MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Jerome Dupree, City Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Mayor Gene Pillot and city Manager David Sollenberger PRESIDING: Vice Mayor Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 (b) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 7:01 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1997, CONCERNING TRANSMITTAL OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0040) through (0103) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Robert Lindsay, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Lindsay stated that the proposal to transmit the draft of the Sarasota City Plan (Comprehensive Plan) to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was discussed at the November 18, 1997, PBLP public hearing; that concern was expressed regarding the City's ability to revise the Plan; however, the public was assured the transmitted Plan would not be considered as in final form by the DCA or the City; that the adoption process will be expedited by transmitting the proposed Plan at this time. Mr. Lindsay continued that the PBLP resolution recommending transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan to the DCA was revised to include the PBLP's intent to make a good faith effort to comply with the DCA directive that a Plan be transmitted within 18 months after adoption of the EAR, to hold further public hearings, and make further changes if warranted; that the PBLP has not had sufficient time to read or review the proposed Comprehensive Plan in detail. Ms. Robinson stated that transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan will initiate and is in no way an attempt to circumvent the public review process. BOOK 42 Page 15576 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15577 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. 2. INTRODUCTION RE: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0104) through (0628) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission, displayed on the overhead projector slides of a presentation relating to adoption of the proposed Sarasota City Plan (Comprehensive Plan), and stated that the following schedule for the adoption process has been developed: Distribution of Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Amendments November 1997 State Review and Comment December 1997-February 1998 PBLP Workshops December 1997 PBLP Public Hearing January 1998 Planing Board Recommendations February 1998 City Commission Workshops March 1998 City Commission Public Hearing April 1998 City Commission Adoption May 1998 State Review and Finding of Compliance June-August 1998 Scheduled PBLP Meeting Dates: All currently scheduled meetings will be held in the City Commission Chambers at 7 p.m. on the following dates: December 9 and 16, 1997 January 13, 1998 January 27, 1998 February 10 and 24, 1998 Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan recommended for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has been distributed to the public, Staff, and members of the PBLP and the Commission; that the proposed Plan will be reviewed by the DCA to determine compliance with State administrative regulations such as the Florida Growth Management Act; that the DCA will require approximately 90 days to review the proposed Plan; that the PBLP will study the proposed amendments to the Plan during a series of workshops beginning on December 9, 1997, after which a public hearing will be scheduled. Mr. Taylor continued that one public hearing each at the PBLP and Commission levels should be scheduled; that the public should be allowed to speak for an unlimited amount of time; that a generous time frame should be established to address the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor further stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan will be transmitted to the DCA for review and the DCA will return to the Commission an Opinions, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report regarding consistency findings; that the Commission and the DCA will be kept apprised of further changes made by Staff to the proposed Comprehensive Plan during the 90-day DCA review. Mr. Taylor stated further that public comment and debate will occur at three different stages: 1) this evening, 2) at the PBLP public hearing, and 3) at the public hearing held by the Commission; that additional PBLP or Commission workshops could be held if required; that changes to the proposed Comprehensive Plan can be made at any time prior to final transmittal to the DCA. Mr. Taylor further stated that every municipality in the State is required to have a Comprehensive Plan to determine and provide the means to achieve the nature and character desired by each municipality; that the history of the City's Comprehensive Plan is as follows: 1925 First Comprehensive Plan 1960 Update 1972 Update 1975 Growth Management Act 1979 Update based upon Growth Management Act standards 1985 Growth Management Act based on concurrency standards 1986 Update Mr. Taylor stated that in 1975, the State passed the Growth Management Act establishing rules of standardization for any municipality with a Comprehensive Plan; that an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) must be performed every five years; that an update of the City's Comprehensive Plan based upon Growth Management Act standards was completed in 1979; that in 1985, municipalities were ordered by the State to not allow any development lacking infrastructure concurrent with the impact of the development; that widespread public concern was generated by the 1985 concurrency requirements; that the City did not meet the new standards as the 1986 Comprehensive Plan update was already underway when the 1985 Growth Management Act was passed; that in 1989, the Comprehensive Plan was updated again to meet the 1985 Growth Management Act. BOOK 42 Page 15578 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15579 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor continued that an EAR was performed and adopted by the Commission in June 1996; that most proposed amendments to the 1998 update of the Comprehensive Plan have been based upon the 1996 EAR; that a new Neighborhood Chapter was introduced in Spring 1997 and revisions