My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ute Water 1996 WCPlan
CWCB
>
Water Conservation
>
Backfile
>
Ute Water 1996 WCPlan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2011 1:15:52 PM
Creation date
9/30/2006 9:02:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Conservation
Project Type
Water Conservation Plan
Project Name
Ute Water Conservancy District Water Conservation Plan
Title
Conservation Master Plan
Date
7/9/1996
County
Mesa
Water Conservation - Doc Type
Complete Plan
Document Relationships
Ute Water 1996 WCPlan Approval Ltr
(Message)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
Ute Water 1996 WCPlan Proof of Notice
(Message)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
Ute Water 1996 WCPlan WorkPlan
(Message)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />., I I <br /> <br />City ot Grand Junction Community Development Department <br />Mesa County Planning Commission <br />August 25, 1994 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />ownership, to a Homeownerls Association, or to a property <br />management group. When the size of the project warrants settling <br />ponds, pump basins or substantial capital outlay for construction, <br />the developer might be credited those amenities or expenses <br />against the "common open space" or "parks" requirements. <br /> <br />Exceptions to this general requirement of providing <br />irrigation facilities should be granted only when irrigation water <br />is unattainable or cost prohibitive and, in such cases, strong <br />covenants should be established which limit the type and extent of <br />plantings allowable. Exceptions should not include arguments of a <br />Developer relative to increased project cost. Project cost, all <br />project costs, are passed on to the ultimate property <br />purchaser(s). All project costs associated with infrastructure <br />udd value to the property. And, the availability of a non-potable <br />~ater supply for landscaping is in the long range best economical <br />:interests of both the general public and the specific property <br />:owner. <br /> <br />Both the City and County personnel include individuals <br />~ell-qualified to review and determine the adequacy of irrigation <br />3ystem design and evaluate the ease or accessability of system <br />Dtilization and maintenance. <br /> <br />" The intent here is to encourage efficient use of a vi tal <br />=esource, thereby improving the quality of life in our community <br />7'or today and tomorrow. <br /> <br />'~, <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br /> <br />3incerely, <br /> <br />~ t ~~~~~ <br />~awrence Aubert, Gener:cd Maua':ler ----.-~ <br />~te Water Conservancy District <br /> <br />=..A/CES/rlc <br /> <br />~c: Grand Junction City Council <br />Mesa County Board of Commissioners <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.