacts of the structural elements related to the elevated surface lift and bridge.
Scenario 5 – Lift Going Over Buildings
Description
To ensure that all options were considered, the COA requested a partial analysis of a potential scenario in which Lift 1A spanned over proposed buildings.
Summary Assessment
Various site constraints limit the options for spanning Lift 1A over the proposed buildings.
The covenant restrictions on the Dolinsek property preclude any lift infrastructure within that property. As a result, an alignment is not possible that would cross over the eastern LOL building.
For reasons described in Scenario 7, it is not practical to align Lift 1A over South Aspen Street. This restriction limits the extent to which Lift 1A could be rotated to the west. A slight western rotation of the lift, so it would span over the GH and/or western LOL buildings, would not result in any meaningful benefits when considering the identified planning determinants, and would instead add operational and regulatory complications related to lift rider comfort, lift evacuations and maintenance, visual impact concerns, regulatory variances, etc.
Conclusion
Spanning Lift 1A over the proposed GH and/or LOL buildings would not lead to a superior scenario for addressing the project planning determinants and should not be given further consideration.
Scenario 6 – Scenario 4 with GH Building and Lift 1A Flipped
Description
Scenario 6 would be the same as Scenario 4, except the GH building would be located where the Lift 1A bottom terminal is located in Scenario 4, and the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be located where the GH building is located in Scenario 4 (See Figure 5).
[Figure 5 (Plan) + Figure 5a (Section View)]
Assessment of Planning Determinants
Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – As in Scenario 4, this scenario places the surface lift lower terminal about 100 feet from the Dean Street transit stop, providing a mechanical connection towards Lift 1A along the ski easement corridor. However, because of the slope configurations on the western side of the GH property, a potential placement for the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be some 250 feet from the surface lift top terminal and an estimated 30-40 feet higher in elevation. These distances, combined with the challenging logistics for directing public pedestrian circulation from the surface lift through the GH property to Lift 1A, are a significant constraint of this scenario. This pedestrian circulationchallengeand the bother of waiting in a lift line twice and transferring from one lift to another,are collectively amajordeterrent to this access and egress configuration, and would likely prevent most guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
Overall Skier Experience – The complicated nature of the access and egress routingbetween Lift 1A and Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. The top terminal of the surface lift would be completely disconnected from the bottom terminal of Lift 1A, causing all skiers transferring between Lift 1A and the Dean Street transit stop to use indoor and/or outdoor pedestrian circulation routes to negotiate the 30 to 40 foot elevation change and 250 foot distance between the two terminals. The bottom terminal spatial requirements of the surface lift limits the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) It appears that adequate space for such a facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the physical and visual disconnect between the Lift 1A bottom terminal and the top terminal of the two-way surface lift.
Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift can be ridden by foot passengers. However, the alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Hill Streets. Additionally, the top terminal of the surface lift confines pedestrian circulation at the GH building and has no visual or physical connection with the Lift 1A bottom terminal.
Interface with Proposed GH and LOL Developments – Interface with the GH proposed building is good from the perspective that the Lift 1A bottom terminal is located directly adjacent to the building. However, the close proximity of the GH building to the Lift 1A and surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable.
Interface with the LOL proposed buildings is not good because there is no direct access from the LOL buildings to the surface lift terminals, so LOL guests would need to walk to access the surface lift terminals and the Lift 1A terminal. Additionally, the surface lift alignment would create a barrier to on-grade pedestrian access between the two LOL buildings.
Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location as proposed in the GH site plans. The realigned road would need to cross under the surface lift just north of its top terminal location. The road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing so maintenance and construction trucks, cranes, fire fighting vehicles, emergency services vehicles, etc. would have access onto the mountain as they do now. This road crossing would require that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. It would also cause the surface lift to be on a high trestle or fill embankment where it passes between the two LOL buildings.
Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Because of the narrow width between the Lift 1A bottom terminal, the Shadow Mountain Condominiums, and the proposed GH building, and the steep slopes into the area, the turn-around area for grooming vehicles would be limited, which would cause excessive wear to the snow surface from multiple-point turns, and extended noise impact to the residential units from snowcats backing up and maneuvering in the tight area.
