HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180515
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
May 15, 2018
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Review the results of the Lift 1A Study, Phase 2
P1
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 1 of 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Lift 1A study, Phase II
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2018
PURPOSE OF WORK SESSION: The purpose of this work session is
to inform the City Council on the results of the second phase
of the Lift 1A study, and for Council to provide staff with
direction on several questions posed for consideration.
Council’s feedback will influence next steps regarding Lift 1A
and potential pending land use applications for Gorsuch
Haus, Lift One Lodge, and Willoughby Park/Lift One Park.
The work session’s framework will include an introduction by
city staff, followed by an overview on the history of Lift 1. An
SE Group representative will then provide an overview of the
results of the study, and stakeholder representatives from
Gorsuch Haus, Lift One Lodge, the Aspen Historical Society,
Aspen Skiing Co. will be available if needed. Council is asked
to provide direction on which scenario, if any, should be pursued.
BACKGROUND: At the end of February 2018, the City contracted with SE Group to conduct a
second phase to the Lift 1A study. The original study had looked at potential options and their
viability to bring any replacement lift further down the mountain and was commissioned as a
result of the Gorsuch Haus development proposal. The work has been completed and funded
through a partnership with the City, Aspen Skiing Company, Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge
as land owners who would potentially be directly impacted by a relocated lift.
The initial study reviewed nine potential options to bring the lift further down the mountain. Two
scenarios (scenario 1/south of Gilbert Street and scenario 2/south of Deane Street) were
identified as having the most viability. Further discussion in a work session identified two
additional scenarios to be studied in more detail, resulting in the following scenarios being
analyzed in this final report:
Lift 1A
P2
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 2 of 10
· Scenario 1 (a lift extension south of Gilbert Street),
· Scenario 7 (a lift extension south of Dean Street – maintaining the bullwheel),
· Scenario 7A (Scenario 7 with the addition of a mid-station), and
· Scenario 7B (Scenario 7 with a lift extension as far b north as possible).
As the study has advanced, the stakeholders have met on a number of occasions to work with
the consultant. These check-ins have resulted in stakeholders being able to ask questions of
the consultant, clarify priorities (such as the type of lift desired), and provide additional
information to the consultant. The finalized lift study is included as Exhibit E. Additionally, a
white paper on Lift 1 has been included to provide a greater understanding of the history and
significance of the historically designated bullwheel and three lift towers.
SE GROUP LIFT STUDY OVERVIEW: The lift study completed by SE Group analyzes the potential
scenarios based on various planning determinants including: skier experience, functionality
and operations, land ownership and regulatory factors. The study provides a favored option,
when one considers the planning determinants used to evaluate the four scenarios.
Scenario 1 (Exhibit A) proposes Lift 1A be brought down to just south of Gilbert Street, with skier
services located under the loading platform along Gilbert Street. Advantages of this option
include good repeat skiing, minor impacts to snowmaking, good accommodation of skier
services, no required variance from the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB).
Disadvantages of this option include elimination of the eastern Lift One Lodge building, no
skier return to Deane, constrained circulation, compromised access from Deane, an inability to
accommodate a Telemix (SkiCo’s preferred lift type), constrained grooming, potential
clearance problems with the mountain access road, and part of the historic resource (one
tower) will be displaced or destroyed. Additionally, a retaining wall of approximately twelve
feet is required for the queuing area.
Scenario 7 (Exhibit B) extends the current Lift 1A with a lift that terminates just uphill of the
original Lift 1 bullwheel and provides a skier return that would partially occur on the Dolinsek
property. Advantages of this option include lift and skier return to Deane, good pedestrain
access, good skier circulation and mazing, limited grooming constraints, allows for any lift type,
and retains the historic bullwheel. Disadvantages with this option include constraints on
snowmaking, a longer skier runout, a variance from the CPTSB is required, and all three historic
Lift 1 towers are displaced or destroyed.
Scenario 7a (Exhibit C) adds a mid-station to scenario 7 in the general vicinity of the current
loading platform for Lift 1A. The advantages include good skier return to the mid-station and
access from Deane; however, the interface with Gorsuch Haus would be impactful inclusive of
large retaining walls in the area and complicated skier and pedestrian circulation, the narrow
width of the skier return would most likely prohibit skiing to Deane Street, and while the historic
Lift 1 bullwheel would remain in place, the towers towers are displaced or destroyed.
Finally, Scenario 7b (Exhibit D) is the same as option 7 but brings the loading platform closer to
Dean Street by removing the bullwheel. The advantages include easier access from Deane;
however, skier circulation and mazing would be more constrained and Lift 1 will be destroyed
or relocated to an unrelated site, if an option could even be identified, that eliminates its
P3
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 3 of 10
relationship to the base of Aspen Mountain and nullifies its historic
integrity.
Of the four scenarios studied, the consultant has noted that
scenarios 1, 7 and 7b “were found to be possible concepts for
replacement of Lift 1A and worthy of further consideration,” but
that scenario 7 (a lift extension south of Dean Street – maintaining
the bullwheel) would be a superior solution to scenario 1 or 7b as
some of the historic resource can be maintained and the distance
from Deane Street to a newly located lift is reasonable.
Additionally, it has superior skier circulation and mazing when
compared with scenario 7b. All the stakeholders have agreed that
scenario 7 (a lift extension south of Dean Street – maintaining the
bullwheel) and recommend moving forward with this option.
HISTORIC LIFT ONE REPORT OVERVIEW. In preparation for this
worksession, the City commissioned a white paper titled “Lift 1
Historic Significance Report.” Lift 1 is an Aspen Landmark and was
the sixth property designated in Aspen. Landmarked in 1974, the construction of Lift 1 caused
the end of a prolonged and difficult 50 year period of economic depression in Aspen and led
to an astonishingly quick transformation into an internationally renowned ski resort. As the
attached report describes, Aspen miner’s relied on homemade skis for transportation and for
entertainment, a tradition that carried on after the mines closed. In the 1910s and 20s,
downhill skiing began to grow in popularity as a leisure sport in Europe and the US, but it
required climbing uphill to ski down. The first tow rope was invented in 1934, and soon after
three men with ties to Aspen and an interest in creating a ski resort laid the groundwork first by
exploring opportunities in the Castle Creek Valley, quickly surpassed by interest in Aspen
Mountain. Participants in a newly formed Aspen Ski Club cut the first ski run on Aspen
Mountain by hand in 1937 and built the Boat Tow, two sleds attached to a cable, pulled by a
Studebaker Motor. The Boat Tow could carry about 100 riders per day, when it didn’t tip over
and eject the passengers. By 1936, Sun Valley, America’s original ski resort, had invented and
installed the first chairlifts in the world. With further progress stalled by World War II, Aspen
would wait until 1945 for the vision and funding to come together to build a better lift, all the
way to the top. 10th Mountain veterans, Walter Paepcke, mine owner’s engineers, and the
determined locals who’d been skiing in Aspen for decades, worked together to install a chair
two stage chairlift, Lift No.1 and Lift No.2, within a seven month period between May and
December 1946. Lift 1 operated until 1971, when replaced with updated
equipment. Approximately 30 of the original towers were removed. The original base
terminal, a steel structure which houses the bullwheel where chairs moved into place to carry
skiers to the top of Aspen Mountain, and the first three lift towers have remained where they
were built over 70 years ago.
The cost, technical complexities, physical labor and the determination involved to erect what
was at the time the longest chairlift in the world, must be honored. While Planning Staff
respects the current effort to better serve ski operations on Aspen Mountain and to re-
invigorate the original access point to the skiing, preservation of the remains of Lift 1 as a
representation of Aspen’s history is fundamental. Any action to move, alter, or demolish any
Bullwheel and a tower
P4
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 4 of 10
component of this structure should be given the same weight as such a dramatic action
affecting a Victorian icon like the Wheeler would generate. Any changes to this designated
structure require the review of the Historic Preservation Commission, which, if not granted,
would necessitate intervention by City Council to proceed. Historic Preservation staff
recommends preservation of the remaining structure in-tact, in its current location. The
remaining portion of the system provides a sense of the dramatic experience of this small scale
single chair lift rising up the hillside, introducing the thrill of skiing to countless people and
creating the fundamental industry which defines Aspen today. There are only four single chair
lifts remaining in America, including Aspen’s Lift 1. At Mad River Glen, Vermont, a lift much like
Aspen’s has been restored and is in operation. Mt. Eyak, in Alaska, relocated one of the 1936
lifts at Sun Valley to their facility and are operating it. Sun Valley has one more early lift that
remains in place and is being preserved but is not in use. Aspen must recognize the
significance of this structure and be stewards of the community’s history.
Some of the earlier concepts explored in this effort to extend Lift 1A downhill would have
potentially removed all of Lift 1. Current proposals appear to allow for the bullwheel and one
to two towers to remain. Historic Preservation staff prefer the least intervention necessary and
believes that preservation concerns should equal all other determinants being
weighed. Skiing is a physically demanding sport and the potential impacts to Lift 1 in the
interest of reducing the approach to a new terminal by a relatively short distance should not
be taken lightly. Location of the new terminal as uphill as possible while still improving access is
ideal. It should be noted that the City commissioned a study of the physical condition of Lift 1
in 2014. Some repairs and restoration are needed, and lead paint on the structure must be
addressed. While relocation of the any elements of Lift 1 is arguably inappropriate and
destructive to the authenticity of the historic achievement that it represents, there could be
evaluation of a modest downhill movement of the system, remaining in the existing alignment,
if it results in preservation of the bullwheel and all towers.
LAND USE REVIEWS/TIMELINE: Both city staff and the stakeholders recommend to City Council
that Scenario 7 (a lift extension south of Dean Street – maintaining the bullwheel) be pursued,
though staff wishes to emphasize the importance of accommodating preservation of Lift 1 to
the greatest extent possible. This scenario has impacts to all property owners. If this option is
pursued, changes are anticipated with regard to the design of the Gorsuch Haus proposal
and the entitled Lift One Lodge development, as well as the activities and design of
Willoughby Park and Lift One Park.
Each individual property would need to either amend or receive land use approvals to
develop a cohesive site plan for the subject area in its entirety. Additionally, changes to some
of the properties are or may be subject to a public vote and staff is recommending an
aggressive review schedule to accommodate a vote in November. Following is a brief
overview of the next steps and a timeline for the properties:
Willoughby Park/Lift One Park. As city owned properties, any changes to the approved uses on
the properties require a public vote. The Skier’s Chalet Lodge has been previously approved
to be located on Willoughby Park to serve a skier museum and is historically designated. The
historic bullwheel and one of the lift towers are also located on Willoughby Park. Additionally,
two lift towers are located on Lift 1 Park. The Skier’s Chalet Steak House is locally designated
P5
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 5 of 10
but situated on a separate lot and approved for affordable housing.
The Community Development department has been working with the Parks Department and
other stakeholders to consider what uses should occur on the property, how the property can
best function as a park in the summer and ski base in the winter, and whether structures need
to or should be moved to better accommodate multiple uses on the site. As scenario 7
contemplates removal/relocation of the lift towers to accommodate a new base, the HPC will
need to review the proposal before council considers it. The Parks department will have some
initial concept level drawings to show Council at the work session for initial feedback.
Additionally, initial concepts for the property will be presented to the Parks and Open Space
Board at an upcoming meeting.
Lift One Lodge. To accommodate the ski run width preferred by SkiCo, Lift One Lodge will be
looking at changing the placement of the lodge. This will include siting changes as well as
potential massing and programming changes to the existing approvals. As a property that was
located within the Lodge zone district in 2015, it is subject to Referendum 1 which triggers a
public vote if certain dimensional thresholds are exceeded or code requirements diminished.
Staff anticipates that the amendments will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for a recommendation with final approval by City Council, and that changes
could trigger a public vote under Referendum 1.
Gorsuch Haus. The Gorsuch Haus application, which was tabled in 2017 to evaluate the
feasibility of bringing a replacement lift for 1A further down the mountain, will also need to
accommodate potential impacts to their site plan if scenario 7 is pursued. As the application
was last reviewed before the City Council, it is anticipated that Council will be the only
reviewer for any changes dictated by scenario 7. As the applicant is requesting a rezoning,
Council may determine that the project be put to the voters as it is a referable action.
