PC 102407 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Rebecca Andrus, applicant, wished to provide an explanation to the points made in the staff report. She stated that with respect to Item A on page 2, she had two employees who came into her home to help sell wedding dresses. She noted that the business would be run by her sister and herself, who lived at the house, her sister-in-law, and her mother, who is the property owner. She noted that two members of her family who lived elsewhere were at her house four to five times a week on social or family visits. She noted that business visits were by appointment only to minimize traffic to her house. With respect to Item B, addressing storage of dresses in no more than one room or 50 square feet, she noted that the living room and dining room were in reality one large room. She would store no more than 15 to 20 dresses in a bedroom closet in order to meet the size requirements. She would be happy to work with the standards to comply with staff's requirements. In order to meet the requirement of minimizing traffic, she stated that her business partners were also family, and it was difficult to differentiate their frequent social visits from work visits. She would instruct customers to park in the driveway so as to not use parking spots and added that there would be one daily appointment during the week and up to four appointments on Saturday. She did not believe that would be much more than a typical play date at a neighbors' house. She noted that with respect to Item I, addressing deliveries, she did not anticipate receiving dress shipments more than four to six dropoffs per year. She noted that the inventory could be delivered to another address _ if the delivery truck traffic were to be an issue. She believed the impacts on the neighborhood should be the issue and not whether the home occupation is appropriate for the location. She did not believe the home occupation would affect that character of the neighborhood and added that running the business out of the home was for financial reasons. She hoped to be able to expand to a storefront in approximately two years. She understood that Pleasanton was proactive in encouraging cottage industries, and she assured the Commission that they would be proactive in working with the neighbors. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding the length of each appointment, Ms. Andrus replied that they would reserve atwo-hour block of time per appointment, although it may not take that long. She noted that the idea for this business came from her sister looking for a wedding dress and finally finding it in a small home business near Sacramento; she made two visits to that business. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the client would return to the business for a fitting, Ms. Andrus replied that they did not provide those services and that the customer would need to have the dress fitted elsewhere. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding the number of customers who would be there at the same time, Ms. Andrus replied that there would be no more than two customers there during the same timeframe. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2007 Page 18 of 40