Development Team Review Comments

The following comments have been provided by reviewers of your land use application. At this

time, a resubmittal of your application is required before this case is ready to be scheduled for

public hearing.

To prepare your resubmittal, you will be expected to provide:

• A response to each comment with a description of the revisions and the page of the

response on the site plan;

• Any revised plans or renderings; and

• A list identifying any additional changes made to the original submission other than those

required by staff.

Resubmittal documents must be provided in person to the One-Stop Customer Service Center of

the Community and Economic Development Department. The following items will be expected

by our One-Stop Customer Service Center:

• One paper copy of all new materials

o Paper copies shall not excced 11”x17” (exception shall be made only for

construction drawings or engineering plan review)

o All paper copies shall be accompanied by the attached Resubmittal Form

• One digital copy of all new materials

o All digital materials shall be in a single PDF document

o The single PDF document shall be bookmarked

o If a Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Legal Description, or Development

Agreement is required, then an additional Microsoft Word version of these

documents shall also be provided

Re-submittal Form

Case Name/ Number: _______________________________________

Case Manager: _______________________________________

Re-submitted Items:

Development Plan/ Site Plan

Plat

Parking/ Landscape Plan

Engineering Documents

Subdivision Improvements Agreement

Other: ___________________________

* All re-submittals must have this cover sheet and a cover letter addressing review comments.

Please note the re-submittal review period is 21 days.

The cover letter must include the following information: Restate each comment that requires a response Provide a response below the comment with a description of the revisions Identify any additional changes made to the original document

For County Use Only:

Date Accepted:

Staff (accepting intake):

Resubmittal Active: Addressing, Building Safety, Neighborhood Services,

Engineering, Environmental, Parks, Planner, ROW, SIA - Finance, SIA - Attorney

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAIL PARK FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Project Name:

PRC2019-00012Project Number:

Date: 3/3/2020

Development Review Team Comments

Page 1 of 10

03/03/2020

Commenting Division:

Name of Reviewer: Nick Eagleson

Date:

Email:

Plan Coordination 2nd Review

PRC2019-00012 Round 2 Comments:PLN01: Identify the section in the SIA regarding future access to the CASP?PLN02: There will need to be a condition of approval regarding the portion of ADCO property at the southwest corner for a future “Spur.”PLN03: The value of the land will need to be appraised in order to calculate the appropriate Parkland fees. The purchase price cannot be used in this case. As an alternative, you can have the land appraised and provide a copy of the appraisal, showing if the assessed value comes in under the Counties amount. Please Identify the section in the SIA regarding the Parkland dedication. PLN04: The alternative to the walking path/trail around the perimeter of the site is to pay cash-in-lieu. That same cash-in-lieu is also being proposed for the Parkland dedication calculation. A different alternative should be explored, since this was part of the approval of the PDP. Per Section 3-29-03-05-06 of the County’s Development Standards and Regulations, a minimum of 30% open space is required in all PUDs. Section 3-29-03-05-03 specifies that 25% of this required open space must be designated for active recreation purposes. During the preliminary approval process, a total of 33.71 acres of active recreation was being proposed. Due to the perimeter trail going away for safety concerns, please provide a calculation showing the amount of open space, as well as the amount of active recreation now being proposed. Please also show and label any of these areas on the FDP.PLN05: A condition will need to be added that RMRP will be responsible for mosquito abatement, should it become necessary. PLN06: Remove Sheets 9-11 and sheets 13-15. They do not need to be a part of the FDP package.PLN07: There should be a landscaping page(s) that outlines the overall landscaping, including berming and trees around the entire perimeter.Final Development Plan:PLN08: On Page 1:• Add Project number PRC2019-00012 to the upper right corner of the page.• Change the year under both signature blocks to 2020.PLN9: On Page 2 (some of these items are to help clean up the clutter):• Under Project Concept, change language to reflect “Colorado Air and Space Port.”• Under Project Narrative, make sure Petterson has two T’s. Delete Item F.• Under Lot Development Standards, remove any section numbers, since they will more than likely change in the future. One section number currently references TOD standards. • Under Setbacks, why is there a bullet point that reads, “A PUD Amendment will not be required tofurther subdivide the lots shown within the PUD?” This should be removed.• Under Tract Development Guidelines:o List the actual street name instead of “Street A.”o Replace “airport” with “Spaceport.”o In the second paragraph, it mentions no berm or landscaping on western edge along the Spaceportproperty. There needs to be a berm and landscaping in this area as well. There will be future development on the Spaceport in this area, so future screening from any potential outdoor storage will be important.