The following timeline is anticipated to get all three projects on the November 6th ballot:
· June 19th: Planning and Zoning Commission review of Lift One Lodge changes.
· June 20th: Historic Preservation Commission review of Willoughby Park and Lift One Park
changes, as well as any possible changes to the approved plans for Skier’s Chalet
Steakhouse.
· June 25th: First reading by City Council on Lift One Lodge and Willoughby Park/Lift One
Park.
· July 9th: Second reading by City Council on Lift One Lodge, Willoughby Park/Lift One
Park, and Gorsuch Haus (public hearing).
· July 23rd: Second reading by City Council on Lift One Lodge, Willoughby Park/Lift One
Park, and Gorsuch Haus (public hearing).
· August 13th: Ballot language for all three projects & (if necessary) additional hearing on
all three projects.
· August 13th: Ballot language for all three projects.
· November 6th: Election
· Prior to election, request CPTSB variance.
P6
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 6 of 10
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does Council support moving forward with scenario 7? This is a decision point that
affects all parties and how they move forward.
2. Does Council support the aggressive entitlement timeline?
3. If option 7 is pursued, does City Council support additional budget to complete and
follow through with a variance request before the CPTSB?
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Scenario 1, plan view
Exhibit B – Scenario 7, plan view
Exhibit C – Scenario 7a, plan view
Exhibit D – Scenario 7b, plan view
Exhibit E – Lift 1A, Phase II report
P7
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT A – SCENARIO 1
EXHIBIT B – SCENARIO 7
P8
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT C – SCENARIO 7A
P9
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 9 of 10
P10
I.
Lift 1A Phase II Study Work Session
May 15, 2018
Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT D – SCENARIO 7B
P11
I.
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
Prepared by:
SE Group
CITY OF ASPEN
LIFT 1A STAGE II
ASSESSMENT REPORT
MAY 2018
P12
I.
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
P13
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| i
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 1
EVALUATION PROCESS ............................................................................................................................................. 3
General Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation Process for Gilbert Street and Dean Street Options (Options 1 and 7) ............................................... 3
Evaluation Process for Mid-Station and Lower Dean Street Options (Options 7a and 7b).................................... 4
EVALUATION OF OPTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Option 1 | Gilbert Street ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Description ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
Qualitative and Operational Criteria .................................................................................................................... 13
Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................... 15
Option 7 | Dean Street ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Qualitative and Operational Criteria .................................................................................................................... 23
Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................... 26
Option 7A | Mid-Station ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Qualitative and Operational Criteria .................................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................... 32
Option 7B | Lower Dean Street ................................................................................................................................ 33
Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Qualitative and Operational Criteria .................................................................................................................... 39
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................... 39
CPTSB VARIANCES ................................................................................................................................................... 40
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 41
APPENDICES
Lift 1 Historic Significance Report
CPTSB Variance Request Guidelines
P14
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
ii |
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Option 1 Plan View ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Option 1 Section Views ................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Option 1 3D Model View ............................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Option 7 Plan View ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 5. Option 7 Section Views ................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 6. Option 7 3D Model View ............................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7. Option 7a Plan View ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 8. Option 7b Plan View ..................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 9. Option 7b Section View ................................................................................................................................. 37
P15
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 1
I NTRODUCTION
During the summer and fall of 2017, SE Group prepared the City of Aspen Lift 1A Assessment
Report (October 2017) that evaluates nine optional lift configurations for replacement of Lift 1A
as they relate 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. The 2017 Lift 1A
Assessment concluded that Options 1 and 7 are possible concepts for replacement of Lift 1A
and are worthy of further consideration. Option 1 (also referred to as the Gilbert Street Option)
terminates the lift just south of Gilbert Street, and Option 2 (also referred to as the Dean Street
Option) terminates the lift just south of Dean Street.
Following completion of the 2017 Assessment Report and its presentation to City Council, the
City of Aspen (the City), with agreement from the Gorsuch Haus developers, the Lift One Lodge
developers, and Aspen Skiing Co. (SkiCo) decided to further evaluate Options 1 and 7, as well
as two alternatives to Option 7: Option 7a adds a loading and unloading mid-station adjacent to
the Gorsuch Haus building, and Option 7b moves the bottom terminal closer to Dean Street.
The purpose of the additional “Stage II” evaluation is to assist the City and stakeholders in
defining the one scenario that best meets the needs and desires of all parties for replacement of
Lift 1A.
This City of Aspen Lift 1A Stage II Assessment Report evaluates physical feasibility
considerations related to integrating the optional ski infrastructure scenarios with surrounding
development, as well as important operational aspects and qualitative criteria related to
maintaining a quality guest experience for the skiing public and lodging guests at the Gorsuch
Haus and Lift One Lodge properties. The physical feasibility considerations account for the
physical and spatial requirements of the various ski infrastructure components themselves (ski
lift terminals, towers and clearance corridors; ski trail corridor widths; ski lift mazing and
circulation spaces; etc.), and the physical integration of ski lift infrastructure construction with
surrounding existing and proposed grades, elevations, buildings, roads, ski runs, property
boundaries and pedestrian circulation corridors. The qualitative and operational criteria address
parameters related to the guest experience and operational functions for the SkiCo, Gorsuch
Haus and Lift One Lodge that result in a quality overall development. To assist in addressing the
full range of qualitative and operational aspects, a list of important criteria was assembled with
input from SkiCo, Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge. The following is a summary list of the
qualitative and operational criteria that have been considered in the Lift 1A Stage II
Assessment.
• Optimize the interface between ski infrastructure and lodging buildings
• Maintain acceptable space for skier and pedestrian circulation
• Design encourages access from points in Aspen to the east of the site
• Optimize repeat skiing and return ski access to the Lift 1A bottom terminal
• Desired minimum return ski run width of 60 feet
• Priority of lift technology: #1 – Telemix (clockwise rotation), #2 – gondola,
#3 – detachable chairlift; the study should recommend what is appropriate based on
locational feasibility and compatibility with surrounding properties, boundaries, etc.
• Mid-station terminal functionality (Option 7a only)
P16
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
2 |
• Account for snowmaking, snow management, maintenance and grooming operations
• Provide 1,000 to 1,500 square feet of ticketing and guest services space near the
lift base
• Provide ~1,500 square feet of ski patrol operational space on the Gorsuch Haus site
• Maintain emergency service access and staging at the top of S. Aspen Street
• The mountain access road must be maintained in both winter and summer for wheeled
and tracked vehicles. Sufficient staging and circulation space must be maintained to:
(a) turn a cat around in winter conditions, and (b) park, unload, and transfer materials
and heavy equipment to and from trucks in both winter and summer conditions at the top
of S. Aspen Street
• Summer vehicular and heavy equipment access must be provided to the lift terminal,
towers, cables and other lift equipment
• Obtainable variances from Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB)
It is understood that some of these criteria are not absolute requirements for acceptance of an
optional scenario, but rather points of considerations in developing design recommendations for
the site plans that best fit the available spaces, and evaluating the relative merits of each option.
There are historic resource issues that impact the evaluation of potential replacement options
for Lift 1A. The remnants of Lift 1, a bull wheel and three lift towers, are located within the area
being evaluated for Lift 1A replacement options. The City has undertaken research into the
history associated with these structures to gain a more robust understanding of the designated
structures and is considering what review process would be required if resources need to be
relocated or removed. The City historic resources report is included as an appendix to this
report.
The following report presents: 1) a description of SE Group’s evaluation process; 2) the
evaluation of each of the four options, which includes a detailed description of the scenario,
illustrative plans, assessment discussion, and conclusion; 3) a discussion regarding CPTSB
variance requirements and factors; and 4) a conclusion.
P17
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 3
EVALUATION PROCESS
This section describes the evaluation process and planning determinants considered for the four
options that were analyzed (Options 1, 7, 7a, and 7b).
GENERAL OVERVIEW
To initiate the Lift 1A Stage II Assessment, the 2017 planning base map was updated to reflect
current data for existing structures, buildings, key properties, parcels, easements, rights-of-way,
roads and vegetation. The planning base map was also revised with updated proposed building
footprints and site plans for the Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge 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, the
recorded Lift One Lodge PUD Subdivision Plat map supplied by the City, and current site plans
and architectural plans from Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge. 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.
For all four options, the plans were generated to depict the worst-case scenario in terms of
spatial requirements based on lift technology (Telemix, gondola, or detachable chairlift). In
summary, the Telemix and gondola terminal structures are approximately the same size, and
they are about 20 to 25 feet longer than a quad chairlift terminal and slightly wider. The mazing
and circulation space requirements for a Telemix are greater than for a gondola and chairlift,
and the lift corridor air space clearance requirement for a Telemix is slightly wider. Therefore, all
plans depict terminal, maze/circulation area, and air space clearance corridor requirements
(ANSI and CPTSB) for a Telemix with six-place chairs and eight-place cabins to represent the
worst case (except the Gilbert Street option, as described later). All lift structural elements and
sizing are based on current information from the lift supplier (Leitner-Poma of America).
Evaluation Process for Gilbert Street and Dean Street Options (Options 1 and 7)
For the Gilbert Street and Dean Street options, the evaluation process began with preparing
schematic site plans for each option. The schematic site plans illustrate the following design
elements:
• Pedestrian paths and vertical circulation with ADA access
• Pedestrian access routes from the Monarch Street area, Dean Street/S. Aspen Street
drop-off, Lift One Lodge project area, Gorsuch Haus project area, and S. Aspen Street
• Lift corridors, grading, and retaining wall placement
• Lift terminals and equipment, including loading/unloading platforms, maze areas and
circulation areas
• Ski rack and pedestrian/skier milling areas
• Required ski corridor limits and building setbacks
• 1,000 to 1,500 square feet of ticketing and skier services space
• Events and operations staging space at the top of S. Aspen Street
• Access and staging space for emergency vehicle loading at the top of S. Aspen Street
P18
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
4 |
Development of the schematic site plans involved coordination with Gorsuch Haus and Lift One
Lodge planners and architects to integrate the Lift 1A plans with their site plans to the extent
possible.
The physical feasibility of each option was then tested 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 north-to-south and east-to-west 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.
Three-dimensional (3D) renderings were prepared of the schematic site plans to illustrate the
spatial arrangement of all Lift 1A elements relative to the Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge
buildings, as well as other existing buildings and features surrounding the project area.
Initial draft plans of each option were delivered to the City and subsequently to SkiCo, Gorsuch
Haus and Lift One Lodge for review and comments, and revisions were made as necessary to
finalize the plans.
A written description of Options 1 and 7 is provided under the Evaluation of Options section and
includes an assessment of how each option conforms with the identified qualitative and
operational criteria, describes the advantages and disadvantages of each option, and provides a
conclusion. The written description and evaluation of each option is accompanied by the
schematic site plan, site section illustrations, and 3D renderings.
Evaluation Process for M id-Station and Lower Dean Street Options (Options 7a and 7b)
Options 7a and 7b were developed to address comments from City Council regarding the
configuration of Option 7 and are variations of that basic concept. Option 7a adds a loading and
unloading mid-station adjacent to the Gorsuch Haus building, and Option 7b moves the bottom
terminal closer to Dean Street. Because these options are very similar to Option 7, and because
Option 7a was determined early in the study to present significant operational and physical
construction challenges, a more general evaluation of these two options was undertaken to
better understand their perceived limitations and practical feasibility, and determine whether
they were worthy of further evaluation or should be abandoned from consideration.
The partial analysis of Options 7a and 7b involved preparing schematic site plans for each
option like those developed for Options 1 and 7, and a study of the physical feasibility and
practical limitations of each option when considering the intention of the scenario and
conforming to the identified qualitative and operational criteria. Site section illustrations and 3D
renderings were not prepared for Option 7a, and one site section and no 3D renderings were
prepared for Option 7b.
A written description of Options 7a and 7b is provided under the Evaluation of Options section
and includes a summary assessment of the option, along with a conclusion as to whether the
option is worthy of further evaluation or should be abandoned from consideration.
P19
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 5
EVALUATION OF OPTIONS
OPTION 1 | GILBERT STREET
Description
The Lift 1A 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/S. Aspen Street drop-off
(see Figures 1 through 3). This terminal location displaces the Lift One Lodge east building, and
that entire building (with the possible exception of sub-grade levels) would need to be removed
under this scenario.
