FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

October 14, 2003

Town Hall-Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

I. CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency was called to order on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 at 12:10 P.M. by Chair Roxie Smith.

Members present at the meeting: Anita Cereceda, Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Nancy Mulholland, Jane Plummer, Roxie Smith, Jessica Titus and Hank Zuba.

Excused absence from the meeting: Betty Simpson.

Staff present at the meeting: Jerry Murphy, Community Development Coordinator Dan Folke, Town Manager Marsha Segal-George

II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The invocation was given by Harold Huber. All present assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. MINUTES: September 9 and September 16, 2003 (Postponed until after the Public Hearings.)

MOTION: Motion was made by Hank Zuba and seconded by Anita Cereceda to approve the minutes of September 9, 2003.

VOTE: Motion passed by unanimous vote.

MOTION: Motion was made by Jessica Titus and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the minutes of September 16, 2003 with one correction.

DISCUSSION: Harold Huber asked for a correction on the second page to EBIA.

VOTE: Motion passed by unanimous vote.

IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. SEZ2003-00023 Resort Restaurants, Inc., in ref. to Snug Harbor Waterfront Restaurant. A request for a Special Exception in the Downtown zoning District to expand an existing outdoor seating area associated with second floor for food service for restaurant and on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages. The subject property is located at 1131 First Street.

(Inaudible)

The applicant, Ed Cusak, owner of Snug Harbor Restaurant, came forward to explain and demonstrate his plan to extend the existing outdoor deck on the second floor of the building. This was not planned at the outset because the architect originally had mechanicals scheduled for that part of the building, and these had to be moved to take advantage of the view. They are in the heart of the old San Carlos Overlay District which he believes is now known as the Downtown Zoning District. The need for pedestrian friendly outdoor activities is clear in the Division Plan and this is what they propose. Right now the outdoor seating at the restaurant includes three areas. They currently have approval for 170 outdoor seats, of which 60 are in the brick courtyard or patio beside the dock. That area is approximately 2,500 square feet. The other areas are the covered porch and the second floor deck. They have found the demand for outdoor seating exceeds supply. Therefore they are making application to extend the second floor deck by approximately 650 feet. It will be L-shaped because of the one mechanical system that could not be moved. He called attention to the information provided to LPA members in their packets. They are asking for a total increase in outside seating to 235 maximum of which 72 would be in the brick courtyard. There is plenty of room for the additional seats there, and the deck extension will seat 50-60 additional people. They have more than enough approved parking under Chapter 34 of the Town of Fort Myers Beach Revised Land Development Code for this additional seating as re-granted to the Overlay District by the Council in March 2003. He has enclosed calculations in the packets for required parking which includes the 650 square foot expansion. The entire outside brick courtyard is also included. They are required per the new calculations to have 121 total parking spaces. Their existing development order shows 307. However, four of those spaces have been lost due to a relocation of the dumpsters. He described their operational problems with respect to the dumpsters. The correct total is now 303 parking spaces, giving them an excess of 182 parking spaces over what is required.

The applicant also wanted to revisit another issue from the hearing on the liquor license which was approved by Council on October 14, 2002. This was the issue of outdoor music. He feels that as the Downtown area matures it will evolve into more of an entertainment district with nicer restaurants and cafes and more motels such as the second proposal before this meeting today. He believes that although they are competitors, they are also neighbors, and the main intent is to bring more visitors to the Downtown area of Fort Myers Beach. If they can attract more visitors everyone will benefit. For Snug Harbor the primary intention was to have steel drums on the plaza to entertain their customers and other passersby as well. When the steel drum player was first hired it was not known until he got there that the steel drums were amplified. He has learned that all steel drums are now amplified (or electronically generated) and that the sound does not function without the amplifiers turned on. He was allowed to play, and the applicant feels that the sound was no different than it would have been without amplification, and there were many positive comments after the performance. He would like to ask reconsideration of the issue of amplified outdoor music. He would confine it to the covered porch facing the brick courtyard and the docks. He realizes that that kind of music travels, which he sees overall as a benefit, and stated that they would conform to decibel levels at all times and will continue to limit such music after 11:00 at night. He does not feel that his request violates the intent of the restriction, based on his memory and experience in the past of non-amplified steel drum music was not that much different from the amplified version. He would be willing to accept a limit to steel drums and not any other type of band, unless they might come in for a special permit for a particular function at some future time.

Harold Huber had a question (inaudible.) The applicant replied that what is on his application under Condition 4 is the same as before.

A council member asked a question (inaudible) and the applicant replied that he does not believe there are any outstanding easement issues. (Inaudible comments by a committee member) This is why he asked the Committee to consider intent instead of a blanket policy and that it would not be a precedent-setting issue. Perhaps this would not be a bad thing.

Chairperson Roxie Smith wanted verification that the additional seating being requested is on the second floor and in the brick courtyard, and the applicant replied that this is correct. It would be almost all on the second floor expansion. He is currently restricted to 60 seats in the courtyard and has 56 at present. They can comfortably increase this to 72 which is why he is requesting this. Concerning music, Ms. Smith feels that part of the problem some of the Committee has with amplified music is that when there are several establishments in an area each playing different music it creates an unpleasant dissonance. She personally would not have a problem with amplified steel drums, but admits she appreciates that type of music. The applicant stated that he understands this position but feels that steel drum music is consistent with the type of atmosphere they are trying to establish. Ms. Smith also pointed out that almost all music today is amplified in some way. She feels that the Committee needs to use reason, to enforce, and to have entertainment; otherwise, they are shutting down the Island. If music is eliminated it could have the same detrimental effect as the smoking ban.

Anita Cereceda felt the LPA should look comprehensively at the subject of music. She Last night shortly after 8:00 P.M. she went to Matanzas and Snug Harbor to see how sound was moving. Her conclusion was that between amplified and acoustic music there really is no different. The loudest sounds were coming from people. Tabasco’s is the only place where she hears comments from people who drive by that there is a loud sound. She feels the Downtown area will be transformed and that great progress has been made by all those working in that area. Snug Harbor and Matanzas can be heard more clearly on the other side of the bridge. She agreed with Jane Plummer’s comment that electronic music is becoming more prevalent. She is not a big fan of steel drum music and told the applicant she would be unhappy if he proposed to play only that type of music 24/7. He replied by way of clarification that the minimum for any musician is four hours, so their performers would be hired in four-hour increments. He repeated his position with respect to acoustic versus amplified steel drum sounds and also stated that he feels that this is an issue that will come up more frequently in the future as other projects are developed in the Downtown area. However, his main request is for the additional seating.

