Click this link to optimize Pitkin County Connect for screen readers Skip to Content

Pitkin County Connect Logo

Subscribe to Registered Statements from Citizens

Info Hide

Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.

A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:

  1. It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
  2. It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Peak Democracy.
  3. It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.

You can subscribe to unregistered statements here.

Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).

Subscribe

Manage your subscription in your RSS feed reader

Check out some recent Registered Statements from citizens

Grant Bankston inside District 2 October 10, 2017, 3:56 PM

Which concept do you like best?
Concept 3


Which design concepts do you like best? Prioritize your favorites below.
Concept 3, Concept 2, Concept 1, Concept 4


Please give us your feedback on the four architectural concepts for the new Aspen Ambulance Station to be located next to the Pitkin County Health and Human Services building in Aspen.
I prefer concept 3 and then 2 because of the warmth and transparency of their materiality. The corner closest to the foreground in concept 1 seems to be the most resolved. The red signage and brick base of Concept 4 make it appear generic and fitting of a Denver suburb.

David Polovin inside District 1 October 9, 2017, 6:02 PM

Which concept do you like best?
Concept 2


Which design concepts do you like best? Prioritize your favorites below.
Concept 2, Concept 3, Concept 1, Concept 4


Please give us your feedback on the four architectural concepts for the new Aspen Ambulance Station to be located next to the Pitkin County Health and Human Services building in Aspen.
I would like to see what the plan is for the space between the HHS building and the new barn. Would also like to see story poles showing the height of the new building.

Name not shown inside District 1 October 9, 2017, 8:49 AM

Which design concepts do you like best? Prioritize your favorites below.
Concept 1, Concept 2, Concept 4, Concept 3


Please give us your feedback on the four architectural concepts for the new Aspen Ambulance Station to be located next to the Pitkin County Health and Human Services building in Aspen.
None of the options appear timeless. They'll look dated and "2017 contemporary" in a very short time. Please use materials that age well.

Name not shown inside District 1 October 6, 2017, 11:59 AM

Which concept do you like best?
Concept 2


Which design concepts do you like best? Prioritize your favorites below.
Concept 2, Concept 1, Concept 3, Concept 4


Please give us your feedback on the four architectural concepts for the new Aspen Ambulance Station to be located next to the Pitkin County Health and Human Services building in Aspen.
The massing of Concept 2 provides a strong identity for the building. The darker material that wraps the mass anchors the building to the site and the wood cladding provides warmth and relief to the facade.

Name not shown inside District 1 October 6, 2017, 11:51 AM

Which concept do you like best?
Concept 2


Which design concepts do you like best? Prioritize your favorites below.
Concept 2, Concept 3, Concept 1, Concept 4

John Edwards inside District 3 October 3, 2017, 5:36 PM

Pitkin county connect
Re: airport improvement Environmental assessment
October 3, 2017

I am opposed to the airport improvements for the following environmental reason:

The expansion will impact the sensitive area including but not limited to wildlife, sensitive zones: wetlands, water flow, noise, and pollution.
In addition, there is missing information due to assumptions that have not been articulate. For example, there are no noise measurements taken in flight pattern 7 to 14 miles away. The residue or unburned jet fuel has not been measured in this zone, as the high elevation of the runway created engine inefficiency.

I am opposed to the terminal expansion:
The expansion will impact the sensitive area including but not limited to Wildlife, sensitive zones: wetlands, water flow, noise and pollution.

The economic projections regarding this project in my opinion use old data from the 2013 economic impact study for Colorado airports (new data will be surveyed in 2018). And is not a representative sample due to the seasonal nature of the airport. Skier visits are also flat or only slightly increasing. Traffic may be impacted.

In addition, weather (wind, temperature and visibility) and altitude and weight of aircraft will reduce safety concerns. In an event of a large/ full bigger plane crash, medical facilities would be strained and perhaps insufficient to handle an event that I pray will never happen, (see 2002 private jet crash that killed 18 people).

Please refer to the 2012 Airport Master plan for addition concerns of those who live in this valley or visit Aspen (there was an environment assessment in that report).

Finally, the public needs more time to comment on this E I hearing. The notification was fair at best. FYI October 3, 2017 is Tuesday not Monday as stated in the documentation. Please allow more time for others to comment or reconsider this project for all of the stated reasons.

Sincerely

John Edwards
jedwards.bks@gmail.com

Name not shown inside District 1 October 3, 2017, 5:14 PM

Aspen has said again and again in its community plans that it wants to be a tourism-driven and resort-based economy. Maintaining air service is critical to that. Anyone who advocates preventing the improvements to our runway and airport that will allow the next generation of aircraft does not have our community's true interests at heart. Yes, the next generation of aircraft will have wider wingspans. They will also be quieter and more fuel efficient. Aspen's original airport was a central piece to bringing Aspen out of the Quiet Years and establishing our resort economy. Truly, it helped make Aspen, Aspen. Please allow the airport to take the next necessary step in its evolution. This would mean a runway expansion that accommodates the next generation of the same types of aircraft we have now (which, again, will be slightly bigger and may carry nominally more passengers) and a design that presents a terminal to our guests that is safe and scaled appropriately to handle a busy winter day that may include a backlog of passengers due to cancelled flights. The current plan accomplishes both of these goals reasonably.