The extreme angles in the required vertical profile of Lift 1A at the bottom terminal would cause abnormal loads on the towers and sheave trains, causing atypical lift construction, operations and maintenance requirements, as well as an uncomfortable lift ride for guests.
Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – Planning studies prepared for the GH project demonstrate that the Lift 1A terminal – whether detachable chairlift, telemix, or gondola – could fit within the available space to the west of the GH building. However, it is unlikely that the vertical profile of Lift 1A as depicted in the site studies is achievable with standard lift construction and technology. If the vertical profile is not achievable,this scenario would be infeasible.
Vertical Clearances – As described above, it is unlikely that there is a practical solution for achieving vertical clearances to the ground and for ski-under above the Lift 1A bottom terminal for this scenario. Also, vertical clearance for vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road will require bridging the two-way surface lift approximately 16 feet above the realigned road.
Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for horizontal lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The GH building and the two LOL buildings infringe on the two-way surface lift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required.As described above, it is unlikely that vertical clearance standards can be met.
Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of all three historic Lift 1 towers. This scenario would have no impact to the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The alignment of the two-way surface lift would create a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement on the slope between Dean and Hill Streets, which could impact access to adjacent existing and proposed properties.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Provides mechanical access from the Dean Street transit stop towards the base of Lift 1A.
Doesn’t require the ski run extension to the north and affiliated ski area operations challenges (e.g., grooming and snowmaking)
Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift can be ridden by foot passengers.
Potentially easier to obtain lift clearance variances from CPTSB.
Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Disadvantages
The horizontal and vertical distances between the surface lift and Lift 1A terminals, as well as the “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration,would prevent most guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
The complicated nature and spatial requirements of this access and egress routingbetween Lift 1A and Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience.
Skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the physical and visual disconnect between the Lift 1A bottom terminal and the top terminal of the two-way surface lift.
The close proximity of the GH building to the Lift 1A and two-way surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable.
Interface with the LOL proposed buildings is not good because there is no direct access from the LOL buildings to the surface lift terminals, so LOL guests would need to walk to access the surface lift terminals and the Lift 1A terminal.
The surface lift alignment would create a barrier to pedestrian access between the two LOL buildings.
This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain operations access road to the north of the existing Lift 1 bottom terminal location: the road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing,requiring that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge.
Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of all three historic Lift 1 towers.
It is unlikely that vertical clearances can be achieved above the Lift 1A bottom terminal.
Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings.
Conclusion
Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 6, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, itis not considered a viable alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A. The physical and visual disconnect between the two-way surface lift top terminal and the lift 1A bottom terminal severely limits the attractiveness of this scenarioas a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain, and it is unlikely thatvertical clearances can be achieved above the Lift 1A bottom terminal, which would cause the lift installation to be infeasible.
Scenario 7 – Lift Above the S. Aspen St. Right-of-Way
Description
To ensure that all options were considered, the COA requested a partial analysis of a potential scenario in which Lift 1A followed and spanned over the South Aspen Street right-of-way.
Summary Assessment
A number of planning considerations suggest that ascenario in which Lift 1A followed and spanned over the South Aspen Street right-of-way would not be a viable alternative.
The South Aspen Street corridor is not aligned directly towards the Lift 1A top terminal location conceived by SkiCo in its most recent Master Development Plan. As a result, this scenario would require that the Lift 1A replacement be installed with an angle station uphill of the western portion of the GH property. Angle stations for detachable lifts are a minimum of 150 feet long and must be installed in a horizontal position. The slopes above the western portion of the GH property are very steep, and installing a horizontal angle station on those steep slopes would be highly impractical, extremely expensive, and possibly impossible.
A lift alignment up South Aspen Street would require a variance from CPTSB for clearance infringement by the Shadow Mountain condominiums. This variance would require cooperation from the Shadow Mountain condominiums HOA and would require that the complex be equipped with fire suppressant sprinklers at a minimum. Achieving cooperation from the Shadow Mountain condominium HOA in obtaining a CPTSB variance would likely be a challenging endeavor.
