{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, October 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMcNamara, and Piziali.\nMs. Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nDouglas Garrison, Planner III, Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the Special meeting of September 29, 2005.\nM/S McNamara/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 29, 2005, as presented.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of October 10, 2005.\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that page 3, paragraph 2, should read, \"Ms. Kohlstrand inquired whether\nnoted that the public plaza discussion had been part of the Park Street Revitalization discussion, and\nwhether it could be placedthere had been any further discussion about placing that plaza across the\nstreet from City Hall.\"\nVice President Cook noted that with respect to page 10, paragraph 1, she wanted to ensure that it\nwas understood that the Board also wanted a discussion with the City Manager or the appropriate\nrepresentative about the staffing needs and shortage, and that the information received was not in\nlieu of that discussion.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of October 10, 2005, as corrected.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Dorothy Reid, Willows Homeowners, 2101 Shoreline, noted that ten community members had\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 2, "text": "met with Target and some staff members, and thanked Mr. Garrison for arranging the meeting. She\nnoted that they agreed on some items, and that the store cannot be made smaller, nor can it be\nreoriented in the shopping center. They agreed that traffic still needed to be studied, and were\nassured that seismic studies would be guided by Planning codes. She added that there were some\nareas where compromise could not be reached.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nUP05-0014/MDR05-0217 - Li-Sheng Fu & Jim Hom - 2320 Lincoln Avenue (EP). A\nUse Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the building located adjacent to Gim's\nChinese Kitchen. The proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 975 square feet in size\nand will be utilized during normal business hours (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) 7 days a\nweek. Only minor changes are proposed to rehabilitate the exterior of the building. The site\nis located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (Applicant\nrequests continuance to the meeting of November 14, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of November 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 3, "text": "7-B.\nDR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT).\nApplicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,850\nsquare foot two-story commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an\nexisting parking lot located between the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and\nGallagher and Lindsey offices. The applicant also requests the payment of in-lieu\nfees and Variance for the additional required parking spaces. The property is located within\na\nC-C T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining District. (Continued from the\nmeeting of October 10, 2005.) (Staff requests continuance to the meeting of November\n14, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of November 14, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nDPA05-0001 and DR05-0089; Bay Ship and Yacht, 2900 Main Street (DG). The\nApplicant requests approval of a Development Plan Amendment and Major Design Review.\nPrevious approvals include Development Plan DP85-2, Development Plan Amendment\nPDA03-005, Use Permit UP03-017 and Major Design Review DR03-0119. The current\napplication includes modifications to some of these earlier approvals. These modifications\ninclude: replacement of a proposed fabric covered steel frame structure with a metal\nbuilding, expansion of this structure by 900 sq. ft.; the construction of a second building of\nsimilar design, in an area previously approved as an outdoor work area, that will be used as a\nboat refit bay; and the construction of a new building housing a lunchroom, supply room and\nproduction office. The new buildings would replace other existing facilities, consequently\nthere would not be an increase in project capacity or intensity of use. The project site is\nzoned General Industrial (Manufacturing) District (M-2).\nMs. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that no further environmental or mitigation\nmeasures would be required. Staff recommended approval of this project.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Cris Kraft, Bay Ship and Yacht, 2900 Main Street, applicant, noted that he would be available to\nanswer questions from the Board.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding public access at the west end of the site,\npublic art and landscaping, Mr. Garrison noted that the landscaping plan did not have all the trees on\nit. Additional trees would be planted in the southernmost part of the parking lot, as well as around\nthe recently constructed administrative building to provide screening and softening between that\nbuilding and the public areas.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding trees by Building A, Mr. Kraft replied\nthat there would be trees along that area, but they were new. He added that ground cover had been\nadded along the side of the building. He did not believe the ground cover looked adequate, so shrubs\nwould be added.\nVice President Cook wished to ensure that there would be a logical and clear public access and bike\nroute, so that it connected to future improvements at Alameda Point.\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-43 to approve a\nDevelopment Plan Amendment and Major Design Review. Previous approvals include Development\nPlan DP85-2, Development Plan Amendment PDA03-005, Use Permit UP03-017 and Major Design\nReview DR03-0119. The current application includes modifications to some of these earlier\napprovals. These modifications include: replacement of a proposed fabric covered steel frame\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 5, "text": "structure with a metal building, expansion of this structure by 900 sq. ft.; the construction of a\nsecond building of similar design, in an area previously approved as an outdoor work area, that will\nbe used as a boat refit bay; and the construction of a new building housing a lunchroom, supply\nroom and production office. The new buildings would replace other existing facilities, consequently\nthere would not be an increase in project capacity or intensity of use.