based on public input subsequently made; that the existing Impact Management Areas (IMAs) will be replaced by Land- Use Classifications, a designation used by most of the nation's communities. Mr. Taylor further stated that a Vision Statement and Goals adopted by the Commission are included as Defining Principles in the proposed Comprehensive Plan; that each chapter of the proposed Plan addresses Defining Principles as one of the foundations for the proposed amendments to the Plan; that the term "Policy" has been changed to "Action Strategies" which will be used to implement the Defining Principles; that transportation issues, particularly in Downtown, will be reviewed on a project-to-project basis in an area-wide approach. Mr. Taylor stated further that the proposed Comprehensive Plan is comprised of nine Chapters, the first being the Neighborhood Chapter and the most important being the Future Land Use Chapter which will help the public understand the uses allowed on each individual property; that each chapter contains two parts: 1. The Comprehensive Plan portion Mr. Taylor stated that the Comprehensive Plan portion will be adopted; that each chapter will begin with an intent and purpose statement addressing Defining Principles and include a Goal, Objectives, and Action Strategies; that the Future Land Use Chapter includes descriptions of the land-use classifications. 2. The Support Document Mr. Taylor stated that the second part of each chapter called the Support Document provides the justification for the Plan; that the Support Document will not be adopted. Mr. Taylor continued that the public will be invited to comment before the Commission or PBLP or provide written comments regarding the proposed amendmentsi that if necessary, Staff will conduct a page-by-page review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan with land planning professionals; that the adoption process will be flexible, accommodate additional meetings, and allow revisions prior to adoption. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS = AUTHORIZED TRANSMITTAL TO THE DCA OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN BASED ON THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) AND INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE PBLP RESOLUTION INDICATING THE FOLLOWING: : 1) THE TRANSMITTAL IS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE DCA DIRECTIVE, 2) FURTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD, AND 3) FURTHER CHANGES BASED ON COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE MADE (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (0629) through (2389) Vice Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Michael Furen, and William Merrill, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street, #600 (34237), Joel Freedman, 4066 Village Gardens Drive (34234), and Bruce Franklin, 149 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), came before the Commission. Mr. Franklin stated that he, the other three public speakers, and Attorneys Stephen Rees, Charles D. Bailey, and Jeffrey Russell convened as an ad hoc land-use professionals committee approximately one year ago during the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) adoption process; that the document proposed for transmittal has not been reviewed in substantive detail; that transmittal of a proposed Comprehensive Plan to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) usually occurs after public input has been received; that the State subsequently returns an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report to the City; that transmitting a draft Plan prior to public input may be statutorily allowable; however, revisions made to the document after transmittal may be psychologically difficult to implement; that developing the best possible Comprehensive Plan is the goal. Mr. Franklin continued that each of the land-use professionals on the ad hoc committee represent different landowners; that he represents Barnett Bank, Gryphus Development Group, Michaels Marketplace, the Weisbrod Family, Igor Kolar, and the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association; that although transmittal of an unfinished document is permitted, the DCA will be required to conduct a double review, once on the draft and again when the final adopted version of the Comprehensive Plan is transmitted next year; that the land-use professionals are not happy about the schedule but will continue to participate. Mr. Freedman stated that he also represents individual landowners; that the transmittal of an unfinished Comprehensive Plan is supported if the adoption process can be expedited without sacrificing public input; that each member of the ad hoc committee both individually and as a group will provide input during the PBLP and Commission public hearings; that the offer by the Deputy Director of Planning to conduct a page-by-page review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan will be accepted. BOOK 42 Page 15580 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15581 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. Attorney Merrill stated that he represents some of the same clients referenced by Mr. Franklin; that Staff efforts to expedite the process are commended; however, the land-use planning community is nervous about transmittal of an unfinished document; that the lack of public participation prior to transmittal is unusual; that citizens or professionals should not be faced with an uphill battle to change the transmitted Comprehensive Plan drafted by Staff absent public input; that dramatic changes to the existing Plan have been proposed; that the City may be addressing too many substantive variables at the same time. Attorney Merrill continued that the City's ability to coordinate the proposed Comprehensive Plan with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) update has not been addressed; that the proposed LDRs may not be consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan; that the ability to implement Action Strategies is unknown; that businesses and neighborhoods will be affected by the replacement of Impact Management Areas (IMAs) with Land-Use Classifications; that the draft version of the proposed Comprehensive Plan transmitted