The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.20171030 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 30, 2017 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Lift 1 Study Update II. Budget: Parks and Golf P1 Lift 1A Study October 30, 2017 Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Lift 1A study MEETING DATE: October 30, 2017 The purpose of this work session is to inform the City Council on the results of the Lift 1A study and to provide staff with direction on several questions posed for consideration. Council’s feedback will influence next steps regarding Lift 1A and the pending land use application for Gorsuch Haus. BACKGROUND: The City has been working since the spring on a study of options for Lift 1A that was commissioned as a result of the Gorsuch Haus development proposal. As part of that land use proposal, replacement of Lift 1A was included in proximity to the existing terminal near the top of S. Aspen Street. During the City Council hearings, staff suggested that a third party consultant be hired to evaluate the feasibility of alternative lift options based on Council comments. The work has been completed and funded through a partnership with the City, Aspen Skiing Company, Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge as the land owners who would potentially be directly impacted by a relocated lift. Representatives from each of these groups will be at the work session to answer any questions and address their varying perspectives about potential options to move forward. It is important to note that this is an initial feasibility study. If Council desires to move forward with one of the scenarios, additional work will be needed. This includes outreach with neighbors, potential changes to the historic designation of Lift 1, a review by the Colorado Tramway Board for any potential lift clearance variance required, as well as a more in-depth study of the scenario for ski access and impacts to vested and proposed development. Ski area and mountain resort planning is only handled by a handful of firms. Staff contracted the work with SE Group, represented by Chris Cushing, to review four potential scenarios with regard to the feasibility of bringing Lift 1A further down the mountain, or in the alternative, bringing people up to the lift. The scenarios originally included: · Extending the Lift 1A alignment proposed by Gorsuch Haus project further down the slope closer to Dean Street. · Extending the current Lift 1A alignment further down the slope closer to Dean Street. Lift 1A P2 I. Lift 1A Study October 30, 2017 Page 2 of 6 · A surface lift or people mover option linking a Dean Street skier’s portal to the Lift 1A bottom terminal location proposed by the Gorsuch Haus project. · An alternative alignment that could include using the S. Aspen Street right-of-way, Willoughby Park and adjacent properties, other than the Dolinsek property. Lift One Lodge, Gorsuch Haus, and Aspen Skiing Co. representatives, in addition to City staff, convened in early summer to discuss the initial designs. The group provided initial feedback on the alternatives but also determined that an expansion of the scope should be considered to review some additional suggested scenarios and provide greater detail on most of the scenarios. Each party also agreed to make a financial contribution towards the expanded scope. As a result of the meeting, the following scenarios were added to the scope of the study: · Lift 1A spanning over buildings. · Flipping the Lift 1A alignment and Gorsuch Haus building. · Placing the lift over the S. Aspen Street Right-of-Way. · Evaluating the use of the Dolinsek property within the purchase agreement’s allowances. · Lift One Lodge approved solution. An additional meeting was reconvened with the representatives in September and all of the scenarios, inclusive of the expanded scope, were again reviewed and input provided to the consultant. A final meeting was held in October once a draft report was developed to compliment the scenario drawings so that any final comments could be expressed. The resulting document is attached as Exhibit C. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: The study analyzes the potential scenarios based on various planning determinants including: skier experience, functionality and operations, land ownership and regulatory factors. The study provides two possible options that are considered possible, when one considers the planning determinants used to evaluate the nine scenarios. Scenario 1 (Exhibit A), proposes Lift 1A be brought down to just south of the Dolinsek property, leaving an industry standard acceptable walking distance from Dean Street to the relocated terminal (with approximately fifty feet of vertical rise). Scenario 7 (Exhibit B), extends the current Lift 1A with a lift that terminates just south of the original Lift 1 bullwheel, and provides a skier return that would partially occur on the Dolinsek property. No ski infrastructure would cross the Dolinsek parcel, which is a requirement of the existing agreement for the property. All of the scenarios listed have different potential impacts to the properties included as part of this study (SkiCo, Lift One Lodge and City properties). In the two scenarios outlined above the greatest impacts are to Lift One Lodge and City property; however, there are also operational impacts to consider regarding skier access as well as snow making and cat access. Besides the entitlements in place for Lift One Lodge that may be impacted in some of these scenarios, the property owned by the City Bullwheel and a tower P3 I. Lift 1A Study October 30, 2017 Page 3 of 6 including Willoughby Park includes a number of historic assets. The park contains the Lift 1 bullwheel, as well as three lift towers located in alignment with the bullwheel. The bullwheel and the towers uphill of it, were designated historic by Council through Ordinance #37, Series of 1974. Ordinance #57, Series of 1981 expanded the designation to cover the whole Willoughby Park area and Skier’s Chalet. Because of the local landmark designation, any changes to the designated structures or the park will require HPC review and approval. In 1990, the City nominated the Boat Tow, which is now in storage until it can be displayed in a protected location, to the National Register of Historic Places. It was listed on the National Register. A National Register historic context statement explaining Aspen ski history was also prepared at that time, setting up the framework for additional listings, but it appears the city never formally moved forward with the nomination process for Lift 1 to the National Register. Both of the Scenarios identified as possible in the study will impact some or all of the locally designated Lift 1 towers. Depending on the scenario selected, mitigation for the lead paint as well as general stabilization are likely required. A study in 2014 estimated the costs associated with refurbishment and full mitigation for the lead paint at approximately $500,000. The cost could be lower, depending on the extent of the mitigation. Depending on the scope of variances needed from the Colorado Tramway Board, an additional federal level historic impact review may be required. Staff believes this would be an advisory review, but it could add to the time required for further investigation of the potential solutions. Additionally, there are likely a number of triggers for a public vote if one of the solutions is ultimately pursued. Staff believes that any solution that uses the Aspen Parks lands, including Willoughby and Lift One Parks, might require a vote. If for some reason the Aspen Historical Museum does not participate in using the historic structure as a museum, this issue would also likely need to go to the voters. The scenarios would also impact the existing vested and pending land use reviews for the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus. For the vested Lift One Lodge project, changes to the approved buildings, as well as the approved people mover, would be required and could trigger a Ref 1 public vote on an amendment. For the pending Gorsuch Haus project, changes to the lift location may impact the proposal that returns to City Council for review. Finally, the Dolinsek property has additional constraints in the form a deed restriction limiting activities that may occur on the estate. While skiing is permitted over the property, ski infrastructure is not. The two scenarios identified as possible solutions to bringing the lift closer to Dean Street do not include ski area infrastructure in accordance with the requirements of the deed restriction. The final report outlines two scenarios that may warrant further study. Staff would like to gauge Council’s interest in moving forward with the results of the study, assuming other landowners are also interested. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. Does Council have any questions regarding the potential impacts to the locally designated Lift 1, or the likely triggers for public votes? 2. Of the two solutions that are likely possible, is there support for one or both of the options to be studied further? 3. If one of the options is further pursued, does City Council support additional budget to complete the required detailed analysis and study? If so, does Council desire continued P4 I. Lift 1A Study October 30, 2017 Page 4 of 6 work be completed in conjunction with and potentially funded in partnership with Aspen Skiing Company, Gorsuch Haus, and Lift One Lodge? CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Scenario 1, plan view Exhibit B – Scenario 7, plan view Exhibit C – Lift 1A report P5 I. Lift 1A Study October 30, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Exhibit A – Scenario 1 P6 I. Lift 1A Study October 30, 2017 Page 6 of 6 Exhibit B – Scenario 7 P7 I. Prepared for: City of Aspen Prepared by: SE Group OCTOBER 2017 CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT P8 I. P9 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | i CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 3 EVALUATION PROCESS ............................................................................................................................................. 5 General Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Planning Determinants .............................................................................................................................................. 6 EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS ................................................................................................................................... 9 Conditions Common to all Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 9 Scenario 1 | Bottom Terminal South of Dolinsek Property ......................................................................................... 9 Description ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 Assessment of Planning Determinants ................................................................................................................ 10 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 12 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Scenario 2 | Scenario 1 with Two-Way Surface Lift to Dean Street ......................................................................... 19 Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Assessment of Planning Determinants ................................................................................................................ 19 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 21 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Scenario 3 | Gorsuch Proposal with Two-Way Surface Lift to Dean Street ............................................................. 27 Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Assessment of Planning Determinants ................................................................................................................ 27 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 29 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Scenario 4 | Scenario 3 with Gorsuch Haus Building and Lift 1A Flipped ................................................................ 35 Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Assessment of Planning Determinants ................................................................................................................ 35 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 37 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Scenario 5 | Lift One Lodge Approved Proposal ...................................................................................................... 43 Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Assessment of Planning Determinants ................................................................................................................ 43 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 46 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 47 Scenario 6 | Extending the Current Lift 1A Alignment, Western Skier Return ......................................................... 53 Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Assessment of Planning Determinants ................................................................................................................ 53 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 56 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 57 Scenario 7 | Extending the Current Lift 1A alignment, Eastern Skier Return ........................................................... 63 Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 63 Summary Assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 63 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 63 Scenario 8 | Lift Going Over Buildings ..................................................................................................................... 67 Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 67 Summary Assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 67 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 67 Scenario 9 | Lift Above the S. Aspen St. Right-of-Way ............................................................................................ 68 Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 68 P10 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT ii | Summary Assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 68 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 68 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 69 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................... 70 Descriptions and Illustrations of Optional lift technology .......................................................................................... 70 Detachable Chairlift ............................................................................................................................................. 70 Combination Chairlift/Gondola (“Telemix” or “Chondola”) ................................................................................... 72 Gondola ............................................................................................................................................................... 74 “Platter” Surface Lift ............................................................................................................................................ 76 Two-Way Reversible Surface Lift ........................................................................................................................ 78 Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances ................................................................................................................ 80 ANSI B77.1-2017 Clearance Regulations ........................................................................................................... 81 CPTSB Clearance Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 82 FIGURES Figure 1. Scenario 1 Plan View .................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 1a. Scenario 1 Section View ............................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 2. Scenario 2 Plan View .................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2a. Scenario 2 Section View ............................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 3. Scenario 3 Plan View .................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 3a. Scenario 3 Section View ............................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 4. Scenario 4 Plan View .................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 4a. Scenario 4 Section View ............................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 5. Scenario 5 Plan View .................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 5a. Scenario 5 Section View ............................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 6. Scenario 6 Plan View .................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 6a. Scenario 6 Section View ............................................................................................................................. 61 Figure 7. Scenario 7 Plan View .................................................................................................................................... 