The terminal elevation would be 7986, placing it about 11 feet higher than the Lift One Lodge
motor court and level 1 (7975) and 4 feet below level 2 (7990). A U-shaped retaining wall would
wrap around the south end of the terminal site with a maximum wall height of 11 feet. This
retaining wall would preclude a continuous ski route returning to the Dean Street/S. Aspen
Street drop-off.
A 1,000- to 1,500-square foot ticketing and guest services facility would be located underneath
the northeast corner of the terminal loading platform area and would form the NE corner of the
retaining wall. The floor elevation of the guest service building would be 7975, at the same
elevation as Lift One Lodge motor court/level 1 and slightly higher than Gilbert Street (~7971). A
stairway and elevator would be located in the NE corner of the building, providing access
(including ADA) to the lift terminal loading platform above.
Pedestrian access from the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off would be via a sidewalk along
S. Aspen Street, and either around the north and east sides of the west Lift One Lodge building,
or through the Lift One Lodge motor court to Gilbert Street. In either case, the walking distance
would be about 440 feet over a vertical climb of 40 feet (9% average gradient). Pedestrian
access from the Gorsuch Haus property would be through their roundabout and along the Lift
One Lodge building to Gilbert Street. Pedestrian access from the St. Regis and other properties
east of the project area would be along Monarch Street to Gilbert Street.
Public ADA access to the lift loading platform would be via vehicle drop-off on Monarch Street at
Gilbert, and along Gilbert Street to the guest service building elevator. ADA access from
Gorsuch Haus would be via shuttle to the Lift One Lodge motor court or through the Lift One
Lodge vertical circulation, and along Gilbert Street to the guest service building elevator.
Option 1 only impacts one historic Lift 1 tower (the upper tower).
P20
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
6 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P21
I.
8010802080258030803580408045805080558060806580007990798679887976798010%
8.5%±25%JUAN STSOUTH ASPEN
S
TEAST DEAN CTEAST DURANT AVESOUTH MONA
R
C
H
S
T
SUMMIT STGILBERT STDOLINSEK
PROPERTY
PROPOSED
ASPEN
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY SKI
MUSEUM
PROPOSED LIFT
ONE LODGE PROPOSED
GORSUCH HAUS
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
SHADOW MOUNTAIN
CONDOMINIUMS
RECREATION
EASEMENT
CHAIR ROPE
35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSB
MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
STAIR/ELEVATOR BUILDING
PROPOSED LIFT TOWER, TYPICAL
NO SKI UNDER ZONE
OUTSIDE OF CHAIR
PROPOSED SKIWAY
STAGING AREA
EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND TRUCK UNLOADING ZONE
MILLING AREA
PROPOSED SUMMER ACCESS ROAD
5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODE
32 FT60 FT35 FT86 FTPROPOSED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
+ 7937.0
7975.0 ++7986.0
+BW 7987.0
8002
8017.5
+ 8022
+
+
MOUNTAIN
QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS
HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE
DROP-OFF
A¹
B¹
A
BLegend
Property Boundaries
ADA Access
Pedestrian Circulation
Proposed Lift
Existing Building
Building Under Construction
Building to Remove
Recreation Easement
Proposed Skiway
Summer Access Road
Proposed Building
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FIGURE 1 | OPTION 1 - PLAN VIEW Prepared by :
0 40 80 120 160
SCALE (ft)NExisting Lift 1 Tower
1’ Contour Intervals
May 10, 2018
P22I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
8 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P23
I.
7940
7960
7980
8000
8060
8080
8100
8020
8040
100 0200300400500600700800900
100 0200300400
7960
7980
8000
8020
8040
8060
8080
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROPOSED GONDOLA TERMINAL & PLAZA
ADA ACCESS AT GILBERT ST.
EAST DEAN CT & SOUTH
ASPEN ST DROP OFF
EXISTING LIFT 1
HISTORIC STRUCTURE
ENTRANCE TO SKIER SERVICES
PROPOSED LIFT ONE LODGE,
WEST BUILDING
PROPOSED LIFT ONE LODGE,
WEST BUILDING
PROPOSED LIFT ONE LODGE,
MOTOR COURT
PROPOSED GONDOLA TERMINAL & PLAZA
PROPOSED LIFT TOWER
PROPOSED GORSUCH HAUS
7975.0
SKIER SERVICES ENTRANCE
TERMINAL PLAZASOUTH
MONARCH ST.GILBERT ST.
PROPOSED ELEVATOR/STAIRWAY FOR
ADA ACCESS TO/FROM SKIER SERVICES
8006.0
SUMMER ACCESS ROAD
8002.0
GORSUCH DROP-OFF
7986.0
TERMINAL LOAD
7975.0
SKIER SERVICES
BW 7975.0
7986.0
Prepared by :
0 30 60 90 120
SCALE (ft)
N
NSECTION B: EAST - WEST
SECTION A: SOUTH - NORTH
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FIGURE 2 | OPTION 1 - SECTION VIEWS
May 10, 2018
P24I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
10 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P25
I.
Prepared by :VIEW 1VIEW 3VIEW 2VIEW 4THE CITY OF ASPEN FIGURE 3 | OPTION 1 - 3D MODEL VIEWMay 10, 2018P26I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
12 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P27
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 13
Qualitative and Operational Criteria
Overall Skier Experience – The Lift One Lodge west building has direct skier and pedestrian
access to this terminal location, but the lift infrastructure causes elimination of their east
building. Gorsuch Haus has direct slopeside access and a short ski (~200 feet) to the lift
terminal, but pedestrian access is indirect. Proposed slope grading matches well with proposed
building elevations and plaza/entrance levels, and lift structures do not conflict with circulation
around the buildings.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – Skier circulation and milling space at the lift maze area is
quite constrained by the narrow width between the terminal structure and the Lift One Lodge
building, and the required retaining wall. The retaining wall would preclude a continuous ski
route returning to the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off.
Public pedestrian circulation is compromised by the 40-foot vertical climb from the Dean
Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off and the indirect routing from Gorsuch Haus, but it is still
considered acceptable. Pedestrian access from Lift One Lodge and properties to the east is
very good.
Repeat Skiing and Return Ski Access – Repeat skiing and return ski access to the bottom
terminal in this option is very good, with only a very short “run-out” of about 200 feet with
shallower slope gradient and narrower width. There would not be a continuous return ski access
to the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off.
Minimum Width of Return Ski Run – The minimum width of the return ski run is about 35 feet
adjacent to the Gorsuch Haus cul-de-sac, which is acceptable based on the slope gradient and
projected skier traffic flows, but narrower than the 60-foot minimum width identified in the
qualitative and operational criteria.
Lift Type – Because of the confined nature of this terminal site, it is not possible to fit a Telemix
terminal and associated maze and circulation space within this area. Accordingly, either a
gondola or detachable chairlift would need to be installed. The Option 1 site plan (Figure 1)
depicts a gondola terminal, loading configuration and airspace clearance corridor.
Snowmaking and Snow Management – The last 200 feet of the return ski run is relatively
narrow and proximate to existing and proposed buildings, which would have an impact on
snowmaking operations. It is possible that snowmaking operations would require stockpiling
machine-made snow uphill of the narrow run section and pushing that snow down towards the
lift maze area.
The return run directly above the lift maze area is about 3 snowcat widths wide but tapers at the
bottom to about 35 feet. Maneuvering space for grooming operations and turnaround at the
maze area would be confined and inefficient, but possible. Snowcat maneuvering in this area
would involve multi-point turns and backing up, with associated noise impacts from the back-up
warning attenuation on snowcats (“beep-beeps”).
Ticketing and Guest Services Space – There is ample space below the lift loading platform to
build a 1,500-square foot ticketing and guest services structure. The space would be connected
to the loading platform above by stairs and an elevator and would have pedestrian and ADA
access from Gilbert Street.
P28
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
14 |
Ski Patrol Operational Space – It is understood that Gorsuch Haus has programmed ski patrol
operations and employee space within their building that is acceptable to SkiCo.
Emergency Service Access and Staging – Emergency vehicle access and staging must be
located at the top of S. Aspen Street, immediately accessible to snow to enable the transfer of
injured skiers from sleds to ambulances. This functionality would need to be accommodated
within the Gorsuch Haus cul-de-sac, and their current site plan appears to address this need.
Mountain Access Road – The mountain access road must be maintained for both winter and
summer access for wheeled and tracked vehicles. The current Gorsuch Haus site plan includes
a realigned mountain access road that terminates at the northeast corner of their cul-de-sac.
The cul-de-sac site plan provides for a pull-out and staging area, and it is assumed that curbing
in this area would be eased so vehicles could enter the mountain access road without
encountering a prohibitive curb.
The proposed mountain access road crosses under the no ski-under clearance zone of Lift 1A
so the required 14-foot minimum vertical clearance may not be met in the winter or summer
when chairs or gondola cabins are on the line. There would be adequate clearance if carriers
were not on the line.
Sufficient staging and circulation space has been maintained to: (a) turn a snowcat around in
winter conditions, and (b) park, unload, and transfer materials and heavy equipment to and from
trucks in both winter and summer conditions. Space for staging and transferring materials would
occur within the Gorsuch Haus drop-off plaza, so appropriate arrangements regarding delivery
scheduling would need to be agreed upon between Gorsuch Haus and SkiCo.
Maintenance Access to Lift Equipment – Maintenance access to lift equipment is provided by
the mountain access road and a short (125 feet) spur road from the bottom of the mountain
access road to the bottom terminal of Lift 1A.
Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board – The Gilbert Street option would not require a
variance from the CPTSB.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
• Very good repeat skiing and return ski access to the Lift 1A bottom terminal
• Minor negative impact on snowmaking operations
• Very good accommodation of ticketing, guest services, and ski patrol operations spaces
• Does not require a variance from the CPTSB
• Only encounters the upper historic Lift 1 tower
Disadvantages
• Requires elimination of the east Lift One Lodge building
• Constrained skier circulation and maze area at the bottom terminal
• Public pedestrian circulation is compromised by the 40-foot vertical climb from the
Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off
P29
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 15
• Public ADA access requires some type of vehicle drop-off at the intersection of Monarch
and Gilbert streets
• Does not allow for a Telemix lift
• Grooming operations would be constrained near the bottom terminal and maze area
• Possible vertical clearance issues on the mountain access road
Conclusion
Option 1 is a viable alternative for replacement of Lift 1A. It is physically feasible to construct the
ski infrastructure as presented without uncommon construction challenges, and the option is
largely responsive to the established qualitative and operational criteria. The key advantage of
Option 1 is that it maintains a skier experience on Lift 1A that is very similar to what it is
currently, and doesn’t present significant operational challenges, property ownership issues or
historic resource issues related to extending the ski corridor further down towards Dean Street.
The primary disadvantages of Option 1 are that it requires elimination of the east Lift One Lodge
building, and it does not create a direct lift and ski-return connection to the Dean Street/
S. Aspen Street drop-off. Additionally, the provision of public ADA access to the lift terminal
platform would need to rely on an alternative transit system to Monarch and Gilbert streets for
which a solution has not been confirmed. Another key disadvantage is that the space for the
base lift terminal, ski return and maze area is very confined and is not big enough for the
desired Telemix lift.
While Option 1 is a viable alternative for replacement of Lift 1A that is worthy of further
consideration, the significance of the disadvantages identified in this assessment outweigh the
significance of the advantages.
P30
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
16 |
OPTION 7 | DEAN STREET
Description
The Lift 1A bottom terminal would be located about 140 feet south of the Dean Street/S. Aspen
Street drop-off and about 13 feet vertically higher (see Figures 4 through 6). The terminal would
be at the same elevation as the historic lift base terminal structure and about 20 feet to the
south of it. Fill material would be placed on the south half of the existing Lift 1 Park volleyball
court, extending to the north Dolinsek property boundary, to create a flat milling and maze
space that ties in with existing grade at the Dolinsek property.
A 1,000- to 1,500-square foot ticketing and guest services facility would be incorporated into the
proposed Aspen Historical Society Ski Museum building. The ground floor elevation of the guest
service building would be about 7940, approximately 3 feet higher in elevation than the Dean
Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off (~7937). A stairway and elevator would be located on the south
end of the building, providing access (including ADA) to the lift terminal loading platform at
elevation 7950.