to the DCA should not be viewed as the presumptive standard. Attorney Furen stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan has been well prepared and is easy to read and understand; however, none of the land-use professionals have had the opportunity to review the changes; that he represents the owners of the Harley Sandcastle, one of the oldest tourist resorts on Lido Key; that dramatic changes recommended as a result of public input during the EAR process include the elimination of hotels and motels from future residential land-use categories; that land use is significantly modified in the proposed Comprehensive Plan; that primary and secondary uses are acceptable but non-primary and non-secondary uses are not. Attorney Furen continued that the proposed Comprehensive Plan would eliminate as a matter of law hotels and motels from the Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) land-use classification; that although the uses are currently permitted by special exception, adoption of the proposed Plan would eliminate those uses entirely on South Lido Key; that hotel and motel owners on South Lido Key can be expected to express extreme concern; that the community should be advised the proposed Plan is only a Staff draft, has received no Commission approval, and will have no presumptive validity during the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the speaker's time had expired. Attorney Furen requested a short extension of his speaking time. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that on hearing no objections, Attorney Furen can continue for an additional 30 seconds. Attorney Furen stated that an economic impact statement assessing the effects of the proposed Comprehensive Plan on existing or approved businesses and residential developments should be developed. Shelley Lederman, 1805 Jasmine Drive (34239), General Manager and Hotel Operator of the Half-Moon Beach Club on Lido Key, stated that the Commission is requested to review the economic impact of proposed land-use changes which could dramatically affect the thriving hotel business on Lido Key. There was no one else signed up to speak and Vice Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. Commissioner Patterson requested an explanation of the amendments to the PBLP resolution. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that at the November 18, 1997, PBLP public hearing, fulfilling the statutory procedure set in motion when the EAR was adopted is the most compelling reason to transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan to the DCA; that the EAR was adopted in June 1996; that the State statute provides local governments one year to develop amendments based upon the adopted EAR; however, one six-month extension is allowed; that although the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan should have been approved and transmitted to the DCA in June 1997 for the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report, the City requested and was granted a six-month extension. Attorney Fournier continued that the DCA expects to receive the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments based on the EAR no later than December 15, 1997; that a Staff version of the draft Comprehensive Plan absent Commission approval will be transmitted; that compliance with the statute is the most compelling reason to authorize the transmittal as the one-year time limit has already been exceeded by the City. Attorney Fournier further stated that at the November 18, 1997, PBLP public hearing, the PBLP resolution was amended to indicate the intention of the PBLP to make a good-faith effort to comply with the DCA directive, hold further public hearings, and make recommendations for further changes, if warranted, based on comments received at the public hearings; that although PBLP resolutions usually recommend Commission approval, the version of the proposed Comprehensive Plan transmitted to the DCA will be solely a Staff draft, therefore, recommendation to approve is not included in the resolution. BOOK 42 Page 15582 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15583 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. Attorney Fournier stated further that the DCA will require 60 to 90 days to review the proposed Comprehensive Plan and prepare an ORC Report; that the city will subsequently have 120 days to review and formally adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan; that a great deal of public input is expected; that the adopted Comprehensive Plan will be transmitted to the DCA for a 45-day compliance review culminating in a notice of intent finding the proposed Plan either in or not in compliance; that the process should proceed as expeditiously as possible without curtailing public input. Commissioner Patterson asked if sanctions are attached to any of the deadlines? Attorney Fournier stated that sanctions could occur; however, the possibility is minimal if the proposed Comprehensive Plan is transmitted at this time; that establishing a record of conduct will facilitate future requests for extensions from the DCA. Commissioner Patterson asked the consequence of not transmitting the proposed draft Comprehensive Plan at this time? Attorney Fournier stated that the DCA would most likely become involved in writing the final draft of the proposed Comprehensive Plan sooner rather than later; that transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan at this time will mitigate the statutory violation which has already occurred by missing the original one-year deadline. Commissioner Patterson asked if fines could be imposed or if the City's ability to determine land use could be restricted? Attorney Fournier stated that although such actions would not occur immediately, the DCA may speculate about the City's inability to proceed more expeditiously; that even an approved Comprehensive Plan would only be reviewed as a proposed amendment until the ORC Report is returned to the City and an ordinance formally adopting the Comprehensive Plan is passed. Commissioner Patterson asked the immediate consequences of not transmitting the document to the DCA at this time? Attorney Fournier stated that the City would be in violation of the statute requiring the City to transmit the Comprehensive Plan amendments to the DCA within 18 months from adoption of the EAR. Commissioner Patterson asked the consequences if the final adoption deadline is not met? Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that DCA staff has been questioned regarding possible ramifications of delayed transmittal; that although State statute provides the DCA the ability to direct the State or the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council to write a Comprehensive Plan for negligent local governments, the DCA does not wish to become personally involved in drafting amendments to the proposed Comprehensive Plan, preferring to work with local governments proceeding in good faith; that the DCA has never prepared a Plan for a local government; that sanctions will most likely not be imposed as the DCA believes the quality of the proposed Comprehensive Plan is more important than the deadlines. Mr. Taylor continued that although 90 days each for transmittal and adoption are provided, the schedule reflects the time frame required by Staff to complete the revisions rather than a specific statutory time limit. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends transmitting the proposed revisions to the Sarasota City Plan to. the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and comment. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to transmit the proposed revisions to the Sarasota City Plan to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and comment and with the understanding that the transmittal will occur as a good faith effort to comply with the DCA directive, that further public hearings will be held, and further changes to the document based on public input will be made. Commissioner Merrill stated that the LDRs should be reviewed and perhaps revised if the proposed Comprehensive Plan is adopted; that although the proposed Plan is well-written, every contingency cannot be addressed in such a voluminous document; that the economic impacts of the proposed amendments will be reviewed; that the emphasis placed on the Neighborhood Chapter is highly positive. Commissioner Patterson stated that achieving a good product is the primary objective; that the differences between the existing land-use plan and the proposed Comprehensive Plan are a concern; that the exiting land-use map and the proposed Comprehensive Plan should be supplemented with a third map showing a combination of existing zoning and the IMAs; that property owners should be able discern the exact uses allowable on a site; that the proposed classification of all industrial land north of 10th Street as office use is ludicrous considering the existing uses. Commissioner Patterson continued that the motion will be supported with the understanding that none of the proposed land-use projections are endorsed; that eliminating all hotel and motel uses on Lido Key appears extreme; however, the current zoning which allows hotel and motel uses along the entire south end of Lido Key is also extreme; that compromises should be made. BOOK 42 Page 15584 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15585 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a third map indicating the location of existing IMAs is requested? Commissioner Patterson stated that existing zone districts and the proposed land-use classifications should be indicated on one mapi that a property shown on the existing land-use map as a single-family residence can be converted into a duplex if the parcel is rezoned to a Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF) Zone District under the IMAs. Mr. Taylor stated that currently, many uses can be requested in single- and multiple-family residential zone districts; that a series of maps will be developed to designate each individual parcel and demonstrate potential ramifications of the proposed changes; that development of an all-encompassing map will be attempted; however, showing all land-use classifications and zonings on one map may not be possible. Commissioner Patterson stated that parcels on which multiple-family residences are located can be indicated with one color on the map and superimposed with a different color or shading if the parcel is located in an IMA in which multiple-family residences are a permitted use rather than an actual zone district; that a property owner should be able to simply read a map and know what can be done under the existing Zoning Code and whether the proposed Comprehensive Plan will alter existing zoning or permitted uses. Commissioner Cardamone stated that although Gillespie Park is currently zoned as a multiple-family residential zone district, the majority of properties are single-family residences and the current land-use map does not depict Gillespie Park as a multiple-family residential zone district. Mr. Taylor stated that zoning and future land use are currently considered alike in the current system; however, the current system will be changed if the proposed Comprehensive Plan is adopted; that the proposed Plan may take several weeks to explain to the Commission; that the need of the public to understand land-use classifications is understood; however, encompassing both the existing and proposed systems in one map may not be possible. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered into the record letters from Stephen Rees, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, expressing concerns relating to the effect of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on properties owned by the following clients: 1. Guy Asbury for the property located at 217, 221, 226, and 231 Garden Lane; 2. Calpac, Inc., for the Radisson Lido Beach Resort, 700 Benjamin Franklin Drive; 3. Paul Chapman, and Elaine Chapman, for property located within Lynwood Park Subdivision, comprising lots fronting Nebraska Avenue, Brown Avenue, and Hansen Street; 4. Jacobsen Group Lido Beach, L.P., Lauren Green, Chapter 11 Trustee of bankruptcy of the Estate of Lido Beach Hotel Condominium Association, and Flautt, Inc.; 5. Sarasota Five Hundred, Inc., for the Sarasota Ford dealership and adjoining Lots 1 - 10, Block C, Payne Park Subdivision; 6. Charles Stottlemyer, for property along north side of Fruitville Road, westerly of the easterly city limits and is