Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/2002REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2002 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 5. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Public Hearings: Case #02-085 Larry Gleason is requesting consideration for a conditional use permit for a 5,000 square foot gymnastic school with an adjacent warehouse located at 5500 Cottonwood Trail SE. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. $.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2002 1. Call to Order: Chairman Smmson called the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretaxy Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Present Lemke Present Ringstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the July 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as corrected. (Page 5, line 30, change "in" to 'haear"), 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case File g02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay Townhomes consisting of 10.62 acres to he subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes. This property is located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and ½ mile west of CSAH 21. Kan~ier introduced a letter ~om the developer requesting to continue the hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting on August 26, 2002. The developer would like time to address some of the issues based on the Planning Report. Kansier noted there were a number of neighbors present who would like to make comments and suggested they have a representative speak briefly on their concerns. Cfiego said based on the developer's letter they may substantially change the proposal. The testimony would not have any bearing on what the developer ultimately comes back with. Would rather see the new information and proceed. All the Commissioners agreed. Commissioners Atwood and Lernke will not be available for the August 26, 2002. L:~02FILES~02plannin$ comm~02pcminutes~lN081202.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting ~4ugust 12, 2002 MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE THE HEARING TO THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2002, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stephanie Renslow, 15616 Fremont Avenue NW, asked to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. One of their concerns is that the Commissioners have all the neighborhood information and issues, as she stated it is the Commission's first concern to satisfy the neighbors. Atwood suggested the neighborhood wait until the developer presents his proposal at the next meeting. What the neighborhood may say now may not be relevant to the proposed changes. Stamson pointed out the Commissioners have to follow procedures and it is not appropriate without the actual development presented. He would rather see any changes and new submittals prior to the meeting. The neighbors were encouraged to attend the next meeting and welcomed to speak to the Commissioners privately and/or submit their concerns in writing. Jeff Broberg, of McGhie & Betts Environmental Services representing the applicant suggested having another neighborhood meeting prior to the September 9, 2002, meeting. Kansier pointed out the time line and explained the process. A recess was called at 6:48 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:50 p.m. 6. Old Business: A. Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19 acres to be subdivided into 162 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 12, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. The property owner, Prior Lake Apartments, has also signed the application. The application includes requests for a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN081202.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2002 This property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting ora total of 148 dwelling units on 28.19 acres. The development also includes parkland and private open space. The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on July 8, 2002. At that meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concerns raised by the staff. The Planning Commission also heard testimony fi.om several residents of the area opposed to this project. The Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow the developer to address the issues raised at this meeting. On July 16, 2002, the developer met with City staffto discuss the various issues. On July 26, 2002, the developer submitted revised plans. One of the major issues pertaining to this development is whether or not the plan meets · the PUD criteria. The primalT jnstification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private streets. A cluster development of this type is permitted in the R-4 district, so a similar development with public sl~'eets, and meeting the required setbacks could be done without a PUD. The plan is consistent with the requirements for a conventional cluster development. At the July 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, comments by the Commissioners indicated that this type of development was preferable to a higher density type of development. The Commissioners also seemed to feel the PUD process and the use of private slxeets was appropriate for the development. The staff recommended approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Ouflot B must be designated as "Park" on the final plat. This park must be rough graded to City specifications. 2. The developer must address the ownership and maintenance ofOntlot C. 3. The developer must provide scaled plans for the building exteriors. The exterior materials of all buildings with more than 4-units must consist of at least 60% Class I materials. 4. The developer must address all of the is§ues in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant City E~neer, dated August 6, 2002. Comments from the public: Gary Grant, Pultc Homes, stated they were in agreement with thc report and would answer any questions. Criego questioned the trail location around the wetlands and why there were only single car garages. L:~O2FILES~O2planning comm~02peminutes~,lN081202.