Another Committee member said that she noticed the windows were covered when she went by recently, and she was under the impression that the original intent was to have the windows open. The applicant replied that this was the men’s room. The code allows for blinds and the doors are false. They will have some murals designed and painted on the false doors. He said this took a long time to evolve into what was finally approved because a building of this size had never been contemplated before and that now there have been compromises as the project evolved further.

Another Committee member asked what he calls the back of the building, the part that is by the bridge. It is back from the street. It’s the feature side of the restaurant. It’s really not the back, it’s the water side.

Jerry Murphy came forward to give the Staff Report. He did not feel there were many issues to be considered. It is basically an expansion of the COP that was approved a little over a year ago. The owner/developer found that additional seating was needed and demonstrated that there is sufficient parking. We had extended the conditions that we put on the first approval, Conditions 1 and 2. For clarification, the area in particular under discussion is in Exhibit D and is the area above what is called the “Tiki Room.” With respect to the outdoor music issue, the condition was written in the same way as the same condition that was approved originally. Everything seems to be working well under this condition and he does not know whether a specific limitation to steel drums would be appropriate. He suggested wording to the effect that music is not permitted after 11:00 P.M. and be limited to live music, eliminating the wording pertaining to amplification. He also suggested this could be done on a trial basis by limiting any approval to one year, after which the applicant could return for extension or further approval. Or, a limit of one year or three code violations. Some of the same issues will be considered also in the following case. The one additional issue that has come up since construction of the building and opening of the business concerns the side of the building that faces the bridge, where all the service facilities are located and employees park their bicycles and where FP&L has located the transformer. Staff is working with the applicant on this issue and had suggested a white picket fence be erected from the pavement of First Street along the curve to the transformer area to visually screen these facilities. He believes that a satisfactory solution will be reached. They also suggested some planting around the FP&L equipment. Some of the screening will have to be placed on Town property, and they are also discussing solutions.

Ms. Smith asked whether the language about the screening would be incorporated in this decision, and he said that he has been working on some but language would have to be general since nothing specific has been decided at this time. Any such language would have to be consistent with Mr. Cusak’s development order. He suggested saying, “Prior to the Certificate of Compliance for the local Development Order the developer will construct a six-foot high white PVC fence of a design acceptable to the Director along the southeastern property line and between First Street and the grease recycling container, screening this service area from the adjacent properties, and plant the area around the electrical transformer, which straddles the southeast property line, with 36 inch high buttonwood, 36 inches on center to be maintained at or above the height of the electrical transformer.” Ms. Smith asked who would do the maintenance, and Mr. Murphy replied that is an issue that will have to be addressed also because the trees and the plants will be on Town property and he does not know who would be responsible. There are legal issues to be resolved.

Harold Huber (Inaudible) Mr. Murphy replied that what they would do would be modify Condition 3 to incorporate that change. He prefers waiting until there has been more discussion and the members arrive at a consensus, and he will draft appropriate language at that time.

Hank Zuba welcomed Mr. Murphy back and asked whether the construction of the building is adequate for the additional tables, chairs and patrons on the second floor, and Mr. Murphy replied that the owner will have to go through a limited review development order and also a building permit so that can be verified. (Inaudible) Mr. Murphy said everything would have to pass code. (Inaudible) Mr. Murphy said this project was approved before the Downtown Zoning District was adopted, so this is a variance under the old zoning and we are just trying to bring it into compliance through mutual acquiescence. (Inaudible) This is something new which is why we are going ahead and addressing it at this point. Mr. Zuba said he prefers natural materials to PVC. He mentioned a “living fence” and also mentioned fire considerations. Mr. Murphy said they recommended PVC because it has long durability and is more cost effective, but the developer could elect to use wood or other natural materials. Ms. Smith asked if Mr. Murphy would be amenable to just saying “fence” without specifying the type of material to be used. He replied that they would be amenable to this but want to make sure that whatever goes up is maintained and looks good on an ongoing basis.

Ms. Smith felt the LPA was being tasked with making a decision when it hasn’t been finally formulated. If the LPA makes a recommendation without the barricade, she wanted to know if Mr. Murphy could still work on this between this meeting and the Council meeting, and introduce the additional condition at that time.

Dan Folke stated that the current property maintenance code does require screening dumpsters and oil containers. Typically when the development order is issued the developer shows where the dumpster is going to be. That side of the building was not approved for storage or garbage, and this is why there is no screening there now. Chapter 34 regulates the type of fence and talks about materials that are consistent with the type of development existing. It does prohibit chain link from residential front yards, and examples are given in the code. So there are some rules in place but Staff is bringing it to the attention of the reviewers and is taken care of on the Development Order.

Ms. Smith asked if there was any public comment and there was none.

Mr. Cusak addressed the issue of the fencing which he said would be on their property. (inaudible) and pointed out the existing curve where as a part of their original development order they planted several mature hibiscus bushes which are now thriving and also some royal palms. So the fence will actually be behind these plantings and the appearance from the bridge will be pleasing. The fence was not originally installed because of some plumbing problems with the grease trap and also relocation of the dumpster. There was a lot of work done subsequent to opening. He is amenable to continuing the discussion with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Folke and has no objection to delaying this until Council as long as there is awareness that he is working on it.

With respect to the music, he agrees that limiting it to one instrument is probably not appropriate. He liked the suggestions made earlier and also suggested tying it into a decibel level.

Jodi Hester asked Town Manager Segal-George whether there was an existing ordinance banning non-amplified music outdoors. Ms. Segal-George said there is not. It started with Diamond Head. Ms. Hester asked how long it would take the Town to come up with an ordinance to permit everyone to have outdoor amplified music with a one-year limit. That way everyone will have to come back and ask for the same one-year trial period. Ms. Segal-George said it would probably take some time. Ms. Hester said she would like to see an ordinance that would cover everyone instead of granting permission to one individual. She believed that by doing so more work would be created by others coming forward to make individual requests. Ms. Smith said that she remembers the primary reason for denying Diamond Head was the proximity to residential areas, which is a different situation from this one under consideration.