Bill Tomcich outside County Districts October 3, 2017, 2:24 PM

As an individual who has closely monitored and has been involved with commercial air service into this valley since 1995, I have learned how important it is to plan for the future. While visitors and locals are currently enjoying the greatest variety of flight options, connections and competition this airport has ever seen, there is currently just one operator flying one aircraft type into the Aspen Airport for all three commercial airlines, and no new CRJ700’s have been manufactured or delivered since 2011. By the year 2031, those newest CRJ700’s will be twenty years old and nearing the end of their practical life span while the vast majority of CRJ700’s will already have been retired from commercial service.

As identified in the EA, there are a variety of new generation regional and small narrow-body aircraft that will be able to operate at ASE, and some of them will be in service by next year. Some of these aircraft are larger than the current 70 passenger regional jets currently serving the market, while all of these aircraft will be quieter and more efficient than any commercial aircraft that have served ASE in the past or present. However, because of the new efficiencies in modern wing design, none of these new aircraft that are expected to enter service over the next five years will have wingspans that are within ASE’s current 95’ wingspan restriction.

Airport staff and the consultant team have put an extraordinary amount of work into planning for the future, and the plans for both runway improvements and a new terminal building will allow for the continuation of commercial air service as we now know it. The Aspen Airport is an economic lifeline for the business community of this resort based economy and is unquestionably one of the key competitive advantages of this resort destination, and there are many businesses who share my strong support of these essential proposed airport improvements.

Nancy MacKenzie inside District 3 October 2, 2017, 10:48 PM

“The Woody Creek Caucus contact the airport officials and the county commissioners informing them that the current environmental assessment does not take into account the specific conditions of a high altitude narrow mountain valley and that we request an independent and unbiased study that includes; air quality, emergency response, and noise issues in accordance with our Master Plan.”

We are contacting you now because at the May 27, 2017 monthly meeting of the Woody Creek Caucus the above motion concerning the current environmental assessment of the Pitkin County Airport was unanimously approved.
As background information for you, Resolution No. PZ 2016-08 of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the 2016 Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan. We request that you become familiar with Chapter 2* which is specifically addresses our concerns with the Pitkin County Airport.
The Woody Creek Caucus supports the existing curfew, safety restrictions on GA aircraft, current operating hours, and noise abatement restrictions. We also support variable takeoff headings so that no one neighborhood receives all the noise impacts. We support future elimination of Stage 2 aircraft and do not support expansion of facilities that would allow louder, larger, and heavier aircraft, to use the airport. We strongly support a cap of 125,000 pounds gross weight for aircraft using Sardy Field.
We continue to support safe operation of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport and all efforts to minimize impacts on residents of Woody Creek and the surrounding area. Our airport should be sized to our small mountain community, in keeping with the rural character of the resort.
The Caucus is concerned that, while the future air service planning study supports airport expansion, it fails to study alternatives that relate to the health, welfare, safety and capacity of our valley. Therefore, we recommend that the Environmental Assessment and any ultimate decision regarding airport improvements consider alternatives. Develop an alternative that limits the airport to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than a maximum 125,000 pounds. Because of our altitude and the nature of our topography, larger airplanes would create unacceptable burdens of noise and toxic pollutants for the many residents near the airport and for many miles down valley.
In general, we believe that bringing more air traffic to Sardy Field is not in the best interest of the community. The valley is too confined. In addition, the airport is dangerously close to Aspen, the North Forty neighborhood, and large-scale events at Buttermilk. Emergency response in our narrow valley is a continued concern. Even now there is no way we could handle an emergency such as happened March 29, 2001 when a chartered business jet crashed near Shale Bluffs and all three crew members and fifteen passengers on board perished.
It has become increasingly evident that the restricted air space in the Aspen area creates a conflict between ever-increasing numbers of private aircraft and commercial service. Large numbers of private aircraft should not be allowed to crowd out commercial flights. This is one more example that one size does not fit all situations. The FAA should modify its regulations in the case of an airport with a single runway located in a confined, high altitude, narrow valley.
2*
WOODY CREEK CAUCUS MASTER PLAN 2016

Pitkin County Airport
Policy Statement:

The Woody Creek Caucus supports the existing curfew, safety restrictions on GA aircraft, current operating hours, and noise abatement restrictions. We also support variable takeoff headings so that no one neighborhood receives all the noise impacts. We support future elimination of Stage 2 aircraft and do not support expansion of facilities that would allow louder, larger, and heavier aircraft, such as the 737, to use the airport. We strongly support a cap of 125,000 pounds gross weight for aircraft using Sardy Field.