Pedestrian access from the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off would be via a sidewalk to the
ski museum/guest services building and internal or external stairs to the loading platform level.
The walking distance to the guest services building would be about 150 feet over a vertical
climb of 4 feet (3% average gradient). Pedestrian access from the Gorsuch Haus property
would be through their roundabout and along a sidewalk on S. Aspen Street Access from Lift
One Lodge would be along S. Aspen Street or through their property. Pedestrian access from
the St. Regis and other properties east of the project area would be along Monarch Street and
Dean Street to the ski museum/guest services building. Walking distance from the St. Regis to
the guest services building would be about 300 feet.
The museum and guest services building would be ADA accessible from the Dean Street/
S. Aspen Street drop-off.
Option 7 impacts all three historic Lift 1 towers, but not the base terminal.
P31
I.
±20'79908000798079700697059780108020802580308035804080458050805580608065795079468.5%
±25%
15%JUAN STSOUTH ASPEN
S
TEAST DEAN CTEAST DURANT AVESOUTH MONA
R
C
H
S
T SUMMIT STGILBERT STDOLINSEK
PROPERTY
PROPOSED LIFT
ONE LODGE
PROPOSED LIFT
ONE LODGE
PROPOSED
GORSUCH HAUS
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
SHADOW MOUNTAIN
CONDOMINIUMS
CHAIR ROPE
35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSB
NO SKI UNDER ZONE
OUTSIDE OF CHAIR
PROPOSED SKIWAY
PROPOSED SUMMER ACCESS ROAD
5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODE
PROPOSED ASPEN
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY SKI
MUSEUM
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE
DROP-OFF
SIDEWALK AND STEPS
MILLING AREA
+ 7950.0 60 FT60 FT60 FT
MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
+ 7937.0
+ 7940.0
MOUNTAIN
QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS
STAGING AREA
EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND TRUCK UNLOADING ZONE 38 FT88 FTPROPOSED LIFT TOWER, TYPICAL
A¹
B¹
A
B
Prepared by :
0 40 80 120 160
SCALE (ft)NLegend
Property Boundaries
ADA Access
Pedestrian Circulation
Proposed Lift
Existing Building
Building Under Construction
Building to Remove
Recreation Easement
Proposed Skiway
Summer Access Road
Proposed Building
Existing Lift 1 Tower
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FIGURE 4 | OPTION 7 - PLAN VIEW
1’ Contour Intervals
May 10, 2018
P32I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
18 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P33
I.
100 0200300400500600700800900
7940
7960
7980
8000
8020
8040
8060
8080
8100
8120
100 0200300
7940
7960
7980
8000
8020
8040
8060
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROPOSED GONDOLA TERMINAL & PLAZA
ADA ACCESS
ADA ACCESS
EXISTING LIFT 1
HISTORIC STRUCTURE
EXISTING LIFT 1
HISTORIC STRUCTURE
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROPOSED LIFT ONE LODGE,
WEST BUILDING
PROPOSED GORSUCH HAUS
8002.0
GORSUCH DROP-OFF
8006.0
SUMMER ACCESS ROAD
7950.0
TERMINAL LOAD
7950.0
TERMINAL LOAD
PROPOSED HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM
7937.0
DROP-OFF
7937.0
TRANSIT DROP-OFF
PROPOSED LIFT ONE LODGE,
WEST BUILDING
PROPOSED GONDOLA TERMINAL & PLAZA
PROPOSED LIFT TOWER
7940.0
Prepared by :
0 30 60 90 120
SCALE (ft)
N
SECTION A: SOUTH - NORTH
NSECTION B: EAST - WEST
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FIGURE 5 | OPTION 7 - SECTION VIEW
May 10, 2018
P34I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
20 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P35
I.
Prepared by :VIEW 1VIEW 3VIEW 2VIEW 4THE CITY OF ASPEN FIGURE 6| OPTION 7 - 3D MODEL VIEWMay 10, 2018P36I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
22 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P37
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 23
Qualitative and Operational Criteria
Interface Between Ski Infrastructure and Lodging Buildings – Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch
Haus have direct slopeside access and a short ski (Lift One Lodge ~250 feet, Gorsuch Haus
~500 feet) to the lift terminal, but pedestrian access to the terminal is indirect. Proposed slope
grading matches well with proposed building elevations and plaza/entrance levels, and lift
structures do not conflict with circulation around the buildings. The lift alignment comes within
close proximity of both buildings, with chairs or gondola cabins passing within about 10 feet of
the building faces at the nearest point.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – Skier circulation and milling space at the lift maze area
extends into the Dolinsek property and is ample. The Gorsuch Haus and both Lift One Lodge
buildings have slopeside access along the length of the buildings. This option provides a
continuous ski route returning to the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off.
Public pedestrian circulation is excellent from the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off, with a
walking distance of 150 to 250 feet (depending on whether the guest walks directly to the lift or
enters via the guest services building) over a vertical climb of about 13 feet. By comparison, the
routing from drop-off to lift terminal at the Silver Queen gondola is 200 feet over about a 15-foot
climb, and at Buttermilk the routing from drop-off to lift terminal is 300 feet over a climb of nearly
10 feet.
Pedestrian access from Lift One Lodge and properties to the east is very good. Access from
Gorsuch Haus involves a walk of about 650 feet over about 55 vertical feet (8% average
gradient).
Repeat Skiing and Return Ski Access – Repeat skiing and return ski access to the bottom
terminal in this option is good, although there is a relatively long “run-out” of about 500 feet with
shallower slope gradient and narrower width. By comparison, the Lionshead run-out at Vail,
from Forest Road across the skier bridge to the Eaglebahn lift, is 750 feet long with similar width
and slope gradient.
Minimum Width of Return Ski Run – The minimum width of the return ski run is about 60 feet
where it passes between the Lift One Lodge buildings, which is acceptable based on the slope
gradient and projected skier traffic flows, and meets the 60-foot minimum width identified in the
qualitative and operational criteria.
Lift Type – With generous flat ground in this area, there is adequate space for either Telemix,
gondola or detachable chair lifts.
Snowmaking and Snow Management – The 350-foot section of the return ski run from
Gorsuch Haus to the south Dolinsek property line is relatively narrow and proximate to proposed
buildings and the Gorsuch Haus drop-off area, and making snow within this narrow corridor
presents operational challenges. A proposed solution is to stockpile machine-made snow uphill
of the narrow run section and downhill on the Dolinsek property and pushing that snow into the
narrow section of the trail with snowcats, a distance of about 200 to 250 feet in each direction.
The total volume of snow required to initially cover this corridor to a depth of 2 feet is about
45,000 cubic feet, which would take in the order of 15 to 20 hours to produce assuming the use
of four snowmaking guns (two at Gorsuch Haus and two adjacent to the Dolinsek property). If
P38
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
24 |
half this volume of snow were stored at each location, a pile would need to be made
approximately 60 feet in diameter and 10 to 15 feet deep in each location.
For maintenance of the snow pack depth and snow quality throughout the ski season, additional
snow would need to be made in December and January and stored, primarily on the Dolinsek
property but to a lessor degree adjacent to Gorsuch Haus, and pushed into the narrow corridor
throughout the season as the coverage wore thin. Mid-season snow storage in front of Gorsuch
Haus would be limited by the need to maintain a flat ski run in front of the building. It is likely that
the snow pile stored on Dolinsek property for mid- and late-season use would be larger than the
piles made at the beginning of the season.
The return run is about 3 snowcat widths wide above the Dolinsek property but widens at the
bottom to about 100 feet at the maze area. This is adequate space for grooming operations,
maneuvering and turnaround at the maze area.
Ticketing and Guest Services Space – 1,000 to 1,500 square feet of ticketing and guest
services space would need to be programmed into the proposed ski museum building. The
building footprint shown on Figure 4 is about 3,200 square feet, and the proposed building has a
second and third level of 2,000 square feet each plus a 4,000-square foot basement, giving a
total building square footage of 11,200 square feet. The space would include stairs and an
elevator at the south end to provide ADA and pedestrian connections from the ground floor
elevation to the loading platform above.
Ski Patrol Operational Space – It is understood that Gorsuch Haus has programmed ski patrol
operations and employee space within their building that is acceptable to SkiCo. As a potential
alternative, ski patrol space could be accommodated in the ski museum building adjacent to the
guest service functions, provided that:
1. There is adequate space in the ski museum building to house ski patrol (~1,500) as well
as the programmed museum and guest service functions,
2. Emergency vehicle staging can be accommodated on Dean Street, and
3. An acceptable configuration can be designed for transporting injured guests from rescue
sleds to an ambulance on Dean Street about 12 feet lower in elevation.
Emergency Service Access and Staging – Emergency vehicle access and staging must be
located at the top of S. Aspen Street, immediately accessible to snow to enable the transfer of
injured skiers from sleds to ambulances. This functionality would need to be accommodated
within the Gorsuch Haus cul-de-sac, and their current site plan appears to address this need.
Alternatively, if ski patrol were located near the bottom terminal as described above, ambulance
service access and staging would be on Dean Street.
Mountain Access Road – The mountain access road must be maintained for both winter and
summer access for wheeled and tracked vehicles. The current Gorsuch Haus site plan includes
a realigned mountain access road that terminates at the northeast corner of their cul-de-sac.
The cul-de-sac site plan provides for a pull-out and staging area, and it is assumed that curbing
in this area would be eased so vehicles could enter the mountain access road without
encountering a prohibitive curb.
P39
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 25
Sufficient staging and circulation space has been maintained to: (a) turn a snowcat around in
winter conditions, and (b) park, unload, and transfer materials and heavy equipment to and from
trucks in both winter and summer conditions. Space for staging and transferring materials would
occur within the Gorsuch Haus drop-off plaza, so appropriate arrangements regarding delivery
scheduling would need to be agreed upon between Gorsuch Haus and SkiCo.
Maintenance Access to Lift Equipment – Maintenance access to lift equipment is provided by
the mountain access road and a short (350 feet) spur road from the bottom of the mountain
access road to the bottom terminal of Lift 1A. An alternative to the short spur road would be to
use Gilbert Street to access the bottom terminal.
Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board – The Dean Street option would require a
variance from the CPTSB because the setback of Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge buildings
from the lift does not meet the lift corridor air space clearance requirements.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
• Direct lift access and ski return to the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off
• Very good pedestrian and ADA access to the Lift 1A bottom terminal
• Does not require elimination of the east Lift One Lodge building
• Ample skier circulation and maze area at the bottom terminal
• Good accommodation of ticketing, guest services, and ski patrol operations spaces
• Minimal constraints to grooming operations near the bottom terminal and maze area
• Allows for all three lift types – Telemix, gondola, or detachable chairlift
Disadvantages
• Negative impact on snowmaking operations
• Repeat skiing and return ski access to the Lift 1A bottom terminal compromised by
longer runout
• Requires a variance from the CPTSB
• Impacts all three historic Lift 1 towers
P40
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
26 |
Conclusion
Option 7 is a viable alternative for replacement of Lift 1A. It is physically feasible to construct the
ski infrastructure as presented without uncommon construction challenges, and the option is
largely responsive to the established qualitative and operational criteria. The key advantages of
Option 7 are that it creates a direct lift and ski-return connection to the Dean Street/S. Aspen
Street drop-off, and it does not require elimination of the east Lift One Lodge building.
Additionally, there is ample space at the base lift terminal area for skier and pedestrian
circulation, as well as grooming operations.
The primary disadvantages of Option 7 are that it presents snowmaking operations challenges,
and property ownership (Dolinsek,) CPTSB, and historic resource issues related to extending
the ski corridor further down towards Dean Street. Also, it results in a somewhat compromised
repeat skiing experience and return ski access to the Lift 1A bottom terminal because of the
longer run-out (500 feet versus 200 feet for the Gilbert Street Option).
Many of the disadvantages cited for Option 7 can be mitigated or put into perspective.
• A reasonable solution has been presented for addressing the snowmaking operations
challenges.
• The City has established that skiing over the Dolinsek property is an acceptable use of
the land.
• Preliminary discussions with CPTSB indicate that the necessary variances are
attainable.