Ms. Segal-George expressed the opinion that when an ordinance is passed it is assumed that there will be a commonality of circumstances and that all issues will be the same. Should there be different rules outside of the Downtown District? It is not easy to come up with a standard ordinance that would affect every situation.

Ms. Smith asked how difficult it would be to tie it to violations or complaints. Mr. Segal-George replied that the difficulty would be defining what qualifies as a violation and what the penalties should be. She compared it with the parasailing ordinance which is currently being addressed by Council. Monitoring all of this places an additional burden on Staff and a requirement for sufficient personnel to check violations at late hours. Breach of Peace would be filed with the Sheriff with respect to noise.

A committee member stated that she felt it made more sense to consider each case individually so that a blanket decision does not have to be made that affects different businesses in different locations. She felt it was appropriate to do so in the Downtown Overlay District where it is desired to have entertainment.

Mr. Huber (inaudible)

Ms. Cereceda asked Mr. Murphy whether in the proposed one-year period he was considering expense and inconvenience to the property owner at the end of the year when it would be necessary to re-file, reappear at a hearing and pay an additional fee. He replied that it could be extended administratively. He feels it is a good opportunity to have another hearing after a year to determine whether there have actually been any problems. Ms. Cereceda asked about the amount of the fee for another public hearing and was told it would be $750.00. The special exception fee would be $1,000.00. Ms. Segal-George said she was unclear procedurally how a one-year trial period would work. She cited lack of personnel in the night time hours to enforce this. There was also discussion about experiences in Naples where there have been problems with music. There was lengthy discussion about noise levels and complaints in different locations on the Island and the fact that mutual respect has to be a factor.

Mr. Huber made a comment (inaudible.) Ms. Smith said that the music was a part of this overall request but could be considered separately from the additional seating request.

MOTION: Mr. Zuba made a motion to approve the deck as proposed with the five conditions, Condition 1 2 3 & 4 are spelled out in the ordinance as proposed, Condition 5 provides that screening be provided for the grease containers and dumpster as approved by Staff and Mr. Cusak within the time period of the issuing of the Development Order and before the issue goes before Council. Motion was seconded by Jodi Hester.

Mr. Huber requested the word “dumpster” be stricken and replaced with “service area.”

DISCUSSION:

Ms. Cereceda stated she agreed with everything except non-amplified music because she feels it is unrealistic and is going to put a restriction on the largest currently redeveloped property on Old San Carlos, which is something that we want to encourage the rest of those properties to do. There is no one else that is limited to only acoustic music, and this is a premier location which is being limited to only acoustic music. She does not support the motion.

There was general discussion about amplified music. Ms. Cereceda reiterated her experience the previous evening wherein the prevailing sound in the area was the voices of people. Ms. Hester pointed out that this is not adjacent to a residential area. Ms. Cereceda was of the opinion that because of the nature of the Island and the fact that sound carries across water, there will always be complaints about music regardless of whether it is amplified or acoustic. Some people will be offended because of the type of music or the level of sound.

Mr. Huber expressed the opinion that amplified music is harder on the ears than acoustic, and he believes there will therefore be more complaints about amplified music. He feels that there is enough indication to add that this issue be considered in a broader context and in a different period of time. The issue for us should be to be the most regulatory we can be and then allow some consideration as time goes on per Mr. Murphy’s suggestion. He said it was not true that this is the only location limited to acoustic music as this is done wherever it abuts residential areas. It is incumbent on us to be conscious of the public’s privacy.

Ms. Smith asked whether amplified music was used at Times Square when the church ministerial association had outdoor events. Ms. Segal-George said that there had been amplified music at various events in Times Square but pointed out that this is a different type of area. The proximity of hotels was discussed and the fact that hotel guests have different expectations than people in private residences.

Ms. Hester said that she agrees with the motion as stated and believes that the reason nothing other than Condition 3 is being discussed is because the members all agree with the other portions of this request. Ms. Smith agreed. Ms. Hester feels that the way to address this is through an ordinance.

Ms. Plummer feels that it would be more difficult to pass something generally and would rather look at each request individually.

Ms. Cereceda asked the other members if they would accept a review in a stated period of time and provide for a condition where revocation would be possible. She said the issue was whether surrounding neighborhoods were comfortable with what is happening. Ms. Segal-George expressed concern about what would constitute violation and the conditions for revocation.

Mr. Zuba expressed the opinion that perhaps this is an issue more appropriate for the Town Council to decide rather than the LPA. Ms. Segal-George said that with the possible exception of MRTF, the LPA does more comprehensive use on land use than Town Council. She feels that the best decisions are made by the nine members of the LPA.

Ms. Smith recognized Mr. Cusak, the applicant, who stated that the 650 square foot was the focus of his request. He said he agrees with both sides of the discussion. Because of the business he is in and the atmosphere he wants to create he made this request. He does feel that applications such as his need to be addressed on an individual basis because of individual circumstances that it would be difficult to address in a broad way. In the interest of expediency he is withdrawing the amplified music part of his request and requested the members vote on the motion with the condition in place as it is.

VOTE: Motion carried 7-1 with Jane Plummer voting against.

Ms. Segal-George stated that this will come before Town Council on November 10, 2003 at 10:00 A.M.

Mr. Murphy asked for a ten-minute break for Staff to confer with the next applicant prior to presentation of his request with the intent of saving time during his presentation. Chair Smith agreed to this.

2. DCI2001-00067 Douglas Spiern-Smith in reference to Matanzas Inn.

A request to rezone from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to CPD (primarily lodging) to permit a maximum to a total of 106,112 square feet of mixed commercial uses on 2.03 total acres of land. The subject properties are located at 141/416 Crescent Street, 420/430/440 Old San Carlos, 1010 Second Street and 1042 Second Street.

Ms. Segal-George (Inaudible)

Douglas Spiern-Smith came forward as one of the owners of Estero Bay Hotel Company which owns the Matanzas Inn. Last May they appeared to amend their existing CPD to expand the restaurant, change the density on the motel parcel and a redevelopment plan was presented at that time for both the Matanzas Inn site as well as their off-site parking area on Old San Carlos. He recalled that prior to that meeting several issues had come up with Staff relating to the potential redevelopment at Crescent Street right of way as well as the area underneath the bridge for a bayfront plaza. Although they presented a conceptual plan for the Old San Carlos site in May, they had not taken concept drawings for the Matanzas Inn site very far at that time. Over the summer their site plan was modified moving the buildings back toward the canal to accommodate potential future redevelopment of the Crescent Street right of way and created alternative site plans relating to the parking area near the restaurant adjacent to what may or may not be a future bayfront plaza between their facility and Snug Harbor. The site plan in the Staff Report reflects those changes. They also worked on developing a conceptual design for redevelopment of the Matanzas Inn.