Locating the Lift 1A bottom terminal directly above South Aspen Street would be a unique engineering exercise. Detachable lift terminals are supported by large concrete foundations directly below the terminal. To prevent the Lift 1A foundation from blocking vehicular traffic, it would need to arch over the road at an adequate height of at least 16 feet above the road to allow passage of all vehicles, including fire trucks, cranes, construction equipment, etc. In addition to the lift terminal being at this height above the road, the lift queue area would also need to be at the elevated level, and the ski return into the maze area would need to tie in with the same elevation. In order for the return ski route to have a downhill slope into the maze area, it too would need to be elevated above existing grade for nearly its entire length. Such a configuration for the lift terminal foundation, maze area and return ski trail would be extremely expensive to construct and would severely constrain remaining buildable space on the LOL property, causing it to be an impractical concept.
Conclusion
Spanning Lift 1A over South Aspen Street is not a practical solution for replacement of Lift 1A and should not be given further consideration.
Scenario 8 – Extending the current Lift 1A alignment, Eastern Skier Return
Description
This scenario includes a lift alignment identical to Scenario 2, but includes a western skier return over a portion of the Dolinsek property. A review of the restrictive covenants on the Dolinsek property by the COA found that while installation of ski infrastructure such as lifts and permanent snowmaking equipment are not allowed on the property, public skiing and snow management is allowable. Scenario 8 investigates the opportunity of using the Dolinsek property for the ski return to the Dean Street public transit stop.
Summary Assessment
Scenario 8 would be identical to Scenario 2, except the returnski run, after passing the eastern LOL building, would fall to the east onto the Dolinsek property and terminate to the east of the Lift 1A bottom terminal (see Figure 6). This reconfiguration of the return ski run results in several improvements and advantages over the run defined for Scenario 2.
By shifting the run to the east of the Lift 1A lift alignment, it would not interfere with the western LOL building and proposed affordable housing building.
By shifting the run to the east of the Lift 1A lift alignment, the run terminates in a larger area that would provide ample space for skier circulation, mazing, and milling. The larger space would also facilitate grooming operations and reduce associated noise impacts and snow wear from groomer maneuvering.
It is anticipated that the Dolinsek property could be used to store machine-made snow (without installing temporary or permanent snowmaking equipment on the Dolinsek property), which would facilitate the application of machine-made snow on the lower half of the return ski run. The evaluation of Scenario 2 indicated that pushing snow approximately 550 feet to cover the extents of the returnski run would be an extreme challenge to grooming operations that would commonly be considered as unreasonable. Snow storage on the Dolinsek property would reduce the total distance snow would need to be pushed by groomers to about 250 feet or less.
The reconfiguration of the maze and skier circulation space at the base of Lift 1A in Scenario 8 could prevent the need to relocate or eliminate the Ski Museum to a different location.
Conclusion
While some of the challenges and disadvantages of Scenario 2 are still concerns for Scenario 8, (e.g., removal of historic Lift 1 towers and clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings,) Scenario 8 is a significant improvement over Scenario 2. For this reason, Scenario 8 is considered a viable alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A and should be given further consideration.If selected, this option would require additional guidance and a variance from CPTSB, as well as additional analysis from the SkiCo related to grooming and cat operations, and a commercial viability analysis for LOL regarding having a lift located so close to lodging rooms.
(Figure 6)
Scenario 9 – LOL Approved Proposal
Description
Scenario 9 is generally representative of the lift configuration that was approved for the LOL project. Scenario 9is similar to Scenario 4, except the surface lift would be a traditional cable-driven skier surface lift (e.g. platter lift or T-bar) rather than a two-way surface lift. This alignment for the surface lift follows the ski easement corridor, and avoids the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure and lower tower. The surface lift would be 570 feet long. Another difference from Scenario 4 is that a narrow return ski run would parallel the surface lift to its bottom terminal (see Figure 7).
Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit drop-off would walk from the drop-off area to the surface lift bottom terminal and ride up to the Lift 1A bottom terminal queuing area. They would then transfer to Lift 1A to ride up the mountain.