• Vail’s Lionshead return run is an example of a longer run-out that does not overly
diminish the ski experience.
Only the issue related to impacts to the historic lift towers remains as a factor that could affect
the feasibility of Option 7.
Option 7 is a viable alternative for replacement of Lift 1A that is worthy of further consideration.
When considering the mitigating factors of the stated disadvantages, and assuming there is an
acceptable solution to removal of the historic lift towers, the significance of the advantages
identified in this assessment outweigh the significance of the disadvantages.
P41
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 27
OPTION 7A | MID-STATION
Description
Option 7a would incorporate a loading and unloading mid-station in the original Option 7
alignment, located adjacent to the Gorsuch Haus building (see Figure 7). The mid-station would
be about 550 feet to the south of Dean Street. The purpose for adding the mid-station would be
to provide lift access from the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off to the top of S. Aspen Street
and on to the current top of Lift 1A. With mid-unloading on the up-line, guests could ride the lift
from Dean Street and disembark at Gorsuch Haus, or continue to the top of the lift. With mid-
loading on the up-line, skiers could load the lift at Gorsuch Haus (a similar location as existing
Lift 1A) and would not need to ski back towards Dean Street to return to the top of the lift.
With mid-unloading on the down-line, guests could ride down the lift from the top and either
disembark at Gorsuch Haus, or continue to the bottom of the lift at Dean Street. With mid-
loading on the down-line, guests could load the lift at Gorsuch Haus and ride to the bottom of
the lift.
The type of lift technology employed (Telemix, gondola or detachable chairlift) affects the level
of functionality of the mid-station for this specific application. With a Telemix, gondola cabins on
the up-line can be loaded and unloaded at the mid station but chairs can only be loaded. On the
down-line, only gondola cabins can be loaded or unloaded and not chairs. On a gondola, all
gondola cabins can be loaded or unloaded in either direction (up-line or down-line). On a
detachable chairlift, chairs could only be loaded and unloaded on the up-line, and there could be
no loading or unloading on the down-line (other than potentially for pedestrians).
The length of terminal for a mid-station is approximately 130 feet for a chairlift and 170 feet for a
gondola or Telemix. For all lift types, the terminal building must be perfectly horizontal from end
to end. With cabins and/or chairs continuously passing through the terminal at ground level it is
not possible to walk through the terminal structure at any point along its length, as well as for a
significant distance outside of the terminal until carriers are far enough above the surface for
adequate clearance. A mid-station terminal at Gorsuch Haus would create a barrier to east/west
travel that would be about 300 feet long.
In order to create acceptable pedestrian and ADA passage between the east and west sides of
the Option 7a mid-station, a tunnel or passageway would be required underneath or around the
terminal with vertical circulation in the form of both stairs and elevators at each end of the tunnel
or passageway. Such a complicated routing would be very inconvenient and undesirable. For
example, a skier desiring to return to Dean Street by downloading from Gorsuch Haus would
need to stop, take off skis, go down an elevator or stairs, walk around the terminal, go back up
stairs or the elevator, and then load a gondola cabin. Likewise, a skiing guest staying at or
having lunch at Gorsuch Haus would need to go through the same routing in reverse to load to
the lift.
In order to fit a mid-station terminal into this site, significant modifications would be required to
the Gorsuch Haus site plan. The current floor elevations and building proximity to the lift would
require retaining walls in excess of 20 feet tall, and given existing slope steepness in this area
and the confined east-west width of the parcel, it is unlikely that such wall heights could be
avoided even with reconfiguration of the site plan.
P42
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
28 |
The north end of a mid-station terminal structure extends to within about 70 feet of proposed Lift
One Lodge structures. A U-shaped retaining wall with maximum height of 9 feet would wrap
around the north end of the terminal structure and extend into the return ski trail to Dean Street,
reducing its width to about 25 feet. This is not adequate width for maintaining a public return ski
route to Dean Street, so skiers would either be required or encouraged to download the lift
rather than skiing. As described earlier, if downloading from the mid-station is desired, the lift
would need to be either a Telemix (which has limited download capacity) or a gondola, and it
could not be a chairlift. Skier downloading through this required mid-station configuration would
be arduous.
Option 7a impacts all three historic Lift 1 towers, but not the base terminal.
P43
I.
±20'8030805579908000798080108025802080358050804080458060806580305208TW 8045.0
+ 8010.0
+ 8025.0 + 8035.0
+ 8042.0+ 8002.0797006970597 8.5%
±25%
15%JUAN STEAST DEAN CTEAST DURANT AVESOUTH MONA
R
C
H
S
T SUMMIT STGILBERT STDOLINSEK
PROPERTY
PROPOSED
GORSUCH HAUS
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
SHADOW MOUNTAIN
CONDOMINIUMS
CHAIR ROPE
35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSB
OUTSIDE OF CHAIR
PROPOSED SKIWAY
5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODE
SOUTH ASPEN
S
T
PROPOSED LIFT
ONE LODGE
PROPOSED LIFT
ONE LODGE
NO SKI UNDER ZONE
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT
STAIR/ELEVATOR BUILDING
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
+7950.0 40 FT25 FT
MOUNTAIN
QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS
PROPOSED ASPEN
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY SKI
MUSEUM
+ 7940.0
60 FT60 FTHISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE
DROP-OFF
SIDEWALK AND STEPS
MILLING AREA
+ 7937.0
NO SKI UNDER ZONE
STAGING AREA
EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND TRUCK UNLOADING ZONE
PROPOSED LIFT TOWER, TYPICAL
PROPOSED SUMMER ACCESS ROAD
38 FT88 FTPrepared by :
0 40 80 120 160
SCALE (ft)NLegend
Property Boundaries
ADA Access
Pedestrian Circulation
Proposed Lift
Existing Building
Building Under Construction
Building to Remove
Recreation Easement
Proposed Skiway
Summer Access Road
Proposed Building
Existing Lift 1 Tower
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FIGURE 7 | OPTION 7A - PLAN VIEW
1’ Contour Intervals
May 10, 2018
P44I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
30 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P45
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 31
Qualitative and Operational Criteria
Interface Between Ski Infrastructure and Lodging Buildings – Interface between the mid-
station and Gorsuch Haus would be poor. Interface with Lift One Lodge would be the same as
Option 7.
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – Skier and pedestrian circulation would be fair. The mid-
station would improve the vertical connection between Dean Street and the top of S. Aspen
Street, but the complicated routing from one side of the mid-station to the other is a compromise
to both skier and pedestrian circulation.
Repeat Skiing and Return Ski Access – Repeat skiing and return ski access to the mid-
station in this option is very good. There would not be a continuous return ski access to the
Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off.
Minimum Width of Return Ski Run – The minimum width of the return ski run is about 25 feet
where it passes between the mid-station terminal structure and the east Lift One Lodge building,
which is not an acceptable width based on the slope gradient and projected skier traffic flows,
and does not meet the 60-foot minimum width identified in the qualitative and operational
criteria.
Lift Type – A chairlift installation for this option would not be practical because it would not
provide downloading capabilities from the mid-station. Downloading capacity on a Telemix
would be significantly lower than a gondola, but could be adequate.
Snowmaking and Snow Management – Given the restriction of the return ski run width in this
option, it would be best to not allow public skiing back to Dean Street. If this were the case,
snowmaking and snow management operations would be essentially the same as they are
currently to the base of existing Lift 1A. If public skiing were allowed back to Dean Street and
the ski return required snowmaking coverage and grooming, the same operational procedures
and conditions as described for Option 7 would apply, but transporting snow from above through
the 25-foot wide bottleneck at the mid-station retaining wall would exacerbate the operational
challenge to the point of being prohibitive.
Ticketing and Guest Services Space – Same as Option 7
Ski Patrol Operational Space – Same as Option 7
Emergency Service Access and Staging – Same as Option 7
Mountain Access Road – Same as Option 7
Maintenance Access to Lift Equipment – Same as Option 7
Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board – Same as Option 7
P46
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
32 |
Conclusion
While it would be technically and physically feasible to construct a mid-station at Gorsuch Haus,
the extent of retaining walls required and consequences to the Gorsuch Haus site plan and
skier/pedestrian circulation make it impractical. Assessment of the qualitative and operational
criteria demonstrates that Option 7a does not offer any overall benefits over Options 1 or 7, and
in fact would deliver an inferior guest and skier experience. For these reasons, Option 7a should
be removed from further consideration.
P47
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 33
OPTION 7B | LOWER DEAN STREET
Description
Option 7b would be identical to Option 7, except the bottom terminal would be shifted about 75
feet to the north and lowered 10 vertical feet in elevation so that it is more easily accessible from
the Dean Street/S. Aspen Street drop-off (see Figures 8 and 9). The terminal would be at
elevation 7940, slightly higher than the drop-off (~7937). The narrow width between the terminal
structure and the proposed ski museum (~60 feet) constrains maze space and skier/pedestrian
circulation.
As in Option 7, 1,000 to 1,500 square feet of ticketing and guest services space would be
incorporated into the proposed Aspen Historical Society Ski Museum building. For Option 7b, no
stairs or elevator would be required in the building.
Pedestrian and ADA access in Option 7b would be the same as Option 7 except no stairs or
elevator would be necessary.
Option 7b impacts all three historic Lift 1 towers and the base terminal.
P48
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
34 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P49
I.
79908000798079700597049780108020802580308035804080458050805580608065794015%
8.5%
±25%JUAN STSOUTH ASPEN
S
TEAST DEAN CTEAST DURANT AVESOUTH MONA
R
C
H
S
T SUMMIT STGILBERT STDOLINSEK
PROPERTY
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
SHADOW MOUNTAIN
CONDOMINIUMS
RECREATION
EASEMENT
CHAIR ROPE
35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSB
OUTSIDE OF CHAIR
PROPOSED SKIWAY
5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODE
+ 7940
PROPOSED LIFT
ONE LODGE
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
MOUNTAIN
QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS
7937.0 +
PROPOSED LIFT
ONE LODGE
HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE REMOVED
DROP-OFF
MILLING AREA
PROPOSED ASPEN
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY SKI
MUSEUM
+ 7940.0
60 FT60 FT60 FT
PROPOSED
GORSUCH HAUS
NO SKI UNDER ZONE
STAGING AREA
EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND TRUCK UNLOADING ZONE
PROPOSED LIFT TOWER, TYPICAL
PROPOSED SUMMER ACCESS ROAD
38 FT88 FTPrepared by :
1’ Contour Intervals
May 10, 2018 0 40 80 120 160
SCALE (ft)NLegend
Property Boundaries
ADA Access
Pedestrian Circulation
Proposed Lift
Existing Building
Building Under Construction
Building to Remove
Recreation Easement
Proposed Skiway
Summer Access Road
Proposed Building
Existing Lift 1 Tower
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FIGURE 8 | OPTION 7B - PLAN VIEW
A¹A
P50I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
36 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P51
I.
100 0200300400500600700800900
7940
7960
7980
8000
8020
8040
8060
8080
8100
8120
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROPOSED GONDOLA
TERMINAL & PLAZA
ADA ACCESS
EXISTING LIFT 1
HISTORIC STRUCTURE
REMOVED
PROPOSED LIFT ONE LODGE,
WEST BUILDING
PROPOSED GORSUCH HAUS
7940.0
TERMINAL LOAD
7937.0
DROP-OFF
8002.0
GORSUCH DROP-OFF
8006.0
SUMMER ACCESS ROAD
Prepared by :
0 30 60 90 120
SCALE (ft)
NSECTION A: SOUTH - NORTH
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FIGURE 9 | OPTION 7B - SECTION VIEW
May 10, 2018
P52I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
38 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P53
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 39
Qualitative and Operational Criteria
Interface Between Ski Infrastructure and Lodging Buildings – Same as Option 7
Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – Same as Option 7 except skier circulation and milling
space at the lift maze area is more constrained.
Repeat Skiing and Return Ski Access – Same as Option 7
Minimum Width of Return Ski Run – Same as Option 7
Lift Type – Same as Option 7
Snowmaking and Snow Management – Same snowmaking operational challenges as
Option 7.
Maneuvering space for grooming operations and turnaround at the narrow maze area would be
confined and inefficient, but possible. Snowcat maneuvering in this area would involve multi-
point turns and backing up, with associated noise impacts from the back-up warning attenuation
on snowcats (‘beep-beeps’).