Mr. Spiern-Smith said that the master concept plan has to be modified to reflect some of their discussion with Staff and to clarify some technical items related to the application. They will make those modifications prior to going before City Council to make sure that the deviations reconcile with the site plan as well as the need for a 4 COP for indoor and outdoor seating as indicated on the MCP. He considers these minor. They also discovered the need for one more deviation which is that on the Crescent Street concept plan for the Downtown District two floors over flood are allowed as long as the understory is only used for parking. In changing the plan based on input from Staff they want to reserve the right to use part of the understory for accessory uses to the motel. It would not be residential space. The buildings are still within the Crescent Street height limit. This is Section 34-675 and they are asking for a deviation to use up to 25 per cent of the space for other than parking. This will be storage, laundry and related uses. Mr. Murphy has the wording of this deviation and stated he will introduce it with his Staff Report.

On Page 4 of the Staff Report there are two changes on the first two paragraphs A and B. This new site plan contemplates the option to coordinate redevelopment of the restaurant site with the potential for the bayfront plaza next door. Working with Staff they have revised the potential size of the restaurant from an original 10,000 square feet in the May application to 16,700 which would allow using the area between their building and the bayfront plaza for outdoor seating. In the May hearing they clarified that their request is for 32 units, but the average size of those units is planned to be 800 square feet, 1,200 square feet maximum, and 25,600 square feet total of guest unit square footage. This is significantly different than suggested by Paragraph A. He will come back to that later.

He has some other items to enter into the record but preferred to defer those until he comments on the Staff Report. He asked Joe McHarris to come forward to address the group.

Joe McHarris of McHarris Planning and Design, who had done the initial concepts at the direction of Mr. Spiern-Smith and his company, came forward. When requested to create a concept for the property on Crescent Street he was familiar with the area but due to the unique site under the bridge with the canal in back they wanted to create something of a wharf type atmosphere because of the water and beach elements. With a wharf there will be differences between the buildings and he described the different types of buildings intended. Because of underneath parking they were aware of the appearance of the streetscape and have created a covered walkway which is user friendly and minimizes the appearance of the parking. He gave illustrations and descriptions of what is proposed. There would be interconnecting pedestrian walkways which would pull everything together.

Harold Hughes had a question for Mr. Spiern-Smith to the effect that 1,200 square feet does not relate to a motel room. Mr. Spiern-Smith replied that these would be suites. Mr. Hughes inquired whether these would rent for longer periods of time than a normal hotel room. Mr. Spiern-Smith said that there are now two different types of accommodations, efficiencies with full kitchens and motel rooms. Historically they have had two kinds of clientele: The long-term winter resident and the short-term daily renter. There is a market for which they are basically asking that all suites be approved in this location. Mr. Hughes asked whether in May approval had been given for 32 units and 450 square feet and Mr. Spiern-Smith replied that this had not been approved but had been continued in May. At that time they were asking for an exception in Deviation 12 to allow for a unit larger than 450 square feet which is what they are asking again today. Mr. Hughes asked whether there were figures for how many of the 32 units would be motel rooms and how many would be suites. Mr. Spiern-Smith said they do not have a number but wrote what they felt would give flexibility of two or three different unit types in an all-suite unit. He said it is almost impossible to build an all-suite facility without an exception to the 450 square foot limitation. Mr. Hughes expressed the opinion that this would change the type of facility from a motel which it has been previously. Mr. Spiern-Smith said that their two types of clientele are the guest who is happy in a motel room for 1 to 4 days, and the guest who stays for multiple weeks and the family who requires one- and two-bedroom or efficiency units. With the approval of his request they will be able to accommodate a much broader spectrum of visitors.

Mr. Spiern-Smith addressed on the Staff Report by saying that they are in general agreement with the report with a few comments concerning the conditions.

Page 5, number 10 says, “all use of the pool area must cease at 10:00 P.M.” He said that technically this is possible but not desirable and asked the LPA on principle if this is really what is intended. He does not feel there has been a problem with the pool historically. Their next door neighbor has a pool in a multi-family setting and wondered whether it was intended to regulate pool use at all, and if so, why. He expressed the opinion that he is not sure that this is a meaningful direction to go.

Regarding Mr. Huber’s questions about unit size, he said that they are an off-water motel with a great deal of regular, long-term users. They are a relatively small place and would like to cater to families and a unit size deviation would be very helpful. He feels that it is a good use of the site and is consistent with the overall plan for the Downtown area.

He wanted to enter into the record some comments regarding the Crescent Street redevelopment and the bayfront plaza. This is rather complex language which he believes was left out of the Staff Report. When the revised their plan to try to accommodate the Crescent Street improvements and the bayfront plaza, several questions were raised. For the record, he said they are committed to working with the City to accomplish these things and he would be happy to work with Staff between now and the Council meeting to clarify anything that needs to be clarified and also wanted to enter this language into the record so that these issues can be addressed. Questions such as timing, logistics, funding and so forth are the issues he feels must be addressed. He was asked to read this into the record.

1. Crescent Streetscape Improvements – Sidewalk. Applicant shall reserve a ten-foot wide buffer along Crescent Street as shown on the MCP. This buffer shall be used for vegetation and pedestrian sidewalks subject to the following provisions:

(1) The applicant shall not be required to provide any easement for public use of the buffer until such time as the Town has assembled the full right of way, approvals and permits for the Crescent Streetscape Improvements.

(2) The owner shall be indemnified by the Town for any public access (inaudible) improvements.

(3) If constructed by owner, owner shall receive a credit toward impact fees for direct cost of the improvements.

(4) Any additional loss of parking by owner due to Crescent Streetscape Improvements shall not be deducted from the owner’s parking count.