The Lift 1A bottom terminal would be located at the base of the existing Aspen Mountain slopes. To return to the Dean Street transit drop-off, skiers would ski to the base of Lift 1A and then continue down the narrow return ski run to the transit stop.
[Figure 7 (Plan) + Figure 7a (Section View)]
Assessment of Planning Determinants
Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario places the surface lift lower terminal about 50 feet from the Dean Street transit stop, providing a mechanical connection to Lift 1A about 570 feet away and 75 feet higher in elevation. As with Scenarios 3 and 4, the relative aggravation of waiting in a lift line twice and transferring from one lift to another remains as a deterrent to this access configuration, and would likely prevent some guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
Overall Skier Experience – The complicated nature of this access system from Dean Street to Lift 1A would negatively impact the overall skier experience. The top terminal of the surface lift would consume valuable space in the confined area at the bottom of Lift 1A and conflict with pedestrian and skier circulation routes associated with the GH building. The bottom terminal spatial requirements limit the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) It appears that adequate space for such a facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off.
The greatest constraint of Scenario 9 is the narrowness of the return ski route to Dean Street. With the surface lift and its accompanying supporting structure occupying more than half the width of the ski easement corridor, and the western LOL building butting directly into the western boundary of the easement, the remaining corridor for ski-back is only about 16 feet wide, which is a marginally adequate width for the slope’s steepness and potential traffic volumes. The width of this return ski run does not adhere to the ski area design standards that are used elsewhere at Aspen Mountain.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A, and more importantly, by the very narrow width of the return ski route.
The alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Hill Streets, although the aerial cable would allow pedestrians to pass under the lift over the snow. Additionally, the top terminal of the surface lift confines pedestrian circulation at the GH building.
Interface with Proposed GH and LOL Developments – Interface with the GH proposed building is good from the perspective that the Lift 1A bottom terminal is located directly adjacent to the building. However, the close proximity of the GH building to the Lift 1A and surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable.
Interface with the LOL proposed buildings is good from the perspective that the surface lift terminal is located just to the north of the buildings so there would be easy access, but there would be adequate separation between the LOL buildings, the lift terminal and the mazing area so the area would not be quite as confined as under other scenarios. As with the other scenarios, the return ski run passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed LOL buildings and does not allow for any setback (typically 20 feet minimum) from the ski trail edge to the face of the building.
Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location as proposed in the GH site plans. The realigned road would need to cross under the surface lift just north of its top terminal location. This road crossing would require that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. The road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift bridge at the crossing so maintenance and construction trucks, cranes, fire fighting vehicles, emergency services vehicles, etc. would have access onto the mountain as they do now. The bridged road crossing would also cause the surface lift to be on a high trestle or fill embankment where it passes between the two LOL buildings.
Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Where the surface lift trestle or retained fill embankment passes between the east and west LOL buildings, the width of the return ski run would have an absolute width restriction of less than 16 feet, which is narrower than a standard snow grooming machine. This would create the need for a special, narrower grooming machine to maintain the trail.Additionally, the platter or T-bar surface lift requires a snow surface underneath the length of the lift, so the snow track would need to be maintained along the approach to, and across, the road bridge. The narrow width of the bridge, and approach to the bridge, combined with the need for at least one lift tower in that span, would create a dangerous situation for grooming operations.
The very narrow width of the return trail to the bottom of the lift (~16 feet wide) would require special snowmaking operations to prevent noise impacts to nearby residential units and to mitigate snow drifting conditions that would create operational challenges in snow removal and storage at the LOL buildings. The only potential approach to applying machine-made snow to the return ski run would be to make and store snow in an area above the slope extension, and then push the pre-made snow down into the narrow section of the slope extension. This push of approximately 550 feet would be an extreme challenge to grooming operations that would commonly be considered as unreasonable. Additionally, because of the narrow width of the return ski run, a smaller grooming machine would need to be used, which further puts to question the operational practicality of such a solution because a smaller machine is less powerful and would have difficulty pushing large quantities of snow over this distance.
Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – Planning studies prepared for the GH project demonstrate that the Lift 1A terminal – whether detachable chairlift, telemix, or gondola – can fit within the available space to the east of the GH building, but both pedestrian and skier circulation space is very tight. The additional terminal and associated circulation space for the surface lift would further confine an already challenging situation.
Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under can be achieved for this scenario. As described above, vertical clearance for vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road will require bridging the surface lift approximately 16 feet above the realigned road.
Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The GH building and the two LOL buildings infringe on the two-way surface lift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required.
Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Construction of the surface lift and return ski run would require removal of the upper two historic Lift 1 towers. This scenario would have no impact to the lower tower or the Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Hill Streets, although the aerial cable would allow pedestrians to pass under the lift over the snow.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Provides mechanical access from the Dean Street transit stop to the base of Lift 1A.
Provides a ski return to the Dean Street transit stop (rather than the two-way surface lift in Scenario 4).
Meets necessary vertical clearances.
Potentially easier to obtain lift clearance variances from CPTSB.
Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure.
Disadvantages
The “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration may prevent many guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain.
The complicated nature and spatial requirements of this access system from Dean Street to Lift 1A would negatively impact the overall skier experience.
The very narrow width of the return ski run would negatively impact the overall skier experience.
Skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A.
The close proximity of the GH building to the Lift 1A and surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable.
This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain operations access road to the north of the existing Lift 1 bottom terminal location: the road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing,requiring that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge.
The scenario creates grooming and snowmaking operational challenges that would commonly be considered as unreasonable, and in the case of grooming, potentially dangerous.
Construction of the surface lift and return ski run would require removal of the upper two historic Lift 1 towers.
Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings.
Conclusion
Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 9, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario 9 is not considered a viable alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A. The benefits created by establishing a mechanical connection from the Dean Street transit stop to Lift 1A do not outweigh the skier experience, operational and circulation constraints created by the surface lift installation and footprint.
Conclusion
This evaluation of the nine scenarios proposed by the COA, GH, LOL and SkiCo for replacement of Lift 1A involved a description of each scenario, an in-depth assessment of how each scenario addresses the identified planning determinants, a listing of the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario, and a conclusion indicating whether each scenario was worthy of further consideration or not. Of the 9 scenarios evaluated, Scenario 1 and Scenario 8 were found to be viable concepts for replacement of Lift 1A and worthy of further consideration. Scenarios 2 and 4 were found to be marginally viable concepts subject to further evaluation of specific items. Scenarios 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 were found to be infeasible concepts that are not worthy of further consideration.
For Scenario 2 to be considered viable, a practical solution would need to be derived for applying machine-made snow to the 550 foot long return ski run. Scenario 8 presents that solution by accommodating snowmaking operations and snow storage on the Dolinsek property, thus reducing by less than half the length machine-made snow would need to be transported for application to the ski run. Accordingly, Scenario 8 effectively replaces Scenario 2, and Scenario 2 should be eliminated from further consideration.
The viability of Scenario 4 is dependent on two factors: 1) that the GH project can be reconfigured to provide adequate space for the surface lift top terminal and associated milling/circulation space; and 2) that LOL finds the proposal acceptable when considering the compromised lift service to their buildings and the visual impacts of the structural elements related to the elevated surface lift and bridge.If Scenario1 and Scenario 8 are not found to be acceptable configurations for the replacement of Lift 1A, and it is determined that Scenario 4 should be forwarded for additional consideration, additional planning studies are needed to demonstrate that the GH project can be reconfigured as necessary, and to allow LOL to fully assess the visual and physical impacts of the lift installations relative to their development plan.
In summary, this evaluation of the nine scenarios for replacement of Lift 1A concludes that:
Scenarios 1 and 8 are viable concepts for replacement of Lift 1A,
Scenarios 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9are not viable concepts for replacement of Lift 1A and should be abandoned from further consideration, and
Scenario 4 requires additional detailed planning studies to determine if it can be considered a viable concept for replacement of Lift 1A.
