PC 102407 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regazding storage of dresses that - become out of season, Ms. Andrus replied that they would be discounted and sold as-is. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding how the applicant planned to handle the traffic and parking impacts generated by members of the wedding party, Ms. Andrus replied that they would work with the customers to accommodate the cars and that she could relocate their own vehicles. She did not want to disrupt the neighborhood and intended to work with the commwrity to ensure the business was not a disturbance. Jamie Zile, Gem Bridal &Weddings, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that she owned a bridal shop in the Downtown and encouraged storefront competition in Pleasanton. She believed that would bring more business into Pleasanton rather than having the customers go into San Francisco. She did not believe the applicant has fully researched the industry and was concerned that that this kind of home-based business would undercut standard storefront businesses such as hers. She did not believe such a business could operate from a home. She noted that bridal companies did not ship directly to customers because the wholesale invoices were included in the box. She advised that the large boxes arrive as soon as the dresses were ready. She believed that the substantial amount of dresses would not fit into a 400-square-foot space, nor could the gowns be displayed properly. She was concerned that the number of people (the bride, her mother, and the bridesmaids) would create traffic congestion. She noted that realistically, a bride will visit the shop approximately three to four times. She added that _ if there were no proper signage, the neighbors would be bothered by customers looking for the applicant's business. She did not believe this use was appropriate for the location and that frequent deliveries would impact the character of the neighborhood. She noted that at her store, their 12 parking spots were full all day on Saturdays. She urged the Planning Commission to deny this application. Wilma Thomas noted that she was the property owner and the mother of the applicant and spoke in support of this project. She noted that she had lived at the subject address until 2005 and that she had a business permit to run ahome-based dressmaking and alterations use for 18 years while she raised her family. She noted that she had six to eight customers a week, for two visits each, during the daytime and evening hours. She stated that she had always enjoyed a friendly and close relationship with her neighbors and did not believe her business had been a problem for them. She noted that she had run her own business in order to stay at home with her children and was pleased that her daughter endeavored to do the same by running this business. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding her own business, Ms. Thomas replied that she let her business license expire because she lived out of the country for three yeazs; in addition, she no longer lived in Pleasanton and did not run the business any more. Shannon Henderson noted that she was the applicant's sister, and would be one of the partners in the business; she also lived in the home. She noted that she was the sister who PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2007 Page 19 of 40