(5) Both owner and Town acknowledge Crescent Streetscape Improvements may require extensive modifications to the owner’s existing site plan, improvements and utilities. Owner shall not be obligated to incur anything other than pro-rata cost for this work as part of a comprehensive funding plan for the entire streetscape project.

(Inaudible)

Mr. Zuba expressed concern that Staff would have sufficient time to be able to comment on this revision because this is a very serious issue. Ms. Segal-George said that perhaps Mr. Murphy has seen these, but no one else has. It was felt that it would be unfair to ask Staff to respond without having the opportunity to review and digest this material. Mr. Spiern-Smith said that this is not new language and he believed that Staff had seen it before. It was presented over the summer and was intended to try to focus the issue and to look forward. He did not think there were any intent differences. In response to a question by Ms. Smith, Mr. Murphy said that he did discuss this with the applicant over the summer. There is an area where parking is currently allowed now at the Matanzas Inn and it is conceived that that area will become an outdoor seating area at such time as the bayfront plaza underneath the bridge is developed. He thinks that the developer’s concern is that they do not want to commit to doing the private improvements prior to the Town’s doing the public improvements. This is somewhat beyond the scope of what is before the LPA today but it is contemplated in the future, and there was a conceptual understanding that the applicant felt a little less comfortable with than the Government entities did. The applicant has provided these conditions so there is no misunderstanding that he is going to do all of these things if the Town does not go through with their plans in the future. Ms. Segal-George asked whether it was Mr. Spiern-Smith’s purpose in admitting this into the record that the items he read become conditions of this approval. Mr. Spiern-Smith replied that because they moved their site plan to accommodate potential future improvements at Crescent Street he does not want this to be interpreted as giving the Town right of way to re-do Crescent Street. He thinks there is a fairness issue and a lot of uncertainty and he can only provide options to the Town that are consistent with both their interests. Ms. Segal-George cited the overall projected intention of the Downtown area and asked whether his statements meant that the Town could not then hook into his property without his receiving some kind of compensation. He said he has not dealt with that at all. Ms. Segal-George’s concern was that the waterfront project could not be completed with this language without compensation. Mr. Spiern-Smith said that perhaps he was attempting to be too thorough at this time and that he was not sure whether they considered this crucial to approval. He felt it is not a simple thing to contemplate possible future redevelopment projects and incorporate them into his request.

(Tape change) A member felt that this issue was outside the scope of the LPA, to which Mr. Murphy replied that this was his position also and this was why it was not incorporated into the Staff Report. He did not feel it appropriate to tell Mr. Spiern-Smith that he could not bring it up at the Public Hearing because in some sense it is relevant, and he can understand why the applicant wants it to be part of the record. But he does not feel that is necessary for it to be an addition or deviation or any real part of the planned development master concept plan. It is just something that establishes his position for the future as the redevelopment of this whole area progresses. The lines on the master concept plan are not a gift to the Town of right-of-way, and he thinks this is what the applicant is clarifying, and Staff would never take the position that they are. Ms. Smith asked whether this could be accepted as the applicant’s position statement.

Mr. Zuba said that he feels if someone is putting something on record then they will be asking for indemnification based on not having achieved one improvement or another. He has never seen a case where a variation was requested with conditions placed on the city. Either it is clear that the application is applying for a variation to the zoning unconditionally or that he is not. If there are conditions they should either be denied before application or clarified in the application. He does not intend why something would be placed on the record without intention to enforce it later.

Mr. Spiern-Smith said he did not mean to complicate or confuse the issues and would withdraw this from the record. He said they can be dealt with when the Crescent Streetscape project goes forward.

Chair Smith asked Ms. Segal-George for clarification. Ms. Segal-George said that the applicant has a right to express his position. Her interpretation is that this can only be informational and not incorporated in any way with regard to any approval recommendation that goes forward, then there are no commitments. Conditional zoning is not possible in any event because it is illegal. She does not necessarily believe this was the intent. She does not think there is enough substance to make it an example of the relationship between the parties with regards to this issue. She believes when the motion is made there needs to be a statement that none of this is being accepted or incorporated. We are also interested in trying to work with the applicant on the project and are not trying to take advantage of him with regards to the project. Some of the specifics would have to be worked out because there is some confusion between what the applicant believes and what we think may or may not happen. Ms. Segal-George replied to Chair Smith’s question by saying that the motion must specifically exclude this portion so that there is no confusion that anything on this paper was used as any kind of condition or acceptance of anything it contained with regard to whatever motion is made on the application in front of the LPA. Ms. Smith confirmed that it was not necessary for the applicant to continue reading and that his prior reading would be considered for information only.

Mr. Spiern-Smith commented on amplified music by citing Condition 11. In their approval in 1999 this was considered and they were given approval for amplified music. It is an integral part of their business. It came up in the May hearing and over the summer the location of the music was changed to be more consistent with the 1999 approval. They have tried to moderate and tried to be a good neighbor. It is an existing use and in their existing approval. He feels it is a balanced use, and all they are asking is continuation of the status quo. It is important to their business. He thinks is a benefit to the Island and is done in a responsible way. They limit it to one or two performers at a time. He feels it is the kind of ambience people expect when they come to the Island and asks that they be allowed to continue amplified music in a modest way. If it is important that this issue be dealt with he would urge the LPA and the Council to deal with it in a bigger way but it is really important that the Matanzas Inn be allowed to continue as it does at present.

Mr. Spiern-Smith also said that he feels the application has merit and accommodates many things that Staff suggested and the Town wants. They don’t want to change their way of business at the Matanzas Inn. He is afraid of making changes at this time. He cited an editorial in the Naples Daily News yesterday that dealt with the same issue. It said, “Don’t suck the joy out of Fifth Avenue.” We are in the heart of the Fort Myers Beach commercial area and are trying to do a good job. He asks that they be allowed to stay there.

Jane Plummer verified with the applicant that in the 1999 approval amplified music was included. He said this was correct. She asked whether it was 10:00 P.M. and this was verified from the Staff Report.

Mr. Murphy presented the Staff Report as the sworn testimony of Staff with the following changes: This is the Staff Report that was presented in May. The major modifications are as follows:

On Page 4 of 13 the applicant has reduced their alternative request (A at the top) guest units are limited to a total of 32 units quest unit size not to exceed a maximum area of 1,200 square feet, not to exceed an average of 800 square feet, and not to exceed a total floor area for guest units of 25,600 square feet.