65 P11 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SE Group has been engaged by the City of Aspen to undertake a third-party assessment of the Lift 1A replacement project as it relates to proposed developments of the Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge properties, and create a skiers’ link to the original ski area portal near Dean Street. SE Group’s assessment involves evaluating potential optional lift configurations, and outlining regulatory, physical, and operational considerations for providing enhanced skier access to the original mountain portal near Dean Street. A total of nine different scenarios were analyzed for the replacement of Lift 1A, representing a broad range of lift configurations and skier return routes servicing a potential skier portal at the proposed public transit drop-off at the southeast corner of South Aspen and Dean Streets. This is an initial study of options related to the replacement of Lift 1A, which is based only on an evaluation of key planning determinants related to the Skier Experience, the Functionality and Operations aspects of the options, broad-scale Land Ownership considerations, and Regulatory factors related to lift installations and the historic Lift 1 structures. This study does not include a detailed engineering analysis, evaluation of commercial/lodging impacts and viability, legal constraints or neighborhood outreach, and it must be recognized that any of these factors could render an option infeasible. Investigations into improving access to the existing Lift 1A location other than by lift service was not included in this analysis because the scope of the study was limited to lift-based solutions. The report is presented in five sections: an introduction; a description of SE Group’s evaluation process; evaluation of each of the nine scenarios analyzed; a conclusion; and additional information regarding optional lift technology and dimensioning, and regulatory standards for lift clearance requirements. Following are the nine scenarios that were evaluated: 1. Lift 1A Bottom Terminal South of Dolinsek Property 2. Scenario 1 with two-way Surface Lift to Dean Street 3. Gorsuch Haus Proposal with two-way Surface Lift to Dean Street 4. Scenario 3 with Gorsuch Building and Lift 1A Flipped 5. Lift One Lodge Approved Proposal 6. Extending the Current Lift 1A Alignment, Western Skier Return 7. Extending the Current Lift 1A Alignment, Eastern Skier Return 8. Lift 1A Going Over Buildings 9. Lift Above the S. Aspen St. Right-of-Way P12 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 2 | Of the nine scenarios evaluated in this assessment, six scenarios (1 through 6) were the subject of a “full analysis,” and three scenarios (7 through 9) were the subject of a “partial analysis.” The evaluation process was initiated by preparing a planning base map to identify and locate existing structures, buildings, key properties, parcels, easements, rights-of-way, roads and vegetation. The planning base map also shows proposed building footprints for the Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge projects. The next step in the evaluation process involved laying out the different lift alignments and ski slope configurations over the planning base map. The configuration and layout for each scenario were conceived based on meeting the intention of the scenario, addressing important operational considerations, and being responsive to various site factors and elements including building locations and heights (both existing and proposed), pedestrian and skier circulation, lift setbacks, property boundaries, and other physical and regulatory conditions. A total of 11 planning determinants helped inform and guide the assessment of the Lift 1A replacement project scenarios. The key planning determinants fall into four general categories: Skier Experience, Functionality and Operations, Land Ownership, and Regulatory Considerations. The evaluation of scenarios subject to “full analysis” includes a written description of each scenario, an assessment of how the scenario conforms to the identified planning determinants, a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario, and a conclusion as to whether the scenario is worthy of further study. The written description and evaluation of each scenario is accompanied by a plan and site section illustration. A very general evaluation of the three “partial analysis” scenarios 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 evaluation of these three scenarios includes a written description of each partial analysis scenario, a summary assessment of the scenario, and a conclusion as to whether the scenario is worthy of further evaluation or should be abandoned from consideration. Of the nine scenarios evaluated, Scenario 1 and Scenario 7 were found to be possible concepts for replacement of Lift 1A and worthy of further consideration and study. Scenario 6 was found to be a potentially practical concept subject to further evaluation of potential snowmaking operations solutions. Scenarios 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 were found to be impractical concepts and not worthy of further consideration. For Scenario 6 to be considered practical, a viable solution would need to be derived for applying machine-made snow to the return ski run. Scenario 7 presents that possible solution by accommodating snowmaking operations and snow storage on the Dolinsek property. Additionally, Scenario 7 is less impactful to the approved Lift One Lodge buildings. Accordingly, Scenario 7 effectively replaces Scenario 6, and Scenario 6 should be eliminated from further consideration. P13 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 3 I NTRODUCTION SE Group has been engaged by the City of Aspen (City) to undertake a third-party assessment of the Lift 1A replacement project as it relates to proposed developments of the Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge properties, and creating a skiers’ link to the original ski area portal near Dean Street. SE Group’s assessment involves evaluating potential optional lift configurations, and outlining regulatory, physical and operational considerations for providing enhanced skier access to the original mountain portal near Dean Street. Initially, this assessment of the Lift 1A replacement was to investigate four optional scenarios: • Extending the Lift 1A alignment proposed by the Gorsuch Haus project further down the slope closer to Dean Street. • Extending the current Lift 1A alignment further down the slope closer to Dean Street, with a skier return to the west of the lift alignment. • A surface lift or people-mover option linking a Dean Street skiers’ portal to the Lift 1A bottom terminal location proposed by the Gorsuch Haus project. • An alternative alignment that could include using the S. Aspen Street right-of-way, Willoughby Park and adjacent properties, other than the Dolinsek property. Following a mapping exercise and initial evaluation of these four scenarios by SE Group, a meeting was hosted by representatives of the City and attended by representatives from Aspen Skiing Company (SkiCo), Gorsuch Haus, Lift One Lodge, and SE Group. During this meeting, SE Group presented plans and initial opinions regarding the original four scenarios listed above. Following the presentation there were questions from the group and general discussion regarding the four scenarios and potential additional scenarios that the group felt should be considered. Subsequent to the first project meeting, the City, SkiCo, Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge collectively decided to expand the scope of SE Group’s original work program to include additional analysis of the original four scenarios, full analysis of two additional scenarios, and partial analysis of three additional scenarios. Investigations into improving access to the existing Lift 1A location other than by lift service was not included in this analysis because the scope was limited to lift-based solutions. The additional scenarios that were analyzed are listed below. • Flipping the Lift 1A alignment and Gorsuch Haus building in Scenario 4 (Full Analysis) • Lift One Lodge Approved Solution, per existing entitlements (Full Analysis) • Extending the current Lift 1A alignment further down the slope closer to Dean Street, with a skier return to the east of the lift alignment utilizing a portion of the Dolinsek property (Partial Analysis because of close similarity to the second bulleted original scenario listed above) P14 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 4 | • Lift 1A spanning over buildings (Partial Analysis) • Placing the lift over the S. Aspen Street Right-of-Way (Partial Analysis) Following the initial mapping evaluation of these additional scenarios by SE Group, a meeting was hosted by representatives of the City and attended by representatives from SkiCo, Gorsuch Haus, Lift One Lodge, and SE Group. During this meeting, SE Group presented plans and initial opinions regarding the additional scenarios listed above, and similar to the initial meeting. After the presentation there were questions from the group, followed by a general discussion. The group also provided verbal and written input regarding issues and planning elements that should be addressed in the final project report. It should be noted that this is an initial study of options related to the replacement of Lift 1A, which has a limited scope that does not include a detailed engineering analysis, evaluation of commercial/lodging impacts and viability, or neighborhood outreach. If an option is selected to move forward, additional design analysis will be required. In all of the scenarios, there is an impact to neighboring properties that is different than current conditions or existing approvals which will also need to be part of on-going analysis. Additionally, depending on the level of proposed changes to Willoughby Park and Lift One Park, a public vote may be required to implement a selected scenario. The following report presents: 1) a description of SE Group’s evaluation process, which included a general overview, and an explanation of the planning determinants considered; 2) the evaluation of each of the nine scenarios analyzed, which included a detailed description of the scenario, illustrative plans, assessment discussion, and conclusion; and 3) additional information regarding optional lift technology and dimensioning, and regulatory standards for lift clearance requirements. P15 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 5 EVALUATION PROCESS This section describes the evaluation process and planning determinants considered for the nine scenarios that were analyzed. GENERAL OVERVIEW To initiate the Lift 1A Assessment, a planning base map was produced to identify and locate existing structures, buildings, key properties, parcels, easements, rights-of-way, roads and vegetation. The planning base map also shows proposed building footprints for the Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge projects. The source data for this planning map was Google Earth imagery dated 6/23/2017, topographic data (1-foot contour interval) provided by SkiCo, property and planimetric data supplied by Design Workshop, and the recorded Lift One Lodge PUD Subdivision Plat map supplied by the City. This planning base map is intended to be a basic, locational site plan for orientation, and is not represented as being a fully surveyed and dimensioned map, such as an ALTA survey map, depicting all existing conditions, utilities, legal interests, etc. The City, SkiCo, Gorsuch Haus, and Lift One Lodge reviewed the base map for accuracy and completeness and provided comments, which were addressed in the final version of the map. As described earlier, of the nine scenarios evaluated in this assessment, six scenarios were the subject of a “full analysis,” and three scenarios were the subject of a “partial analysis.” Improving access to the existing Lift 1A location other than by lift service was not included in this analysis based on the lift-based scope of the project. Evaluation Process for Full Analysis For each of the six scenarios that were the subject of a full analysis, the evaluation process began with laying out the different lift alignment and ski slope configurations over the planning base map. The configuration and layout for each scenario were conceived based on meeting the intention of the scenario, addressing important operational considerations, and being responsive to various site factors and planning determinants including building locations and heights (both existing and proposed), pedestrian and skier circulation, lift setbacks, property boundaries, and other physical and regulatory conditions. The physical feasibility of each scenario was 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 plan-view illustrations, and north-to-south site sections depicting vertical information and relationships, with elevations, contours, grades, towers and presumed lift profiles, to more clearly illustrate the feasibility and impacts of ski infrastructure on the surrounding landscape and development proposals. Initial draft plans of each scenario were delivered to the 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 for each scenario. P16 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 6 | A written description of each full analysis scenario is provided under the Evaluation of Scenarios section and includes an assessment of how the scenario conforms to the identified planning determinants, describes the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario, and provides a conclusion. The written description and evaluation of each scenario is accompanied by a plan and site section illustration. Evaluation Process for Partial Analysis A very general evaluation of the three partial analysis scenarios 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 involved a general mapping assessment similar to the one undertaken for full analysis, and a study of the physical feasibility and practical limitations of each scenario when considering the intention of the scenario, addressing important operational considerations and site factors, and conforming to the identified planning determinants. A written description of each partial analysis scenario is provided under the Evaluation of Scenarios section, and includes a summary assessment of the scenario, along with a conclusion as to whether the scenario is worthy of further evaluation or should be abandoned from consideration. PLANNING DETERMINANTS A number of important planning determinants helped inform and guide the assessment of the Lift 1A replacement project scenarios. These key determinants are listed and described below. Generally, they fall into four categories: Skier Experience, Functionality and Operations, Land Ownership, and Regulatory Considerations. Skier Experience Planning Determinants Overall Skier Experience – While improving public accessibility from the Aspen core area is the primary driver of this analysis, it must be achieved by a scenario that maintains the high-quality skier experience to which the SkiCo has committed significant efforts and resources to maintain within the highly competitive ski resort marketplace in Colorado. A potential skier portal closer to the Dean Street public transit drop-off, which was approved as part of the Lift One Lodge entitlements, should follow the same ski area design standards that are used elsewhere at the resort, and should not compromise a skier’s desire to use Lift 1A on a regular basis for access onto the mountain, repeat-ski use, or competitive events. Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – An important aspect in the design of ski area improvement projects is ensuring that optimal skier circulation is maintained in a safe and efficient configuration. Likewise, pedestrian access in and around the ski area improvements must be unimpeded and, to the extent practical, facilitate pedestrian access to and away from the ski area lifts and trails. P17 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 7 Functionality and Operations Planning Determinants Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – A primary City objective of the Lift 1A replacement project is to improve public accessibility to the bottom of Lift 1A from the Aspen core area, via improved pedestrian accessibility and the proposed public transit drop-off on the corner of Dean Street and South Aspen Street. Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – Existing operations cover a wide variety of items, including ensuring adequate ticketing and guest services space is located at the base of the lift, general access, and grooming, lifts and snowmaking operations. The existing operational access road onto Aspen Mountain enters the mountain at the top of South Aspen Street. This road is used for winter and summer accessibility onto the mountain for grooming and cat operations, staging, ambulance and emergency vehicle use, truck and equipment transport, and other functions. This mountain access route is critical to the operational functioning of Aspen Mountain and must be maintained as an operational portal onto the mountain. Ticketing and limited guest services are available at the base of Lift 1A currently and need to be maintained or expanded in any scenario. All operational functions will need to be accommodated on a permanent basis for any scenario to ultimately be functional. This report only assessed physical layouts, and did not evaluate any legal commitments that would need to be undertaken in order to ensure such permanent accommodation. Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Each scenario must be responsive to the practical limitations and requirements of basic ski area operations, including slope grooming, snowmaking, and lift operations. Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – A fundamental determinant regarding the feasibility of any lift installation project is that there is adequate space for the lift terminal structures, circulation space at each terminal, and queuing and milling space. These spatial requirements vary based on the lift technology employed (e.g., Chairlift, Telemix, Gondola, surface lift, etc.). Vertical Clearances – Similar to meeting spatial requirements, the assessment of vertical clearances is also fundamental to evaluating the feasibility of lift installation projects. Vertical clearances must be met for ski-under conditions, regulatory standards for clearance to vehicles and structures, practical situations for ski area operations, and guest experiential situations (e.g., fear of heights.) Land Ownership Planning Determinants Interface with Proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge Developments – The Lift 1A replacement scenarios should provide a seamless and spatial transition area from the ski lift and slopes into the snowfront skier valet areas of the proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge projects. This report only assesses physical and spatial interaction with the proposed developments as well as potential impacts to buildings, and did not evaluate guest experience from the property perspective. This will be an important piece of any further evaluation done for any option, as adverse impacts on the overall functionality and guest experience should be minimized. P18 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 8 | Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The Lift 1A replacement project should not unduly hinder access to existing and proposed residential buildings/projects, access routes, easements, or rights of way in the vicinity of the project. Regulatory Planning Determinants Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – The two regulatory institutes that apply to lift installations in Colorado are the federal American National Standard (ANSI Section B77.1-2017) and the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB). While variances are not allowed for the ANSI standards, they are permissible with CPTSB standards. CPTSB will review variances, but at this time a variance cannot be guaranteed for any of the scenarios. Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Each scenario will be evaluated regarding its impact to historic Lift 1 structures (base terminal and three towers) which are locally designated historic landmarks. P19 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 9 EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS CONDITIONS COMMON TO ALL SCENARIOS The following conditions are common to all scenarios evaluated: • The top terminal of Lift 1A would be positioned in the location conceived by SkiCo in its most recent Master Development Plan. • Lift 1A would continue to function as an out-of-base access and repeat skiing lift. • Lift 1A would continue to function as the primary access lift for international Alpine ski racing competitions. • The Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus buildings would be located and configured as per the most recent plans provided by the two development groups. There are some scenarios that examine lift configurations that would require Lift One Lodge or Gorsuch Haus buildings to be moved or eliminated, as described later. • A skier services building or functional skier services space would be located at or near the base of the lift. • The historic Lift 1 base terminal structure would not need to be removed. The scenarios impact the historic Lift 1 towers to varying degrees, as described later. All of these structures are locally designated as historic landmarks. • In all of the scenarios, there are visual and possible operational impacts to neighboring properties that are different than current conditions or existing approvals. If an option is selected to move forward for further evaluation, additional design analysis and neighborhood outreach will be required. SCENARIO 1 | BOTTOM TERMINAL SOUTH OF DOLINSEK PROPERTY Description The alignment of Lift 1A would be the same as the alignment proposed by Gorsuch Haus (slight clockwise rotation of the existing alignment), but the bottom terminal would be moved downhill (north) as close to Dean Street as possible. The covenant restrictions on the Dolinsek property preclude any lift infrastructure within that property, so the bottom terminal would be located just south of the Dolinsek property and Gilbert Street right-of-way, approximately 350 feet south of the Dean Street proposed transit drop-off (see Figure 1). The ski connection from existing Aspen Mountain slopes to the Scenario 1 Lift 1A bottom terminal would be achieved via a 250-foot extension of the Schuss Gully ski run, as depicted in Figure 1. This run extension would be suitable for all skier ability levels and would not significantly compromise skier access from the upper Aspen Mountain slopes to the new Lift 1A terminal location. Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit stop would walk from the drop-off area to the Lift 1A bottom terminal. This walk would be 350 feet in length over a vertical rise of 50 feet, which falls within an acceptable standard for pedestrian access to out-of-base lifts with return skiing. P20 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 10 | The walking route to the lift could be the existing South Aspen Street sidewalk, a new walking path through Willoughby and Lift 1 parks, or a combination of the two. Given the vertical rise and average slope climb, stairs would likely be incorporated into the established walking route. To return to the Dean Street transit drop-off, skiers would ski to the base of Lift 1A and then either walk or ski (if natural snow conditions permitted) back to the transit stop. Assessment of Planning Determinants Skier Experience Planning Determinants Overall Skier Experience – Because of the negligible shift in the Lift 1A bottom terminal location and the ability to extend the existing ski slope to this location without significantly compromising skier circulation for all skier ability levels, this scenario does not create an overall unworkable negative impact to the on-slope skier experience. However, the upper historic Lift 1 tower, if left in place, would occur in the middle of the return ski slope extension and present a skier hazard. The return ski run passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings, which would have a negative impact on the skier experience. The milling space at the lift maze would be quite constrained, which would impact the overall ski experience. The confined nature of the bottom terminal location relative to buildings proposed by Lift One Lodge limits the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this location (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) without cooperation from Lift One Lodge. Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is not significantly compromised by this scenario, but milling space at the lift maze would be quite constrained. Pedestrian circulation is compromised by the 50-foot vertical climb from the proposed public transit drop-off at Dean Street and the confined nature of the bottom terminal location relative to buildings proposed by Lift One Lodge. Additionally, the close proximity of proposed buildings to the lift terminal, mazing area and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. It is common for a 20-foot setback to be maintained between ski trails and nearby buildings. The proposed 40-foot ski easement passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings. Functionality and Operations Planning Determinants Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario moves the Lift 1A terminal approximately 250 feet closer to the proposed Dean Street public transit drop-off, and reduces the elevation difference between drop-off and lift terminal from 75 feet to 50 feet. While this location of the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be considered an “acceptable” walking distance from the Dean Street drop-off location based on industry standards, it is likely that the vertical climbing would deter some guests from viewing this as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario allows for the opportunity to realign the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location and continue up the mountain to the east of the Gorsuch Haus building as proposed in the Gorsuch Haus site plans. P21 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 11 Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Slope grooming operations would be challenged under this scenario by two situations. First, the upper historic Lift 1 tower is located in the middle of the proposed return slope to the bottom of Lift 1A. In order to groom around the historic lift tower, a specialty narrow-width groomer may need to be utilized. Second, because of the narrow width between the bottom terminal and the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings, the turn- around area for grooming vehicles would be limited, which would cause excessive wear to the snow surface from multiple-point turns, and extended noise impact to the residential units from snowcats backing up and maneuvering in the tight area. The narrow width of the return trail to the bottom of the lift (~40 feet wide) would require special snowmaking operations to minimize noise impacts to nearby residential units (which may occur) and to mitigate snow drifting conditions that would create operational challenges in snow removal and storage at the Lift One Lodge buildings. It is projected that the only viable approach to applying machine-made snow to the ski slope extension would be to make and store snow in an area above the slope extension, and then push the pre-made snow down into the narrow section of the slope extension. This push of approximately 250 feet would be a significant hardship to grooming operations but is considered a possible solution. No significant lift operations concerns are envisioned for this scenario. Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – In order to create adequate space for the Lift 1A terminal and associated queuing in this scenario—whether detachable chairlift, Telemix, or gondola—the proposed eastern Lift One Lodge building would need to be moved or eliminated. Assuming the east Lift One Lodge building is moved or eliminated, there is adequate space for a lift terminal and associated queuing, though it is very confined. Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under and vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road can be achieved for this scenario. Land Ownership Planning Determinants Interface with Proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge Developments – Interface with the Gorsuch Haus proposed building is very good under this scenario because it creates the opportunity for a relatively large, flat snowfront area adjacent to a potential ski valet entrance. Interface with the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings is significantly impacted in this scenario. While the lift terminal is located directly adjacent to the buildings, its positioning requires the entire eastern Lift One Lodge building to be moved or more likely eliminated. Additionally, the close proximity of proposed buildings to the lift terminal, mazing area and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. It is common for a 20-foot setback to be maintained between ski trails and nearby buildings. The proposed 40-foot ski easement passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings. Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – This scenario would have no adverse impacts regarding access to adjacent existing and proposed properties. P22 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 12 | Regulatory Planning Determinants Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – Regulatory standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario with no need for variances (assuming the east Lift One Lodge building is eliminated or relocated). Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Operational challenges and skier safety concerns related to the upper historic Lift 1 tower (described above) suggest that its removal would benefit this scenario. This scenario would have no impact to the lower two historic Lift 1 towers or the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure. Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages • Shifts the Lift 1A bottom terminal approximately 250 horizontal feet and 25 vertical feet closer to the Dean Street proposed public transit drop-off. • Has tolerable negative impact on the overall skier experience (confined maze area and return ski run, and skier hazard from Lift 1 tower), and skier and pedestrian circulation. • Improves the ski interface with Gorsuch Haus property by eliminating the spatial requirements of the lift terminal and mazing space. • Allows for an acceptable realignment of the SkiCo operations mountain access road. • Meets necessary vertical clearances. • Meets regulatory standards for lift clearances (assuming the east Lift One Lodge building is eliminated or relocated). • Only impacts the upper historic Lift 1 tower. Disadvantages • While the Lift 1A bottom terminal in this scenario is closer to the proposed Dean Street transit drop-off than the existing terminal, and would be considered an “acceptable” walking distance from the Dean Street drop-off location based on industry standards, it is likely that the vertical climbing would deter some guests from viewing this as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. • Pedestrian circulation is compromised by the 50-foot vertical climb from the proposed public transit stop at Dean Street and the confined nature of the bottom terminal location and ski return run relative to buildings proposed by Lift One Lodge. • This scenario requires a significant reconfiguration of the Lift One Lodge project proposal, involving either moving or more likely eliminating the eastern building. • The close proximity of the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings to the lift terminal, mazing area, ski run, and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. P23 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 13 • The narrow width of the return ski slope, and its close proximity to the Lift One Lodge buildings (less than 5 feet) would have a negative impact on the skier experience. It is common for a 20-foot setback to be maintained between ski trails and nearby buildings. • Under this scenario, the upper historic Lift 1 tower would be located in the middle of the proposed return route to the bottom of Lift 1A. Unless the historic lift tower was removed, either permanently or temporarily during the ski season, it would cause challenges to grooming and snowmaking operations and a skier hazard. • The narrow width of the return ski slope precludes normal snowmaking operations on the slope itself and would likely require snow to be made elsewhere and transported onto the slope by machine. Conclusion Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 1, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario 1 is considered a possible alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A that is worthy of further study. It results in a measurable improvement to public accessibility to the bottom of Lift 1A from the Aspen core area, although the public access is not ideal due to the vertical climb from the proposed Dean Street public transit drop- off. Additionally, this scenario requires a significant reconfiguration of the Lift One Lodge project, including the likely elimination of one of their buildings, and creates ski area operational challenges for grooming and snowmaking. P24 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 14 | This page intentionally left blank. P25 I. EXISTING LIFTEAST DEAN STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREET SOUTH ASPEN STREET SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HILL STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMIT STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PLANNED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT PEDESTRIAN EASMENT GILBERT STREET EXTENTS GILBERT STREET RIGHT OF WAY DOLINSEK PROPERTY ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSIT DROP OFF RECREATION EASMENT CHAIR ROPE35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSBOUTSIDE OF CHAIR 86ft32 ft5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODE40FTPROPOSED SKIWAY PROPOSED GORSUCH BUILDING LIFT 1 LODGE CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 1 Prepared by : 1’ Contour Intervals 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NExisting Lift Retaining Wall Approved Building Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed Lifts Legend Property Boundaries Ski Easement Boundary Resort Boundary Public Right of Way Easement Subsurface Easement Perpetual Non Exclusive Utility Easment Maze Area Right of Way No Build and Maintenance Easement Recreation Easement Note: Skier Services are need for the scenario and a location near the proposed Lift 1A bottom terminal would need to be deter- mined with further study. CROSS SECTION P26I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 16 | This page intentionally left blank. P27 I. 7940 7960 7980 8000 8020 8040 8060 8080 8100 600 700 800 900100200300400500 ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MAZE AREA EXISTING PROFILE PROPOSED PROFILE EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD GRADING PROFILE PROPOSED LIFT 1 LODGE GRADING PROFILE SKI WAY SKI-UNDER CLEARANCE 16ft EAST DEAN STREET RETAINING WALL SKI-UNDER CLEARANCE 16ft CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 1A Prepared by : 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NP28I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 18 | This page intentionally left blank. P29 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 19 SCENARIO 2 | SCENARIO 1 WITH TWO-W AY S URFACE L IFT TO DEAN STREET Description Scenario 2 would be identical to Scenario 1, except a two-way surface lift would be added connecting the proposed transit drop-off with the lower base terminal of new Lift 1A (see Figure 2). A traditional skier surface lift (e.g., platter lift, T-bar, conveyor/magic carpet, etc.) would not work along this alignment because there is not adequate width for a return ski route alongside the surface lift. Instead, a two-way lift is necessary so that skiers can ride both up and down the lift. A description and pictures of a sample two-way surface lift are provided in the Additional Information section at the end of this report. Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit drop-off would walk from the drop-off area to the surface lift bottom terminal and ride up to the Lift 1A bottom terminal queuing area. They would then transfer to Lift 1A to ride up the mountain. The ski connection from existing Aspen Mountain slopes to the Scenario 2 Lift 1A bottom terminal would be achieved via a 250-foot extension of the Schuss Gully ski run, as described for Scenario 1 and depicted in Figure 2. To return to the Dean Street transit drop-off, skiers would ski to the base of Lift 1A and then ride down the surface lift. Assessment of Planning Determinants Skier Experience Planning Determinants Overall Skier Experience – The return ski run passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings, which would have a negative impact on the skier experience. The complicated nature of this access and egress system from Lift 1A to Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. The top terminal of the surface lift would consume valuable space in the confined area at the bottom of Lift 1A and cause further crowding. The confined nature of the bottom terminal location relative to buildings proposed by Lift One Lodge limits the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this location (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) without cooperation from Lift One Lodge. Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A. Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift could be ridden by foot passengers. However, the alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east- west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Gilbert Streets. The pedestrian circulation constraints at the Lift 1A terminal described for Scenario 1 would also exist for Scenario 2, and would be intensified by the space taken up by the surface lift terminal area. Functionality and Operations Planning Determinants Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario places the surface lift lower terminal directly adjacent to the Dean Street transit stop, providing a mechanical connection to Lift 1A about 250 feet away. Given the short walking distance from P30 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 20 | the transit stop to the Lift 1A terminal (estimated to be about a three-minute walk), and the relative aggravation of waiting in a lift line twice and transferring from one lift to another, it is unlikely that the surface lift would offer a considerable functional benefit to skiers under this scenario. The “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration would prevent most guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario allows for the opportunity to realign the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1 bottom terminal location and continue up the mountain to the east of the Gorsuch Haus building as proposed in the Gorsuch Haus site plans. Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – The ski area operational comments for Scenario 1 also apply to Scenario 2. Slope grooming operations in Scenario 2 would be further challenged by the presence of the surface lift terminal adjacent to the Lift 1A bottom terminal. Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – The comments about Scenario 1 lift terminal spatial requirements also apply to Scenario 2. The two additional terminals and associated queuing space for the surface lift consume already limited spaces at the Dean Street transit stop and the bottom of Lift 1A. Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under and vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road can be achieved for this scenario. Land Ownership Planning Determinants Interface with Proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge Developments – As with Scenario 1, interface with the Gorsuch Haus proposed building is very good under this scenario because it creates the opportunity for a relatively large, flat snowfront area adjacent to a potential ski valet entrance. Interface with the Lift One Lodge buildings is significantly impacted in this scenario. While the lift terminal is located directly adjacent to the buildings, its positioning requires the entire eastern Lift One Lodge building to be moved or more likely eliminated. Additionally, the close proximity of proposed buildings to the lift terminal, mazing area and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable, and the top terminal of the surface lift sits directly in front of the western Lift One Lodge building, effectively blocking the building from Lift 1A and the return ski trail. It is common for a 20-foot setback to be maintained between ski trails and nearby buildings. The proposed 40-foot ski easement passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings. Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The alignment of the two-way surface lift would create a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Gilbert Streets, which could impact access to adjacent existing and proposed properties. Regulatory Planning Determinants Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The Gorsuch Haus building and the two Lift One Lodge buildings P31 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 21 infringe on the two-way surface lift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required. The granting of a variance by CPTSB involves their review of a wide variety of factors including details on proposed fire mitigation, operating procedures, lift type, specifications, and precise dimensioning, and this information has not been developed for any of the Lift 1A replacement scenarios. For that reason, it is not possible to accurately predict the likelihood for success on obtaining the variances required for the replacement of Lift 1A. However, it can be assumed that variances for surface lifts would be easier to obtain than for chairlifts because surface lift riders are on the ground and it is easier to quickly evacuate from the lift. Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Operational challenges related to the upper historic Lift 1 tower (described above) suggest that its removal would benefit this scenario. Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of the middle historic Lift 1 tower. This scenario would have no impact to the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure and lower tower. Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages • Provides mechanical access from the Dean Street transit stop to the base of Lift 1A. • Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift could be ridden by foot passengers. • Improves the ski interface with Gorsuch Haus property by eliminating the spatial requirements of the lift terminal and mazing space. • Allows for an acceptable realignment of the SkiCo operations mountain access road. • Meets necessary vertical clearances. • Potentially easier to obtain lift clearance variances from CPTSB. • Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure and lower tower. Disadvantages • The “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration would prevent most guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. • The complicated nature and spatial requirements of this access and egress system from Lift 1A to Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. • Skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A. • This scenario requires a significant reconfiguration of the Lift One Lodge project proposal, involving either the elimination or relocation of the eastern building. • The close proximity of the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings to the lift terminal, mazing area and circulation will create a confined situation that would feel uncomfortable. P32 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 22 | • The narrow width of the return ski slope, and its close proximity to the Lift One Lodge buildings (less than 5 feet) would have a negative impact on the skier experience. It is common for a 20-foot setback to be maintained between ski trails and nearby buildings. • Under this scenario, the upper historic Lift 1 tower would be located in the middle of the proposed return route to the bottom of Lift 1A. Unless the historic lift tower was removed, either permanently or during the ski season, it would cause challenges to grooming and snowmaking operations and a skier hazard. • Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of the middle historic Lift 1 tower. • Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings. Conclusion Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 2, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario 2 is not considered a practical solution for the replacement of Lift 1A and should not be given further consideration. The benefits created by establishing a mechanical connection from the Dean Street transit stop to Lift 1A do not outweigh the skier experience, operational and circulation constraints created by the two- way surface lift installation and footprint. P33 I. EXISTING LIFTEAST DEAN STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREET SOUTH ASPEN STREET SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HILL STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMIT STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PLANNED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT PEDESTRIAN EASMENT GILBERT STREET EXTENTS GILBERT STREET RIGHT OF WAY DOLINSEK PROPERTY ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSIT DROP OFF RECREATION EASMENT CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 2Prepared by : 1’ Contour Intervals 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NExisting Lift Retaining Wall Approved Building Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed Lifts Legend Property Boundaries Ski Easement Boundary Resort Boundary Public Right of Way Easement Subsurface Easement Perpetual Non Exclusive Utility Easment Maze Area Right of Way No Build and Maintenance Easement Recreation Easement Note: Skier Services are need for the scenario and a location near the proposed Lift 1A bottom terminal would need to be deter- mined with further study. PROPOSED GORSUCH BUILDING LIFT 1 LODGE CHAIR ROPE35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSBOUTSIDE OF CHAIR 86ft32 ft5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODE40f t PROPOSED SKIWAY CROSS SECTION PROPOSED SKIWAY P34I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 24 | This page intentionally left blank. P35 I. 7940 7960 7980 8000 8020 8040 8060 8080 8100 600 700 800 900100200300400500 ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM RETAINING WALL EXISTING LIFT1 TOWER PROPOSED SURFACE LIFT HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MAZE AREA PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD SKI WAY EAST DEAN STREET EXISTING PROFILE PROPOSED PROFILE EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER PROPOSED LIFT 1 LODGE GRADING PROFILE EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER SKI-UNDER CLEARANCE 16ft CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 2A Prepared by : 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NP36I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 26 | This page intentionally left blank. P37 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 27 SCENARIO 3 | GORSUCH PROPOSAL WITH T WO-W AY S URFACE LIFT TO DEAN STREET Description Scenario 3 would be similar to Scenario 2, except the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be adjacent to the Gorsuch Haus building, as proposed by Gorsuch Haus, and the two-way surface lift would be extended to connect the proposed transit stop with the higher base terminal of new Lift 1A. This alignment for the surface lift follows the ski easement corridor, and in order to preserve the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure, the surface lift bottom terminal would be located just south of the historic lift base structure. The surface lift would be 480 feet long and could operate year-round (see Figure 3). Skiers and pedestrians arriving at the Dean Street public transit drop-off would walk from the drop-off area to the surface lift bottom terminal and ride up to the Lift 1A bottom terminal queuing area with access to Lift 1A, the proposed hotel, and surrounding areas. They would then transfer to Lift 1A to ride up the mountain. The Lift 1A bottom terminal would be located at the base of the existing Aspen Mountain slopes. To return to the Dean Street transit drop-off, skiers would ski to the base of Lift 1A and then ride down the surface lift. Assessment of Planning Determinants Skier Experience Planning Determinants Overall Skier Experience – The complicated nature of this access and egress system from Lift 1A to Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. The top terminal of the surface lift would consume valuable space in the confined area at the bottom of Lift 1A and conflict with pedestrian and skier circulation routes associated with the Gorsuch Haus building. The bottom terminal spatial requirements limit the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) It appears that adequate space for such a facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off. In the alternative, basic skier services would need to be provided at the bottom terminal of Lift 1A. Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A. Pedestrian circulation is enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift can be ridden by foot passengers. However, the alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement on the slope between Dean and Hill Streets. Additionally, the top terminal of the surface lift confines pedestrian circulation at the Gorsuch Haus building. Functionality and Operations Planning Determinants Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario places the surface lift lower terminal about 100 feet from the Dean Street transit stop, providing a mechanical connection to Lift 1A about 480 feet away and 75 feet higher in elevation. When compared with Scenario 2, the surface lift in Scenario 3 becomes a more attractive alternative to P38 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 28 | walking because of the longer distance, and more importantly, the greater vertical climb. However, the relative aggravation of waiting in a lift line twice and transferring from one lift to another remains as a deterrent to this access and egress configuration, and would likely prevent many guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location as proposed in the Gorsuch Haus site plans. The realigned road would need to cross under the surface lift just north of its top terminal location. The road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing so maintenance and construction trucks, cranes, fire fighting vehicles, emergency services vehicles, etc. would have access onto the mountain as they do now. This road crossing would require that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. It would also cause the surface lift to be on a high trestle, column or fill embankment where it passes between the two Lift One Lodge buildings, creating a negative visual impact on the Lift One Lodge buildings. Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Because of the narrow width between the Lift 1A bottom terminal, the Mountain Queen Condominiums, and the proposed Gorsuch Haus building, and the steep slopes into the area, the turn-around area for grooming vehicles would be limited, which would cause excessive wear to the snow surface from multiple-point turns, and extended noise impact to the residential units from snowcats backing up and maneuvering in the tight area. Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – Planning studies prepared for the Gorsuch Haus project demonstrate that the Lift 1A terminal – whether detachable chairlift, Telemix, or gondola – can fit within the available space to the east of the Gorsuch Haus building, but both pedestrian and skier circulation space is very tight. The additional terminal and associated queuing space for the two-way surface lift will further constrain an already challenging situation. Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under can be achieved for this scenario. As described above, vertical clearance for vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road will require bridging the surface lift approximately 16 feet above the realigned road. The raised elevation of the surface lift as it approaches the bridge would have negative visual impacts on the Lift One Lodge buildings. Land Ownership Planning Determinants Interface with Proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge Developments – Interface with the Gorsuch Haus proposed building is good from the perspective that the Lift 1A bottom terminal is located directly adjacent to the building. However, the close proximity of the Gorsuch Haus building to the Lift 1A and surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. Interface with the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings is not good because there is no direct access from the Lift One Lodge buildings to the surface lift terminals, so Lift One Lodge guests P39 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 29 would need to walk to access the surface lift terminals and the Lift 1A terminal. There would also be no ski route returning to the Lift One Lodge buildings. Additionally, the surface lift alignment would create a barrier to pedestrian access between the two Lift One Lodge buildings. Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The alignment of the two-way surface lift would create a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Hill Streets, which could impact access to adjacent existing and proposed properties. Regulatory Planning Determinants Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The Gorsuch Haus building and the two Lift One Lodge buildings infringe on the two-way surface lift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required. As described in Scenario 2, it is not possible to accurately predict the likelihood for success on obtaining the variances required for the replacement of Lift 1A, although it can be assumed that variances for surface lifts would be easier to obtain than for chairlifts because surface lift riders are on the ground and it is easier to quickly evacuate from the lift. Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of all three historic Lift 1 towers. This scenario would have no impact to the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure. Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages • Provides mechanical access from the Dean Street transit stop to the base of Lift 1A. • Doesn’t require the ski run extension to the north and affiliated ski area operations challenges (e.g., grooming and snowmaking). • Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift can be ridden by foot passengers. • Meets necessary vertical clearances. • Potentially easier to obtain lift clearance variances from CPTSB. • Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure. Disadvantages • The “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration may prevent many guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. • The complicated nature and spatial requirements of this access and egress system from Lift 1A to Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. • Skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A. P40 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 30 | • The close proximity of the Gorsuch Haus building to the Lift 1A and two-way surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. • Interface with the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings is not good because there is no direct access from the Lift One Lodge buildings to the surface lift terminals, so Lift One Lodge guests would need to walk to access the surface lift terminals and the Lift 1A terminal. • There would be no ski return to the Lift One Lodge buildings. • The surface lift alignment would create a barrier to pedestrian access between the two Lift One Lodge buildings and have significant adverse impact on the guest experience for Lift One Lodge. • This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain operations access road to the north of the existing Lift 1 bottom terminal location: the road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing, requiring that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. • The raised elevation of the surface lift as it approaches the bridge would have negative visual impacts on the Lift One Lodge buildings. • Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of all three historic Lift 1 towers. • Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings. Conclusion Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 3, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario 3 is not considered to be a practical solution for the replacement of Lift 1A and should not be considered for further study. The benefits created by establishing a mechanical connection from the Dean Street transit stop to Lift 1A do not outweigh the skier experience, Lift One Lodge interface, and operational and circulation constraints created by the two-way surface lift installation and footprint. P41 I. EXISTING LIFTEAST DEAN STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREET SOUTH ASPEN STREET SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HILL STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMIT STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PLANNED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT PEDESTRIAN EASMENT GILBERT STREET EXTENTS GILBERT STREET RIGHT OF WAY DOLINSEK PROPERTY ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSIT DROP OFF RECREATION EASMENT CHAIR ROPE35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSBOUTSIDE OF CHAIR PROPOSED GORSUCH BUILDING LIFT 1 LODGE LIFT 1 LODGE 86ft32 ft5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODECITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 3 FIGURE 3 1’ Contour Intervals 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NPrepared by : Existing Lift Retaining Wall Approved Building Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed Lifts Legend Property Boundaries Ski Easement Boundary Resort Boundary Public Right of Way Easement Subsurface Easement Perpetual Non Exclusive Utility Easment Maze Area Right of Way No Build and Maintenance Easement Recreation Easement Note: Skier Services are need for the scenario and a location near the proposed Lift 1A bottom terminal would need to be deter- mined with further study. CROSS SECTION P42I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 32 | This page intentionally left blank. P43 I. 600 700 800 9001002003004005000 7940 7960 7980 8000 8020 8040 8060 8080 8100 16'-0"MIN.MAZE AREAPROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD EAST DEAN STREET EXISTING PROFILE PROPOSED PROFILEPROPOSED SURFACE LIFT PROPOSED LIFT 1 LODGE GRADING PROFILE ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER ROAD CLEARANCE 16FT EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 3 FIGURE 3A Prepared by : 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NP44I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 34 | This page intentionally left blank. P45 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 35 SCENARIO 4 | SCENARIO 3 WITH GORSUCH HAUS BUILDING AND LIFT 1A FLIPPED Description Scenario 4 would be the same as Scenario 3, except the Gorsuch Haus building would be located where the Lift 1A bottom terminal is located in Scenario 3, and the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be located where the Gorsuch Haus building is located in Scenario 3 (see Figure 4). Because of the slope configurations on the western side of the Gorsuch Haus property, a potential placement for the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be some 250 feet from the surface lift top terminal and an estimated 30 to 40 feet higher in elevation. The Gorsuch Haus building and pedestrian circulation corridors would be positioned between the surface lift top terminal and Lift 1A bottom terminal, causing challenging logistics for directing public pedestrian circulation from the surface lift through the Gorsuch Haus property to Lift 1A. Assessment of Planning Determinants Skier Experience Planning Determinants Overall Skier Experience – The complicated nature of the access and egress routing between Lift 1A and Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. The top terminal of the surface lift would be completely disconnected from the bottom terminal of Lift 1A, causing all skiers transferring between Lift 1A and the Dean Street transit stop to use indoor and/or outdoor pedestrian circulation routes to negotiate the 30- to 40-foot elevation change and 250- foot distance between the two terminals. The bottom terminal spatial requirements of the surface lift limits the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.). It appears that adequate space for such a facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off. Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the physical and visual disconnect between the Lift 1A bottom terminal and the top terminal of the two-way surface lift. Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift can be ridden by foot passengers. However, the alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east- west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Hill Streets. Additionally, the top terminal of the surface lift confines pedestrian circulation at the Gorsuch Haus building and has no visual or physical connection with the Lift 1A bottom terminal. Functionality and Operations Planning Determinants Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – As in Scenario 3, this scenario places the surface lift lower terminal about 100 feet from the Dean Street transit stop, providing a mechanical connection towards Lift 1A along the ski easement corridor. However, because of the slope configurations on the western side of the Gorsuch Haus property, a potential placement for the Lift 1A bottom terminal would be some 250 feet from the surface lift top terminal and an estimated 30 to 40 feet higher in elevation. These distances, combined with the challenging logistics for directing public pedestrian circulation from the surface lift through the Gorsuch Haus property to Lift 1A, are a significant constraint of this P46 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 36 | scenario. This pedestrian circulation challenge and the bother of waiting in a lift line twice and transferring from one lift to another, are collectively a major deterrent to this access and egress configuration, and would likely prevent most guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location as proposed in the Gorsuch Haus site plans. The realigned road would need to cross under the surface lift just north of its top terminal location. The road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing so maintenance and construction trucks, cranes, fire fighting vehicles, emergency services vehicles, etc. would have access onto the mountain, as they do now. This road crossing would require that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. It would also cause the surface lift to be on a high trestle or fill embankment where it passes between the two Lift One Lodge buildings, creating a negative visual impact on the Lift One Lodge buildings. Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Because of the narrow width between the Lift 1A bottom terminal, the Shadow Mountain Condominiums, and the proposed Gorsuch Haus building, and the steep slopes into the area, the turn-around area for grooming vehicles would be limited, which would cause excessive wear to the snow surface from multiple-point turns, and extended noise impact to the residential units from snowcats backing up and maneuvering in the tight area. The extreme angles in the required vertical profile of Lift 1A at the bottom terminal would cause abnormal loads on the towers and sheave trains, causing atypical lift construction, operations and maintenance requirements, as well as an uncomfortable lift ride for guests. Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – Planning studies prepared for the Gorsuch Haus project demonstrate that the Lift 1A terminal—whether detachable chairlift, Telemix, or gondola—could fit within the available space to the west of the Gorsuch Haus building. However, it is unlikely that the vertical profile of Lift 1A as depicted in the site studies is achievable with standard lift construction and technology. If the vertical profile is not achievable, this scenario would not be feasible. Vertical Clearances – As described above, it is unlikely that there is a practical solution for achieving vertical clearances to the ground and for ski-under above the Lift 1A bottom terminal for this scenario. Also, vertical clearance for vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road will require bridging the two-way surface lift approximately 16 feet above the realigned road. The raised elevation of the surface lift as it approaches the bridge would have negative visual impacts on the Lift One Lodge buildings. Land Ownership Planning Determinants Interface with Proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge Developments – Interface with the Gorsuch Haus proposed building is good from the perspective that the Lift 1A bottom terminal is located directly adjacent to the building. However, the close proximity of the Gorsuch Haus P47 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 37 building to the Lift 1A and surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. Interface with the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings is not good because there is no direct access from the Lift One Lodge buildings to the surface lift terminals, so Lift One Lodge guests would need to walk to access the surface lift terminals and the Lift 1A terminal. There would also be no ski route returning to the Lift One Lodge buildings. Additionally, the surface lift alignment would create a barrier to on-grade pedestrian access between the two Lift One Lodge buildings. Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The alignment of the two-way surface lift would create a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement on the slope between Dean and Hill Streets, which could impact access to adjacent existing and proposed properties. Regulatory Planning Determinants Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for horizontal lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The Gorsuch Haus building and the two Lift One Lodge buildings infringe on the two-way surface lift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required. As described above, it is unlikely that vertical clearance standards can be met for Lift 1A. Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of all three historic Lift 1 towers. This scenario would have no impact to the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure. Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages • Provides mechanical access from the Dean Street transit stop towards the base of Lift 1A. • Doesn’t require the ski run extension to the north and affiliated ski area operations challenges (e.g., grooming and snowmaking). • Pedestrian circulation is somewhat enhanced by this scenario because the surface lift can be ridden by foot passengers. • Potentially easier to obtain lift clearance variances from CPTSB. • Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure. Disadvantages • The horizontal and vertical distances between the surface lift and Lift 1A terminals, as well as the “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration, would prevent most guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. • The challenging logistics for directing public pedestrian circulation from the surface lift through the Gorsuch Haus property, combined with a 30-to 40-foot vertical climb to Lift 1A, are a significant constraint of this scenario. P48 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 38 | • The complicated nature and spatial requirements of this access and egress routing between Lift 1A and Dean Street would negatively impact the overall skier experience. • Skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the physical and visual disconnect between the Lift 1A bottom terminal and the top terminal of the two-way surface lift. • The close proximity of the Gorsuch Haus building to the Lift 1A and two-way surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. • Interface with the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings is not good because there is no direct access from the Lift One Lodge buildings to the surface lift terminals, so Lift One Lodge guests would need to walk to access the surface lift terminals and the Lift 1A terminal. • There would be no ski return to the Lift One Lodge buildings. • The surface lift alignment would create a barrier to pedestrian access between the two Lift One Lodge buildings. • This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain operations access road to the north of the existing Lift 1 bottom terminal location: the road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing, requiring that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. • The raised elevation of the surface lift as it approaches the bridge would have negative visual impacts on the Lift One Lodge buildings. • Construction of the two-way surface lift would most likely require removal of all three historic Lift 1 towers. • It is unlikely that vertical clearances can be achieved above the Lift 1A bottom terminal. If the vertical profile is not achievable, this scenario would not be feasible. • Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings. Conclusion Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 4, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, it is not considered a practical alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A and should not be given further consideration. The physical and visual disconnect between the two-way surface lift top terminal and the lift 1A bottom terminal severely limits the attractiveness of this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain, and it is unlikely that vertical clearances can be achieved above the Lift 1A bottom terminal, which would cause the lift installation to be infeasible. P49 I. EXISTING LIFT EAST DEAN STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREET SOUTH ASPEN STREET PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSIT DROP OFF MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HILL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY GILBERT STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY GILBERT STREET EXTENTS DOLINSEK PROPERTY SUMMIT STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT RECREATION EASEMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PLANNED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION EXISTING LIFT 1 PROPOSED GORSUCH BUILDING LIFT 1 LODGE LIFT 1 LODGECHAIR ROPE35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSBOUTSIDE OF CHAIR 86ft32 ft5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODECITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 4 FIGURE 4 Prepared by : 1’ Contour Intervals 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NExisting Lift Retaining Wall Approved Building Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed Lifts Legend Property Boundaries Ski Easement Boundary Resort Boundary Public Right of Way Easement Subsurface Easement Perpetual Non Exclusive Utility Easment Maze Area Right of Way No Build and Maintenance Easement Recreation Easement Note: Skier Services are need for the scenario and a location near the proposed Lift 1A bottom terminal would need to be deter- mined with further study. CROSS SECTION P50I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 40 | This page intentionally left blank. P51 I. PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MAZE AREA EXISTING PROFILE ROAD CLEARANCE 16FT PROPOSED SURFACE LIFT PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PROPOSED GORSUCH BUILDING PROPOSED LIFT 1 LODGE PROPOSED PROFILE EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER EAST DEAN STREET CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 4 FIGURE 4A Prepared by : 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NP52I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 42 | This page intentionally left blank. P53 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 43 SCENARIO 5 | LIFT ONE LODGE APPROVED PROPOSAL Description Scenario 5 is generally representative of the lift configuration that was approved for the Lift One Lodge project. Scenario 5 is similar to Scenario 3, except the surface lift would be a traditional cable-driven skier surface lift (e.g., platter lift or T-bar) rather than a two-way surface lift. This alignment for the surface lift follows the ski easement corridor, and avoids the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure and lower tower. The surface lift would be 570 feet long, and vertical clearance requirements for vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road would require bridging the surface lift approximately 16 feet above the realigned road. Another difference from Scenario 3 is that a narrow return ski run would parallel the surface lift to its bottom terminal (see Figure 7). Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit drop-off would walk from the drop-off area to the surface lift bottom terminal and ride up to the Lift 1A bottom terminal queuing area. They would then transfer to Lift 1A to ride up the mountain. The Lift 1A bottom terminal would be located at the base of the existing Aspen Mountain slopes. To return to the Dean Street transit drop-off, skiers would ski to the base of Lift 1A and then continue down the narrow return ski run to the transit stop. Assessment of Planning Determinants Skier Experience Planning Determinants Overall Skier Experience – The complicated nature of this access system from Dean Street to Lift 1A would negatively impact the overall skier experience. The top terminal of the surface lift would consume valuable space in the confined area at the bottom of Lift 1A and conflict with pedestrian and skier circulation routes associated with the Gorsuch Haus building. The bottom terminal spatial requirements limit the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.). It appears that adequate space for such a facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off. The greatest constraint of Scenario 5 is the narrowness of the return ski route to Dean Street. With the surface lift and its accompanying supporting structure occupying more than half the width of the ski easement corridor, and the western Lift One Lodge building butting directly into the western boundary of the easement, the remaining corridor for ski-back is only about 16 feet wide, which is a marginally adequate width for the slope’s steepness and potential traffic volumes. The width of this return ski run does not adhere to the ski area design standards that are used elsewhere at Aspen Mountain. Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A, and more importantly, by the very narrow width of the return ski route. P54 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 44 | The alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Hill Streets, although the aerial cable would allow pedestrians to pass under the lift over the snow. Additionally, the top terminal of the surface lift confines pedestrian circulation at the Gorsuch Haus building. Functionality and Operations Planning Determinants Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario places the surface lift lower terminal about 50 feet from the Dean Street transit stop, providing a mechanical connection to Lift 1A about 570 feet away and 75 feet higher in elevation. As with Scenarios 2, 3, and 4, the relative aggravation of waiting in a lift line twice and transferring from one lift to another remains as a deterrent to this access configuration, and would likely prevent some guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location as proposed in the Gorsuch Haus site plans. The realigned road would need to cross under the surface lift just north of its top terminal location. This road crossing would require that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. The road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift bridge at the crossing so maintenance and construction trucks, cranes, fire fighting vehicles, emergency services vehicles, etc. would have access onto the mountain as they do now. The bridged road crossing would also cause the surface lift to be on a high trestle or fill embankment where it passes between the two Lift One Lodge buildings creating a negative visual impact on the Lift One Lodge buildings. Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Where the surface lift trestle or retained fill embankment passes between the east and west Lift One Lodge buildings, the width of the return ski run would have an absolute width restriction of less than 16 feet, which is narrower than a standard snow grooming machine. This would create the need for a special, narrower grooming machine to maintain the trail. Additionally, the platter or T-bar surface lift requires a snow surface underneath the length of the lift, so the snow track would need to be maintained along the approach to, and across, the road bridge. The narrow width of the bridge, and approach to the bridge, combined with the need for at least one lift tower in that span, would create a dangerous situation for grooming operations. The very narrow width of the return trail to the bottom of the lift (~16 feet wide) would require special snowmaking operations to prevent noise impacts to nearby residential units and to mitigate snow drifting conditions that would create operational challenges in snow removal and storage at the Lift One Lodge buildings. The only potential approach to applying machine-made snow to the return ski run and surface lift track would be to make and store snow in an area above the slope extension, and then push the pre-made snow down into the narrow section of the slope extension and onto the bridged surface lift track. This push of approximately 550 feet would be an extreme challenge to grooming operations that would commonly be considered as unreasonable. Additionally, because of the narrow width of the return ski run, a smaller grooming machine would need to be used, which further puts to question the operational P55 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 45 practicality of such a solution (i.e., a smaller machine is less powerful and would have difficulty pushing large quantities of snow over this distance.) Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – Planning studies prepared for the Gorsuch Haus project demonstrate that the Lift 1A terminal—whether detachable chairlift, Telemix, or gondola—can fit within the available space to the east of the Gorsuch Haus building, but both pedestrian and skier circulation space is very tight. The additional terminal and associated circulation space for the surface lift would further confine an already challenging situation. Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under can be achieved for this scenario. As described above, vertical clearance for vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road will require bridging the surface lift approximately 16 feet above the realigned road. The raised elevation of the surface lift as it approaches the bridge would have negative visual impacts on the Lift One Lodge buildings. Land Ownership Planning Determinants Interface with Proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge Developments – Interface with the Gorsuch Haus proposed building is good from the perspective that the Lift 1A bottom terminal is located directly adjacent to the building. However, the close proximity of the Gorsuch Haus building to the Lift 1A and surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. Interface with the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings is good from the perspective that the surface lift terminal is located just to the north of the buildings so there would be easy access, but there would be adequate separation between the Lift One Lodge buildings, the lift terminal and the mazing area so the area would not be quite as confined as under other scenarios. As with the other scenarios, the return ski run passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings and does not allow for any setback (typically 20 feet minimum) from the ski trail edge to the face of the building. This condition is exacerbated by the narrow width of the return run. Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – The alignment of the surface lift creates a barrier to east-west pedestrian movement across the slope between Dean and Hill Streets, although the aerial cable would allow pedestrians to pass under the lift over the snow. Regulatory Planning Determinants Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The Gorsuch Haus building and the two Lift One Lodge buildings infringe on the two-way surface lift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required. Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Construction of the surface lift and return ski run would require removal of the upper two historic Lift 1 towers. This scenario would have no impact to the lower tower or the Lift 1 bottom terminal structure. P56 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 46 | Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages • Provides mechanical access from the Dean Street transit stop to the base of Lift 1A. • Provides a ski return to the Dean Street transit stop (rather than the two-way surface lift in Scenarios 2, 3, and 4). • Meets necessary vertical clearances. • Potentially easier to obtain lift clearance variances from CPTSB. • Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure and lower tower. Disadvantages • The “hassle factor” associated with this lift configuration may prevent many guests from viewing this scenario as a desirable access onto Aspen Mountain. • The complicated nature and spatial requirements of this access system from Dean Street to Lift 1A would negatively impact the overall skier experience. • The very narrow width of the return ski run would negatively impact the overall skier experience and does not adhere to the ski area design standards that are used elsewhere at Aspen Mountain. • Skier circulation is compromised in this scenario by the spatial requirements of the surface lift top terminal, which confines milling and queuing space at the base of Lift 1A. • The close proximity of the Gorsuch Haus building to the Lift 1A and surface lift terminals, mazing areas and circulation will create a confined situation that could feel uncomfortable. • This scenario creates challenges with realigning the mountain operations access road to the north of the existing Lift 1 bottom terminal location: the road elevation would need to be about 16 feet lower than the surface lift at the crossing, requiring that the surface lift be bridged over the road with a significant retaining wall on the uphill side of the bridge. • The raised elevation of the surface lift as it approaches the bridge would have negative visual impacts on the Lift One Lodge buildings. • The scenario creates grooming and snowmaking operational challenges that would commonly be considered as unreasonable, and in the case of grooming, potentially dangerous. • Construction of the surface lift and return ski run would require removal of the upper two historic Lift 1 towers. • Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings. P57 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 47 Conclusion Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 5, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario 5 is not considered a practical alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A and should not be given further consideration. The benefits created by establishing a mechanical connection from the Dean Street transit stop to Lift 1A do not outweigh the skier experience, operational and circulation constraints created by the surface lift installation and footprint. P58 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 48 | This page intentionally left blank. P59 I. EXISTING LIFTEAST DEAN STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREET SOUTH ASPEN STREET SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HILL STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMIT STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PLANNED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT PEDESTRIAN EASMENT GILBERT STREET EXTENTS GILBERT STREET RIGHT OF WAY DOLINSEK PROPERTY ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSIT DROP OFF RECREATION EASMENT CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 5 FIGURE 5 Prepared by : 1’ Contour Intervals 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NExisting Lift Retaining Wall Approved Building Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed Lifts Legend Property Boundaries Ski Easement Boundary Resort Boundary Public Right of Way Easement Subsurface Easement Perpetual Non Exclusive Utility Easment Maze Area Right of Way No Build and Maintenance Easement Recreation Easement Note: Skier Services are need for the scenario and a location near the proposed Lift 1A bottom terminal would need to be deter- mined with further study.CHAIR ROPE35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSBOUTSIDE OF CHAIR 86ft32 ft35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSB83ft5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODE40f t PROPOSED GORSUCH BUILDING PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED SKIWAY LIFT 1 LODGE LIFT 1 LODGE CROSS SECTION P60I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 50 | This page intentionally left blank. P61 I. MAZE AREA SKI WAY MAZE AREAPROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD EAST DEAN STREET EXISTING PROFILE PROPOSED SURFACE LIFT PROPOSED LIFT 1 LODGE PROPOSED PROFILE ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER RETAINING WALLROAD CLEARANCE 16FT EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 5 FIGURE 5A Prepared by : 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NP62I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 52 | This page intentionally left blank. P63 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 53 SCENARIO 6 | EXTENDING THE CURRENT LIFT 1A ALIGNMENT, WESTERN SKIER RETURN Description This scenario extends the current alignment of Lift 1A down toward Dean Street with a skier return to the west of the lift alignment. This scenario was included to examine how an extended lift with no skier use of the Dolinsek property might be accomplished. The alignment of Lift 1A would not change from the current alignment, but the bottom terminal would be moved downhill (north) as close to Dean Street as possible. The Lift 1A extension would follow the 40-foot-wide ski easement. In order to preserve the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure, the new Lift 1A bottom terminal would be located just south of the historic lift base structure. The ski connection from existing Aspen Mountain slopes to the Scenario 6 bottom terminal would be achieved via a 550-foot extension of the Schuss Gully ski run (see Figure 6). This run extension would average about 40 feet in width, would be suitable for all skier ability levels, and would not significantly compromise skier access from the upper Aspen Mountain slopes to the new Lift 1A terminal location. The proposed ski run returning to the base terminal of Lift 1A would conflict with the western Lift One Lodge building and the proposed affordable housing building. Skiers arriving at the Dean Street public transit stop would walk from the drop-off area to the Lift 1A bottom terminal. This walk would be 100 feet in length over a vertical rise of 10 feet, making it a very convenient skiers’ connection. Assessment of Planning Determinants Skier Experience Planning Determinants Overall Skier Experience – This scenario adds a 550-foot runout trail from the current base of Lift 1A to the new base location. The trail would be 40 feet wide with an average slope gradient of about 12%. These slope characteristics are satisfactory for such a runout, in terms of accommodating anticipated skier flows and creating an acceptable return route to the base of the lift. While a wider return route would be more desirable for