We continue to support safe operation of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport and all efforts to minimize impacts on residents of Woody Creek and the surrounding area. Our airport should be sized to our small mountain community, in keeping with the rural character of the resort.

Current status:
Sardy Field is a valuable asset of the people of Pitkin County. The airport is a vitally important facility for the economy of the area, for the way we function as a whole community, and as a major link in the transportation chain of the Roaring Fork Valley. Even so, in its growth and development over the past decades, the airport has become a source of controversy. In view of the fact that Woody Creek is one of the affected communities directly under the flight path, we have in the past been a voice in this controversy and are concerned with noise impacts, air pollution impacts, and safety considerations.


Current airport planning:

Due to constant pressure from the business community and other special interest groups, there has been a prolonged effort to expand Sardy Field into a state-of-the-art, urban-style airport. The Caucus views the justification and predictions of future needs for this massive expansion with skepticism. Ultimately, it may not be in the best interests of the community at large, including Woody Creek.

Beginning in 2010, a study was commissioned by the Pitkin County Commissioners and airport personnel on the adequacy of the airport terminal facilities for the future. Past studies have consistently overestimated the projected number of passengers using the airport. Although airport use remained relatively flat over the past fifteen years, according to airport records, the study predicted significant passenger increases in the next 20 years, and therefore a need for a new $80 to $100-million-dollar terminal. The Pitkin County commissioners have approved this new terminal with the adoption of the 2012 Airport Master Plan. The County intends to conduct a multi-phased design process for this facility, which is to include comprehensive public input prior to construction.

Predictably, there is now a follow-up study, “The ASE Future Air Service Planning Study,” that recommends expanding and strengthening the airport runways and allows for a second FBO operation, so as to increase air service to the airport, especially GA. The technical phases 1 and 2 of the study to expand the airport to the west were made with no public input, and specifically, no contact with the Woody Creek Caucus. Phase 3 is now in progress, calling for an Environmental Analysis as well as public input.
However, the choices for the expansion and operation of the airport, which will be presented to the public, are limited to the results of Technical Phases 1 and 2.

The claim of the “ASE Future Air Service Planning Study” is that, without a $120 million to $130 million expansion of the runway to accept a new generation of airplanes, Aspen will not have a viable service after 2021.

Concerns of the Community:
The Woody Creek Caucus is skeptical of the claim that there will not be a viable commercial service after 2021 without a huge expansion. Just in 2012, The Airport Master Plan stated that “no change will be made in the existing prohibitions on (1) aircraft with wingspans greater than 95 feet, and (2) aircraft weighing more than 100,000 pounds maximum gross landing weight.” However, it has recently been revealed that the FAA did not accept this portion of the Master Plan.

We are opposed to a larger, urban-style airport close to the center of Aspen, with all of the negative impacts this could bring to Woody Creek and the community at large. The increased traffic of larger, heavier, more intrusive airplanes will dramatically increase the discomfort of the many residents around the airport and in the flight path. It would be yet another step in Aspen’s path toward commercialization and the loss of Aspen’s unique character.

The airspace and mountainous surrounds of the narrow valley at the entrance to Aspen is a constant. A larger airport will certainly increase the pressure on this environment and on the people who live in the valley. There will be more noise, more air pollution, more safety concerns, and more competition in our limited airspace between commercial and GA aircraft.

In an issue of Snow Magazine some years ago, an article by Andrew Nemethy describes a theory about the rise and decline of tourist towns, which even 25 years ago was being seen in resorts east and west. The resort starts as an attractive small town with amenities and natural environments that attract many to settle there. These places are often small, with low traffic, low taxes, and a strong sense of community, set in a lovely rural landscape. Growth moratoriums are gradually put in place, with the result of raising the cost of real estate. The cost and the cost of living also rise and become too high for many residents. They must now travel to shop for basic needs. Traffic jams and higher rents – residential and commercial -- drive out the locals. As improved infrastructure is deemed necessary for all the traffic, taxes rise. New schools, hotels, and hospitals are required to serve the upscale population.

This is a common pattern of development in desirable resort areas, including the Roaring Fork Valley. We in Woody Creek would like to put on the brakes and preserve some of the character of old Aspen and the appeal of the ski resort lifestyle.

The local economy has become less driven by tourism and local residents than by construction and development or redevelopment and luxury maintenance. Suddenly the community needs an excessive amount of architects, planners, lawyers, designers, contractors, and trades people.

Our government continues to grow, and it demands more taxes and more bureaucracy to keep pace with the growth. None of the decisions that create growth are based on the character of the town we want. Rather, they are based on the need to keep people who have moved here for economic reasons employed. Government and the commercial infrastructure have to keep growing.