On Page 5 of 13 Staff is still basically recommending Condition 10 regarding the pool use. That was Staff’s recommendation based on conversations with the applicant and neighbors coming into the hearing in May. There was considerable testimony in May which is not being withdrawn, but Mr. Spiern-Smith’s suggestions may be taken into consideration. This was felt to be a reasonable compromise.

Condition 16 on Page 5, offstreet parking reductions allowed by LDC Section 34-676 pursuant to deviation should read, “Sixteen are limited to Parcel B, etc.”

Deviation 12 on Page 6 of 13 is the major deviation requested for this project and is the square footage deviation. Staff recommendation in May was one of denial; the LPA at that time seemed to be amenable to a larger size unit as had been modified just previously with the 800 and 1,200 limitation. Staff recommendation is still one of denial, but it is recognized that it is the LPA’s prerogative not to agree.

Deviation 21 is being added, and he proceeded to read the language, which had been given to the LPA’s attorney, into the record:

21. Deviation from LDC Section 34-675 Sub B Sub 2 from the limitation on Crescent Street of building heights, no taller than two stories and 30 feet above base flood elevation to allow 25 per cent of the ground floors of Phases II through V of the motel be enclosed non-living space (office and other accessory uses for the motel) and a maximum height of 40 feet above base flood elevation and three stories, two stories total living area over parking or enclosed non-living space.

This language addresses what the applicant had requested for accessory uses and is being recommended as a deviation.

Mr. Huber asked whether the height had been changed. Mr. Murphy said that it had not. The height request is for 40 feet. The 30 foot height limitation is 34-675 and this is being clarified to allow the 40 feet that was approved before and is still being requested. This is not a change in this new application request; the deviation is a clarification and is a change in that deviation. Mr. Murphy believes that those are all the changes except for some minor language changes in the Staff Report itself. He said he would be happy to answer questions other than those of a legal nature.

Ms. Plummer (Inaudible) Mr. Murphy replied that because that expansion intensity without a deviation is in their mind not what the Comprehensive Plan anticipated. He thinks the discussion that was heard in May is that if it were appropriate anywhere it would be appropriate in the Downtown area. Staff recommendation is denial based on a strong position on variances. This is a new variance over the previous approval.

Mr. Zuba asked Mr. Murphy to explain the process by which a traffic impact statement comes at a later date in a local development order. Mr. Murphy replied that because the project is basically a recapitulation of a previously approved project it is his understanding that the Director agreed to waive the traffic input statement at zoning but it will be required at development order time and the project will have to demonstrate that it can satisfy all the requirements and any impacts on traffic will have to be mitigated at that time. Mr. Zuba then asked if the process is that the Director felt the LPA could approve zoning without that information and Mr. Murphy replied that this is correct. With regard to Point 18 on the Local Development Order for Parcel B must be received within 48 months Mr. Zuba wanted to know what the alternative would be. Does that mean the Town approval is rescinded? Mr. Murphy did not know the answer to this question. He believes it should be, or the master concept plan will expire. Then they would have CPD zoning but would have to go through the public hearing process again to get a new master concept plan approved. Mr. Zuba asked whether this was tantamount to saying that the approval given by the LPA to Council should be given again. Yes, or they could come in with a different plan of development.

With regard to Point 10, the pool area Mr. Zuba asked whether that was a requirement pertaining to commercial pools and therefore not comparable to a home pool. Mr. Murphy replied that there are levels in that this will be a 32-unit complex, but agreed that a single family pool is different. There was discussion as to application between multifamily and single family areas. The parking deviations were previously approved allowing them to be carried forward.

Ms. Plummer asked whether there are any pools on which time frames have been set, and Mr. Murphy said he is not aware of any but would not be surprised depending on special circumstances. There was discussion about other instances. Ms. Smith said she had just returned from the Royal Pacific Hotel which is Universal’s new, large resort hotel and that pool is closed at 9:00 P.M. Ms. Plummer asked whether this would mean that more stringent pool regulations are contemplated in any multifamily development. Mr. Murphy replied that this recommendation was crafted based on Staff’s assessment of the situation in the neighborhood prior to coming to Public Hearing and saw this as a way to try to get ahead of discussion.

Ms. Plummer questioned Number 12. She thinks that one of the things needing to be considered is that people travel differently than they used to. She gave personal examples wherein several family members needed multiple room accommodations. This type of space requires more square footage. Mr. Murphy felt that these were excellent reasons for approving a deviation. Ms. Smith said that this is the difference between a hotel and a resort and that the Island is becoming more of a resort island than a motel island, which she thinks is a good thing.

On Deviation 12 Mr. Huber requested clarification on the 43, 560 square feet, when Mr. Spiern-Smith gave his presentation he changed the figures to 25,600 on the previous Page 4. The change on Page 4 is strictly for the 32 guest units, and the higher figure applied to the overall CPD.

Chair Smith then opened the Public Hearing and asked for public comment.

