Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BOCC Packet 11142012 Airport Master Plan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY REGULAR MEETING DATE: November 14, 2012 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Resolution for First Reading and Set for Public Hearing, 2012Airport Master Plan Update Draft Final Report Jim Elwood, Aviation Director ISSUE STATEMENT: The purpose of today's meeting is for the Board to consider the 2012 Airport Master Plan Update for adoption. This meeting is set as First Reading and Set for Public Hearing on December 5, 2012. BACKGROUND: The Airport is in the process of preparing a 20-year Master Plan study. The study is examining future uses of the entire airport property, with a specific concentration on the terminal area. Other items under consideration include general aviation uses such as hangar development and fixed base operation services. In addition, the Airport has worked diligently with other agencies and departments with specific regard to transit/transportation issues. Throughout the process, the Airport has undertaken an extensive outreach process to engage the public and seek guidance from the Board. The community meetings held on November 7, 2011, along with the BOCC work sessions on February 7, February 14, 2012, and August 14, 2012, provided critical input for the Master Plan process. One of the primary purposes of the Master Plan is to identify a program that will allow for the most efficient use of the airport's land resource, in consideration of financial realities and community sensitivities concerning the Airport. In addition, the BOCC met with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport District Manager, John Bauer, on May 22, 2012 to discuss the FAA's perspective on several key issues, many of which were related to the Master Plan including uses on the airport and federal grant assurances. The Pitkin County Financial Advisory Board (FAB) met with Airport staff, County Finance staff and consultants on May 14, 2012, to review the financial analysis. The meeting was initiated with a tour of airport facilities to better orient FAB members with the elements of the Master Plan. The Master Plan process and the recommended improvement plan were reviewed as well as the estimated project costs, development schedule and cash flow plan. Also included in the discussion was a financial sensitivity analysis. Discussion with the FAB included risk assessment, revenue assumptions and project phasing. The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) met with Airport staff and consultants to review the Master Plan on September 25 and October 9, 2012. The P&Z engaged in significant discussions and provided referral comments. In addition, numerous referral agencies were provided an opportunity to comment. The referral comments will be reviewed today. All comments are attached to the Master Plan Draft Final Report. 1 Extensive public involvement has been conducted to -date. Several of the final recommendations were developed through the public charrette process that provided citizens, interested parties and adjacent landowners an opportunity to express community values and develop layout concepts. Public outreach is summarized as follows: • Airport Facility Planning Charrettes/Public Input: 11 • Airport Master Plan Study Committee (AMPSC) Meeting: 6 • Public Information Meeting/Open House: 3 • BOCC work sessions: 8 • Elected Officials Transportation Commission presentation: 1 • Aspen City Council presentation: 2 • Town of Snowmass Village Council presentation: 1 • Pitkin County Financial Advisory Board presentation: 1 • Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission presentation: 2 • Community Meetings/Airport Tours: 15 small group presentations, 34 tours • Website/EBlast/Quick Fact Ads: Ongoing updates are made to the website as information becomes available, over 600 individuals have signed up to receive electronic messages and regular weekly "Quick Fact" ads are run on a variety of informational topics. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Core Focus/Flourishing Natural and Built Environment: A key success factor is to responsibly maintain and enhance County assets. Planning, maintaining, and anticipating future airport facility needs are critical to the successful management of this asset. As the aviation industry advances in such areas as safety, security and technology, so must the airport facilities. With responsible stewardship comes strategic planning and sound fiscal management. Ease of mobility via safe and efficient transportation systems is also a key success factor. As an integral component of not just the community, our Airport serves a critical role in the National Airspace System. Core Focus/Prosperous Economy: Responsible and accountable stewardship of County assets is paramount to the overall state of the Airport as an asset. The Airport provides a key link to the economic health of the Roaring Fork Valley, surrounding communities, and our region. Ensuring its continuing role in our community's economy necessitates thoughtful and forward -thinking planning. Core Focus/Livable and Supportive Community: Improved community engagement and participation have been a central goal to this Master Planning effort. This commitment has resulted in the development of key facility alternatives by citizens and users of the Airport. The public engagement continues to be tremendously fruitful and provides an active commitment by community members to the betterment of the Airport. KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: Staff and consultants will be present today to review the following items: 1. Required Airport Master Plan Elements and Planning Process 2 2. Public Outreach 3. Comments from Referral Agencies 4. Review of the Recommended Improvement Plan 5. Overview of Financial Considerations 6. Subsequent Approval Steps for Capital