Ticketing and Guest Services Space – Same as Option 7
Ski Patrol Operational Space – Same as Option 7
Emergency Service Access and Staging – Same as Option 7
Mountain Access Road – Same as Option 7
Maintenance Access to Lift Equipment – Same as Option 7
Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board – Same as Option 7
Conclusion
Option 7b is a viable alternative for replacement of Lift 1A. It is physically feasible to construct
the ski infrastructure as presented without uncommon construction challenges, and the option
is largely responsive to the established qualitative and operational criteria. The key advantage
of Option 7b in comparison to option 7 is that it simplifies and shortens pedestrian and ADA
access to the lift terminal.
The primary disadvantages of Option 7b relative to Option 7 are that it requires removing the
historic Lift 1 base terminal structure, it displaces the majority of Lift 1 Park, and it causes skier/
pedestrian circulation and grooming constraints in the maze area.
In consideration of the relatively minor improvements to pedestrian and ADA access to the lift
terminal created by Option 7b versus the significant consequences it creates with the historic lift
structures, Lift 1 Park, and circulation in and around the skier maze area, it is suggested that
Option 7b be removed from further consideration
.
P54
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
40 |
CPTSB VARIANCES
Options 7, 7a and 7b would require a variance from the CPTSB because the setback of
Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge buildings from the lift does not meet the lift corridor air space
clearance requirements. In phone conversation with a board member from CPTSB, in which the
circumstances of the Option 7 variance requirement were explained, the board member
indicated that such variance requests are not uncommon and are commonly granted.
The primary reasoning for the air space clearance requirements is to protect the lift in the event
of fire in adjacent structures or buildings. In circumstances where the adjacent structure or
building is not easily visible from the lift operator house or other operations personnel, and/or is
difficult to access with fire fighting equipment, the CPTSB is reluctant to grant a variance for air
space clearance. For Options 7, 7a and 7b, both Gorsuch Haus and the two Lift One Lodge
buildings are clearly visible from the bottom terminal lift operators house as well as ski area
personnel and the public. Additionally, the lift and buildings are in a heavily populated area with
quick-response fire fighting capabilities. For these two primary reasons, and recognizing that
without the variance the project may not be possible or financially feasible, the board member
from CPTSB felt that an air space variance for Option 7, 7a or 7b would likely be granted.
Attached as an appendix to this report is the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board:
Variance Request Guidelines (Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies).
P55
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A STAGE II ASSESSMENT REPORT
| 41
CONCLUSION
This evaluation of the four options proposed by the City, Gorsuch Haus, Lift One Lodge and
SkiCo for replacement of Lift 1A involved a description of each option, an assessment of how
each option conforms with the identified qualitative and operational criteria, a listing of the
advantages and disadvantages of each option, and a conclusion indicating whether each option
was worthy of further consideration or not. Of the four options evaluated, Options 1, 7 and 7b
were found to be possible concepts for replacement of Lift 1A and worthy of further
consideration. Option 7a was not found to offer any overall benefits over Options 1, 7 or 7b, and
in fact would deliver an inferior guest and skier experience. Additionally, construction of the
Option 7a mid-station would involve very tall retaining walls and challenging construction. For
these reasons, Option 7a was found to be an impractical concept that is not worthy of further
consideration.
In consideration of the relatively minor improvements to pedestrian and ADA access resulting
from Option 7b versus the significant consequences it creates with the historic lift structures, Lift
1 Park, and circulation in and around the skier maze area, it is suggested that Option 7b also be
removed from further consideration.
Overall, Options 1 and 7 are equally responsive to the established qualitative and operational
criteria. They each have a range of advantages and disadvantages that must be carefully and
collectively contemplated, by all stakeholders, for a final decision on which option best meets
the needs and desires of all parties for replacement of Lift 1A. Based on the results of this
assessment, the advantages versus disadvantages of Option 7 were found to be more favorable
than those for Option 1, which suggests that Option 7 would be the superior scenario for
replacing Lift 1A.
P56
I.
CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT
42 |
This page intentionally left blank.
P57
I.
A PPENDICES
LIFT 1 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE REPORT
CPTSB VARIANCE REQUEST GUIDELINES
P58
I.
This page intentionally left blank.
P59
I.
LIFT 1
HISTORIC
SIGNIFICANCE
REPORT
SUZANNAH REID
P60
I.
Photo Credits, Cover
Berko Photo;Aspen Historical Society;Aspen Historical Society, Duke Collection; Aspen Historical Society, Kaeser Collection
P61
I.
Aspen’s Lift 1 page 1 of 9
Aspen’s Lift 1
Aspen’s Lift 1 is the embodiment of the birth of
recreational skiing. It tells the story of Aspen’s ski
history, along with the incredible drive and dedication of
Friedl Pfeifer and his contemporaries. Lift 1 brings
together the two strands of Aspen’s post WWII history. It
is the crossroads of Walter Paepcke and his mind, body,
spirit philosophy and the explosion of alpine skiing in the
US.
As an artifact of skiing, Lift 1 represents a direct line from
the most influential people in the world involved in
developing alpine technique and equipment, and those
focused upon the invention and perfection of ski lift
technology. The lift’s builders went on to innovate and
the lift itself opened the door for international racing and
recognition of Aspen on the world stage.
As an artifact of a particular time in history, Lift 1
represents the emergence of the postwar tourist class in
America, the rise of Aspen from the ‘Quiet Years,’ and the
transition from a focus upon mineral extraction as a
generator of wealth to the economy of outdoor recreation.
It also has a compelling story to tell of the impacts of
WWII on the development of recreational skiing in
Colorado.
Aspen Skiing to 1943
Movement on skis arrived in Colorado with the
Norwegian and Scandinavian men who came to work the
mines. Not only were skis useful for traveling to and from
the mines, they provided recreation for men who had little
else to do. Even then the quality of the snow and slopes
around Aspen stood out.
Coloradans had been enjoying winter sports since the
early part of the 20th century. Ski clubs and ski hills,
mostly located in the Front Range foothills, grew in
popularity in the 1920s and 30s. In 1932, bobsleigh,
skating, hockey, and Nordic skiing events were held at the
Winter Olympic Games in Lake Placid, NY, sparking
excitement for winter sports in North America.
1 Peter Shelton, Aspen Skiing: the First Fifty Years, 1947-
1997: Aspen's Long Love Affair with Skiing, Mountains &
Memories, Snow & Skiers. Western Eye Press, 1996. p.14.
2 Roxanne Eflin. Historic Resources of Aspen, Multiple
Resource Area Amendment- Ski Development Resources of
In the summer of 1936, T.J. Flynn, son of Aspen miner
and Olympic bobsledder Billy Fiske, teamed with Ted
Ryan to form the Highland Bavarian Corporation. By that
winter, paying guests were staying in the new Highland
Bavarian Lodge along Castle Creek and skiing on Little
Annie. The men invited Andre Roch, a well-known
alpinist and avalanche expert, to create a plan for Mount
Hayden and Ashcroft. He found that “Aspen Mountain,
directly above the town of Aspen, could be superior to
anything in the U.S. at that time."1
Roch spent the winter of 1936-37 exploring and teaching
skiing to guests of the Highland Bavarian Lodge as well
as to interested locals. He also marked the location for the
first trail on Aspen Mountain, which would be named in
his honor.
Local boys had already been skiing the mountain on
rudimentary equipment for years. Fred Willoughby
recalled:
“…people would climb to the upper end of Aspen
Street and come straight down either with a pole, or
with one held between the legs to be used as a
brake…My brother and I and a few others would
climb from the Midnight Mine to Buckhorn Saddle
and ski down to town over the same general area as
the existing Aspen Mountain courses, using this same
unsightly means for control and turning.” 2
Roch introduced Aspenites to new skiing equipment and
techniques, and helped them found the Roaring Fork
Winter Sports Club, which became the Aspen Ski Club.
“Before Roch left the Aspen area for home in
Switzerland in May, 1937, he impressed upon the
members the importance of starting a development on
Aspen Mountain, … His purpose for developing the
run…was his firm belief that Aspen might go
unnoticed for many years as a ski resort, but with a
good race course … the publicity gained from such
thing would make an overall development of the
mountain easier and faster.”3
Aspen. National Register of Historic Places Inventory- Draft
Nomination Form, September 1989, p. 3.
3 Eflin. Historic Resources of Aspen, Multiple Resource Area
Amendment- Ski Development Resources of Aspen. p.6.
P62
I.
page 2 of 9 Aspen’s Lift 1
Roch was correct, a good race course would put Aspen
Mountain on the map.
With focus on the new Roch Run, the Aspen Lions Club
raised money in 1937 for the purchase of the cable needed
to convert an old mining rig and a Model A engine into a
lift. This consisted of two wooden ‘boats’ that could drag
four skiers at a time a short distance up the hill from Aspen
Street. Carrying 100 skiers per day, this was Aspen’s first
ski tow.
The Aspen Ski Club members cleared the run designed by
Roch. Two key races on the run attracted international
attention. The Rocky Mountain Ski Association
Championship was held in 1938, and three years later, the
ski club hosted the U.S. World Alpine Championships.
Roch Run and the passion of the Aspen Ski Club resonated
with Friedl Pfeifer when he first saw Aspen in 1943, and
set the stage for the construction of Lift 1.
Friedl Pfeifer
Friedl Pfeifer (1911-1995) left his birthplace of St. Anton,
Austria shortly after the Anschluss in early 1938. Already
an accomplished skier and instructor, he found his way to
Sun Valley, Idaho where he was instrumental in setting up
Averell Harriman’s new resort. By the 1939-40 season,
he was director of the Sun Valley Ski School and
undertook the installation of a two-stage single chair lift,
the first chair lifts in the world. His experience laying out
the route and working with the American Steel & Wire
Company would directly inform his ideas for Aspen’s Lift
1.
During World War II, Pfeifer joined the 10th Mountain
Division in 1943 and was stationed at Camp Hale near
Leadville, Colorado. He was first introduced to Aspen on
a training mission and was enthralled.
“The mountain peaks looming over town made me
feel like I was returning to St Anton. Even the
meadow sloping into town reminded me of home. I
felt at that moment, an overwhelming sense of my
future before me.”4
During training he and other members of the 10th
Mountain Division travelled to Aspen as often as possible
4 Friedl Pfeifer. Nice Goin': My Life on Skis. Pictorial Histories
Publishing Co., 1993, p. 111.
to enjoy the mountain and begin work on developing their
vision.
The 10th Mountain Division was deployed to Europe in
1944 and by February 1945 they were in combat in Italy.
Pfeifer was seriously wounded and lost part of his lung.
The Army moved him to Colorado Springs for
rehabilitation. Pfeifer first met with industrialist Walter
Paepcke, who was developing plans for Aspen’s postwar
development, at his ranch in Larkspur, Colorado.
Although Paepcke was interested in Pfeifer’s plans for
skiing in Aspen, he was not ready to invest.
After the War
Pfeifer was discharged from the Army in October of 1945
and immediately returned to Aspen. He met with the Ski
Club, which gave him the responsibility of fixing up the
Boat Tow. He also set out to establish the Roch Cup, a
comb ined downhill and slalom race.
The ski school was next on his list. His experience in St.
Anton led him to believe this would be an essential part of
the area’s growth. Pfeifer, Percy Rideout and Johnny
Litchfield, fellow veterans of the 10th Mountain Division,
joined the effort and the Friedl Pfeifer Ski School, also
known as the Aspen Ski School, was born. The next step
was to widen the trails and get some rudimentary lifts
working.
The land on Aspen Mountain was divided into numerous
mining claims and rights to use the surface had to be
secured. Frank and Fred Willoughby (owners of Midnight
Mine) and Fred and John Dolinsek (residing at the base of
Aspen Mountain) were property owners and members of
the Aspen Ski Club. They had cleared Roch Run and built
the Boat Tow, and shared Pfeifer’s vision for a skiing
community.
Enough snow had fallen by December 18, 1945 to open
the Ski School. In March of 1946, the first Roch Cup was
held and the racers climbed to the start. Friedl Pfeifer was
busy identifying claims and trying to raise the money to
secure the land for new runs and a lift.