Additional information
Descriptions and illustrations of Optional lift technology
Detachable Chairlift
Detachable chairlifts are high-speed chairlifts that are very popular because they provide a faster ride to the top of the mountain. While the passenger carriers (typically 4 or 6-passenger open chairs) travel rapidly up the line, they slow in the terminals to facilitate passenger loading and unloading.
The typical size of a detachable chairlift terminal is about 30 feet wide and about 60 feet long, depending on the manufacturer. The typical height of the terminal is about 23 feet. Following are typical details and an image of a detachable chairlift terminal.
Detachable chairlift terminal details
Detachable chairlift terminal photo
Combination Chairlift/Gondola (“Telemix” or “Chondola”)
A Telemix (aka Chondola) is a detachable chairlift with every third or fourth chair carrier replaced with an enclosed gondola cabin carrier. Skiers load/unload chairs on one side of the terminal and pedestrians load/unload gondola cabins on the other side of the terminal.
The Telemix terminal is identical to a detachable chairlift terminal, but it is about 15 feet longer.The typical size of a Telemix terminal is about 30 feet wide and about 75 feet long, depending on the manufacturer. The typical height of the terminal is about 26 feet. Following are images of a Telemix terminal.
Telemix terminal photos
Gondola
Gondolas are high-speed lifts that are used when an enclosed cabin is desired for all carriers. Passenger carriers typically hold 6 or 8 passengers, though sometimes cabins can be bigger. Similar to the detachable chairlift and Telemix, the gondola cabins travel rapidly up the line, and then slow in the terminals to facilitate passenger loading and unloading.
A Gondola terminal for the Lift 1A alignment would be identical to a Telemix terminal, about 30 feet wide and about 75-80 feet long, depending on the manufacturer. The typical height of the terminal is about 26 feet. Following are typical details and an image of a Gondola terminal.
Gondola terminal details
Gondola terminal photo
“Platter” Surface Lift
A platter surface lift, also known as a “Poma-lift”, is a cable driven surface lift. Similar to a chairlift, a platter lift is driven by an aerial cable that is supported above the ground by towers and sheave assemblies along the line. At regular intervals along the cable, carriers are attached to the cable and extend towards the ground. At the end of the carrier is a small platform, or “platter” that the rider puts between their legs to be pulled up the mountain while standing on their skis.
The platter lift terminal is a single tower with a bullwheel, sheave assembly and motor on top to drive the cable, so it has a very small footprint. The typical height of a platter lift terminal and line towers is about 12-15 feet.Following are typical details and an image of a platter surface lift.
Platter lift details
Platter lift photo
Two-Way Reversible Surface Lift
A two-way reversible surface lift is used when pedestrian transport is desired in two directions (up and down) and the lift can be installed on or near the ground surface. The two-way surface lift is made up of one track or two parallel tracks that are mounted on the ground or slightly above the ground on support structures. The carrier vehicle or cabin rides on the track, one on each side in the case of a two-track system, and is pulled up and down by a cable installed at the track surface, or the cabins can be self-propelled by internal motor. In some cases on a two-track system, one cable is used in a loop so that as one cabin is traveling up the line, the second cabin is simultaneously traveling down.In other cases, one cable and one “winch” are incorporated on each track to raise and lower the cabin. At the bottom and top of the two-way surface lift there is a loading and unloading platform where passengers get in or out ofthe stopped cabin.
The two-way surface lift envisioned for Lift 1A replacement scenarios 3, 4 and 6 would be a two-track system (for higher capacity) with cabins that are 8 feet wide. The total width of the two parallel tracks would be 18 feet. The load/unload platform at top and bottom terminals would extend 8 feet beyond the side and end of the track. The following photos are an example of the system that is envisioned for Lift 1A replacement scenarios 3, 4 and 6.
Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances
The two regulatory institutes that apply to lift installations in Colorado are the federal American National Standard (ANSI Section B77.1-2017) and the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB). Following are excerpts from those two sources related to standards for lift clearances.
ANSI B77.1-2017 Clearance Regulations
CPTSB Clearance Regulations