Matt Uhle, an attorney representing Jim Shenko, came forward to say that they are both available to respond to questions. He was cautioned about the three-minute limit. By way of background, he was not here for the previous hearing but has read the transcript and is aware of what happened. The two basic issues revolve around Conditions 10 and 11, the pool hours and basically the impact of the pool, and the outdoor entertainment which is the biggest issue for them. His client owns property on Primo Drive. As he testified last time, his family has owned that property since the 1970s and he has personally owned it since 1984. The property is zoned residential conservation in the new zoning regulations. He has a reasonable expectation that he will be free from noise because he was there prior to any outdoor entertainment at Matanzas Inn. This is an interest that is protected by the zoning regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy’s Staff Report cited in Land Use Policy 4C3 which talks about noise, etc. and is the context of the application. Secondly, there are facts in this case that distinguish it from the Snug Harbor case that was heard previously and probably any other case, in that there is a long and dismal history involving this particular property and its effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Shenko testified to some of that last time. The original approval for outdoor entertainment on this property occurred during the mid-1980s and at the time his client came in and expressed concern about the noise created by “bands,” which resulted in a prohibition against “bands,” which the owner got around by having “soloists.” The problem remains and has existed for quite a long time and has tried to work with the owners. In his house with the windows closed and the TV off the soloist can be heard very clearly and this is a major problem for him and his lifestyle. When this case came up again in 1999 Mr. Spiern-Smith expressed surprise that there was a problem because there had been no reports to the police. This was true, but his client was trying to deal with the owners and not the police. The owner also indicated that they would make changes and relocate and redirect the entertainment so as to eliminate the impact on his client and other residential owners. He did not do this by his own admission for a period of four years. In the meantime from 1999 to 2003 his client and others have been calling the police which is not an effective way of enforcing regulations. He cited Ms. Segal-George’s comments during the hearing on Snug Harbor. The Sheriff’s office and code enforcement personnel are not accessible at the right times. At the earlier hearing they admitted that nothing had been done and for a period of several months nothing was done. Then in September they did make some changes that have alleviated the problem somewhat; however, the problem is not solved. His client has advised that he can still hear some of the vocalists very clearly with the windows closed. In addition, he has pointed out that there is a difference in what takes place in season and in off-season. There are not many people at this restaurant at this particular time, so the overall volume is not as great as it will be during Season. As a result of this, and as a result of the protection provided by the Comprehensive Plan, it is their opinion that his client is entitled to protection in this particular resolution that does not require him to call the Sheriff’s office or code enforcement every time there is a problem. There are two different options they would like to suggest. First, a ban on outdoor entertainment at this site. If this sounds harsh, Mr. Uhle pointed out that his client has been dealing with Margaritaville in his house for the last roughly fifteen years and does not feel this is an unreasonable request. In addition it is not reasonable to expect that when the size of this restaurant is being increased by 40 per cent that you are unable to find room on this site to put the entertainment indoors. Therefore there is a nexus between the request for expansion of the restaurant and this particular issue. If that is not appropriate, he would like to expand on a suggestion of Ms. Segal-George during the Snug Harbor hearing, which is to have a noise expert make a determination and advise this committee. Based on his experience with similar cases elsewhere in the county he believes it would be possible to make structural changes so as to avoid noise getting out of the property. His suggestion would be to impose a condition of the development order approval for the expansion of a restaurant that there would have to be a certification from an engineer that improvements had been made such that the noise would not go out of the property. The third alternative is to go with the Staff recommendation of limiting hours of operation of amplified music, which would be difficult to enforce. He anticipated a problem with defining amplification, and now that he has heard the discussion about the steel drums he is certain that this will be a problem. He believes a structural solution would be a simple, up-front, clear, straightforward resolution of the problem that he believes could work and would meet all the criteria that his client needs and is entitled to under the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Smith allowed Mr. Uhle to continue beyond the three-minute limit in recognition of the fact that he had been waiting three hours to speak.

Regarding the pool, his client’s position on that is similar. The Staff recommendation is to limit hours of operation which is fine, but a better solution would be the use of a reasonable buffer to deal with the noise created by the pool. He does not consider the few planters proposed by the applicant to be a real buffer and asked that some sort of landscaped wall be put in to solve the problem without the issue of enforcement of hours of operation.

Chair Smith closed the Public Hearing at this time.

Mr. Spiern-Smith was asked whether he wished to readdress the members and he did not.

Ms. Cereceda said she had been disturbed that nothing had been done for four years, but when she visited the area last night she observed that a piece of plexiglass-like material had been placed immediately in back of the singer. She felt that if the corner were enclosed the sound would be buffered more. After the last hearing to last night she felt there was some improvement and she would like to know if the neighbor also feels that way. She does not agree with Mr. Uhle that enclosure or physical barrier would keep sound within boundaries.

Chair Smith felt that in view of present and anticipated ongoing conversations on this subject, the LPA should pursue the matter to find out if there are appropriate experts who could give advice on this subject. Ms. Segal-George said that such a provision could be included and that between now and the time this goes to Council she could attempt to locate such a professional to give an opinion at Town expense. If one is found, there would be further implications than just this case. She felt that this would be valuable in a number of cases.

Mr. Uhle felt that many sound consultants had been used in other cases and wondered whether the county itself had studied this or could give input. Diamond Head’s situation was again discussed. It was agreed to make the effort to gather as much information as possible.

Ms. Cereceda observed that while only one individual has come forward and taken the time to address this issue, she does not allow the number of individuals to affect her decision. She feels this issue is going to recur again and again. She does not want to give a resident the false expectation that something is being done when it really is not. If there is some means of abating the sound to allow outdoor entertainment to continue and maintain the peace for the neighbors, it is incumbent on the LPA to find such a solution. Chair Smith agreed.

Ms. Segal-George said that when an applicant comes forward and asks for certain things from the governing body, the governing body has the right to put some conditions on that approval. By asking for these additional things, therefore, she believes the LPA has the right to put the conditions that are felt appropriate in order to make that recommendation to the Council. The applicant can argue otherwise, and that argument can then go to the Council. Ms. Segal-George had to leave at this time.

Nancy Mulholland asked whether Item 11 should be excluded as approved pending results of investigating sound control. Chair Smith said she would rely on Staff on this.

Ms. Cereceda pointed out that they are permitted right now to continue doing what they are doing. It was conditioned all those years ago with buffering which was not done.

Mr. Huber had some comments regarding compliance of the Development Order being in arrears by four years. He felt that by approving the request with the exclusion of Point 11, unless they were coming in for future variations we would indeed at some point then be taking away, whereas as Ms. Segal-George seemed to indicate because they are asking for XYZ we can request certain conditions on Point 11. He believes they have indicated that they would like a study on outdoor music overall because of its implications throughout the Island.

Chair Smith expressed reluctance to get bogged down on the issue of outdoor music in view of the very complicated request that is in front of the LPA. She felt that discussion should focus on the applicant’s request and not on the issue of the amplification of music.

Mr. Folke asked whether it was intended to request an analysis of the sound issue between this meeting and the Council meeting. Chair Smith said she does not think it will be done before the Town Council meeting, but that the LPA does want to find out if this can be done. It was suggested that perhaps Mr. Uhle does in fact know of people who could do this.

There was discussion whether Item 11 could be left in with a contingency of certification by an engineer that the sound would not go outside the property line. Mr. Folke stated that he felt the LPA should attempt to make a decision based solely on the information provided to it today. All the LPA is being asked to think about today is that one location.

There was also discussion of Page 6 Number 12. Mr. Murphy does not plan to change his recommendation nor to urge the LPA to overturn it. He bases his position on direction from Council that Staff was not to be willy-nilly in granting deviations.