With little money but a focused mind, he forged ahead,
reestablishing contact with G.H. Bannerman from
American Steel & Wire who had constructed the lifts at
Sun Valley to discuss his plans for the new Lift 1.
P63
I.
Aspen’s Lift 1 page 3 of 9
Bannerman agreed to begin acquiring the steel that would
be needed, “on Pfeifer’s word that the money would be
forthcoming, a show of faith that was astounding 5.”
Pfeifer also called on another friend from the 10th
Mountain Division, Bob Heron. Heron was a civil
engineer based in Denver, who had designed temporary
lift systems for the US Army. Together the men chose the
appropriate route for Lift 1 and devised a plan to transform
an existing mining tramway into Lift 2. Lift 1 would take
skiers up the hill over Roch Run to the top of today’s
Ruthie’s lift, then on to the top of the mountain from near
the top of today’s Lift 6. The master plan included
construction of the Herbert Bayer designed Sundeck.
With planning complete, all that remained was to secure
the funds. Pfeifer was concerned that the 1946-47 season
might pass by with no progress, so he again approached
Paepcke. Paepcke’s vision had evolved and he became
convinced that skiing could entice investors to his own
grand plan. Pfeifer would have to surrender control of his
Aspen Skiing Company in exchange for shares in
Paepcke’s new Aspen Skiing Corporation. Paepcke gave
exclusive rights to Pfeifer to control the ski school and
named him President of the Aspen Skiing Corporation.
With this arrangement, Pfeifer handed over the “four-inch
stack” of mining claims that needed to be acquired for the
new ski area and promised to have the lifts running by
Christmas.
Articles of incorporation were filed on May 16, 1946.6
The sale of shares was designed to raise $150,000 (about
$2 million dollars today) for the installation of the new lift.
Paepcke announced that the towers for the lift would
arrive in Aspen on September 1, with operations to begin
exactly two months later.
Pfeifer’s crews were on the mountain cutting the Silver
Queen trail and in mid -June they moved over to clear the
new lift line. It took only four days to clear the mile and
a half long, 30’-wide line, saving a considerable sum of
money. Frank Willoughby surveyed the routes for Lift 1
and Lift 2 and brought the electric lines over from the
Mountain Utilities Corporation’s Midnight Mine. The
Robert Heron Engineering Company was on site, laying
5Morten Lund and Mary Hayes. Skiing Comes to Aspen:
Visionaries and Teachers. Skiing Heritage Journal, Second
Issue 1997, p. 18.
6“Incorporation Articles for Tow Recorded.” Aspen Times. 16
May 1946. p. 1
out the location of each tower footing and supervising
construction.
The trail crew, averaging eighteen men, was headed by
Percy Rideout and John Litchfield. Newt Klusmire was
the foreman of the concrete crew. His rock crusher, one
of the few mechanized tools, provided aggregate for the
foundations. They worked six days a week from 6:30 am
to 5:30pm. Anyone who wanted to work just had to show
up in front of Mike Magnifico’s ski shop in time to meet
the trucks. Without modern motorized tools, the work was
physically demanding and slow going. They would race
the snow to get all the construction completed by the
deadline.
The September 12, 1946 issue of the Aspen Times reported
that all tower footings and the concrete for the top and
bottom stations were complete. The article also made a
plea for more men:
“With the first freezing nights already at hand, we
would like to have it everyone’s interest that the
construction continue on schedule. A larger crew on
the mountain would naturally be of great help, so if
you have your haying and potatoes out of the way,
why not look Friedl up?”7
On September 19, 1946, the Aspen Times reported that
twenty-two miles of new trails had been cut during the
previous four months. The Silver Queen now extended to
the top of Tourtelotte Park and the Magnifico Cut off east
of Roch Run. The crews had also cut the Billy Zaugg trail,
Schiller Road and the Little Annie trail down to the
Highland Bavarian Lodge.
On October 31, 1946, the headline in the Aspen Times
exclaimed “THEYRE UP!” “Construction crews under
the direction of Robert Heron of the Heron Engineering
Company completed erection of the 52nd 8 and last tower
of the giant chair lift that will carry the skier or sightseer
from Aspen to a point on Ajax mountain that is more than
3400 feet higher in vertical elevation.” Ten more days
were required to ensure all the towers were plumb and
7Leonard Woods. “Aspen Ski Lift Construction on Schedule.”
Aspen Times. 12 September 1946. p. 1
8 This description refers to the total number of towers for both
Lift 1 and Lift 2, exclusive of the base and top terminals.
P64
I.
page 4 of 9 Aspen’s Lift 1
bolted tightly. On November 11, 1946 the Sundeck was
finished.
On December 14, 1946 the Aspen Skiing Corporation
opened Lift 1 to local skiers at no cost. The completed
Lift 1 consisted of 32 steel towers plus a terminal at each
end. This was a monocable lift, where the chairs are
attached directly to the drive cable. It was 8,500 feet in
length and rose 2,560 feet in elevation. Powered by an
electric motor stationed at the top terminal, along with a
diesel backup motor, the new Lift 1 was the longest,
fastest chairlift in the world. Among the other
accommodations, the chairs had foot rests and a safety bar
with a canvas blanket attached.
Lift 2 had 17 9 towers and was 5,300’ long. It gained about
900’ in elevation to reach the newly completed Sundeck.
It was designed and constructed by Bob Heron from parts
available from an old mine tramway. Lift 2 was a two-
cable system where one cable was fixed with the chairs
hung on roller carriages. The smaller drive cable pulled
the chairs along the fixed cable. It deposited its
passengers just outside of the new Sundeck. Lift 2 opened
on December 21st.
“Promptly at 10 a. m. Miss Allene Robison, daughter
of Mayor A. E. Robison christened the lift with a
well-aimed blow, smashing a bottle of rare, old
champagne against the uprights. Immediately the
power was applied to the cable by Newt Klusmire,
engineer at the power plant at the upper end and
Mayor Robison swung easily into the first chair.
Frank Willoughby, president of the Aspen Ski Club
was seated in the second chair and Miss Robison took
the third. …”10
It was estimated that 1,000 people rode the lift that day.
The biggest party, however was yet to come.
The Official Opening
The official opening was held on January 11, 1947.
“One sunny Saturday in January 1947, businessmen
from Denver, Colorado Springs, Chicago, and
9 Assumed by the author based on total number reported in the
Aspen Times on various occasions.
10 “Many People Enjoy Ride on Chair Lift.” Aspen Times. 19
December 1946. p. 1.
Washington; famous skiers; 10th Mountain Division
veterans; and the governor-elect of Colorado joined
Aspen townspeople at the base of Aspen Mountain
for the opening of Aspen’s Lift No.1. Set in motion
with the push of a button, it carried skiers a mile and
a half through the air and up 2,200 feet, where, after
a short hop on Lift No.2, they could enjoy the scenery
from the top of the mountain, have a snack at the
Sundeck, and ski down the famous Roch Run. The
world’s longest chairlift at the time, and the fastest
(moved 275 skiers an hour), Lift No. 1 introduced
masses of people to the joys, thrills, and fears of
skiing.”11
Friedl Pfeifer described the off-hill festivities:
“In town, crowds of visitors strolled the streets
looking at restored homes, reminders of the silver
boom, and newly opened stores. The bars that were
once filled with miners talking about silver and gold,
were now filled with skiers eager for Aspen’s future.
…. The celebration was a glimpse into the future of
what was to become ASPEN. People walking the
streets window shopping, music and parties, lights,
the mountain open for skiing from top to
bottom…Aspen was alive.”12
With the opening of the Lift, Aspen’s “Quiet Years” came
to an end. Two thousand people attended the lift opening,
overwhelming the town’s eight hundred residents. It had
taken ten years from the first thought of an Aspen Ski
Resort to arrive at this moment.
“The ski resort at Aspen had its roots in some of its
citizens’ struggles to revive the town they loved. In the last
half of the 1930s, and the first half of the 1940s, even as
the old mining Aspen slid towards virtual extinction, these
citizens propelled Aspen forward on its first crucial steps
to becoming a destination ski resort.”13
Friedl Pfeifer, Johnny Litchfield, Percy Rideout and the
other men who constructed Lift 1 had displayed an
extraordinary physical and visionary commitment to the
project.
11 Annie Gilbert Coleman. Ski Style: Sport and Culture in the
Rockies. University Press of Kansas, 2004, pg. 118.
12 Friedl Pfeifer. Nice Goin', Pg 147.
13 Lund, M. and Hayes, M. Skiing Heritage Journal, Second
Issue 1997, Skiing Comes to Aspen: Visionaries and Teachers,
page 14.
P65
I.
Aspen’s Lift 1 page 5 of 9
After the Opening
Lift 1 sparked a boom. Dilapidated Victorian Aspen was
reborn to meet the needs of the new ski tourist. With the
lift complete, trail construction continued in anticipation
of the 1950 FIS World Championships, where Aspen
sealed its international reputation.
Lift 1 and Roch Run were integral parts of bringing the
event to Aspen and of its success.
“Aspen Mountain’s Lift No.1, a huge cultural event
organized by Walter Paepcke in the summer of 1949,
and the World Alpine Championships, hosted for the
first time in the United States at Aspen in 1950, won
national media attention for the town and its young
ski resort. Skiers from Denver, Chicago, Sun Valley
and New York showed up to see what Aspen was like
for themselves. With its organization, technology,
management, and out-of-state customers, Aspen’s ski
area outgrew every prewar resort except for Sun
Valley.”14
After twenty-five years of transporting skiers up the
mountain, Lift 1 ceased operation on April 11, 1971. Most
of the towers were removed to make way for Lift 1A,
which, in combination with the Ruthie’s chair replaced
Lift 1. A portion of Lift 1 below the new Lift 1A,
consisting of three towers and the base terminal, remain in
their original location. Standing in the Lift 1 loading area,
one still gets the sense of the majesty of boarding the
world’s longest lift and rising up, beyond view, to the top
of the mountain.
A Brief History of the Ski Lift
Early in the history of recreational skiing, it quickly
became clear that the need to hike uphill was a hindrance
to the growth of skiing as an industry.
The first mechanized ski lift in North America was a rope
tow installed in 1930-31 at Big Hill in Canada. Rope tows
dominated the 1930s, with 113 in use by the end of the
decade. They were easy to build and could be driven by
any number of jerry rigged car engines. However , they
were discouraging to use.
In Davos, Switzerland, an engineer named Ernst Constan
invented the J-bar. Dartmouth College hired American
14 Annie Gilbert Coleman. Ski Style. p. 122.
15Morten Lund and Kirby Gilbert. “A History of North
American Lifts.” Skiing Heritage, September 2003. p. 24.
Steel & Wire to install a Constan designed J-bar lift on its
ski hill in 1935-36. This was a turning point for both
Constan and American Steel & Wire, as they were now in
the ski lift business. The overhead single cable lift design
was a significant improvement and became the basis for
all lifts to come.
Averell Harriman understood that he needed a
comfortable, easy to master lift to attract the wealthy class
of skier he had in mind for Sun Valley. Looking to his
company, the Union Pacific Railroad, he formed a group
of engineers to redesign the ski lift. James Curran was an
engineer with the company with experience designing lifts
for the United Fruit Company, which needed to lift great
bunches of bananas onto their ships. He envisioned the
same design could be used for people by simply replacing
the large hook with a chair. This provided for comfort as
well as the ability to span steeper, rockier terrain, a
problem not found in Eastern resorts where surface lifts
predominated. Harriman chose to install the design on
Proctor Hill (704’ long) and a second shorter version on
Dollar Mountain. American Steel & Wire was contracted
to build the lifts and the first aerial chair lifts began
operating in 1936.
Sun Valley’s lifts began to inspire a rush of chairlift
construction across America. In 1942, there were
eighteen documented chairlifts in the country.15
American Steel & Wire had built half of them. World War
II delayed further development until the 1946 season,
when steel again became available for non-military uses.
The next two years saw the construction of ten more
chairlifts, including Aspen’s Lift 1 and Lift 2.16 After
1947, double chairs would rise to prominence.
The Aerial Ski Tramway received its patent (#2,152,235)
on March 28, 1939. The men listed on the patent are
Gordon H. Bannerman, James M. Curran, Glen H. Trout,
and the American Steel & Wire Company of New Jersey.