The perceived need to keep the tourist base ever growing creates an onerous spiral in which quantity overwhelms quality. Prices on businesses and real estate keep rising. Homes just built are remodeled every several years. Chain stores replace small, locally owned shops. Prices go so high that locals don’t even bother to shop locally. Our town begins to look like a small version of Los Angeles, New York, or Dallas. Folks don’t mingle, and the sense of neighborliness has disappeared. The appeal and character are destroyed.
People leave. Corporations arrive.

Summary of the Airport Chapter:
The Caucus is concerned that, while the future air service planning study supports airport expansion, it fails to study alternatives that relate to the health, welfare, safety and capacity of our valley. Therefore, we recommend that the EA and any ultimate decision regarding airport improvements include consideration of the following alternatives:
A. Develop an alternative which assumes airplanes currently serving the Aspen market or their equivalent will continue to be available beyond 2021;
And/or
B. Develop an alternative that limits the airport to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than a maximum 125,000 pounds.

Because of our altitude and the nature of our topography, larger airplanes would create unacceptable burdens of noise and toxic pollutants for the many residents near the airport and for many miles down valley. Large airplanes such as 737s would severely impact the livability of the upper Roaring Fork Valley forever.
Furthermore, our Alternative B is critical because the Aspen community does not have a large enough emergency capability or the infrastructure to manage a mishap involving larger airplanes.

1. We are also concerned that runway expansion and strengthening to allow for larger regional commercial airplanes will open the airport to larger, heavier and louder aircraft, both commercial and private. The community has been promised for many years by various government boards that no 737-type aircraft would be allowed to use the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. If this promise is not kept, the impacts of noise and air pollution, as well as growth generation, will be greatly increased.
Larger aircraft such as the 737 require much larger and noisier engines. The Roaring Fork Valley would be changed forever if these heavy aircraft were allowed to operate here.

If the airport must ultimately accept new regional jets, these should be limited to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than 125,000 pounds. The FAA should recognize that one size does not fit all. An airport at 8,000 feet in a narrow valley is in a very different environment than one on the plains at a lower altitude. Our valley has confined airspace, numerous homes around the airport and in the flight path, and decreased air circulation, resulting in more air pollution. The Aspen community should require flexibility in how the airport is operated, and not be forced to accept a standard that will damage the community and cause severe discomfort to its citizens.

2. Our list of concerns includes but is not limited to:

• Noise abatement.
"As with most rural resort environments with low ambient noise levels, any noise emissions, especially during the evening hours, are a serious local environmental concern. Woody Creek is no exception. In addition, Aspen may be unique as a result of the increased sound transmissions in a low-humidity, high-altitude, valley-constricted environment."
-Brad Christopher, former airport manager

• Light pollution
• Air pollution. Jet fuel, the most toxic of pollutants, is often strongly present in our valley.
• Larger, heavier, louder aircraft
• Flight hazards. This valley is a problematic location for increased air traffic
• Encouragement of growth from overbuilding the airport Increases in airport traffic will require commensurate growth in accommodations and accompanying development.
• Degradation of our community’s character

3. In general, we believe that bringing more air traffic to Sardy Field is not in the best interest of the community. The valley is too confined. In addition, the airport is dangerously close to Aspen, the North Forty neighborhood, and large-scale events at Buttermilk.

4. The new terminal is out of balance with the projected long-term population growth. A larger airport with more capacity will drive development.

5. Since the rationale for enlarging the airport is to enable it to accommodate the new generation of commercial regional jets, it should be possible for the commercial airlines to maintain their schedules. It has become increasingly evident that the restricted air space in the Aspen area creates a conflict between ever-increasing numbers of private aircraft and commercial service. Large numbers of private aircraft should not be allowed to crowd out commercial flights. This is one more example that one size does not fit all situations. The FAA should modify its regulations in the case of an airport with a single runway located in a confined, high altitude, narrow valley.

Thank you for your consideration of the concerns of Woody Creek.
Woody Creek Caucus
Nancy MacKenzie, Moderator
nancy_bill_mackenzie@yahoo.com

Bert Myrin inside District 2 September 27, 2017, 9:52 AM

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I support the current flight curfew going forward. I am concerned about the potential for larger commercial and private jets. I support “The Ridge” terminal area improvement because the exterior appearance is smaller in scale, with a low profile roof that hugs the landscape. Additionally the open interior makes wayfinding intuitive and the enormous windows provide a sense of place that is unique to Aspen.

If it were up to me (which it’s not), I’d support all improvements proposed except those necessary to accommodate larger jets. The projection of 74,190 additional annual visitors in 2033 with the runway project seems incompatible with maintaining the small town character of Aspen. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. - Bert Myrin