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2002 Dennis Griswald from Pulte Homes addressed the trail issue. The trails were designed to loop through the area, extending it through the park. They did not want to create a variety of distances between the patios and the wetlands. There are also various grade levels in those areas. Griswald proposed that the area could be dedicated as part of the park at no expense to the City. Otherwise, it would become part of the association and maintained by the homeowners. Criego questioned the distance between the townhomes and wetlands. Griswald responded it was at least 30 feet. There are different grade changes in that area. Kansier pointed out there is a requirement from the City and Watershed to maintain a 30 foot buffer strip from the delineated wetland. The buffer strip has to remain undisturbed. Walking paths would not be permitted within that area. Ray Brandt, Brandt Engineering, addressed the wetland setbacks. Grant responded to the single garage issue. The garages are oversized at 26 feet deep. They are tuck-unders to fit into the topo. The driveways are 25 to 29 feet. Affordability was also one of the keys to this project. Seventy percent of the buyers are typically single. The price range is about $115,000 to $125,000 for these single garage units. Leo Fecht, Franklin Trail, read a letter he wrote to the Prior Lake American regarding the natural beauty of Prior Lake. Some of his other concerns were for water preservation, the loss of oxygen produced by the woodland and the City's lack of planning for the environment. Quantity is not quality. The Planning Commission should use a little vision and reconsider the beauty and population of this town. Fecht felt there should be a moratorium on the development and told the Commissioners to use their hearts to make this important decision. He felt the residents of Prior Lake should come to the planning commission meetings to help the Commissioners make important decisions. There is no freedom in this development. Keep it simple. Suzanne Sharp, Franklin Trail, agreed with Mr. Fecht, pointing out the poor water quality of Prior Lake. The wetlands will be destroyed just like the lake. The setbacks from the wetland are only 30 feet compared to the lake's setbacks of 75 feet. Sharp also explained the deteriorating environment around the existing pond. This development will have a tremendous affect on the wetlands. Not many single people will be able to afford the proposed townhouses. She did not see this area as mainly a singles development. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Appreciated the compassion from the speakers. However, the issues they raised are political decisions. Moratoriums are set by the City Council and State legislators. The Planning Commissioners considers the development as the City zoning ordinances are written. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesLMN081202.doc Planning Commt~ion Meeting .~ugust 12, 2002 · The developer addressed all issues. The density fits. The drainage, Wails and parking have been addressed. · Supported the development. Criego: · Is there substantial evidence for this project to be a PUD? What benefits are there to the City? Having private roads is not a benefit to the City. · Like the idea of the wetlands and parks. · This project has substantial benefits to the residents of this community. · The developer has done a half-job on the trails. The benefit of the wetlands is to surround yourself with it. Not necessarily walk on County Road 21. The developer has missed that as a benefit. Propose the developer put a ~til around the entire wetland, not just on two sides. · Another concern is the small sized units. Did not believe the majority of the residents will have a single car. There is not enough adequate garage space. Should be a two-car garage, which is standard. · Would be more positive if those issues would be met. Ringstad: · Questioned Kansier on constructing trails around the entire wetland. Kansier said it would not be possible. City and Watershed rules require the 30 foot undisturbed buffer. · Pointed out concerns fi'om the neighbors at the last meeting, mainly the traffic and safety issues. The Commission supports the City Council and County officials in encouraging the State to carefully consider and address the traffic patterns in that are~. · The density for the property is good. · The layout is good. It is the best use of the property as proposed. · Would like to see a trail around the wetland, but will not hold up the project because of it. Move the development forward. Atwood: · Agreed with all the Commissioners, including the two-car garage issue. · Asked the Commissioners to address Mr. Fecht's letter. · Pointed out the Comprehensive Plan as a template for our City development. Criego: · There is a very fine line between leaving things the way they are and developing. It is the Commissioners job to weigh both sides of the goals. Prior Lake has been very sensitive in maintaining the environment. Should we stop development7 Its not possible. It is the City Council's job to also weigh those issues. · There could have been higher densities with greater impact on this property. · It's a tough issue the City and Commission deals with all the time. L:~02FILES',02planning comm~02pcmin ules~lN081202.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2002 Stamson: Recognize Prior Lake is in a quickly growing metro area. As things develop around us, the City has to keep up. · The City does a good job of addressing the Zoning and Comprehensive issues. · Mr. Fecht has a different opinion. Others feel the City is not growing fast enough. · A moratorium can be passed, but it will not affect this development. Atwood: · Support development. · See no other alternative to the entrance. The City needs to keep up the petition to the County and State to address the traffic issues. Stamson: · Agreed with Criego, the argument for a PUD to the City is not warranted. The trail would be ideal around the wetland but would not oppose the entire development. · Ideally, the townhouses should have two-car garages, but affordable housing does not always provide for that. The apartment building near this project has one indoor and one outdoor parking space for each unit. · The City needs affordable housing. It is a reasonable compromise and that will work. · Overall, happy with the project and will support recommendation to the City Council. · Pointed out the area ofland on County Road 21 andHighway 13 shouldbe developed into an attractive corner. Suggested the City could work with the developer on that issue. Lemke: · Pointed out the wetland and lake setback ordinances are guided by the DNR and Watershed District. In this case, this development meets the requirements. · The smaller units are priced $115,000 to $120,000. Criego: · Concerned with the ease the Commissioners are accepting PUD's. PUD's are to provide a benefit to the citizens and the City as well as the developers. The Commission has quickly gone past that. There is no PUD benefit to the City with this project. · The developer has asked for two setbacks to cram more homes in. · They say there is no room to develop a trail. There is room to put in a trail if the units are moved back. It shouldn't be a major issue. · There are going to be multiple adults in the single units. The 48 single units are crammed in to create density. There are other alternatives and should be addressed. The other units are fine. · This should not be a PUD development. There are no benefits to the citizens. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWiN081202,doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2002 · The developer can still make application and get something similar done. Why would the Commission allow this? · No benefit to the citizens and would not recommend the proposal. Stamson: · The developer is providing a better development than what is allowed. The property is unique with a lot of wetlands and zoned R4. The idea was with the changes, it would be a higher use and a more beneficial development. · The developer could come back with two 70-unit apartments. Then the Commission would come back and say we should have gone with the first proposal. Criego: · There are other ways to develop this property without causing some of these issues, · Double garages versus single garages. It is a minor issue. It will solve the majority of problems. It may also lay out the property different. · Maybe they need fewer units to accomplish that. There is no benefit to allow a PUD. · The wetland is there and cannot be used. Stamson: · Agreed with Criego, private sl~reets are not a benefit. The developer does not need a PUD to have single garages. Shouldn't be an issue. · Bottom line, comfortable with the development as a PUD. Lemke: · Agreed with Stamson, the density is less than is allowed. The City will have more open space. · It is a good layout. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS TIMBER CREST PARK SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Criego restated his concerns that there is no benefit to the City of Prior Lake or the residents for this as a PUD development. Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Ringstad, Atwood and Stamson. Nay by Criego. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS TIMBER CREST PARK, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. L:~02FILES~2plannins comm~2pOmnums'~fN081202.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2002 Criego stated this project has no benefit to the City of Prior Lake or the residents as a PUD. Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Atwood and Stamson. Nay by Criego. MOTION CARRIED. This item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on September 3, 2002. It will not be a public hearing. B. Case #02-072 - Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and 1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Plarming Report dated August 12, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to water-oriented accessory structures. The Pla~'mg Commission initiated this amendment on June 10, 2002. The Planning Commission originally conducted a public hearing on July 22, 2002. Following discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would allow a decreased setback for specific water-oriented accessory structures. These uses include structures for storing boating accessories and equipment, gazebos and screen houses. A setback of 50' from the ordinary high water elevation will be allowed on lots with slopes less than 20%. The current provision allowing a 10' setback on lots with slopes greater than 20% will still be in place. Whether or not a water-oriented accessory structure should be allowed on all riparian lots is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for aesthetic purposes. Earlier platted riparian lots tend to have smaller dimensions and less total area than is required for lots today. There has also been concem about the encroachment of structures on the lake. The staffhad no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will allow additional storage on riparian lots, and will still limit the encroachment of structures on the shoreline. Criego questioned language from the last meeting restricting variance requests. Kansier explained the definition of"uses". Use variances are not permitted under State Statutes. Lemke questioned items "f' and "g" regarding the flood plain requirements. Kansier agreed the language seem redundant. This language is right out of the State Regulations and staff will double check it before proceeding to Council. Criego felt the Commissioners should look at the flood plain language before a decision is made. L:\02F1LES\02planning eomm\02pcminut es~V~N081202.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2002 After a brief discussion, the Commissioners came up with appropriate language. There were no comments from the public. Comments from the Commissioners: MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE W1TH THE CHANGES. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Jane Kansier Planning Coordinator Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:~02FILES~02planning eongn~02pcminutes~N081202.doe 9 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: PLANNING REPORT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT GYMNASTIC SCHOOL IN THE C-5 (BUSINESS OFFICE PARK) DISTRICT (CASE FILE #02-85) LARRY GLEASON 5500 COTTONWOOD LANE CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, PLANNER X YES NO-N/A AUGUST 26, 2002 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY: Larry Gleason is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a 5,000 square foot gymnastics school (Gleason's Gymnastics School) for children ages 3 to 16 in the C-5 (Business Office Park) zoning district on property located at 5500 Cottonwood Lane. Gymnastic schools arc a conditional use in the C-5 zoning district. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the property is designated as Business Office Park, which provides for developments that have a low traffic generation rate. Primary uses are corporate headquarters; and professional and administrative offices; and limited research, development and manufacturing facilities. BACKGROUND: On July 15, 2002, the City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to increase the allowable square footage of a gymnastic school in the C-5 zoning district from 4,000 to 10,000 square feet. The use is also subject to minimum parking requirements and separation from loading zones. In 1998, a CUP was issued for the applicant's gymnastic school on property located at 17001 Fish Point Road (Waterfront Passage Business Park). The applicant has since vacated the space and is seeking to relocate in Prior Lake. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIT~ EMPLOYER Planning Report - Gleason's Gymnastic School CUP August 26, 2002 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The requested conditional use permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria found in Section 1102.1403 and Section 1108 of the City Code. Section 1102.1403 includes the specific conditions for gymnastic schools. Section 1108 includes the general CLIP criteria. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a gymnastic school in a multi-tenant building located at 5500 Cottonwood Lane. Office and warehouse uses currently occupy the 33,400 square foot building. According to the site plan submitted by the applicant, 95 parking stalls are present on the site. The school portion of the leased space is proposed to be 5,000 square feet and the warehouse an additional 5,000 square feet. The school and warehouse spaces are proposed to be separated by a chain link fence. The Zoning Ordinance permits a gymnastic school as a conditional use in the C-5 zoning district. Section 1102.1403 (6) of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the following conditions to minimize the impact of the use on adjacent properties: The use occupies no more than 10,000 square feet of floor area in the principal structure. A minimum of one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area or 1 stall per 2 students shall be provided, whichever is greater. The use shall provide a designated drop-off/pick-up area for students that is physically separated from truck loading and unloading areas. Finding: The proposed use complies with the standards for gymnastic schools required by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed school will occupy 5,000 square feet of the principal structure, with an additional 5,000 square feet of warehouse space. The proposed use will require 17 parking stalls for the school and three for the warehouse (one space per 1,500 square feet) portion of the space for a total of 20 stalls. It appears as though the minimum number of parking stalls for all uses can be accommodated on the site, based upon the site plan submitted by the applicant. Also, the site plan indicates a designated "drop off area" in the parking lot, adjacent to the lease space. This area is separated from the truck loading zone by the building itself. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FINDINGS Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval of a CLIP. (1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. l:\02files\02eup\02-085 gleasonXpc report.doc Planning Report - Gleason's Gymnastic School CLIP August 26, 2002 Page 3 One of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to "encourage of diversified economic base and a broad range of employmen~ opportunities." Furthermore, a goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to "create an environment in which all citizens have the opportunity to develop their full potential. " The proposed use is consistent with the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. This proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The use complies with the standards in the Zoning Ordinance as they pertain to parking and separation fxom loading zones. (3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located. The proposed school is consistent with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and intent of the C-5 (Business Park) use district, which is to promote high standards of design and construction for business park uses in the City. (4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed. The proposed gyrrmastie school has adequate public facilities available, including streets and utilities. (5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in dose proximity to the conditional use. The proposed use will not have an undue adverse impact on adjacent uses, provided the standards in the Zoning Ordinance are complied with and all conditions of approval are met. (6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans PrePared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect, or civil engineer'registered in the State of Minnesota, approved by the City Council and incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the City Council Not applicable in this case. Site alteration is not proposed with this request. (7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations of city water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines, natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be included as part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council. Not applicable in this case. Utilities are currently in place for the site. (8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City Council may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and l:~02filcs'x02eup'x02-085 gleason~pc report.doc Planning Report- Gleason's Gymnastic School CUP August 26, 2002 Page 4 neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed in those situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards, conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the CUP which are more stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are consistent with the general conditions above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council. The proposed use will have to proceed through the building permit approval process, which will ensure that all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building code are met. CONCLUSION: The existing building was built with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance from the City. Under state law, the property owner may not utilize more than 15 percent of the floor area of the building for uses that do not qualify for TIF assistance. In order to meet this requirement, the applicant is limiting the size of the school to 5,000 square feet. Some concern has been expressed that the use could grow outside the current limits and jeopardize the TIF status. To prevent this, staff would suggest a condition limiting the area to 5,000 square feet as shown on the plan. The TIF district is scheduled to expire in 2006. After that date, the applicant could potentially amend the CUP to increase the size of the school. Staffrecommends approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant has 60 days from the adoption of the resolution by the City Council to complete the required improvements and record the conditional use permit at the Scott County Recorder's office. A building permit will not be issued until proof of recording of the permit has been submitted to the City. 2. The gymnastic school shall be limited to 5,000 square feet in floor area. 3. Twenty parking spaces shall be designated for the gymnastics school. 4. Signage shall be installed that identifies the loading/unloading area and designated parking stalls. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the CLIP subject to the above conditions. l:\02files\02cup\02-085 gleason\pc report.doc planning Report- Glcason's Gymnastic School CUP August 26, 2002 Page 5 2. Table this item to a specific date, and provide the developer with direction on the issues that have been discussed. 3. Recommend denial of the request. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the CUP subject to the listed conditions. l:~2files~O2cup~2-085 gleason\pc report.doc Location Map Subject Site Gleason's Gymnastic School 0 50 Feet 1,1,1 1,1,1 ~ Z BUSINESS DESCRIPTION FOR GLEASON'S GYMNASTICS SCHOOL Gleason's Gymnastics School is in the business of teaching gymnastics to children, ages 3 to 16. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 9 PM; Saturday, 9 AM to 4 PM. One to three classes per hour are held with 6-10 children per class, or a total of 30 children.