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 6, "text": "8-B.\nPlanned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 (DG). Presentation to the Planning\nBoard concerning proposed expansion of the South Shore Center. The presentation and\ndiscussion will focus on project consistency with existing City economic and retail\ndevelopment plans and policies. The purpose of this meeting is for discussion purposes only.\nMs. Eliason noted that the economic consultant was delayed following an airline flight, and\nsuggested that the staff report be heard first.\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and noted that the Planning Board wanted additional\ninformation on economic impacts and how this project fit into the overall Citywide economic\ndevelopment strategy for retail development. The environmental review was ongoing, including\ntraffic studies and visual simulations. He noted that this presentation would focus on economics,\nrather than traffic and noise.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the release of a draft of the environmental\nreview, Mr. Garrison replied that the traffic study must be finalized first, and that preliminary traffic\ndata was sent to Public Works for their review; they submitted comments to the traffic engineer, who\nwould revise his study to incorporate their comments. He expected that a final traffic study would be\navailable in approximately a month; the rest of the environmental study could be completed at that\ntime. If a mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate document, it would be available within a\nfew months; a full EIR would take longer.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the environment consultant, Mr. Garrison replied\nthat it was Lamphier Gregory; the traffic, noise and air sections were on hold.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the Economic Development\nCommission had reviewed this application, Mr. Knopf replied that they had heard a draft\npresentation the previous Thursday night by Linda Congleton, who was hired by the City to produce\na focused analysis of this proposal. The next EDC meeting would be scheduled for November 11;\nthe full presentation would be made at that time. He noted that it was very important to the EDC that\nexisting businesses, retail and commercial uses be supported. He discussed retail opportunities and\nleakage, and noted that Trader Joe's has become a destination retail space for Alamedans. He\nreviewed the background of South Shore development and the analysis of retail needs on the western\npart of the Island.\nMr. Lynch noted that he would like the EDC and Development Services to remain open to other\ntypes of retail experiences as the City develops its underdeveloped parcels. He noted that sales tax\nrevenues funded public services, and that it was important to maintain a vital and appropriate\nrevenue flow.\nMr. Knopf noted that there has been general public concern about big box stores, and added that big\nboxes historically came about with freestanding stores like Costco, Sam's Club and other minimally\nstaffed warehouses where customer service was not the priority. He noted that this proposal was not\na big box, although that term was used in a general way where it did not technically apply. He noted\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 7, "text": "that big box stores typically had negative economic and design impacts on the community. The EDC\ntried to generalize from those two points when significantly large new retail proposals came forth.\nThe two questions surrounding this concern were: Whether it primarily serves the community, and\ndoes it meet an unmet need in Alameda. The EDC believed that the shoppers would maintain its\nexistence; it was not desirable for one store to cannibalize the rest of the retail stores. In terms of\ndesign, some retailers require large floor plates for their designs, such as new, larger supermarkets.\nThe City wished to craft a policy that is able to respond to changes in the marketplace, and that the\nretail uses should be pedestrian-friendly.\nM/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to hear Items 9 and 10 before the remainder of Item 8-B.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Linda Congleton, Linda Congleton & Associates, had prepared a focused economic analysis of\nthe Target proposal for South Shore Center. She summarized her background, and presented an\nextensive PowerPoint presentation of the economic analysis. She noted that a Target would not need\nto rely on off-Island customers, and that it was an attractive magnet for other retailers. She found\nthat Target's merchandising was compatible with the upscale economic demographic of Alameda.\nShe estimated that Target would generate annual sales of $44-50 million, bringing in sales tax\nrevenues of nearly $500,000 per year; over a ten-year period, approximately $5 million in sales tax\nrevenues would be generated for City services. She noted that Target was not dependent on freeway\naccess, and that the South Shore location was so well-known that the company was confident it\nwould thrive there. She added that Target was very community-oriented, and was a highly\nphilanthropic company. She displayed slides of various Target store designs.\nPresident Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S McNamara/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speaker times to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Jack Easterday, owner, Alameda Care Center, 1150 Ballene Blvd. #210, spoke in support of this\napplication. He believed that Target would be a vitalizing element in South Shore Center. He noted\nthat he had lived next door to a Target in Southern California, and now lives in Alameda. He had\nreviewed the plans given to him by Target and South Shore, and believed they were positive for\nAlameda Care. He noted that the Safeway store had become tired-looking, and added that their\ndelivery trucks parked behind his back door.\nMs. Joan Ruiz, 2101 Shoreside #145, spoke in opposition to this item, and distributed photos to the\nBoard. She was very concerned about traffic impacts on and off the Island, which was already\ncongested without a Target. She believed that South Shore Center was intended to be a convenience\nshopping center, and did not believe this was an appropriate use for the area.