Projects Next Steps: 1. The remaining steps of the Master Plan Update include the Board's final review and adoption, as well as the FAA Airport Layout Plan review and approval. The accompanying resolution authorizes the Chair of the Board to sign the Airport Layout Plan for submittal to the FAA. 2. It is important to note the Master Plan will provide recommendations for space reservation for various on -airport facilities. These space reservation recommendations will recognize the potential to accommodate long-term facility needs. However, actual future facility improvement designs will be sized to fit actual need and be phased in a manner that is responsive to the financial realities. In addition, environmental clearances, budget considerations and permitting requirements must be met for any project to proceed. These decisions rest with the BOCC at a future date. BUDGETARY IMPACT: The Airport Master Plan Update project remains on budget. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Approve on First Reading and Set for Public Hearing on December 5, 2012. ATTACHMENTS: Power Point Presentation Referral Letters Resolution Airport Master Plan Update Draft Final Report (electronic) 3 STARWO OD HOME OWN ER S ASSOCIATION 0 CI 0121 Stewart Drive • Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone 970.925.8939 Fax 97.95.587 September 12, 2012 Mr. Jim Elwood, AA.E. Director of Aviation AspenlPitkin County Airport 0233 East Airport Road, Suite A Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jim, Because of my experience serving as a member of the Airport Master Plan Study Committee, my understanding of the proposed Master Plan concepts, and my respect for the thorough, thoughtful and professional manner in which this Plan has been developed, l placed the endorsement of the Master Plan on the Starwood d Homeowners Association Board September 10, 2012 meeting agenda. [ am writing to note that the 8tarwood Homeowners Board voted unanimously to give their endorsement and support of the Master Plan in concept as it will be presented to the Board of Pitt In p County Commissioners. Please relay 8tarwood's support to the BOCC and to Tim Malloy, per his August 23rd letter of request for referral comments. Star wood and l look forward to working with you and the planners as more specifics of the Master Plan are created in the coming months. Our homeowners recognize that the proposed osed AsenlPltkin County Airport improvements are needed. We whole heartedly share your goal in the Master Planning process to provide general facility improvement guidelines that satisfy aviation demand while remaining compatible with the environment, other modes of transportation, community development and other established community objectives. tives. As a community overlooking the Pitkin County Airport, 8tarwood continues to appreciate your recognition of our homeowners' needs regarding noise, light pollution and air traffic safety. I appreciate the continued ability to be included in -the planning process as 8tarwood's representative. Sincere y, -1h-,g czy.74*____, Meg Haynes Executive Director Star wood Homeowners Association, 8tarwood Metropolitan District cc: 8tarwood Homeowners Association Board of Trustees 1 co z NMI w O L a a. 2 ...0 46 (2 E c.) cn a).E ,c O O alO O O � -CI) CD re: ci. �'gcn E cQ i acoa. Qa 0 a) O c O 4_ cU G) CD I .a,v z a) a. c N c .i co LO CD L- W CD CD .Q O C E'�,I O. v V Qv)0 M 444 CF, :3 0 V." I (0 co c o _ co co 473 a) a) a) a) sco _ a) • 0 c.) u- 0 00 0 . — T.- (1) 1 co a) a) a) co ...., _,c E 8 ._ E o 0- 1 o cn c c c m 0 o 0 47, o co cv T.- co cz.L6 RI P(1). a) ci) — t om c 5 ea co 111 it co ela ) . cn (13 0 .z co u) a) co 8 0 0 co Ain CD C%1 CI) I (D •T • 0.) • a) co co • () • co cD(/) 16 >, OL. := < L. a) 0 :12 a) Ce L 0 h LLJ Aspen Chamber Q C .N O • C S CU t0 • y Y Q O 0 0 • C u S U .0 o a aC m C W . •5 j .. Q V) i C c iv . n. a a 03 < a a" a co 0) 2 r NE- 0 CJ To 0 L) v E co L a N CJ t Y Y — t.. 2 To ▪ Y C C C/ C! E E b4 O • O ). W • W O C C C 3 Q Cl C1 C1 C C 0.0•0. a CI v •a"Qa ( a a 4� V.. 0 0 0 0 U U U tai m o O -i V W U • Z3 ,} ' O is ..0 L. 0 73 m 3 U a) CD CZ 0 A . _ o•� coL T' L d• N2 CD Q 5 C a. coWO— C •W •L•N• Qi t o w 46 .- E .Q c P.- f, = a E E t" .� p a c � Q. a) as IR N 0 CU Cl No Y .. 0 C • N to O ,.- O E a C m > E 0. 0 O 0 0 N > a 0 N E E N d ▪ 0 0 N • 0 N O �, t v E ci, 0 ▪ E Q o. Y >, ono •C E 0 C! a ~ E• LL L S 0 vOi 0 C — to > itcO O • Y C+ Q -0 ar a COto E U\ C ar .4 O N. C O O v y= ' -0 Q ( 3 Q c v 0 u c Y N - C 3 L > 'a O a a c cc c to Y ra ra 3 3 3 N to to h to H F W. �• a) E a) a) U D m a) (a L _ -Q `0 L a) Ri C O .O •c c CUD a/ 73 o = •ran o C 6 03 a- N C O ■' t T C C - U — > O r- ,_ — CoU < Q E. E O N 'p a) ca a) a) ( O -C a) CC C9 Ri O Q. v) C fa N C N N C ca 'c c co o c c- C 0 O O C -0 •- C) N a) 75 a) C a) N N I III! N 0 �— w NMI C -c c 73 a C a) o co oTi (/;cn _c ' N Q• n 4 (B '� O U t� C C1 _ E as.2L E c 4) >' t6 C a) co +- = O O N ca — "C3 O 00 U 1-0 U coo as Q) Cl -O U >' Q) .> E 0 OL acts U i +r • C2 c0 «J c O N':k o U c U C • N c. O N co as (6 ▪ 1 0 o o O C2E C1 U 'a L co p N ca a) U Q 0 o c -o - -a a) c tv a) c a`) _ U o N a) 2 c a) L c a)= o N 0 0 C� �) < 'L o c `�- -o t6 • -' C a 3 N C o as {- c6 0 a) ▪ U L 0 0 () O a) (a .0 CO o N C rn cd •C N 4 Cl a) U E O ;- ▪ t�6 p C O E C N O a N Q - N E N O c6 'ti: -'- C)- a m o Nas O > as N t6 a) o O U C a. • c t .E �_ o L a) N Ur C co (B Q. C. p + ▪ C N -t E , a) a) E E,- .- C m E a) c U•_ .O O O ; L L >, c o O D) 7 -- L Cl U C C < 0) a) L N c V (al a) O N 0 3 p ,1 N -o o p0• N o c a)▪ U p �' L (6 N C6 ) "J "' o U a) m= c}6 N L p E 0 p o - .. E � N - .'n cm O N as (6 -p O N c U) -O L- "-' w a) .— IE • Q- .5• c) c - - iS c0 CO = > -0 N +� U o 3 c O a) N -5 0 El O =- a) C N 2 C Cl U m c o �O O ` N t0 m C Q) ` a o c n3 O 1- L C OCI p L F- O O N 0- ct Q a N E 2 N (6 '- > (v 0 m 0 >, a) 4.0 a) Cn 3 az y c E Co• E U ca N !_ F- +C C a .- c •E c U co m E ;c17. 