A member made the comment that an integral part of this business that has been in existence has been food, alcohol and entertainment, and if any one of those is eliminated it causes a major change in operation of the business. Without building a new structure and putting everything inside, which negates the reasons why people come to the Beach for the outdoor ambience, we are designing and creating his business and taking away approval that he has said since 1999.

MOTION: Motion was made by Ms. Plummer to approve the project as per Staff recommendation except for Number 11 which she wished to eliminate because there is already approval, would like the Town Council to take considerable effort in working toward finding an answer for this issue that will continue to come before us and also recommend approval for Deviation 12 based on the needs and add with approval of Deviation 21 which allows 25 per cent of the ground floor to be used for non-residential purposes, and the proposed language CPD Matanzas Inn information put into record for informational purposes only and not to be incorporated into the provisions of the approval today. Motion was seconded for discussion purposes by Ms. Cereceda.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Cereceda asked Mr. Folke to address the unit size question as an issue of intensity versus density. He replied that it must be considered when the unit size is increased what impact it will have on the size of the structure. In this case he believes they are staying with two stories over parking. Also there is now a core area ratio limitation, setbacks, and the intensity of the use itself. The impact of this particular project must be what is considered. The floor area ratio is increased somewhat on this particular parcel, but on the overall CPD they have agreed to stay within the 1.2 floor area ratio which is appropriate for the overall project. The speaker also wanted to clarify that the height that he expressed as 40 feet should be 30 feet. There was discussion regarding the number of people in a unit and the noise factor. It was pointed out that some people do require more living space than just one room with two double beds. Ms. Cereceda stated that her concern was changing the intensity of the use of that parcel. She was curious that no other member had the same objection. Chair Smith said she has no problem with the size of the units and thought it might help to take Fort Myers Beach to the next level.

Ms. Plummer thought that at 10:00 P.M. most people are not in the pool but expressed a problem with the use of the word “all.” Ms. Cereceda asked about buffering the pool, and Ms. Plummer objected to asking someone to cover up their water view. She feels that there are some things that can probably be done, but to put a wall around a pool is unreasonable. Chair Smith pointed out that a wall around a pool increases the temperature drastically particularly in Summer.

Ms. Cereceda asked for clarification on the motion regarding the music issue. Ms. Plummer said her intention was to continue permission for outdoor music and the fact that there have been improvements which have been noticed by the neighbors in her opinion shows that progress has been made.

Mr. Folke asked for clarification of the resolution that the intent is to keep the existing rules on outdoor seating as what he has right now rather than change it. He would then recommend removing Number 11 and saying “conditions consistent with the existing outdoor seating.” Ms. Plummer was agreeable to this.

Mr. Huber returned to the previous hearing and agrees with all the approvals given at that time which are the same as this request. He would approve the deviation that Mr. Murphy did not want to approve with regard to the issue of the unit sizes. He would not agree on the music change. He believes the LPA is approving a huge increase in improvement of the property and that the music issue is a small thing to ask in this regard that the music be toned down. He would leave Number 11 in.

There was discussion about outdoor entertainment at special events versus outdoor entertainment at permanent facilities like the ones under discussion.

After lengthy discussion Ms. Plummer amended her motion to leave Number 11 in with emphasis on the need for Town Council to take a strong position on how outdoor entertainment will be handled in the future based on the fact that that is what there is.

Mr. Folke pointed out that special events are reviewed individually by Staff and conditions are imposed based on the inconvenience that might be caused for a short period of time. There is a clear difference between a special event permit and rezoning of a property.

Ms. Cereceda agreed with the amended motion.

Mr. Murphy pointed out that in the previous approval the condition was that no outdoor entertainment was allowed except on the upper deck as more particularly specified on the attached drawing. In the previously approved master concept plan that area would be the 1,300 square foot of second floor outdoor seating enclosed which is currently on the property. It is outdoor seating but is enclosed under roof. Their recommendations are more specific but they have not restricted where in the outdoor seating area the entertainment could be located. He wanted to make this distinction between what was previously approved and what is there.

There was a request to restate the amended motion, and this was done. Ms. Cereceda volunteered to rescind her second of the original motion so the amended motion could be voted upon.

MOTION: The previous motion and second, and amendments, were withdrawn. Motion was made by Ms. Plummer to approve (inaudible) the Matanzas case with Staff recommendations excluding Number 12 in the deviations and adding Number 21 of the deviations which allows 25 per cent of the ground floor to be used for non-living service space and add to Number 18 “or the master concept plan will expire if he does not do that within the 48 (months)” and that the proposed language to the information given by Mr. Spiern-Smith not be included in the recommendation, and that Town Council take a serious look at Number 11 on the conditions because it seems to be a continuing issue affecting business on the Island. Motion was seconded by Ms. Cereceda.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Hester objected to the motion including Number 11. She felt this should not be put in the resolution but she could support the motion leaving Number 11 in and then directing Staff to tell Counsel what the LPA wishes to do.

Ms. Plummer agreed to change the motion to the same as before except leaving Condition 11 as stipulated in the Staff Report, with no comment.

Mr. Folke clarified the motion by stating that the recommendation is for approval with the Staff recommended conditions except as follows: In Condition 2 you would be taking Alternative B which allows for the larger hotel rooms, approving Deviation 12 which goes back to 2B which is the larger hotel room, adding Deviation 21 which would allow 25 per cent of the first story to be non-living service area 30 feet above base flood three stories and leaving Condition 11. Condition 18 was restated as above. The issue of entertainment with outdoor seating needs to be addressed possibly with consultants.

VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous vote.

Ms. Smith asked Mr. Folke, who replied that this will go before the Council on November 10, 2003 at 9 A.M. the same as the previous case.

It was decided not to put the recommendation to Council regarding a sound engineer into the form of a motion. Mr. Folke felt that the LPA’s wishes in this regard could be adequately convened to the Council by Staff.

V. LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

Jodi Hester felt that when presentations are made by an applicant and then by Staff that this engenders too much discussion before getting to the heart of the matter. She recommends trying to limit the questions that are relevant to what they need to know from each party. Chair Smith agreed and apologized to the members.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENT:

There was no public comment.

VII. ADJOURN:

Meeting was adjourned by Chair Roxie Smith at 3:55 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary