Laserfiche WebLink
s'-WM-: <br />m-w <br />>Ci>A <br />y,i <br />l»'''v :'♦B. <br />H:: <br />Ps: <br />r. <br />t- <br />.■ <br />Hc^i^ <br />^i.. <br />m^x-: <br />m^:' <br />te*i^'' <br />rn'r :■ <br />?*“/■: >■ . <br />-r'-^ <br />mm' <br />,.v<,'' ■■ <br />^n'.C' <br />#-r. - <br />[f’: <br />jwrf.r <br />?VH{..''' <br />WrX'i- <br />kf';, '.'■ <br />'■Sf!!-w- <br />il’J <br />p-W,\Pm. <br />il^Vy f <br />W‘TMemoJuly 15, 1992 Page 3 <br />Issues for Discussion <br />The Planning Commission should answer the following questions in <br />determining whether the proposed ordinance as drafted is necessary and <br />appropriate: <br />1.-I <br />2. <br />3. <br />Should all future use of non-encased styrofoam for dock <br />flotation be banned? <br />Should existing users of such product be required to <br />eliminate non-encased styrofoam? <br />X $ r^A/es <br />If so, what is an ^appropriate and reasonable time table for <br />removal to occur? Should there be one final deadline date,VG'S <br />or is the incremental reduction appropriate?A--o <br />4.Should the ordinance apply to private as well as commercial <br />docks throughout the entire City? ye3 <br />5.Does Planning Commission have any recommendation as to the <br />degree of enforcement this subject deserves? i.e. Is an <br />annual survey of docks reeded (extremely time consuming), or <br />would this be enforced only on a complaint or "catch-as- <br />catch can" basis? STlioAJ d, P(^ <br />Staff Reconnendation *Srn^ i C T £T Aj e T" <br />Planning Commission is advised to review the proposed ordinance <br />and, if the ordinance is determined to be appropriate, recommend any <br />changes which you feel might make it more appropriate, reasonable, and <br />fair to both those who must ultimately replace docks and those who <br />must put up with their litter. <br />//UO-. y^L <br />~ (2.^0U't^€ L-Jl+O lAAv^ F v A^ pc <br />Co^TA.-ffO^em'T /A-' / •