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Pat Gannon, 1019 Tobago Lane, expressed concern about the potential impact a Target would\nhave on Willows residents, including traffic congestion and delivery truck noise and fumes. She was\nconcerned that their property values may be negatively affected. She did not believe a Target would\nprevent off-Island retail leakage.\nMs. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed that the Target\nproposal was not as good as it looked economically, and that it may be short-sighted. She believed\nTarget's presence would prevent the presence of mid-sized businesses (smaller than 145,000 square\nfeet) such as the Gap, Banana Republic, Pottery Barn and Crate & Barrel. She urged the Board to\ntake its time in considering this option.\nMr. Robert Matz, 2101 Shoreline Drive #204, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that both\nreports misapplied CRP #1 to this project, and that their conclusion that this project will not\nduplicate existing retail was unsupported by the facts. He believed there were economic effects not\naddressed by this report, and that there was a lack of objectivity in both reports. He believed CRP #1\nwas designed to complement, not duplicate, and that this report concerned anchor stores. The report\nconceded that Mervyn's is an anchor store. He believed that Mr. Garrison's report was false in its\nstatement that Target did not duplicate existing retail, and that it did duplicate Mervyn's use. He\nbelieved that the Congleton report was inaccurate because he did not believe the issue was about\nshopping at Target, or whether or not Alameda residents traveled off-Island to shop at Target. He\nnoted that both reports identified sales tax as the primary economic benefit of this project, and added\nthat the October 13, 2005, report identified a sales tax increase of $165,000, not $500,000 as\nreported by Ms. Congleton. He noted that neither report acknowledged any property tax decrease\nfrom impacted property values. He disagreed with Ms. Congleton's assessment of the project as an\nupgrade of the South Shore Center anchor store position.\nMs. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline, spoke in opposition to this item. She did not believe there was\nany data support the conclusions in the report, and added that much of the data provided came from\nTarget. She believed that Target was a big box store because of its size and merchandise, and that\nother research studies identified it as a big box store. She was very concerned about the traffic\nimpacts of this store.\nMr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He objected to the\nmassive size of this store, and believed it was a big box store despite the design of the fa\u00e7ade. He\ndisagreement with Mr. Lynch's opinion of development and redevelopment, and would like\nAlameda to be somewhat underdeveloped so it did not contribute to urban sprawl. He objected to the\nproposed store's impact on traffic. He inquired whether any workshops had taken place yet. He\nbelieved this project should be scaled back or not built at all.\nMs. Lucy Gigli, 849 Laurel Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she shopped at\nSouth Shore Center frequently. She was very concerned about the potential changes in the\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 9, "text": "to speak.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Congleton noted that the sales tax revenue estimation was based on her professional assessment\nof the number of households and amount of affluence adequate to support this store. She added that\nif Target needed off-Island customers, they would not be so enthusiastic about this central Alameda\nlocation. She did not see the traffic issues as significant, and noted that intra-Alameda traffic would\nalso reduce the number of trips off-Island to Targets in other cities. She noted that she was not a\ntraffic engineer.\nPresident Cunningham would like to see more detailed information to support the report. Ms.\nCongleton advised that she could provide a detailed demand analysis.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether off-Island shopped would be attracted to this\nstore, Ms. Congleton replied that Alameda residents would not go to Target stores off-Island if there\nwas a local Target. She believed that the South Shore location would not attract off-Island shoppers,\nas it would if it has easy freeway access. She added that the resident base in Alameda has increased\nin income and shopping sophistication, and that the very low discount stores that had been in South\nShore were not attractive to the current demographic.\nVice President Cook would like to see more objective data, and noted that there were no easy\nTargets to get to from Alameda and Oakland and traffic from Oakland may therefore be greater than\nanticipated.\nMs. Congleton noted that while there had been some negative press about Wal-Mart, she was\nunaware of anywhere in the nation where a Target has caused closures of small businesses. She\nbelieved a Target strengthened local retail by meeting shopping needs, resulting in less retail\nleakage.\nPresident Cunningham echoed the Board's requests for more data to support that assertion.\nMr. Lynch noted that he liked shopping on the Island, and inquired how merchants' goals had been\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 10, "text": "met with the existing changes from development along Park Street.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch how this potential development would impact leakage, Mr.\nKnopf replied that a separate report addressed leakage, and used sales tax data from five years ago.\nHe noted that the most vulnerable areas were those that had not been touched by the resurgence on\nPark Street. He discussed retail characteristics based on demographics and geography. He noted that\nthe Gap was not interested in Alameda, and added that retailers were extremely conservative and\nwanted to go into a market where they were sure to succeed, and where they would find neighbors\nthat they are used to having. He believed that Target would serve as an anchor that would attract\nother medium-sized retailers such as William Sonoma or Gap. He had not seen any readiness on the\npart of Banana Republic to place a store in Alameda. He believed that while Target could attract the\nWal-Mart shoppers, he did not believe that Wal-Mart could attract the Target shoppers.