0 ,� ns N C C c < f L is (6 V y .i.� .' 0 u) E 'f), N .<-c- .,,) O a C •= ...,5 o 0 ON "- O O • _ U C o a)c = "ei0) caa) N p QE T� a) E "--B Lc=NE c a) -2:' a Qac ( o a) = p6) ows O -O .O CU O L N N 0) • N >+rN -Y C C O m C p Q) O C O O c • }, Oc - 0- o 0 E -0 O7 cC -C1 c0 C2 U a)0)'- +v, _U v a) CZ C CU p C ,C,O) a) 0 `) RSn U a> .... p Ncv E U cm'�cNcoO O c - o (!)�, c c .a)i c viU 0 -cc o� o ) aa c N °) U 0 Lin 0+d o u Q a) -o 0 o-- -0 E 'pO- co—cQ c oZ WEN u Ng cf Lm •N NacN N a) NN c6>= ac Ca •x0 a) c6 co O''.2.) N >) m -0 r E E c a) o>d 1 a) N CD oo8 o 10 E E -t Et o - U U U �- c E Q c o a a ai 2cz .g. Ot °> � 00 oeoTo of Q a) a) a) N a) E .o .o C Q E FH- F- Q F- 0 a. 0 a. O IliU < < ;-- I— a N 0 ��AA C Yi E c L t6 a) Q a) c 0 a) c E E a) cn 0 Q o O (a a) �_ 'a2 > 0 'O ��//��CD O (/O) CO U) >.O ) U 6 — 0 D W Un ■ 3 °' C� c E O • co o ° CD ,�,I�U EO i CnCn`` (a O (I) W QN cn N CO 0 (n 4- 0o 0 O CO N O O C C a_ 1 c° - - r 0 U 1o ▪ (n uir 4— L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 co O N E 0 0) •C O CO 0) a. C 0 0 C a (a 0 a) a) U 0 0 0 0) • U) 0 a) a) 0 0 a) 4-- cn O O O L a. a) 0 O (6 0 C 0 0 L U) 0 0 a) (- a Ta > a) c O L > a) 4- O a) � I I I I i l l l 4 0 0 Ci 1 CD 0 co 0 03 u 1 co L ers CC E m E ■ E CS N O 1 L CO bD CO N N NNH 4 ■ ▪ c$ NNOC c 0 c rci ■ NNNr 00) 70 V cu E E 0 Space Reservations: Gates — 8 boarding gates 0 E c.) a) V \0 c E co p p N V • c .12 CDC i c d 7=p p E c = ▪ ��a) .N • L • ,N 0 ,N L a •— v I a c C co t co C cC > C G) >.. 75 '% E C > 0 c > LEI -0 G) C Q. C -0 Of CO G) 0 0 C • 0 o c ccu c.a)a) E N > G) L. C L to'C 4- '- 9 `,. 0 ...., 0 (C.i Q E • .L = 0 E 0 i -1D co2 0 V c i� • (/) •— a9O o • L a) 0 c.) "0 (/) cC 1D C co 0 Q.` 0 N Qow i Y. C-)a)a) C N 'a V Q JJD p O a.t) O 0 C> y_ 0 Q. •++ c C 0 ++ Q N .,p C L-a Q c .— cQ a�+ i i C C 0 Q C) i I� CO — •— (Q L CD 4- V ,p Q G) 2 (tic) G) .E'a v � coo— C = c i c0cV a an0 a . oa)= EL r,vn.3 =v)ED. w°? cNi Re- 0) 0) a) c 0 s_ 0) CL 0. 0 c 0 0 - 0 -0 (I) >+ _ CD = ca 4-1 V L .d; .> caa)CDC ._wa)Is '5 ca (n RS a) tQ _ 0) V Q CAL i _ O .• c L. to cQ _ a)c ir .c.n.5 cocn .04-, cu > w .cn 2. w moEc . th Q N-;;; o �t =G pa)>% 'Q co ) as > O L.ci, 2 C) 713 c 73 N ! (7) .-- ''''- '2) ic as Ts a)i�C iz_ am2�70E CO 0) i_OQNy- >'• a > 0_=cp mot``-V CZ ' 03 O ._ 'v(ts N m 'v) tQ i 4 O r CE— L •� _ L. a. C = 03 1" a- Q= I I I I• = c=a d O .0 cD_ W a3 a v) Uc13 Q49- i272O. F-L.ca.C22 UT. Funding Eligibility a) .71 01 a) C - o ER $243,0231 r— co N 0 CO 10 N CO N (f V Cr) V N 69 $67,811,1331 Io$ $1,523,659 1 $69, 577, 816 AlP/PFC r,- CO CO r O CO ER N CO V V N O N 69 0) 0 T CO CO r T ER $1,186,198 O O) CO V CO V ER O CO O- O) r 0) r ER $51,287,604 Total Costs 1.0 c0 CO T E) (o Ela $20,487,844 N O c0 (n CO CO rzr T v (n (0 CO E N C) co r-- 0) 0) CO COEA O 0) c0 V (0 V 8 V r— N---(O r- o ER ON V 1(n1 CO 0 r ER Construction Soft Costs (2) Costs (1) 25% $4,811,100 $1,202,775 $16,390,275 $4,097,569 $36,383,060 $9,095,765 18,814,805 4,703,701 I $55,197,865 $13,799,466 $3,719,121 $929,780 j $16,573,975 $4,143,494 $96,692,336 $24,173,084 Terminal Area Plan Phases Phase 1 - Existing Pax Apron Recon-2014 Phase 2 - New Terminal Concourse-2015 a) (C 0 off 0 O a a) z c) a) () Q. Phase 3a - Short Term Dev-2016 r`� N N Q A +a N O C7 N CO ma) 0 d a� nco 8 En st (4 co ( ( U d Phase 4 - New Commercial Apron-2017 Phase 5 - New Terminal Completion-2018 Total Terminal Area Plan Costs C O N O 9- a) E N 0 ca 0 c N (4 O N O N 0 a) as 0) N 0 U 0 U 0) 0 a) E w j)j r N a) O z } 43 tO A (1 } 03 } 7 m } A m } 0 2 ta U 0 0 0 0 0 0 (L1 (A W CO (f) N O O O O O C. CO O V 1- •C) O O CQ (0 0 0 (D b! 1• Q) O (A OQA 00 0 0 N r M M M V' N O O N 0 0 0 0 (oo0 O 1.- an LC) OS N (O 11) O O CV O O 03 (Ps O N CO m MV' N (O L6 N R 0 0 0 0 0 O CD r- (f7 cam) O•l n O CO 0 C( O 1_) M (0 03 (OA Tr- 2 8 000(7,O O (i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 va a 2 VI .4 0 °- D E U Si rn 5 F- rn )is € p N C C O 53 6 cc a n c L E E 4 E n U 0 0 fa (n x c 1i a) c U € o ,2 r] co 4) C C 0 Ca w cF- IFYC)F- c Cr_ .7 VIa R a§) aa)) r lt1 Z, , Z Z a-- N co M V 0) c o ‘-,0) V) !) 0) N N F' E a a a a a a< $2,100,004 $11,096,446 $20,172,599 S48,098,421 0 0 0 0 0 (D CO Pi '7 co, N O N f1 O O O O O O 47 (C) [V h- rn m P( (n CO C) 0 0 0 0 CO M �t O O O O O O Q) en m v t0 th (A O M O O O O O O pfp` pO M G9 (i O O r. O O CA 2 53 (FS r- v N. a' 7 (0 O sr O CO O fV (Y (A (4 pO O O O O O O 0N-. 03 (O et- o(» § O O O O Lri n n o (A • Total Terminal Area Costs Uy _ C I0 LL 8 pO r,I to N N . Hf M M M O) M N! Q 40 (0 N N (A M a f» co co M W Co CO O (o Total Capital Projects "" Projects funded with Private Third Party Financing N N *Not n- n.Ci w� On NC • c 3 0 GwNrlfwC�0-�JOe+.N aCDfnNa or�C0 hf 7A r0OQp0-0Z72JNw0� G1 0i R0 N N N ra 000ffYY�,j..."000c.00.nrNyyt J e07 c.7 oim ow rttat2rr1N N�t0'I-A A h 00 WO M� f Q as Nag 9r h N 00 MN AN. ON Cr 0o0a-,i00,0-0'a'°o i' a r�:1-t11��AryCi: PiA ti t1 wN Oro DON;4'�1 Cpt1 pp nrp!-a0 N' 0004rf n 0 �CIw Nr 'ChgQOY:O0ol0n� Q pN -N M - CCC G N Crpp -01 Yl e,C �LLppf Ya, Yh♦ anaa $ o- NOrC1+OCK:'110h C4 Y1Af hr' C. 1' �r ppq,rieciroisti.=s�pj i nc �4 pi0flr-N1�i 1pANNa1 Q e,, r' NNNa�-44--0000#A 0 NnrlweOtle'!Cp ``•Cir�N,1 h nN nti c A f C� O ^ f N n ooeCmpawa4/�1�0NCO0Ft1r1 r 00400 ph0GGf0Cp, lr0 W 41 N41 Q,dd(-0P(00A.0N.*00 a O01 06r ONONNpQMOM krytp NO ti4w!!�OlNn rfm e0 -f ®®NN ,//��•�t WO O10fY;*eOf StN-,'IOlo N Y< Wp a a 6en0Nlmn nn-n nwh :2nan@4f,A$2h 4 C N9oftVo✓Nw !` N 3 s C 0 Y " a + u :13€ i c o -8 iii ; 1l J pp : a C C V" a 0 del l C Csa _C `` Y 4 U t l i g Q 4 � C i 0 n t i o f Cad aG `e eir c ¢t B9n--$ tl a c_€LRI”iion�0r ii L' EL!