Laserfiche WebLink
1 good chance osuccess in revegetation, although it' s prob- <br /> 2 ably going to be somewhat slow in developing. I don' t see <br /> 3 any other problems elsewhere in the application. I think <br /> 4 this is an opportunity to bring about some pretty good res4-a <br /> 5 mation on some rather severly disturbed land right now. We <br /> 6 do have, we did receive 3 objections, 3 letters of objection. <br /> 7 The first letter of objection on top there is the one from Mr. <br /> 8 Curd, the Denver Rio Grand Railroad. Basically what this <br /> 9 does is it comments on the requirement of the 1'h to 1 slopes <br /> 10 along the right of way, the plan calls for 2 to 1, the main <br /> 11 thrust of the objection Mr. Kerd indicated regards this cross- <br /> 12 ing here. I want to point out that the crossing here is not <br /> 13 part of the affected land so it' s not part of the "access" as <br /> 14 we define it. Ok, the 2nd letter from Mrs. Glenn Schmidt. <br /> 15RT: Wait a minute, you went over that slope real quickly. You <br /> 16 said the plan is for . . . <br /> 17MH: 2 to 1 slopes. <br /> 18RT: and Mr. Curd wanted to be . . . . <br /> 19MH: 1'k. <br /> 20 RT: Greater than 1'h. <br /> 21MH: Yeah, the steepest would be a 12�. <br /> 22RT: So you' re satisfied with 2: 1? <br /> 23MH: The second letter is from Mrs. Glenn Schmidt. There was a <br /> 24 address mixup in the public notice. Apparently there was <br /> 25 some confusion over the county records and surveys as to what <br /> 26 the proper address was. The legal description in the notice <br /> 27 is correct, but the address is apparently in error. <br /> 28 RW: Is that a technicality that she' s concerned with? <br /> 29MH: Yea, I think so, she apparently, this is her address. <br /> -4- <br />