\nMs. Kohlstrand liked the Target shown in an urban setting, but added that most Targets she was\nfamiliar with were not like that. She would like to go through this process in a rational way with\nquantifiable data, rather than taking a leap of faith.\nMs. Congleton noted that she would respond to the Board's concerns. Ms. Congleton noted that she\ncould provide a quantification analysis. Mr. Lynch suggested that a demand analysis also be\nperformed.\nVice President Cook would like to understand who some of the other potential tenants would be, and\nan idea of the center at full buildout. Ms. Congleton noted that she could look at some co-tenants,\nand the kinds of shops that generally surround Target. Vice President Cook would also like to see\nwhat would be a reasonable capacity for the center.\nMs. McNamara supported the need for the Board to have more substantial financial data. She\nbelieved that an 85%/15% split was a cookie-cutter marketing approach to Alameda's particular\nsituation. She believed that there would be a greater influx of people coming in to Alameda to shop\nbecause of the increasing amount of development in the Port of Oakland area and along the Oakland\nEstuary area. She noted that there was a huge upscale development on the other side of Park Street\nthat was nearly completed. She believed the potential impact of inbound customers from affluent\nsurrounding areas. Ms. Congleton replied that would be able to provide that information, and that\nshe would examine the quantity of those homes as well.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern about the traffic impact in that area, which was congested even\nwithout a Target.\nMs. Eliason emphasized that the economic consultant was not a traffic consultant. Ms. McNamara\nnoted that she would bring that issue up at a later time.\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that her main issues were traffic, design, and the scale issue. She would like\nto discuss the size of the store further, which Target should respond to.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 11, "text": "Ms. Congleton advised that this store was Target's smallest format of 127,000 square feet, placed on\na podium. She noted that with the podium design there would be additional parking space inside, and\nthat it would be more pedestrian-friendly and more appropriate for an urban setting. She added that\nunless Target would be able to build the 127,000 square foot building with a lower design, they\nwould not come to Alameda.\nPresident Cunningham noted that another solution would be place the store on the ground, with the\nparking on the top floor with ramps. Ms. Congleton noted that might affect the aesthetics of the\nroofline.\nA discussion of the store's pedestrian orientation ensued.\nPresident Cunningham would support a smart growth development.\nMr. Piziali inquired whether there was any other option beside the podium design. Ms. Congleton\nnoted that parking was always the toughest issue for her clients, and that they tried to find attractive\nsolutions to hide the cars without requiring more asphalt area for parking.\nMs. Congleton reviewed the requests for information by the Board members, and noted that she\nwould be pleased to present them:\n1.\nDeveloping additional quantifications;\n2.\nAddressing issues regarding potential tenants around Target;\n3.\nAddressing the fiscal impact on the Island;\n4.\nDiscuss the Port of Oakland and the impact of the number of housing units and;\n5.\nThe scale of the overall development.\nMr. Knopf noted that the Board requested supporting data behind the assertions made by the\neconomic consultant, especially that Target would rely on 80% of its clientele from Alameda. He\nnoted that Ms. Congleton's report did not address that issue in more depth was because of an\nanalysis performed in 2003 by Strategic Economics.\nMs. Lynch advised that he would also like that data to be delivered to the public.\nMr. Knopf discussed retail capture patterns, and noted that this report assumed a 30-40% capture\nrate for sporting goods, and between 60-75% in general merchandise capture due to proximity.\nWith respect to duplication of anchors, Mr. Piziali inquired how many years remained in Mervyn's\nlease. Mr. Corbett replied that was proprietary information.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason replied that the next step would be\nstaff working with the applicant on design, and that a design workshop may be held. The economic\ninformation would be brought to the Board when the environmental and traffic information is\navailable, which she anticipated to occur in approximately two months.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 12, "text": "No action was taken.\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Eliason advised that an email in support of the Target store from Kathy Moehring was received.\nAn off-agenda item related to future development was also distributed.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nMr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nmember Mariani).\nMs. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member\nKohlstrand).\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that a meeting had been held on Wednesday, October 19, and that it had\nbeen featured on the front page of the Alameda Journal, resulting in good attendance and feedback.\nAnother meeting had been scheduled for November to address street classification by auto, bicycle\nand pedestrian functions, and how the land use provisions interact with it.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Eliason advised that a discussion of the CIP program would be discussed at the next meeting,\nwhich would be explained by Public Works.\nIn\nresponse to a question by Mr. Lynch regarding fees, Ms. Eliason replied that the Planning\nDivision was not yet at cost recovery, but it was moving towards it. Mr. Lynch noted that the\nPlanning fees were very reasonable, and hoped there was some room for adjustment.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-10-24", "page": 13, "text": "Gregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the November 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nOctober 24, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf"}