Resubmittal Required

Page 2 of 10

o Landscaping should be Tract specific and should be separated out on the plans, so it’s clear how eachTract will look.• Lighting and Signage are handled under the design standards, so you could consider leaving them off the FDP and make it less cluttered.

Page 3 of 10

02/27/2020

Commenting Division:

Name of Reviewer: Katie Keefe

Date:

Email:

Environmental Analyst Review 2nd Review

Complete

02/26/2020

Commenting Division:

Name of Reviewer: Nick Eagleson

Date:

Email:

ROW Review 2nd Review

ROW1: In regards to your comment response for ROW6, the County does not work with other jurisdictions for right of way dedications. There is a group at City of Aurora that will help the applicant get through the process. Right of way dedications are required with subdivision plats. A road way maintenance agreement would not work here, those are for building and maintaining roads in county right of way.

Resubmittal Required

02/10/2020

Commenting Division:

Name of Reviewer: Nick Eagleson

Date:

Email:

Application Intake 2nd Review

Complete

Page 5 of 10

Good afternoon, Nick: Thank you for submitting this referral to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Please note that the following requirements and recommendations are not intended to be an exhaustive list and it is ultimately the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all applicable rules and regulations. Please also note that CDPHE’s failure to respond to any referrals should not be construed as a favorable response. Water Quality The applicant must comply with all applicable water quality rules and regulations. The Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) administers regulatory programs that are generally designed to help protect both Colorado’s natural water bodies (the clean water program) and built drinking water systems. Applicants must comply with all applicable water quality rules and regulations relating to both clean water and drinking water. All water quality regulations are available here: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/water-quality-control-commission-regulations. WQCD indicated that they are already working with the applicant on this project and they do not have any comments to provide at this local referral stage. Hazardous and Solid Waste The applicant must comply with all applicable hazardous and solid waste rules and regulations. Hazardous waste regulations are available here: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/hwregs. Solid waste regulations are available here: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/swregs. Applicable requirements may include, but are not limited to, properly characterizing all wastes generated from this project and ensuring they are properly managed and disposed of in accordance with Colorado’s solid and hazardous waste regulations. If this proposed project processes, reclaims, sorts, or recycles recyclable materials generated from industrial operations (including, but not limited to construction and demolition debris and other recyclable materials), then it must register as an industrial recycling facility in accordance with Section 8 of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations. The industrial recycling registration form is available here: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/sw-recycling-forms-apps.

If you have any questions regarding hazardous and/or solid waste, please contact CDPHE’s Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (HMWMD) by emailing comments.hmwmd@state.co.us or calling 303-692-3320. Air Quality

The applicant must comply with all relevant state and federal air quality rules and regulations. Air quality regulations are available here: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs. Applicable requirements may include, but are not limited to, reporting emissions to the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) by completing an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice (APEN). An APEN is a two in one form for reporting air emissions and obtaining an air permit, if a permit will be required. While only businesses that exceed the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) reporting thresholds are required to report their emissions, all businesses - regardless of emission amount - must always comply with applicable AQCC regulations. In general, an APEN is required when uncontrolled actual emissions for an emission point or group of emission points exceed the following defined emission thresholds:

Table 1 APEN Thresholds

Pollutant Category UNCONTROLLED ACTUAL EMISSIONS

Attainment Area Non-attainment Area

Criteria Pollutant 2 tons per year 1 ton per year

Lead 100 pounds per year 100 pounds per year

Non-Criteria Pollutant 250 pounds per year 250 pounds per year Uncontrolled actual emissions do not take into account any pollution control equipment that may exist. A map of the Denver Metropolitan Ozone Non-attainment area can be found at: http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/ss_map_wm.aspx. In addition to these reporting thresholds, a Land Development APEN (Form APCD-223) may be required for land development. Under Colorado air quality regulations, land development refers to all land clearing activities, including but not limited to land preparation such as excavating or grading, for residential, commercial or industrial development. Land development activities release fugitive dust, a pollutant regulation by the Division. Small land development activities are not subject to the same reporting and permitting requirements as large land activities. Specifically, land development activities that are less than 25 contiguous acres and less than 6 months in duration do not need to report air emissions to APCD. It is important to note that even if a permit is not required, fugitive dust control measures included the Land Development APEN Form APCD-223 must be followed at the site. Fugitive dust control techniques commonly included in the plan are included in the table below. Control Options for Unpaved Roadways

Watering Use of chemical stabilizer Paving Controlling vehicle speed Graveling

Control Options for Mud and Dirt Carry-Out Onto Paved Surfaces

Gravel entry ways Washing vehicle wheels Covering the load Not overfilling trucks

Control Options for Disturbed Areas

Watering Application of a chemical stabilizer Revegetation Controlling vehicle speed Compaction Furrowing the soil Wind Breaks Minimizing the areas of disturbance Synthetic or Natural Cover for Slopes

Additional information on APENs and air permits can be found at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/air/do-you-need-an-apen. This site explains the process to obtain APENs and air quality permits, as well as information on calculating emissions, exemptions, and additional requirements. You may also view AQCC Regulation Number 3 at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs for the complete regulatory language. If you have any questions regarding Colorado’s APEN or air permitting requirements or are unsure whether your business operations emit air pollutants, please call the Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) at 303- 692-3175 or 303-692-3148. If you have more general questions about air quality, please contact CDPHE’s APCD by emailing cdphe.commentsapcd@state.co.us or calling 303-692-3100.

Health Equity and Environmental Justice CDPHE notes that certain projects have potential to impact vulnerable minority and low-income communities. It is our strong recommendation that your organization consider the potential for disproportionate environmental and health impacts on specific communities within the project scope and if so, take action to mitigate and minimize those impacts. This includes interfacing directly with the communities in the project area to better understand community perspectives on the project and receive feedback on how it may impact them during development and construction as well as after completion. We have included some general resources for your reference. Resources: CDPHE’s Health Equity Resources CDPHE’s Checking Assumptions to Advance Equity EPA’s Environmental Justice and NEPA Resources Best, Sean Hackett Energy Liaison

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246 Office Phone 303.692.3662 | Cell Phone 303.692.3662 sean.hackett@state.co.us | www.colorado.gov/cdphe

Siting and Land Rights

Right of Way & Permits

1123 West 3rd Avenue Denver, Colorado 80223

Telephone: 303.571.3306 Facsimile: 303. 571. 3284

donna.l.george@xcelenergy.com February 28, 2020 Adams County Community and Economic Development Department 4430 South Adams County Parkway, 3rd Floor, Suite W3000 Brighton, CO 80601 Attn: Nick Eagleson Re: Rocky Mountain Rail Park - 2nd referral, Case # PRC2019-00012 Public Service Company of Colorado’s Right of Way & Permits Referral Desk acknowledges the comment responses for Rocky Mountain Rail Park and advises the property owner/developer/contractor to continue working with the Designer assigned to the project for approval of design details. Donna George Right of Way and Permits Public Service Company of Colorado dba Xcel Energy Office: 303-571-3306 – Email: donna.l.george@xcelenergy.com

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Nick Eagleson and Adams County Planning Commission Members

FROM: Richard R. Follmer, PE, PTOE

DATE: March 3, 2020

SUBJECT: Rocky Mountain Rail Park

_______________________________________________________________________________

Members of the Planning Commission – on behalf of TransPort Colorado, I provide the following comments related to the traffic elements of the Rocky Mountain Rail Park (RMRP) development proposal. As information, I’ve been working with TransPort Colorado to prepare their Traffic Impact Study which is being processed through the City of Aurora. As such, I’m familiar with the roadway network in the vicinity of both of these sites. Following are comments I would like to bring to your attention.

But first, in a comment response letter from Enertia Consulting Group dated February 5, 2020, page 16 alludes to an updated traffic study. FHU has only had the opportunity to review it at Adams County offices briefly; we do not have a copy of the updated report for a more thorough review.