+ 4� Ql �p0T1nc 5RitEtt "' r4 ii22t b idr Via• Lt`LLS¢cdLIV.,li r , =05a a tl6 00 44f W � /04 E E O 2 1 ( ) rts EWA ■ ✓ N C 0 N N co N tl O V • CV • 0 13 • N CO LL L 0 c 0 0) NnW n N 00)— I, Q C ot m CI c0 Of r` to Z.; ✓ CO Cs.1 CO ▪ c 'CA' N M n t9 rl CL) Q co co 01 cc CA c3 c0 lry CO M fPo ~ CA c M cri M Q lA tD IL co n O N iA N v • CO 8,684,080 7.141,394 ti r VS C9 r) to 0) h M ri al 0 0 tri CA c .0,r tt M t.7 n CO et) 0) Total Revenues !tat Cash Flow 04 U $45.030 631 (J) Cg w O § v tt) CJ ,Zr fit) n 0 aai a) �MMs 6) ▪ 0NN 4 V1 Q $14 431 36U $10,117.308 $11,019,878 Y7 M trir to co- tf) O Total Other Capital Funding Sources IN 0 g A ei co- S17,148,214 S 17.697, 903 v n �I tf1I 4] n a) C!) co tin o+ 8' m, N'. Q M 0 3j 4? O) do O M O T ▪ 1 00 r 01 a n. E st fro I DSG VI N CD >01 .N O (73 Li) W` N pc V V t1co MIN — w _c CO — �+ CD C W m ■ tee. 3 3 LL ( L ca ti 0 N O L co O7 L N Q O E a) Q c ✓ Ucn a V) a) c t6 L Q a) CD U a) U O O ✓ c O Ac L Li) N a) E — Annual AIP entitlements and passenger facility charges reduced — Reduced rental car customer facility charges No reduction in operating expens Ir 13 o c..) c -a a) a co -0 N al >al 0 •N °' C O < .5 E v e 0) ta, sem 2 _va) 0 O O O ♦..1 O = E E .2 > _'a i. co ;ma 0_a) 0 N •D. xCC •i Q) •N E.D. _ _� O)+ - 1 E : e O 2 VNm 73N O • a) as .7) }+ _ N I— I•— = 0. t) Q co input and Board — Environmental clearance Local approvals c%•• 0 'o c� as w cts Safe and efficient operations o. -a N co i co co >+ i O ca ..c *a' C) co �> c O 7p -a• ca c L 1 • L Q% 0E i N co CL Ti O 00 m cam co, ▪ 'x� ._ C N� C)cn N, O a)c — E d� o d E > to _ � 4-1 O Q • > i L. co cu al c o w m = w O co v) w o a cn. o a o E for Tim Malloy TG Malloy Consulting, LLC 402 Park Drive Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Sent via e-mail: t,mally(sris,nt September 21, 2012 Re: Airport Master Plan referral comments Dear Tim, CITY OF ASPEN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT T Thank you for allowing the City of Aspen Transportation Department the opportunity to comment on the Airport Master Plan. As a member of the Airport Study Committee, I appreciated the opportunity to participate in and comment on the Airport Master Plan process. The study committee included a broad range of participants from the community including various City and County staff who provided comments during the meetings. City staff and Council also provided comment during two work sessions and one on -site tour. Connecting the airport with transit has been a consistent discussion point during the master plan process. It is important to make the airport accessible and convenient for transit users. Aixpon staff and the master plan team have been very sensitive to accomplishing this goal in all of the different alternatives and ideas considered. IlliTA staff has been part of the study committee and an integral part of the process. Please continue to keep City staff and Council informed of the Airport Master Plan process as it moves forward. City staff and Council have a keen interest in the process and end result. Sincerely, John D. Krueger Director of Transportation City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 1611 • 9920-5267 Tim Malloy TG Malloy Consulting, LLC 402 Park Drive Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Sent via e-mail: t mallo ri .net September 21, 2012 Re: Airport Master Plan referral comments Dear Tim, Lotk 'fin: `i . .)F sr[: Thank you for providing the City of Aspen Community e el prnent Department the opportunity to comment on the Airport Master Plat. The Airport provides an important piece of the overall transportation system in the Aspen Area, and is recognized within the Aspen Area Community Plan as being critical to our community and economy. We understand that you have received comments from the Aspen City Council regarding the Master Plan. The Community Development Department does not have any additional comments at this time. We do encourage the Airport to continue working with transportation stakeholders to ensure any future changes at the Airport enable a seamless transition to the bus and transit services along Highway 82. Thank you again for the chance to comment on this application, and please keep us and City Council informed as the Airport continues to move through the process. Sincerely, ()11A/V,4--/-- Jessica Darrow, AICP Long Range Planner Aspen Community Development Department City Community Development referral Airport Master Plan September 21, 2012 Tim Malloy TG Malloy Consulting LLC 402 Park Drive Glenwood Springs, CO1 1 RE: Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan Update Dear Tim: BASALT Thank you for the opportunity to review the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Draft Final Report, The Airport is an important economic generator and amenity to the Basalt Community and the Town is happy to be included as part of the master planning process. The Town of Basalt is generally in agreement with the Recommended Improvement Plan. Provided below are specific comments regarding the proposal. 1. Water quality. As municipality located down -valley from the airport, the Town of Basalt is primarily concerned with maintaining/improving the water quality in the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries. As indicated in the report, the Airport should update their Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCD) and Stor w ter Pollution Prevention Plan. We expect that the airport will build appropriate infrastructure and institute operational protocol to protect Owl Creek and groundwater from jet fuel, de-icing fluid and other hazardous spills. The Airport should respect the guidelines in the FAA Advisory Circular 1 /537 -1 A, Standards for Specifying Construction f Airports to assure minimal erosion and sedimentation during construction. 2. Environmental Standards. Pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin Airport's mission statement and sustainability policy, the Town encourages Pith in County to uphold the most environmentally sustainable standards possible for- the construction and operations of the facility. 3. Access to Mass Transit. Since mass transit to and from the airport is very important to down valley residents and tourists using Basalt lodging facilities, the Town supports the safest possible pedestrian connection between the RFTA Bus Rapid Transit(MT) stops and the terminal building. Providing easy and safe access to mass transit supports town goals of reducing parking in our downtown core. The pedestrian passage underneath Highway 82 is strongly encouraged. Considering the length of the proposed tunnel the underpass must be designed to emphasize pedestrian comfort and safety Le. adequate visual access, natural light, emergency lighting, surveillance, air circulation, etc.). 4. Parking. The improvement plan calls for nearly twice as much public parking than exists today. The Town of Basalt is in favor of providing 101 MIDLAND AVE. ' BASALT, CO 81621 • A - 1 * FAx - - • wombasalt.n t adequate parking facilities for down valley residents but also wish to incentivize use of mass transit to and from the airport. The County may want to conduct additional analysis to determine the adequate number of public parking spaces for the airport prior to implementation, or have an additional parking option included in the plan if more parking is found to be needed. . Location of FRO terminal. Unless mandated by the FAA, the Town of Basalt does not support a FBO terminal on the west side of the runway as it will negatively affect other roads in the vicinity rather than consolidating the impacts of construction and daily operations. If a west side FBO location is approved, the Town is interested in getting more information about how people traveling on RFTA will access that terminal. 6. Employee Housing. The Town encourages the County to explore the possibility of providing Airport employee housing in areas on and near the airport. It is widely understood that Basalt currently provides housing .for a large number of Airport employees. If affordable housing is not possible on the Airport properly, Pitkin County should consider providing funding the Town of Basalt to increase our affordable housing inventory for the benefit of Airport personnel and staff. The comments above are referral recommendations made to Pitkin County. The Town recognizes that Pitkin County is responsible for reviewing all of the input on this matter and the Town does not have the jurisdictional authority to make decisions on these issues. If there are questions about the above comments or need clarification, you can contact the Planning Staff at Basalt Town Hall, 970- 927-4701. Sincerely, Brian L. McNellis ellis AICP Senior Planner cc: Basalt Town Council Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission Tim Malloy From: David Johnson djohn on@rfta. om Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 10:45 PM To: tim rnailoy Cc: Dan Blankenship; Mike Hermes; Nick Senn; Angela Kincade Subject: Airport Master Plan Comments Tim: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Airport Master Plan, and we acknowledge your efforts to keep RFTA and other stakeholders involved in the process. The terminal area plans that have emerged from this process are ambitious, totaling $120 million and include a new terminal, a green roof parking garage, and many other improvements. The importance of connecting the terminal with RFTA has been a universal value throughout the planning process. RFTA, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the Airport, and other partners have coordinated extensively on design and construction of the BRT stations that will serve the airport. BRT service will begin in late 2013. In addition, RFTA and these partners have been coordinating on the funding, design, and construction of a grade -separated pedestrian crossing of SH82 that will provide a safe and attractive multimodal connection between SH82, RFTA BRT, and the airport. The conceptual alternatives and the preferred alternative have incorporated a pedestrian connection between the terminal building and the BRT Stations/Pedestrian crossing. RFTA notes that the existing transit right-of-way along Highway 82 will be maintained in the Airport Master Plan to allow for future dedicated transit systems, and that a parking structure at the Airport could be designed to accommodate a weather protected connection between the RFTA BRT stations or other future transit technologies that might utilize the reserved transit corridor. We hope that integration with BRT (and future transit technologies) and a superior pedestrian connection will remain important throughout the planning, design and eventual construction process of the airport. David Johnson Director of Planning RFTA The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney -client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is tri tly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 1 MEMORANDUM ANDUM TO: Tim Malloy, Airport Master Plan FROM: Gary T nn nb um, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails RE: Airport Master Plan Comments DATE: September 21, 2012 Thank you for referring the Airport Master Plan to Open Space and Trails (OST). The airport has been a great partner in providing the Owl Creek Trail, which is the main connecting trail to the Town of Snowmass Village and access to the recently acquired Sky Mountain Park via the Radar Road. The Airport Master Plan Update does not address trail access through the property, other than identifying the existing Owl Creek Trail. Access to Sky Mountain Park is currently available on the Radar Road. Open Space and Trails has worked with the Airport to identify an alignment for the proposed "Airline Trail" that would replace use of the Radar Road to connect to the Skyline Trail on Sky Mountain Park; the alignment is shown in the Sky Mountain Park Management Plan. It is ST' understanding that the Airport has agreed to this alignment, therefore, it would be p pro priat to include the alignment in the Airport Master Plan Update. The Sky Mountain Park Management Plan and also identifies a "Buttermilk Connector" trail to link Sky Mountain Park and Buttermilk via singletrack trail on the west side of Owl Creek Road. OST believes that there should also be future consideration for a better hard surface trail connection from the Owl Creek Trail to Buttermilk across the south end of the airport property. OST is hoping that these potential trail connections be acknowledged in the Airport Master Plan Update. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Tim Malloy -I . Subject: FW: Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan From: Steve Ferris [maiIto5Ferris©tosv!cQW] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:04 PM To: Tim Malloy Subject: FW: Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan Tim, FYI, and per your VM of earlier today. Steve From: Russell Forrest Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:03 PM To* Steve Ferris; Jim,EIwood@co.pitkin.co.us Subject: RE: Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan Jim and Steve Council very much appreciated the presentation on the Airport Master Plan several week ago. The only concern they Wanted to collectively pass on to you is that they were concerned about a " FBO located adjacent to Owl Creek. Specifically there was concern about traffic on Owl Creel, conflicts With the bicyclingiped. trail on Owl Creek with an FRO. You can also look at the discussion on our web site for Council meetings. They had no other concerns other than that that they asked me to pass on. 1 Pitkinuiount!. October 24, 2012 Pitkin County {Board of County Com`rnissione1s * _ E. Main St: - F Aspen, CO1 11 ti Re: Pianniiig and Zoning Commission Referral —Aspen/Pitkin County Akrpoil Master* Plan Updatefflraft Final Report '• Dear Board of County commissioners: Thank you .for the opportunity to comment on the Aspen Pitt in County Airport Master r Plan' Update Dra ft Final Repoli (Master Plan, Update). The Planning & Zoning C nimissi n met to discuss the ]1 a t r Plan Update on September 25, and October 9, We 1 . appreciate the th i �glines f he materialsand presentation by Jiin Elwood and Tip Malloy, and,th it thoughtful res nses to our questions, - x The adopted Aspen Area Community Plan(AACP)and its vision statements,' philosophy, policies and implernentatiOn steps that relate to the,airport and the broader eo munity p •o Tided the basis' for our findings and ree xnnnend Lions. The AACP has also provided the direction for O.ur -work oyer the last few - months on the West of Maroon Creek Land Use Master Plan WO P . As directed by the A CP, the WOW 'intends to develop .a physicalsub-area land use plan for the West of Ca tke Creek Corridor to ent the olieie in the-AACP Thedraft W MP' inehides-ati "Airport Activity Node" and peeifid - au p recommendations for that node. Mr. Elwood and his team have participated in' all of ur discussions' •} • - regarding the Airport Activity N d_e.. These discussions have also factored in our findings and reemmendatlon, though the WQMP will not lie adopted unti'early•N'ovember. •Given our inv ivement in the creation of the AACP and the,W MP, we recommend that-thp following . findings, and recommendations be include ,in the Master Plan Update Final l port (the "Final Report"). FINDINGS: The Planning aommjssion mayes the following findingsiregarding the Recommended mrnen Improvements Plan (Figure 8-i in the Airport Master Plan Update), which incorporates the preferred alternatives for the General Aviation facilities (Alternative 1) and the Terminal area (Alternative l "Simple"': r The Recommended Improvement Plan is generally consistent with the Airport Philosophy in the • AACP which states, 'The airport is an important dompdneht of our mulii-modal transportation system. We support it's missibn to provide safe, efficiaits accessible, rpliable and environmentally - responsible airpOrt servicds and facilities. It is e , n ial to integrate the aifport with alternative modes of transportation to .diminish h reliance z2pon rental vehicles'." Willie,the Airport has committed - to improve the e nneeti n of the terminal tooftransportation alternative modes (transit and shuttles), in order to be' Ily consistent wit!1 this statement; the Airport should undertake a complete study o ', - 130 S.-Galena Street, . • Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 9 0-50 0 fax 00-509 wwwapit in ov.c m existing con'clitions related to modes of travel to and from the airport and best practices another airports. In any event, the Final Report should include specific proposals to encourage the use of p alternative modes of transportation and to diminish reliance upon rental vehicles and parking requirements. Orie specific alternative to explore is the fe isibility offinal-destination bag delivery for airport arrivals to make it more feasible for arriving airline passengers to utilize public transportation, The Recommended 1rpro en ei t Plan is consistent with the following Airport Policies in the AACP, which state: o Improve the efficieficy and reliability of Airport 'services while reducing nvir-onm nta l impacts, . o' Improve the overall quality of theairport experience in a manner that is consistent with our community character. . o Reduce the negative impacts ofAirport operations s on the surrounding area. • o Improve the convenience, efficiency and environmental impacts of round transportation options available at Me Airport* • . The Rccommended Improvement Plan includes a "rail corridor" that runs the length ofthe airport ro er and a term naI transit interface rface adjacent to Highwa r. and the T station, which is p p � ty ?ith � ' h ART �r'o`ect ��fllllconsistent the AAcP s recommendations to integrate the Airport it theproject . pre erving dedicated transit rights -of -way and easements to accommodate a future mass -transit system, ▪ Terminal Alternative 1 "Simple": o Scenip Impacts. This alternative sets.the terminal back from Highway 82 similarly to,the existing terminal. While theoretically a t vo--Ie el. structure, the lower level is placid below grade to accommodate'back-of-the-hovse operations so the terminal, as seen from Highway 82, appears to be one -lee]. The massing d monstr'ations provided by ]1 r�. Elwood .and Mr. ]1 alloy sho ► that one -level structure would have the sane vertical visual impact as seen from Highway 82 as. a too -level structure; however, the footprint of a one -level ternhil would need to be much greater. o Transit, This Alternative provides a direct, :weather-prot cted connect[On to the BRT stations, . which ma 'increase the use of BRT as .a mode of trannsportation into the`Ctty or Aspen and., other areas.o Mass and Scale. This alternative provides for an 80,000 square foot terminal. ,While,we recognize the.m6thodolog behind the -reservation of 80,000 square feet, we believe that including such a number may drive the design of the building. Instead, the building should be tlic minimum square footage necessary for a frictional and practical terminal, based on the needs demonstrated in the Master Plan Update. o The intimate and welcoming character.of the existing human -scale terminal shall be - maintained • along with its varied massing and scale. Voluminous urban styling should be avoided. The terminal should complement its natural environment rather than attempt to make are architectural statement and become.the focus ofthe arrival and departure experience. Second Fixes Base Operator("FBO"): o The ro osal to locate a seconciFB0 on the east side ofthe Airport is not consistent with the AACP due to the'l ro i pity to Highway , The scenic impact f the facilities required for a second FBO would dramatically and adversely impact current views from Highway 82. 1 The proposal to locate a second FBO on the west side of the Airport is burdens me to, and impra ticat for the community, and is not consistent with the AA0; due to: • The lack of connection to transit facilities. ▪ The resultant increase in traffic are Owl Creek Road. ▪ The. er si n of the transitional area betw et timore urban uses in Aspen and along the Highway 82 corridor and rural uses along Owl Creek Road, and the resultant change in the rural charcter of Owl Creek Road, which is effected by the significant increase in paved area on the west side and the additional facilities required for the FBO, ▪ Neglecting the AACP Vision for the -area which er rphasi es the importance of maintaining "distinct areas of visual experiences." ■ Visual impacts as seen from Highway 82 and Owl Creek Road, ▪ Potential impacts on wildlife in the adjacent open space corridor from the additional noise created by the west side taxiways. • -The draft WOMP recommends .that uses 6t the Airport be limited "to those that are rar, supporting and transportation -related customarily associated with commercial airports, excluding hotels, motels and lodging -as these terms are defined in the plain County Land Use od . " The Master Plan Update does not propose any hotel/motel/lodging u` e. The ]aster Plan addresses the following facilities, which are consistent with the limitation specified above: airfield facilities, passenger terminal building and associated pedestrian and vehicular circulation, general aviation and support facilities. • The arias dsignated•in the Master Ptan Update for development on the west side of the Airport avoid. steepslopes, s r . vildf ire h . -d areas and wildlife habitat areas. A 1 foot bufferdn either side -of p Owl Creek has been designated as a "Sensitive Area" and is avoided'. Tlie Airport Ranch has been identified as eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, and portions of the site could be impacted by the west side general aviation area, which contradicts our County's goals for maintaining rural character and heritage.. RE M E DAT 1 : • The Planninglc Zoning Commission shall review each phase of specific improvements in more detail through the Location and Extent Review process. The purpose of the Location and Extent Review is • to determine if specific improvements are in conformance with the AACP and the WMP. Before the process to design the.new terminal is commenced: o 'The Airport shall draft anti the BOCC shall adopt Desip Guidelines. The Design Guidelines shall be referred to the Planning &:oning Commission to review the consistency ofthese guidelines with the WOMP. The guidelines shall address our community's aesthetic and mass and scale standards and not just the functional service levels prescribed by the FAA. o The Airport shall undertake a study of existing conditions related to}nodes oftravel to ancl from the airport and best practices at otherairp rts. The Airport shall recommend specific proposals osals to encourage the use of alternative modes. of transportation and to dirhiriish reliance upon rental. vehicles and increased parking needs. One specific alternative to explore IS the feasibility of final -destination bag delivery for airport arrivals to make a it more feasible for arriving airline passengers to utilize public transportation. ln_the event FAA standards conflict with community varies, the Airport shall explore to the greatest extent possible innovative and reative community -character driven solutions to comply with such FAA standards, similar to the Airport's use of an air traffic control closed circuit camera system to improve the air traffic control cap«abilities while avoiding the cost and height requirements associated with_a new or redeveloped air traffic Control tower. The Master Plan tipdate shall be amended to include the alignment of the "Airline Trait" to Sky Mountain Park. The Master Plan Update shall acknowledge a ,potential future trail connection for a "Buttermilk •would link Sly .Mountain Park o��netor� single-trarcl trail on the west sick' of owl CreekRoad� that oar and Buttermilk, and a potential future trail connection from the Owl Creek Trail to Buttermilk across the south end of the airport property. The'Ahh•port, County and COOT shall continue totcoordinate_as#the terminal and pedestrian underpass • design.s progre,ss to ensure that the two projects are linked and integrated. Additional noise monitoring and/or ndise modeling may be required prior to construction of projects that may change the noise pattern from aircraft operating on the ground, and.shall be required for any projects that affect the "Noise Sensitive Uss" designated in the Master•+Plan. The monitoring or modeling shall deter mine if there are any significant noise effects associated with those improvements, and, if so, mitigation of such noise levels should be required: Thank you for your consideration of our findings and recommendations. We understand that this Master Plan Update is limited:to reservation of space for potential future facilities; however, we feel that a reservation sends a strong message' towards the final intent of use. For this r+ason, we think it wise to hold ourselvesto the highest ofcompliance tandards with the AACP.and WOMP. •We look forward to participating in the further public process that the Airport has committed to provide as specific improv merit move into the design phase, and to reviewing the Design Guidelines and then_ improvements through the Location and Extent Review process. r Sincerer., oward, Chairman and Zoning Commission 4 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKJN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING THE 2012 ASPEN PITI IN COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION F THE DOCUMENT TO THE FAA FOR REVIEW Resolution N. -2012 RECITALS 1. Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, hereafter "Airport", hereby submits the 2012 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan Update Draft Final Report, hereafter "2012 Airport Master Plan", to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereafter "BOCC", for approval and authorization for submission of the Airport Layout Plan to the Federal Aviation Administration, hereafter "FAA", for conditional approval. The 2012 Airport Master Plan is intended to guide future land use and capital improvement decisions for the Airport. 2. The property is located on Highway 82, west of Aspen and across from the Aspen Airport Business Center, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3. The Pit in County Financial Advisory Board reviewed the 2012 Airport Master Plan on May 14, 2012, for financial feasibility and stated support of the Plan. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the 2012 Airport Master Plan for compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan during regularly scheduled meetings on September 25th and October 9th, 2012, and stated overall support of the Plan with written referral comments which were included in the packet for review at the November 1 th, 2012 regular meeting of the BOCC. 4. The BOCC conducted first reading of a draft resolution of approval for the 2012 Airport Master Plan on November 1 th, 2012 and set second reading for December 5th, 2012. 5. The BOCC accepted public comment during both the public hearing process. 6. The BOCC finds the 2012 Airport Master Plan to be generally consistent with the Pitkin County Strategic Plan and the Aspen Area Community Plan as expressed by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission. The BOCC has determined that the findings and recommendations contained in the Plan represent the best interests of the citizens of Pitkin County. 7. The 2012 Airport Master Plan planning process incorporated extensive public outreach including the establishment of a Study Committee, whose members were appointed by the BOCC and who represent a broad spectrum of citizens and businesses with the community. Other public outreach measures included facility planning charrettes, public open house meetings, small -group tours of the airport, meetings with the Aspen City Council, Town of Snowmass Village Town Council, and Pitkin County Resolittion No. -2012 Page 2 BOCC work sessions. The 2012 Airport Master Plan was also referred to twenty six(26) separate agencies and government departments for comment. 8. The 2012 A p n Prtkin County Master Plan Update Draft Final Report is a 20-year planning document that includes a recommended capital improvement plan for the Airport. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it hereby; 1. Approves the 2012 A p n Pitkin County Airport Master Plan Update Draft Final Report; 2. Authorizes the BOCC Chair to sign the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), consistent with the 2012 Airport Master Plan, for submission to the FAA for conditional approval; and coordination of grant closure. 3. Establishes the following condition below in association with the approval of the 2012 Airport Master Plan: a. The Airport will initiate the development ofdesign guidelines to provide guidance and standards for all future improvements at the Airport. b. Roadway setbacks and other dimensional variances granted in association with the 2004 Airport Master Plan (Resolution No. 057-2004) will continue to guide development at the Aiport. INTRODUCED, FIRST READ, AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON 2012. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND THE FULL TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION POSTED ON THE OFFICIAL PITKIN COUNTY WEBSITE (wwwaspeiipitkincom ON THE DAY OF 2012. ADOPTED AFTER FINAL READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DAY OF 2012. PUBLISHED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY, AFTER ADOPTION, IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THE DAY OF 2012. 2 Resolution No, -2012 Page ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By Jeanette Jones Deputy County Clerk By: Michael M. Owsley, Chairman Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: MANAGER APPROVAL John Ely, County Attorney Jon Peacock, County Manager APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: . Elwood, vt tiot 'rector 3