_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (249)

Home Browse Search

FROM :NRTURNL RESOURCES SEC. 303 866 3SS8 199S.12-13 14:36 #712 P.04/07 Cheryl A. Linden December 13 , 1995 - Page 2 any land use approvals by Pitkin County" (emphasis in the original) . Similarly, Sanwa' a October 23 loan commitment was not conditioned on. PUT) approval by Pitkin County, and instead was conditioned on agreement with the DMG "as to the credit for previous reclamation work performed and as to the allocation of loan proceeds to the reclamation required on Resources• Preparation Plant Tract and a projected timetable for completion of such reclamation. " The reason that MCR' s 1oAn proposal was not conditioned on development approval from Pitkin County is that MCR has an existing right to subdivide the mine site into 25 adre parcels. MCR has proposed a LAUD which would reduce the minimum size -of development parcels to 30 acres, in exchange for the Creation of open spaces and the development of public access and recreational 'opportunities pursuant to a management plan to be approved by USFS and the County. There appears to be aubstantial support from the Coal Basin Task Force for the PUD proposal. However, there also appears to be oppositions to the proposal from some citizens who would prefer that the property remain undeveloped and be purchased by USFS or some other public entity. MCR has no indication that USFS is willing and able to purchase the property. Thus, MCR believes that preservation of the property in an undeveloped state is not a realistic option. Tf it appears that the PUD approach will encounter substantial opposition, the likeliest outcome is that MGR will abandon the PUD and simply proceed with a subdivision of the property into . 35 acre parcels. There are no governmental impediments to such action. The comments regarding the reclamation plan outlined in Diane Delaney`s September B memo are not specifically geared to the PUD proposal, but also are consistent with a subdivision of the property into 3S acre parcels. Moreover, the items in that memo are environmentally sound and consistent with the objectives of.the reclamation plan and applicable reclamation law. ma- Delaney is preparing an additional memo to the nMG, to be sent under separate cover, explaining the reasons for the clarifications outlined in her September 8 memo. gize of Proposed Loan. Your 96vember 6 letter notes that the anticipated proceeds from the land exchanges is about $1.4 million, and that the amount needed to satisfy Class S, 6, and 9 claims is about $1.9 million_ You inquired as to why MCR proposed to borrow $2 million at this time. E-d dOSS3r I tt34'M WdLV';2; S6, ET :)X