“This invention is an aerial ski tramway intended to
convey skiers from the bottom of snowy hills to the
top so that they can ski back down again. One of the
objects is to transport the skiers back up the hill in a
manner involving as little effort on the part of the
skiers as is possible. Another object is to carry the
skiers in an absolutely safe manner so that regardless
16 Morten Lund and Kirby Gilbert. “A History of North
American Lifts.” Skiing Heritage, September 2003. p. 24.
P66
I.
page 6 of 9 Aspen’s Lift 1
of their peculiarities it is practically impossible for
them to be injured”17
Lift 1
Lift 1 has a very open, straightforward structure that
reveals the simplicity of the original design and drive
components. While simple in construction, the top and
bottom terminals had to be designed to withstand the
dynamic forces of the 1-1/8” cable that traveled 8,500 feet
in distance, rising 2,560 feet in elevation and back down
again. The design needed to provide tensioning for the
cable, prevent dangerous backsliding, and allow people to
ski on and off the chair. These technical challenges were
all solved in a straightforward, economical manner.
Popular Mechanics featured the lift on the cover of its
January 1948 issue, noting it as a major engineering feat.
The towers were prefabricated by American Steel & Wire
of steel angle (’L’ shaped) components, making up both
the vertical corners of each tower and the diagonal struts
that create vertical truss configuration. The majority of
the height of each tower was riveted in the shop and
shipped to the site, where the top frame and sheave wheels
were bolted on. Each tower was lifted into place by hand
and bolted to a concrete base.
Of the original towers, three free-standing towers and the
base terminal remain. The base terminal construction is
similar to the towers, with additional welded steel tube
and channel members to account for the significantly
larger structural loads on the frame. The steel frame
supports a 10’-diameter bullwheel and a rolling steel
carriage that allows for the main 1-1/8” cable to be
tensioned by the large concrete counterweight at the
northernmost end of the terminal. The counterweight
tower extends several feet above the bullwheel and several
feet below the height of the chair loading area. This
provides a wide range of travel for tensioning the
extremely long cable.
The original ticket office and operator shack adjacent to
the lift have been lost.
The steel structures are in remarkably good condition and
are complete assemblies, with the exception of the cable,
stored off-site with the remaining chairs. Some areas of
peeling paint reveal the original orange color. The board
17Library of Congress, Historic American Engineering Record,
US patent Office, by way of Mad River Glen, Single Chair Ski
Lift, HAER #VT-38.
formed concretework shows some deterioration, not
unusual in the freeze-thaw climate conditions. The bull
wheel is rusty but appears in good condition. There are
several wood components at the chair guide structure that
are missing or seriously deteriorated. This is also not
unusual considering age and climate and lack of long term
maintenance. The sheave wheels on the towers remain
and appear to be in good condition.
Lift 1 was the sixth property in Aspen to receive historic
designation from the City (Ordinance #37, Series of
1974). At the time, the Historic Preservation Commission
recommended designation, finding that the lift was vital to
Aspen’s heritage.
Conclusion
It took enormous physical effort to build Lift 1. Crews cut
the lift lines and trails with axes. The lift components,
installed before helicopters were available for such use,
were brought to Aspen by train and hauled up the
mountain by truck, then set in place by hand. The cable
had to be pulled into place and the chairs installed on the
cable on site. The entire effort is a testament to the sheer
force of will involved in bringing Aspen to the forefront
of the ski industry.
Many of the men who accomplished this feat remained
active in the Ski Corporation, running and servicing the
lifts and expanding the trails. Friedl Pfeifer went on to
develop Buttermilk. Bob Heron, who got his ski lift start
with Lift 1 and Lift 2, would go on to design the Berthoud
Pass double chair in the fall of 1947, the second double
chair in North America.
Three other single chairlifts survive in North America.
Two are operational, one at Mad River Glen in Vermont
(1948) and one at Mt. Eyak (originally from Sun Valley
c1939) in Alaska. The Ruud Mountain lift (1936) in Sun
Valley is actively preserved but is not functional.
Mad River Glen’s lift operated into early 2000, at which
time the cooperative that owns the area raised funds to
completely refurbish it and see it listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. Reopened in 2007, it is now
the fastest fixed grip lift in the US. Though closely related
in time and character, Lift 1 differs from the Mad River
Glen lift in a couple of interesting areas. Lift 1 was driven
P67
I.
Aspen’s Lift 1 page 7 of 9
by an electric motor at the top terminal, instead of the
bottom drive diesel at Mad River.
By now many of the men who visualized and built Aspen
Mountain have passed and the city is losing that direct
connection to its origin story. It is easy in an age of
modern machinery and modern lifts to take for granted
what was achieved by these men. Lift 1 is a powerful
reminder of where it all began. To stand at the loading
area and let your eye follow the lift line up the mountain
engages the imagination and drives the question ‘Who did
this and how did they do it?’ It is critical to preserve these
touchstones so that future generations will also be able to
look up in wonder and understand what those of the past
achieved.
P68
I.
page 8 of 9 Aspen’s Lift 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books • Alphabetical order
Allen, E. John B. From Skisport to Skiing: One Hundred Years of an American Sport, 1840-1940. University Of
Massachusetts Press, 1996.
Coleman, Annie Gilbert. Ski Style: Sport and Culture in the Rockies. University Press of Kansas, 2004.
Flower, Raymond. The History of Skiing and Other Winter Sports. Angus & Robertson, London Editions Ltd.,
1976
Huntford, Roland. Two Planks and a Passion: The Dramatic History of Skiing. Continuum, 2011.
Philpott, William. Vacationland: Tourism and Environment in the Colorado High Country. University of
Washington Press, 2014.
Pfeifer, Friedl. Nice Goin': My Life on Skis. Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., 1993.
Shelton, Peter. Aspen Skiing: the First Fifty Years, 1947-1997: Aspen's Long Love Affair with Skiing, Mountains &
Memories, Snow & Skiers. Western Eye Press, 1996.
----------------------
Periodicals • By date
Cookman, A.O., Jr. “Skiers Awaken a Bonanza Town.” Popular Mechanics. January 1948. Google Books Web. 4
May 2018.
Lund, M. and Mary Hayes. “Skiing Comes to Aspen: Visionaries and Teachers.” Skiing Heritage. Second Issue
1997. Google Books Web. 4 May 2018.
Lund, M.and Kirby Gilbert. “A History of North American Lifts.” Skiing Heritage, September 2003. Google
Books Web. 4 May 2018.
----------------------
Newspapers • By date
“Ski Lift Details Revealed This Week.” Aspen Times. 7 March 1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May
2018.
“Incorporation Articles for Tow Recorded.” Aspen Times. 16 May 1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May
2018.
“Work Started On Lift Right-of-Way.” Aspen Times. 13 June 1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May 2018.
“Construction of Ski Lift to Start Next Monday.” Aspen Times. 20 June 1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4
May 2018.
“Ski Lift Foundations Work in Progress.” Aspen Times. 27 June 1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May
2018.
Woods, Leonard. “Aspen Ski Lift Construction on Schedule.” Aspen Times. 12 September 1946.
coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May 2018.
P69
I.
Aspen’s Lift 1 page 9 of 9
Woods, Leonard. “Team Cuts 22 Miles of New Ski Trails.” Aspen Times. 19 September 1946.
coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May 2018.
“THEYRE UP!”. Aspen Times. 31 October 31 1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May 2018.
Woods, Leonard. “Sundeck Finished.” Aspen Times. 7 November 1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May
2018.
“Aspen Ski Club Will Celebrate Opening of Aspen Ski Lift.” Aspen Times. 5 December 1946.
coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May 2018.
Woods, Leonard. “Aspen Ski Club to Celebrate Opening of Longest Chair Lift.” Aspen Times. 12 December
1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May 2018.
“Many People Enjoy Ride on Chair Lift.” Aspen Times. 19 December 1946. coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4
May 2018.
“Gvernor-Elect Lee Knous To Dedicate Ski Lift Saturday A. M.” Aspen Times. 9 January 1947.
coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. 4 May 2018.
“Friedl Pfeifer Dies.” Aspen Times. 27 February 1995.
Smith, B.G. “Aspen Pioneer Roch dies at 96. Aspen Times. 21 November 2002. aspentimes.com 4 May 2018
----------------------
Websites
The History of Skiing in Colorado, www.coloradoskihistory.com/History.html.
www.skiresort.info
www.coloradoskihistory.com/History
wikipedia.org. Andre Roch. (With link to Brent Gardener Smith authored Obituary in Aspen Times.)
www.aspenhalloffame.org/inductee/friedl-pfeifer
www.skiinghistory.org/history/timeline
www.skimuseum.net
www.skilifts.org
----------------------
National Register Nomination Forms
Hibbard, D. Proctor Mountain Ski Lift. National Register of Historic Places Inventory- Nomination Form, April
1978.
Papazian, L. Mad River Glen Ski Area Historic District,.National Register of Historic Places Inventory-
Nomination Form July 2012.
Eflin, R. Historic Resources of Aspen, Multiple Resource Area Amendment- Ski Development Resources of Aspen.
National Register of Historic Places Inventory- Draft Nomination Form, September 1989.
Library of Congress, Historic American Engineering Record, US patent Office, by way of Mad River Glen, Single
Chair Ski Lift, HAER #VT-38
P70
I.
5/4/2018 Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board: Variance Request Guidelines | Department of Regulatory Agencies
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/Tramway_Variance_Request 1/2
In accordance with Rule 1.2.3, the Board may grant exceptions, usually referred to as variances, to its
Rules and Regulations. Rule 1.2.3 states:
1.2.3 Exceptions
Strict application of the provisions of this standard may not be appropriate in every instance. Wherever
it may be proposed to depart from the provisions of this standard, the authority having jurisdiction may
grant exceptions from the literal requirements or permit the use of other devices or methods that
provide features comparable to those included in this standard, providing that after receiving such
evidence as the Board may require, the Board determines that:
1. The granting of such an exception would be consistent with, and would aid in, implementing the
legislative policy set forth in C.R.S. 25-5-701; and either,
2. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations from which an exception is sought would create
an unreasonable operational or design condition; or
3. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations from which an exception is sought would create
an unreasonable economic burden.
It is important when requesting a variance that the request meets the necessary criteria as set forth in
Rule 1.2.3 (a) and (b) and/or (c). To legally grant a variance, a finding that the criteria of Rule 1.2.3 has
been met must be made.
The following are the guidelines for submission of a variance request to the Board. It is important that
all criteria are met in the variance request prior to submission to the Board. If submissions are
incomplete the variance may not be granted. When applying for a variance, it is important that why the
variance is being requested is fully outlined and why it will not jeopardize the public's health or safety
if it is granted. The following guidelines will assist in submitting a complete variance request.
Define whether a temporary or permanent variance is being requested:
Explain what length of time is required and why;
Is the request a waiver of the rule, a delay of implementation or a suggestion of an alternative
solution?
Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board:
Variance Request Guidelines
P71
I.
5/4/2018 Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board: Variance Request Guidelines | Department of Regulatory Agencies
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/Tramway_Variance_Request 2/2
Provide definitive information as to why the variance can be granted
with no additional or undue threat to the health and safety of the
public, such as:
Operational history;
History of similar lifts with similar conditions;
Expert testimony; or,
An alternative solution to protect the public.
Give a complete explanation defining the necessity of the variance:
An explanation of the current or proposed condition;
Why it does not conform with the rule;
What would be necessary to comply with the rule;
Background information about the condition;
How it has affected public health and safety.
Note: Photographs and diagrams are helpful to the Board.
Clearly state under which reference in Rule 1.2.3 that the variance is
being requested:
Is it unreasonable operational or design condition or unreasonable economic burden?
If based upon unreasonable operational or design condition, explain what has been done in
an attempt to comply with the rule and why it was not successful.
Note: Referring to professionals and experts in the field who have been consulted is helpful to the
Board, but please provide their qualifications.
If based upon unreasonable economic burden, provide estimates to complete the work and
documentation of how those costs would affect other operational demands. Show why the
expenditure is considered an economic burden to the area.
If you require further information or have questions please contact the Board office at 303-894-7785 or
dora_tramwayboard@state.co.us
P72
I.