Trip Generation Estimates

• The estimate of employees at 2 per acre for the rail served properties seems to be low; TransPortColorado estimates 4 to 4.5 employees per acre for their rail served properties. We recognizethat making estimates for a site that may not have users identified yet is difficult. However, using areasonable floor-area-ratio (FAR) and basing the trip generation projections on building squarefootage may be a better approach. For example, if a 0.15 FAR is used to estimate building squarefootage instead, consistent with other industrial land uses, the trip generation estimates would bemuch higher. As such, the Rocky Mountain Rail Park may be underestimating the impact of theirIndustrial Park users. We have no issues with the trip generation estimates for the PavingOperations Plant since it is based on information from the actual user.

• RMRP trip estimates for the Industrial Park are based on the average rate of vehicle trip generationper employee. Even if the number of employees can be assumed to be accurate, there is sufficientdata in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ publication Trip Generation to use the fitted curveequation as the estimator for vehicle-trips. Using the fitted curve equation and 554 employees, it isfound that an additional 28% of vehicle-trips could be expected. As such, the calculation method iscompounding the issue raised in the first bullet.

Background Traffic Growth

A Background traffic growth rate of 5% has been used in the updated RMRP study; however, data included in the report appendices indicate that the NEATS Refresh modeling in this area would suggest an annual growth rate of 8%. As such, RMRP is likely underestimating the level of traffic in the area that could cause the need for additional improvements such as longer auxiliary lanes.

March 3, 2020 Memorandum to Nick Eagleson and Adams County Planning Commission Page 2

Operational Analyses

The updated RMRP report uses a heavy vehicle percentage of 2%; however, existing traffic volume data indicates that heavy vehicle percentages range from 10% to 15%. If a higher level of heavy vehicles are included in the operational analyses, auxiliary lanes will be longer and delay could increase. As evidence, the State Highway Access Code (Access Code) requires the use of 3 Passenger Car Equivalents for each heavy vehicle. As such, the operational analyses is likely not reporting accurate level of service results.

Infrastructure Requirements

While I’ve made comments on the trip generation method used in the RMRP traffic study, the main focus of this memorandum is to assure that the RMRP is responsible for their fair share of infrastructure improvements along the primary roadway system. Similar to TransPort Colorado, many of the RMRP trips will be to/from the I-70/Manila Road interchange. As such, we have the following comments related to roadway infrastructure:

• Figure 10 of the RMRP traffic study identifies that over 200 vehicle-trips in either the AM or PM peak hours will be added to the following movements:

o Northbound right-turn movement on Manila Road at US-36 (332 trips in the AM peak hour)

o Southbound right-turn movement on Manila Road at the westbound I-70 Ramp terminal (328 trips in the PM peak hour)

o Eastbound left-turn movement on the eastbound I-70 exit ramp onto Manila Road (271 trips in the AM peak hour)

It is recognized that RMRP is planning on constructing a right turn acceleration lane on US 36 for the right turn movement from Manila Road noted above. But what about a right turn deceleration lane on Manila Road? Without it, over 300 vehicle-trips in one hour will significantly hinder the potential for this intersection to absorb other traffic movements related to this regions land users, including but not limited to, the Colorado Air and Space Port and TransPort Colorado. We recommend that RMRP be responsible for the construction of a northbound right turn deceleration lane on Manila Road at US 36 so as to not hinder the northbound through and westbound left turn movements at this intersection. While it is recognized that Manila Road is not a state highway, the movements at the I-70 ramp terminals would require the installation of left and right turn auxiliary lanes if CDOT’s Access Code criteria were used. It is recognized that the RMRP is not the only contributor to traffic volumes for the I-70 movements, but they are increasing the existing traffic volume levels 6-8 fold and, therefore, should be responsible for some portion of improvements related to the installation of auxiliary lanes at these two ramp terminals. Input from CDOT on what responsibility the RMRP has for these movements is essential to the fair distribution of infrastructure costs.

Enertia Consulting Group Responses to Adams County Comments

COMMENT ENG12: I agree that the RMRP should have a proportional responsibility for improvements along the noted roadways. Adding more truck traffic to roadways that Adams County has noted as deficient only exacerbates the roadway surface issues. COMMENT 4 by Engineering (AC-ENG): I agree with the Adams County comments. Both the RMRP and TransPort Colorado are developing their properties concurrently and should, therefore, share the costs for infrastructure improvements that benefit both projects.

