News
Visitors' Guide
ENLARGE
ASPEN — The public isn't “married” to the existing terminal building at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, and the airport needs to be welcoming to private jet traffic.
Those are but two sentiments that have emerged in a series of public brainstorming sessions, or charrettes, on future facilities at the airport, county commissioners were told during an update on Tuesday.
A series of public meetings took place in January, and several more were held this week, including one Tuesday afternoon with representatives of the lodging industry and one with the general public Tuesday evening.
In the sessions, participants had a chance to lay out airport facilities with an eye toward future needs, placing the terminal, parking, hangars and fixed-base operations where they think those buildings belong.
Consultants will distill the public's recommendations and bring various alternatives to commissioners; a formal review is tentatively scheduled to begin in late summer.
The work is part of a master plan update for the airport, outlining its future needs over the next 20 years. The financial feasibility of the alternatives will begin to get analysis this spring, according to the planning timeline.
Input thus far indicates the public wants to retain the quaint feel of the existing airport, but citizens aren't necessarily enamored with what's been termed an outdated terminal building, given its operational shortcomings, said consultant Scott Cary, project manager for Denver-based Jviation Inc.
“We heard that repeatedly,” he said.
“People are not married to the existing building, and we didn't know until we asked — how people feel about the existing building,” added Tom Schnetzer, vice president of aviation services with Mead & Hunt Inc. of Minneapolis.
Citizens have also said a new terminal doesn't have to be overly grand, Cary said.
“We don't need our terminal to be a showcase,” he said.
Members of the public have also generally agreed a second fixed-base operator, a private business that provides fuel and other services to commercial and private aircraft, is a good idea. There was also support for general aviation, including private jets, Schnetzer said.
“They represent a customer base that has an economic impact on the region. We heard we should take care of those customers,” he said.
With a projected need for 1,474 parking spaces to serve the airport in the next 20 years, most charrette participants agreed a parking garage makes sense, Cary said. Three below-ground levels and a garden-level surface layer seemed to have the most support.
Transit facilities and a pedestrian overpass over Highway 82 at the airport have also gained traction.
Citizens have not been opposed to development of facilities on the west side of the runway, off Owl Creek Road, but participants have expressed a desire to maintain existing views and to tuck facilities into the terrain on that side. East-side development, off Highway 82, should occur first, Cary summarized.
One resident questioned the feasibility of accommodating a U.S. customs facility for future international service at the airport. It's unclear whether there would be a sufficient volume of such traffic (Mexico is the closest international destination) to warrant the cost and staffing of a customs facility, but it's being considered, Schnetzer said.
Those are but two sentiments that have emerged in a series of public brainstorming sessions, or charrettes, on future facilities at the airport, county commissioners were told during an update on Tuesday.
A series of public meetings took place in January, and several more were held this week, including one Tuesday afternoon with representatives of the lodging industry and one with the general public Tuesday evening.
In the sessions, participants had a chance to lay out airport facilities with an eye toward future needs, placing the terminal, parking, hangars and fixed-base operations where they think those buildings belong.
Consultants will distill the public's recommendations and bring various alternatives to commissioners; a formal review is tentatively scheduled to begin in late summer.
The work is part of a master plan update for the airport, outlining its future needs over the next 20 years. The financial feasibility of the alternatives will begin to get analysis this spring, according to the planning timeline.
Input thus far indicates the public wants to retain the quaint feel of the existing airport, but citizens aren't necessarily enamored with what's been termed an outdated terminal building, given its operational shortcomings, said consultant Scott Cary, project manager for Denver-based Jviation Inc.
“We heard that repeatedly,” he said.
“People are not married to the existing building, and we didn't know until we asked — how people feel about the existing building,” added Tom Schnetzer, vice president of aviation services with Mead & Hunt Inc. of Minneapolis.
Citizens have also said a new terminal doesn't have to be overly grand, Cary said.
“We don't need our terminal to be a showcase,” he said.
Members of the public have also generally agreed a second fixed-base operator, a private business that provides fuel and other services to commercial and private aircraft, is a good idea. There was also support for general aviation, including private jets, Schnetzer said.
“They represent a customer base that has an economic impact on the region. We heard we should take care of those customers,” he said.
With a projected need for 1,474 parking spaces to serve the airport in the next 20 years, most charrette participants agreed a parking garage makes sense, Cary said. Three below-ground levels and a garden-level surface layer seemed to have the most support.
Transit facilities and a pedestrian overpass over Highway 82 at the airport have also gained traction.
Citizens have not been opposed to development of facilities on the west side of the runway, off Owl Creek Road, but participants have expressed a desire to maintain existing views and to tuck facilities into the terrain on that side. East-side development, off Highway 82, should occur first, Cary summarized.
One resident questioned the feasibility of accommodating a U.S. customs facility for future international service at the airport. It's unclear whether there would be a sufficient volume of such traffic (Mexico is the closest international destination) to warrant the cost and staffing of a customs facility, but it's being considered, Schnetzer said.