skier comfort and mountain operations, the proposed run width does not create a significantly negative impact to the overall on-slope skier experience. However, the return ski run passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings, which would have a negative impact on the skier experience, and the upper historic Lift 1 tower, if left in place, would occur in the middle of the return ski run and present a skier hazard. For these reasons, as well as the negative skier experience resulting from a relatively long and narrow return route to the base of Lift 1A, SkiCo has concerns and is not comfortable with this scenario. The somewhat confined nature of the bottom terminal location relative to the Dolinsek property, the proposed Aspen Historic Society Ski Museum and the historic Lift 1 base terminal structure limits the ability of SkiCo to offer basic skier service functions at this portal (e.g., ticket sales, lockers, rest rooms, etc.) without cooperation from the City relative to the proposed location for the Ski Museum. It appears that adequate space for a skier services facility could exist to the east of the proposed transit drop-off. P64 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 54 | Skier and Pedestrian Circulation – As described above, skier circulation is not significantly compromised by this scenario. Multiple ski runs would be funneled into one run that is about 40 feet wide with an average slope gradient of 12%, but this combination of width and gradient on the return skiway is adequate for a Lift 1A hourly capacity of 2,400 people per hour. Pedestrian circulation is compromised by the ski run that runs between the two Lift One Lodge buildings, which would preclude the creation of a ground-level, hardscape connection between the two buildings during the winter. Functionality and Operations Planning Determinants Bringing Lift Access Closer to the Proposed Transit Drop-off on Dean Street – This scenario moves the Lift 1A terminal approximately 550 feet closer to the proposed Dean Street public transit stop, and reduces the elevation difference between drop-off and lift terminal from 75 feet to 10 feet. The close proximity of the Lift 1A bottom terminal to the proposed Dean Street drop- off location would cause the new drop-off and extended lift to be an attractive portal onto Aspen Mountain from the Aspen core area. Existing SkiCo Operations Functions – This scenario allows for the opportunity to realign the mountain access road to the north of the existing Lift 1A bottom terminal location and continue up the mountain to the east of the Gorsuch Haus building as proposed in the Gorsuch Haus site plans. Ski Area Operational Aspects of the Proposal – Slope grooming operations would be challenged under this scenario by two situations. First, the upper historic Lift 1 tower is located in the middle of the proposed return slope to the bottom of Lift 1A. In order to groom around the historic lift tower, a specialty narrow-width groomer may need to be utilized. Second, because of the limited area that is available for the bottom terminal and maze area, which is defined by the Dolinsek proper boundary, the historic Lift 1 base structure, and the proposed Aspen Historic Society Ski Museum, the turn-around area for grooming vehicles would be limited, which would cause excessive wear to the snow surface from multiple-point turns, and extended noise impact to the residential neighborhood from snowcats backing up and maneuvering in the tight area. The narrow width of the return trail to the bottom of the lift (~40 feet wide) would require special snowmaking operations to prevent noise impacts to nearby residential units and to mitigate snow drifting conditions that would create operational challenges in snow removal and storage at the Lift One Lodge buildings. It is projected that the only potential approach to applying machine-made snow to the ski slope extension would be to make and store snow in an area above the slope extension, and then push the pre-made snow down into the narrow section of the slope extension. This push of approximately 550 feet would be an extreme challenge to grooming operations that would commonly be considered as unreasonable. Additionally, the volume of snow that would need to be made and stored to cover the slope extension (about 0.25 acres) would be substantial, which further puts to question the operational practicality of such a solution. P65 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 55 The lower historic Lift 1 tower is located about 70 feet uphill of the proposed Lift 1A terminal location, and it is unlikely that the lift carriers would have clearance over the historic tower structure. Because of this, it may be necessary to remove the lower historic tower structure, either permanently or just during the ski season, for unimpeded lift operations. For these reasons, combined with the negative skier experience resulting from a relatively long and narrow return route to the base of Lift 1A, SkiCo has concerns and is not comfortable with this scenario. Spatial Requirements for Lift Terminals and Queuing Space – In order to create adequate space for the Lift 1A terminal and associated queuing in this scenario—whether detachable chairlift, Telemix, or gondola—the proposed Aspen Historic Society Ski Museum building would ideally be relocated. If the proposed Ski Museum building were eliminated or relocated, there is adequate space for a lift terminal and associated queuing, though it is relatively confined. Vertical Clearances – Vertical clearances related to ski-under and vehicle access on the SkiCo operations road can be achieved for this scenario. Land Ownership Planning Determinants Interface with Proposed Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge Developments – Interface with the Gorsuch Haus proposed building is very good under this scenario because it creates the opportunity for a relatively large, flat snowfront area adjacent to a potential ski valet entrance. Interface with the Lift One Lodge proposed buildings is good from the perspective that the lift terminal is located just to the north of the buildings so there would be easy access, but there would be adequate separation between the Lift One Lodge buildings, the lift terminal and the mazing area so the area would not be quite as confined as under Scenario 1. As with the other scenarios, the proposed 40-foot ski easement passes within less than 5 feet of the proposed Lift One Lodge buildings and does not allow for any setback (typically 20 feet minimum) from the ski trail edge to the face of the building. Additionally, the return ski trail conflicts with the western Lift One Lodge building and the proposed affordable housing building, and would require a redesign or relocation of those two buildings. Access to Existing and Proposed Properties – This scenario would have no adverse impacts regarding access to adjacent existing and proposed properties. Regulatory Planning Determinants Regulatory Standards for Lift Clearances – ANSI B77.1 standards for lift clearances can be achieved for this scenario. The Gorsuch Haus building and the two Lift One Lodge buildings infringe on the chairlift airspace requirements set by the CPTSB, so variances would be required. As described earlier, it is not possible to accurately predict the likelihood for success on obtaining the variances required for the replacement of Lift 1A. Impacts to Historic Lift 1 Structures – Operational challenges related to the two upper historic Lift 1 towers (described above) suggest that their removal would benefit this scenario. The lower Lift 1 tower occurs at the location of the proposed Lift 1A replacement bottom terminal, so it P66 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 56 | would need to be permanently removed. This scenario would have proximity-related impact to the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure, but would not require its removal. Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages • Shifts the Lift 1A bottom terminal approximately 550 horizontal feet and 65 vertical feet closer to the Dean Street proposed public transit drop-off, and creates an attractive portal onto Aspen Mountain from the Aspen core area. • Does not create a significantly negative impact on the overall skier experience (confined maze area and return ski run, and skier hazard from Lift 1 tower) or skier circulation. • Improves the ski interface with Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge properties by eliminating the spatial requirements of the lift terminal and mazing space. • Allows for an acceptable realignment of the SkiCo operations mountain access road. • Meets necessary vertical clearances (with the possible exception of the middle historic tower structure). • Meets ANSI B.77 standards for lift clearances. • Preserves the ability to save the historic Lift 1 bottom terminal structure. Disadvantages • Pedestrian circulation to the eastern Lift One Lodge building is compromised by the proposed ski return trail, which precludes a ground-level, hardscape connection between the two Lift One Lodge buildings during the winter. • The proposed return ski run conflicts with the western Lift One Lodge building and proposed affordable housing building, and would require a redesign or relocation of those two buildings. • This scenario requires the removal or relocation of the proposed Aspen Historic Society Ski Museum building in order to leave adequate space for the lift terminal and maze area. • Under this scenario, the upper historic Lift 1 tower would be located in the middle of the proposed return route to the bottom of Lift 1A. Unless the historic lift tower was removed, either permanently or temporarily during the ski season, it would cause challenges to grooming and snowmaking operations and a skier hazard. • The narrow width of the return ski slope, and its close proximity to the Lift One Lodge buildings (less than 5 feet) would have a negative impact on the skier experience. It is common for a 20-foot setback to be maintained between ski trails and nearby buildings. • The narrow width of the return ski slope precludes normal snowmaking operations on the slope itself and would likely require snow to be made elsewhere and transported onto the slope by machine. Given the length and area of the ski slope extension, this potential snowmaking solution would commonly be considered impractical. P67 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 57 • Due to operational and skier experience concerns, SkiCo is not comfortable with this scenario. • Would require a clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings. Conclusion Based on this evaluation of the important planning elements of Scenario 6, as well as the advantages and disadvantages listed above, Scenario 6 could be considered a possible alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A subject to one condition: that a viable solution can be derived for applying machine-made snow to the ski run extension. If a practical snowmaking solution can be established, this scenario results in a significant improvement to public accessibility to the bottom of Lift 1A from the Aspen core area without significantly degrading the overall skier experience. However, the alignment of the return ski trail requires a reconfiguration of the Lift One Lodge project and relocation of the affordable housing building. P68 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 58 | This page intentionally left blank. P69 I. EXISTING LIFTEAST DEAN STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREET SOUTH ASPEN STREET SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HILL STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMIT STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PLANNED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT PEDESTRIAN EASMENT GILBERT STREET EXTENTS GILBERT STREET RIGHT OF WAY DOLINSEK PROPERTY ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSIT DROP OFF RECREATION EASMENT Prepared by : 1’ Contour Intervals 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NCITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 6 FIGURE 6 Existing Lift Retaining Wall Approved Building Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed Lifts Legend Property Boundaries Ski Easement Boundary Resort Boundary Public Right of Way Easement Subsurface Easement Perpetual Non Exclusive Utility Easment Maze Area Right of Way No Build and Maintenance Easement Recreation Easement Note: Skier Services are need for the scenario and a location near the proposed Lift 1A bottom terminal would need to be deter- mined with further study. PROPOSED GORSUCH BUILDINGLIFT 1 LODGE LIFT 1 LODGE CHAIR ROPE35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSBOUTSIDE OF CHAIR 86ft32 ft5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODECROSS SECTION 40FTPROPOSED SKIWAY P70I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 60 | This page intentionally left blank. P71 I. EXISTING PROFILE PROPOSED PROFILE PROPOSED LIFT 1 LODGE PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MAZE AREA PROPOSED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD SKI WAY EAST DEAN STREET ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM RETAINING WALL EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER EXISTING LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE 1000 7940 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 7960 7980 8000 8020 8040 8060 8040 8080 8100 SKI-UNDER CLEARANCE 16ft 16'-0"MIN.CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 6 FIGURE 6A Prepared by : 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NP72I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 62 | This page intentionally left blank. P73 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 63 SCENARIO 7 | EXTENDING THE C URRENT LIFT 1A ALIGNMENT, EASTERN SKIER RETURN Description This scenario investigates a lift alignment identical to Scenario 6, but with the skier return falling to the east of the lift alignment over a portion of the Dolinsek property. A review of the restrictive covenants on the Dolinsek property by the City found that while installation of ski infrastructure such as lifts and permanent snowmaking equipment are not allowed on the property, public skiing and snow management is allowable. This scenario was included to examine how an extended lift might be accomplished with skier use of the Dolinsek property. Because of the close similarities between Scenarios 6 and 7 (sole difference is the realignment of the return ski run,) only an abbreviated analysis of Scenario 7 was undertaken to determine if the run realignment represented a significant improvement to Scenario 6. Summary Assessment Scenario 7 would be identical to Scenario 6, except the return ski run, after passing the eastern Lift One Lodge building, would fall to the east onto a portion of the Dolinsek property and terminate to the east of the Lift 1A bottom terminal (see Figure 7). This reconfiguration of the return ski run results in several improvements and advantages over the run defined for Scenario 6. • By shifting the run to the east of the Lift 1A lift alignment, it would not interfere with the western Lift One Lodge building and proposed affordable housing building. • By shifting the run to the east of the Lift 1A lift alignment, the run terminates in a larger area that would provide ample space for skier circulation, mazing, and milling. The larger space would also facilitate grooming operations and reduce associated noise impacts and snow wear from groomer maneuvering. • It is anticipated that the Dolinsek property could be used to store machine-made snow (without installing temporary or permanent snowmaking equipment on the Dolinsek property), which would facilitate the application of machine-made snow on the lower half of the return ski run. The evaluation of Scenario 6 indicated that pushing snow approximately 550 feet to cover the extents of the return ski run would be an extreme challenge to grooming operations that would commonly be considered as unreasonable. Snow storage on the Dolinsek property would reduce the total distance snow would need to be pushed by groomers to about 250 feet or less. • The reconfiguration of the maze and skier circulation space at the base of Lift 1A in Scenario 7 could prevent the need to relocate or eliminate the Ski Museum to a different location. Conclusion While some of the challenges and disadvantages of Scenario 6 are still concerns for Scenario 7, (e.g., removal of historic Lift 1 towers, narrow return ski run, and clearance variance from CPTSB on three buildings,) Scenario 7 is a significant improvement over Scenario 6. For this reason, Scenario 7 is considered a possible alternative for the replacement of Lift 1A and should P74 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 64 | be given further consideration. If selected, this option would require additional guidance and a variance from CPTSB, as well as additional analysis from the SkiCo related to snow storage, grooming and cat operations, and a commercial viability analysis for Lift One Lodge regarding having a lift running so closely to the project, particularly the residential and lodging units. Further, an evaluation of the ability of the City to commit to a long term snow maintenance, snow storage, snow grooming and public safety plan that enables the necessary ski operations work for the life of the portal is critical to assessing the viability of this scenario. P75 I. EXISTING LIFTEAST DEAN STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREET SOUTH ASPEN STREET SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HISTORIC LIFT 1 STRUCTURE HISTORIC LIFT 1 TOWER HILL STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMIT STREET RIGHT OF WAY SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD PLANNED SUMMER MOUNTAIN ACCESS ROAD MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS MOUNTAIN QUEEN EASEMENT PEDESTRIAN EASMENT GILBERT STREET EXTENTS GILBERT STREET RIGHT OF WAY DOLINSEK PROPERTY ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSIT DROP OFF RECREATION EASMENT CITY OF ASPEN LIFT 1A CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT | SCENARIO 7 FIGURE 7 Prepared by : 1’ Contour Intervals 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE (ft)NExisting Lift Retaining Wall Approved Building Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed Lifts Legend Property Boundaries Ski Easement Boundary Resort Boundary Public Right of Way Easement Subsurface Easement Perpetual Non Exclusive Utility Easment Maze Area Right of Way No Build and Maintenance Easement Recreation Easement Note: Skier Services are need for the scenario and a location near the proposed Lift 1A bottom terminal would need to be deter- mined with further study. PROPOSED GORSUCH BUILDING LIFT 1 LODGE LIFT 1 LODGE LIFT 1 LODGELIFT 1 LODGE CHAIR ROPE35FT CLEARANCE PER CPTSBOUTSIDE OF CHAIR 86ft32 ft5FT CLEARANCE PER ANSI B 77 CODE40FTPROPOSED SKIWAY CROSS SECTION P76I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 66 | This page intentionally left blank. P77 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 67 SCENARIO 8 | LIFT GOING OVER BUILDINGS Description To ensure that all options were considered, the City requested a partial analysis of a potential scenario in which Lift 1A spanned over proposed buildings. Summary Assessment Various site constraints limit the options for spanning Lift 1A over the proposed buildings. The covenant restrictions on the Dolinsek property preclude any lift infrastructure within that property. As a result, an alignment is not possible that would cross over the eastern Lift One Lodge building. For reasons described in Scenario 9, it is not practical to align Lift 1A over South Aspen Street. This restriction limits the extent to which Lift 1A could be rotated to the west. A slight western rotation of the lift, so it would span over the Gorsuch Haus and/or western Lift One Lodge buildings, would not result in any meaningful benefits when considering the identified planning determinants, and would instead add operational and regulatory complications related to lift rider comfort, lift evacuations and maintenance, visual impact concerns, regulatory variances, etc. Conclusion Spanning Lift 1A over the proposed Gorsuch Haus and/or Lift One Lodge buildings would not lead to a superior scenario for addressing the project planning determinants and should not be given further consideration. P78 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 68 | SCENARIO 9 | LIFT ABOVE THE S. ASPEN ST. RIGHT-OF-WAY Description To ensure that all options were considered, the City requested a partial analysis of a potential scenario in which Lift 1A followed and spanned over the South Aspen Street right-of-way. Summary Assessment A number of planning considerations suggest that a scenario in which Lift 1A followed and spanned over the South Aspen Street right-of-way would not be a practical alternative. The South Aspen Street corridor is not aligned directly towards the Lift 1A top terminal location conceived by SkiCo in its most recent Master Development Plan. As a result, this scenario would require that the Lift 1A replacement be installed with an angle station uphill of the western portion of the Gorsuch Haus property. Angle stations for detachable lifts are a minimum of 150 feet long and must be installed in a horizontal configuration. The slopes above the western portion of the Gorsuch Haus property are very steep, and installing a horizontal angle station on those steep slopes would be highly impractical, extremely expensive, and possibly impossible. A lift alignment up South Aspen Street would require a variance from CPTSB for clearance infringement by the Shadow Mountain condominiums. This variance would require cooperation from the Shadow Mountain Condominiums Homeowners Association and would require that the complex be equipped with fire suppressant sprinklers at a minimum. Achieving cooperation from the Shadow Mountain Condominiums Homeowners Association in obtaining a CPTSB variance would likely be a challenging endeavor. Locating the Lift 1A bottom terminal directly above South Aspen Street would be a unique engineering exercise. Detachable lift terminals are supported by large concrete foundations directly below the terminal. To prevent the Lift 1A foundation from blocking vehicular traffic, it would need to arch over the road at an adequate height of at least 16 feet above the road to allow passage of all vehicles, including fire trucks, cranes, construction equipment, etc. In addition to the lift terminal being at this height above the road, the lift queue area would also need to be at the elevated level, and the ski return into the maze area would need to tie in with the same elevation. In order for the return ski route to have a downhill slope into the maze area, it too would need to be elevated above existing grade for nearly its entire length. Such a configuration for the lift terminal foundation, maze area and return ski trail would be extremely expensive to construct and would severely constrain remaining buildable space on the Lift One Lodge property, causing it to be an impractical concept. Conclusion Spanning Lift 1A over South Aspen Street is not a practical solution for replacement of Lift 1A and should not be given further consideration. P79 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 69 CONCLUSION This evaluation of the nine scenarios proposed by the City, Gorsuch Haus, Lift One Lodge and SkiCo for replacement of Lift 1A involved a description of each scenario, an in-depth assessment of how each scenario addresses the identified planning determinants, a listing of the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario, and a conclusion indicating whether each scenario was worthy of further consideration or not. Of the nine scenarios evaluated, Scenario 1 and Scenario 7 were found to be possible concepts for replacement of Lift 1A and worthy of further consideration and study. Scenario 6 was found to be a possible concept subject to further evaluation of potential snowmaking operations solutions. Scenarios 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 were found to be impractical concepts that are not worthy of further consideration. For Scenario 6 to be considered possible, a viable solution would need to be derived for applying machine-made snow to the 550-foot-long return ski run. Scenario 7 presents that solution by accommodating snowmaking operations and snow storage (but no infrastructure) on the Dolinsek property, thus reducing by less than half the length machine-made snow would need to be transported for application to the ski run. Additionally, Scenario 7 is less impactful to the approved Lift One Lodge buildings. Accordingly, Scenario 7 effectively replaces Scenario 6; therefore, Scenario 6 should be eliminated from further consideration. In summary, this evaluation of the nine scenarios for replacement of Lift 1A concludes that: 1. Scenarios 1 and 7 are possible concepts for replacement of Lift 1A and are worthy of further consideration. 2. Scenarios 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are not practical concepts for replacement of Lift 1A and should be abandoned from further consideration. This is an initial study of options related to the replacement of Lift 1A, which has a limited scope that does not include a detailed engineering analysis, evaluation of commercial/lodging impacts and viability, or neighborhood outreach. If an option is selected to move forward, additional design analysis will be required. In all of the scenarios, there is an impact to neighboring properties that is different than current conditions or existing approvals which will also need to be part of on-going analysis. Additionally, depending on the level of proposed changes to Willoughby Park and Lift One Park, a public vote may be required to implement a selected scenario. Ideally, a design for the replacement of Lift 1A would meet all the needs of the operator and property owners. In a constrained setting, there will be trade-offs that will need to be considered and accepted by all parties. P80 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 70 | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DESCRIPTIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF OPTIONAL LIFT TECHNOLOGY Detachable Chairlift Detachable chairlifts are high-speed chairlifts that are very popular because they provide a faster ride to the top of the mountain. While the passenger carriers (typically four- or six- passenger open chairs) travel rapidly up the line, they slow in the terminals to facilitate passenger loading and unloading. The typical size of a detachable chairlift terminal is about 30 feet wide and about 60 feet long, depending on the manufacturer. The typical height of the terminal is about 23 feet. Following are typical details and an image of a detachable chairlift terminal. P81 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 71 Detachable chairlift terminal details Detachable chairlift terminal photo P82 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 72 | Combination Chairlift/Gondola (“Telemix” or “Chondola”) A Telemix (aka Chondola) is a detachable chairlift with every third or fourth chair carrier replaced with an enclosed gondola cabin carrier. Skiers load/unload chairs on one side of the terminal and pedestrians load/unload gondola cabins on the other side of the terminal. The Telemix terminal is identical to a detachable chairlift terminal, but it is about 15 feet longer. The typical size of a Telemix terminal is about 30 feet wide and about 75 feet long, depending on the manufacturer. The typical height of the terminal is about 26 feet. Following are images of a Telemix terminal. P83 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 73 Telemix terminal photos P84 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 74 | Gondola Gondolas are high-speed lifts that are used when an enclosed cabin is desired for all carriers. Passenger carriers typically hold 6 or 8 passengers, though sometimes cabins can be bigger. Similar to the detachable chairlift and Telemix, the gondola cabins travel rapidly up the line, and then slow in the terminals to facilitate passenger loading and unloading. A Gondola terminal for the Lift 1A alignment would be identical to a Telemix terminal, about 30 feet wide and about 75-80 feet long, depending on the manufacturer. The typical height of the terminal is about 26 feet. Following are typical details and an image of a Gondola terminal. P85 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 75 Gondola terminal details Gondola terminal photo P86 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 76 | “Platter” Surface Lift A platter surface lift, also known as a “Poma-lift,” is an aerial cable driven surface lift. Similar to a chairlift, a platter lift is driven by an aerial cable that is supported above the ground by towers and sheave assemblies along the line. At regular intervals along the cable, carriers are attached to the cable that extend towards the ground. At the end of the carrier is a small platform, or “platter” that the rider puts between their legs to be pulled up the mountain while standing on their skis. The platter lift terminal is a single tower with a bullwheel, sheave assembly and motor on top to drive the cable, so it has a very small footprint. The typical height of a platter lift terminal and line towers is about 12 to 15 feet. The following are typical details and an image of a platter surface lift. P87 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 77 Platter lift details Platter lift photo P88 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 78 | Two-Way Reversible Surface Lift A two-way reversible surface lift is used when pedestrian transport is desired in two directions (up and down) and the lift can be installed on or near the ground surface. The two-way surface lift is made up of one track or two parallel tracks that are mounted on the ground or slightly above the ground on support structures. The carrier vehicle or cabin rides on the track, one on each side in the case of a two-track system, and is pulled up and down by a cable installed at the track surface, or the cabins can be self-propelled by internal motor. In some cases on a two- track system, one cable is used in a loop so that as one cabin is traveling up the line, the second cabin is simultaneously traveling down. In other cases, one cable and one “winch” are incorporated on each track to raise and lower the cabin. At the bottom and top of the two-way surface lift there is a loading and unloading platform where passengers get in or out of the stopped cabin. The two-way surface lift envisioned for Lift 1A replacement Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 would be a two-track system (for higher capacity) with cabins that are 8 feet wide. The total width of the two parallel tracks would be 18 feet. The load/unload platform at top and bottom terminals would extend 8 feet beyond the side and end of the track. The following photos are an example of the system that is envisioned for Lift 1A replacement Scenarios 2, 3 and 4. P89 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 79 P90 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 80 | REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR LIFT CLEARANCES The two regulatory institutes that apply to lift installations in Colorado are the federal American National Standard (ANSI Section B77.1-2017) and the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB). Following are excerpts from those two sources related to standards for lift clearances. P91 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 81 ANSI B77.1-2017 Clearance Regulations P92 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT 82 | CPTSB Clearance Regulations P93 I. CITY OF ASPEN | LIFT 1A ASSESSMENT REPORT | 83 P94 I. 2018 Proposed Budget October 30, 2017 P95II. Parks and Open Space Fund 2 •2018 Sales Tax: 3.0% Growth •Reimbursement / Profit ▪Nordic Program ▪Cozy Point •Fee Revenues ▪Park Usage ▪Tree Mitigation & Park Impact Fees ▪Mall Leases ▪Transfers 1.0% Sales Tax $7,448,000 Tree Permits / Mitigation $100,000 Nordic Reimbursement $360,777 Park Fees and Cozy Point $360,000 Transfers In $163,100 Other Revenue $233,170 0.5% Sales Tax (Sunsets) $3,724,000 Revenues = $12,389,047 P96II. Parks and Open Space Fund 3 •Base Operating Growth: 1.5% •Debt Service: $2.9M •2009 Refunded Bonds: $822,480 •2012 Refunded Bonds: $199,830 •2012 Original Bonds: $154,970 •2013 Refunded Bonds: $312,630 •2014 Refunded Bonds: $122,700 •2014 Original Bonds: $447,100 •2015 Refunded Bonds: $893,790 •Supplemental: ▪Nordic Coordinator: $88,450 ▪Revenue Offset: ~ 75% Administrative / Facilities Maintenance $952,530 Downtown Beautification $79,320 Forestry and Natural Areas $702,880 Trails Management $776,060 Grants $28,560 Parks Management $2,291,780 Capital $2,560,500 Transfers Out -Debt $2,953,500 Transfers Out -Other $1,923,060 Expenditures = $12,268,190 P97II. Parks and Open Space Fund 4 Parks Fleet $591,500 Burlingame Trail Network Development $125,000 Castle Creek Music School Trail $100,000 Cozy Point Grading / Drainage Improvements $100,000 Wagner Park Repair / Restoration $80,000 Anderson Park Implementation $75,000 Rotary Outfield Fence $74,420 Oklahoma Flats Trail Railing Replacement $55,000 Meadows Trail Repair $50,000 Cozy Point Irrigation Improvements $50,000 Deer Hill Trail Implementation $40,000 20-Year Cozy Point Capital Plan $40,000 Recycling Cans for Commercial Core $40,000 Maroon Creek Road Trail Development $40,000 Hunter / Smuggler Co-Op Forestry $37,000 Cozy Point Electrical Upgrade $35,000 Roundabout Bus Stop Trail (Maroon Creek)$30,000 Iselin Storage Facility Electricity / Wash Site $28,000 Marolt Trail $25,500 Hunter / Smuggler Co-Op Recreation $25,000 Portal Trail Planning $25,000 Millionaire Mill Site Historical Assessment $24,000 Clay Tennis Court Maintenance $17,500 Archery Range Improvements $15,000 Nordic Snowmobile Replacement $13,000 Infield Renovation $12,000 P98II. Parks and Open Space Fund 5 Net Change to Fund Balance: $120,857 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 2017 Forecast 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expense 12.5% Reserve Requirement P99II. Golf Course Fund 6 •Rate Changes (Rounds Revenue): ▪Maximum Daily Greens Fee: $160 -> $180 ▪Platinum: $2,399 -> $2,450 ▪Gold: $1,475 -> $1,499 ▪Silver: $925 -> $939 ▪Twilight (New in 2017): $599 ▪Family (New in 2017): $969 •Leases for Nordic and Restaurant Space •Pro Shop Remains HealthyProperty / Facility Leases $37,700 Daily Greens Fees $475,000 Pass Sales $660,000 Retail Sales / Special Orders $217,400 Other Pro Shop Revenues $368,890 Other Revenues $13,680 Transfers (Parks) $506,300 Revenues = $2,278,970 P100II. Golf Course Fund 7 •Operations •Course Operations / Maintenance •Pro Shop •Debt Service Increase: $127,750 •Capital: $328,400 ▪Fleet Replacements: $154,000 ▪Clubhouse Capital Maintenance: $104,400 ▪Locker Room Upgrade: $50,000 ▪Annual Course Improvements: $10,000 ▪Ditch Reconstruction: $10,000 Course Operations $602,080 Pro Shop Operations $556,800 Capital $328,400 Administration $185,080 Property / Facility Maintenance $130,350 Debt Services $127,750 Transfers $232,700 Expenditures = $2,163,160 P101II. Golf Course Fund Net Change to Fund Balance: $115,810 8 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 2017 Forecast 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expense 12.5% Reserve Requirement P102II.