March 3, 2020 Memorandum to Nick Eagleson and Adams County Planning Commission Page 3

Comment 5 by Engineering (AC-ENG): The response by RMRP is surprising. Considering my comments above about the percentage or heavy vehicles already using the local roadway network, the development of the RMRP will only exacerbate the existing roadway condition. Again, we agree with Adams County that the RMRP should have a proportional share of responsibility for improvements to the existing roadway network. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

10333 East Dry Creek Road, Suite 240 | Englewood, Colorado 80112 | 720.482.9526 | www.cvlinc.net

March 3, 2020 Mr. Nick Eagleson Planner II Adams County 4430 South Adams County Parkway, Suite W2000A Brighton, Colorado 80601 Re: PRC2018-00006 – Rocky Mountain Rail Park

TransPort Colorado Consultant Response Dear Mr. Eagleson: The consultant team representing the TransPort Colorado project, which is located adjacent to the Colorado Air and Space Port with additional TransPort parcels located east of the Rocky Mountain Rail Park (RMRP) in Aurora, Colorado, has reviewed the responses to the Adams County comments provided by Enertia Consulting Group. We have identified items of concern which we have outlined below. We are aware that TransPort’s traffic engineer, FHU is also submitting a response regarding Adams County’s comments. The methodology utilized by RMRP’s traffic engineer in calculating the vehicle trips that will be generated by the RMRP will result in inequities in regional infrastructure construction cost participation, including the roadway infrastructure from the RMR project boundary to and including I-70 and Manila interchange improvements. We also want to ensure that the storm drainage conveyance through the RMRP project accommodate the stormwater flows mandated by the Mile High Flood District for Crooked Run Draw and from the TransPort parcels located East of Petterson Road. We offer the following input to specific Adams County comments. COMMENT PLN13: The proposed or constructed drainage improvements are adequate and comply with these standards and regulations. Concern/Coordination Needed: Please note that the Mile High Flood District has mandated that a stormwater flow conveyance of 1680 CFS must be accommodated by TransPort at the crossing of Manila Road at the current Crooked Run Draw discharge point on the westerly property line of the Colorado Air and Space Port (CASP) property. Adams County and the CASP should be aware of this mandate and consider the future impacts to the existing CASP infrastructure and the proposed downstream RMRP stormwater conveyance systems and associated rights of way or associated easement widths. There is a significant difference in the existing stormwater flow capacity from CASP into the RMRP site today and what MHFD will require for conveyance in the future. In preparation of the Master Drainage Report for TransPort, CVL Consultants has determined that approximately 327 CFS of historic stormwater flows westerly from TransPort drainage basin CR-P18 across Petterson Road south of 38th Avenue into RMRP. Approximately 330 CFS of historic stormwater flows from TransPort drainage basin CR-P17 westerly across Petterson Road south of 48th Avenue into RMRP. We respectfully request that the Adams County engineering department

2

reviews the TransPort Colorado and RMRP drainage studies to ensure compatible flow rates and cohesive culvert and channel conveyance design between the two projects. If Adams County has not obtained a copy of CVL’s reports through the City of Aurora referral process, CVL will provide a copy directly at the request of Adams County. We request that Adams County submits the RMRP construction drawings and the final drainage study available to the City of Aurora via a formal referral and City response, and if possible, make them available directly to TransPort Colorado and their consultants as well so we can collectively confirm contiguity of drainage design components between the two projects. COMMENT ENG12: The preliminary Traffic Impact Study showed necessary offsite roadway improvements between the site and the I-70 interchange. And, the existing condition of the asphalt in Manila Road, Pederson Road, and possibly Colfax Ave will not support heavy truck traffic or a significant increase in standard vehicle traffic. The FDP and final plat construction need to address these deficiencies as the current roadway network cannot support this development. The applicant will be required to improve these roadways to support this development. This issue needs to be addressed and resolved prior to scheduling the FDP/Final Plat hearings. Concern/Coordination Needed: We are in agreement with Adams County’s comment. Attached is a memo from the TransPort traffic engineer, FHU. FHU has identified concerns with what appear to be underestimated employee counts and traffic growth rates projected by the RMRP traffic report. The City of Aurora agrees with Adams County on the need for assessment of the Manila Road pavement structure integrity. Knowing that the RMPR and TransPort projects are being developed concurrently, the RMRP project should share in proportionate cost participation responsibilities for Manila Road improvements and the Manila Road and I-70 interchange improvements. COMMENT ENG13: Applicant is required to coordinate all public transportation improvements with the City of Aurora and the Transport Colorado development. Applicant shall schedule and attend meetings with the City and Adams County staff and, incorporate all necessary revisions into the Rocky Mountain Rail Park Construction documents. Concern/Coordination Needed: The RMRP representatives acknowledge Adams County as their lead in the coordination with the City of Aurora and TransPort Colorado. As of this submittal, the TransPort Colorado team is not aware of any Adams County mandate or official improvement agreement for the RMRP project to participate in appropriate and proportionate offsite improvements to Colfax Avenue, Manila Road and the Manila and I-70 interchange improvements. We respectfully request Adams County to work with the City of Aurora to ensure that appropriate employee counts and trip generation values are assigned to the RMRP and that agreements are executed to obligate RMRP to agreements reflecting that design criteria. Additional Comments – Engineering (AC-ENG) COMMENT 4: The applicant is required to include all available traffic count information and drainage design information from the Transport Colorado development, located in the City of Aurora, into their design studies and construction plans.