Sub-area 2 within Fruitville Corridor East IMA Map 11; and 7. Joseph Stewart Stottlemyer, Successor trustee, U/A dated 12/30/88. Commissioner Merrill stated that the new zone district called Residential, Single-Family, Residential Mixed-Land Use developed for Downtown neighborhoods is a concern; that a Multiple-Family Residential, Revitalization (RMF-R) Zone District in effect years ago intimidated residents who believed high-intensity apartments would be permitted in residential neighborhoods; that the proposed zone district would allow more commercial activities into Downtown residential neighborhoods in which the live/work concept has not worked ideally; that developing live/work units in commercial zone districts is supported; however, allowing commercial uses in residential neighborhoods without specific guidelines relating to signage and intensity is a concern; that, for example, an accountant's office would be a permitted use in the proposed mixed-land-use zone district; however, a large accounting firm may not be compatible in a residential zone district; that the motion will be supported; however, the changes proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan are not endorsed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that much of the proposed Comprehensive Plan is well-prepared; however, the use of the terms "Neighborhood, Community, Office, Professional, and Neighborhood, Community, Commercial Land Use" should be reconsidered; that the term "neighborhood" should designate a strictly residential component; that the participation of land-use professionals will assist in solving problems caused by conditional rezonings and requests for site plan approval. Vice Mayor Dupree expressed appreciation to the PBLP and the Planning Department; and stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan is not a completed product; that approving the motion will result only in transmitting the draft document to the DCA. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion to authorize the transmittal of the proposed revisions to the Sarasota City. Plan based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) adopted by the City Commission on June 5, 1996, to the Department of Community BOOK 42 Page 15586 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15587 11/24/97 7:00 P.M. Affairs (DCA) for review and comment and including the intent of the PBLP to 1) transmit the Sarasota City Plan as a good faith effort to comply with the DCA directive, 2) hold further public hearings, and 3) make further changes to the document based on comments received at public hearings before the Commission. Vice Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes. 4. OTHER MATTERS /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS REQUESTED CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RESEARCH TAX EXEMPTIONS ON ST. ARMANDS KEY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES DECLARING MUSEUM STATUS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO STRAIGHTEN STREET SIGNS (AGENDA ITEM IV) #1 (2390) through (2727) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that St. Armands Key residents have unsuccessfully requested information from the City and County relating to tax exemptions for owners of residential properties declared as museums; that the City Attorney's Office and the County Administration have both indicated the issue is not within their respective domains; that Commission support is requested to request Staff to research the St. Armands Key properties receiving tax exemptions based on museum status and provide an explanation to the interested residents. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that hearing no objection, the City Attorney's Office is requested to research tax exemptions on St. Armands Key residential properties claiming museum status. B. stated that a letter from a condominium resident complaining about noise in the early morning hours on Gulf Stream Avenue was recently received; that a request had been made to agenda at the next regular Commission meeting a discussion regarding the Lift, Liquids- Solids-Vibes, located on the corner of Main Street and Gulf Stream Avenue; that Deputy Police Chief Russell Pillifant has advised the behavior of most of the patrons leaving the establishment at 4 or 5 a.m. is improper; that most disturbances are outside rather than inside; that the Commission is requested to refer the problem to the Administration for a Police Department report and recommendation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported problems caused by the newly opened establishment. Commissioner Patterson stated that the newspaper reported the State law prohibiting alcohol service after 2:30 a.m. is being enforced by the Police Department; however, enforcing the beverage laws may not provide sufficient remedy. Deputy city Manager Schneider stated that a Staff report will be presented at the December 1, 1997, regular Commission meeting. MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that a magnificent photograph of Downtown is displayed on the cover of the Autumn 1997 issue of Sarasota Downtown, a free-of-charge newspaperi; that a copy of the picture should be obtained and displayed in City Hall; that the newspaper also includes a graphic which depicts the Downtown area far more clearly than the street maps used by the Planning Department; that the Planning Director has been requested to develop a similar graphic for use in future presentations relating to Downtown land planning. B. stated that although the City is beautiful and attractively maintained, traffic signs all over the City are askew; that the signs lean forward, backward, and to either side; that the City should look neat and straight rather than sloppy; that no criticism of Staff is intended as vehicles are believed to regularly bump into the signs; that the problem should be addressed by the Public Works Department. 7. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (2737) There being no further business, Vice Mayor Dupree adjourned the special meeting of November 24, 1997, at 8:15 p.m. hom Tupes JEROME DUPREE, VICE MAYOR ATTESEOTA - - Le à d BILLY-4 ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK a - 9 1) - BOOK 42 Page 15588 11/24/97 7:00 P.M.