a. Coordination of the traffic and drainage data is to be done through the City of Aurora in collaboration with Adams County.

b. Applicants public improvement plans are required to anticipate, to the extent possible, any future public improvements required for the Transport Colorado development.

Concern/Coordination Needed: The TransPort Colorado team is in agreement with this statement. Please see our related concerns listed in COMMENT PLN13, COMMENT ENG12 and COMMENT ENG13 above. RMRP comments related to the RMRP project being “first” are not in

3

the spirit of equitable cost sharing for improvements required for the combination of these two projects which are being developed concurrently. COMMENT 5: The applicant is required to have the roadway sections for Pederson Road and Manilla Road analyzed for structural capacity.

a. The applicant will be required to improve the roadway sections of Pederson Road and Manilla Road to handle the traffic loading (i.e. trucks) anticipated in the Traffic Impact Study.

Concern/Coordination Needed: The TransPort Colorado team is in agreement with Adams County. The RMRP representatives’ response to this comment is not acceptable and completely ignores the comments by Adams County and is not in the spirit of cooperation with either Adams County and/or the TransPort Colorado project. The TransPort Colorado team thanks the Adams County staff for your continued work to coordinate the items above to create equity and to ensure that the Colorado Air and Space Port, TransPort Colorado and RMRP projects are a success. We look forward to working with Adams County and the Colorado Air and Space port to create world class projects. Sincerely, CVL Consultants of Colorado, Inc.

Karl E. Knapp, P.E. President

From: Keith & Kate SauderTo: Nick EaglesonSubject: Re: For Review: PRC2019-00012 Rocky Mtn. Rail Park ResubmittalDate: Thursday, February 13, 2020 3:38:30 PM

Please be cautious: This email was sent from outside Adams County

Hi Nick,

Thank you for sending this, and keeping us abreast of the proposed development. We note thatthe revised plans reflect detention ponds all along the east side of the southern parcel, whichdirectly border our property. The preliminary plans showed a single detention pond at thesoutheast corner of the southern parcel, which had been moved from the northeast cornerpartially due to our concerns as residential neighbors. We prefer the detention ponds remain atthe south end of the parcel, away from our home, but suspect that is not possible given thenatural gradient of the field. The lowest point of the entire southern parcel is northeast corneradjacent to our property; thus, we understand this may be unavoidable. We did not see anylandscaping plans in the documents you sent, but presume that the plans to line tracts J and K(detention ponds) with 10-20 foot berms complete with trees and shrubs, at least on the easternside bordering our property, remains in effect. We remember seeing earlier that RLC will alsobe responsible for mosquito abatement, should it become necessary. This is particularlyimportant to us with the expansion of the detention ponds so close to our home. Please let usknow if that has changed.

Otherwise, we remain neutral on this development - not supportive, as we simply like thingsthe way they are, but also not against, as RLC has been considerate of us as they plan and havedone their best to minimize any adverse impacts.

Sincerely,Keith & Kate Sauder

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:58 PM Nick Eagleson <NEagleson@adcogov.org> wrote:

Good Afternoon,

Please review the attached resubmittal items for the Rocky Mountain Rail Park Final Platand Final Development Plan.

Please submit any comments by Tuesday, March 3rd.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,