HomeMy WebLinkAbout012797REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, January 27, 1997
6:30p. m,
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. CASE #96-129 AND #96-113 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST AND PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "WINDSTAR ADDITION".
I3. CASE #97-001, #97-002 AND #97-003 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST, A VARIANCE
REQUEST AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "KNOB
HILL NORTH".
C. CASE #96-127 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL REQUEST A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. CASE #97-005 MARK MICHAEL HOME OCCUPATION APPEAL.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 E~I~7~)P~'[k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota $~72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 27, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The January 27, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Stamson, Vonhof and
Kuykendall, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner
Jenni Tovar, Engineering Technician Jeff Evens and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Wuellner Absent
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Change on Page 2, under Criego, should be changed to "His only concern with the sign
that it was not directed towards the residents and faces Highway 13."
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECONDED BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 13,
1997, MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Stamson and Vonhof. MINUTES APPROVED.
Commissioner Kuykendall abstained from voting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #96-126 and #96-113 Consider the Zone Change Request and
Preliminary Plat for the Project Known as "Windstar Addition".
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report. The
hearing was to consider two applications for the development of the 14.14 acre site to be divided
into 21 lots, located along the east side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Woodridge Estates
and east of O'Rourke Addition. The first application is a request to rezone the property from the
A-1 (Agricultural) district to the R-1 (Suburban Residential) district. The second application is a
request for a preliminary plat to be known as "Windstar Addition". Staff recommended approval
of the requests by Resolution 97-03PC with nine conditions set forth in the Staff Report. A letter
was submitted on Friday, January 24, by Westwood Professional Services addressing items 2, 5,
6, 7 and 8. Kansier further recommended maintaining conditions 1, 3, 4 and 9 as well as 7
regarding the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
MN012797.DOC PAGE 1
Comments from the Public:
Tim Erkkila, Westwood Professional Services, represented Wensmann Realty stated they
were looking forward to working with the City. The project is a logical outgrowth of the
existing streets and utilities in the area. He agreed with the Staff Report and accepted the
conditions. Mr. Erkkila's concern was an issue of adjusting or moving the storm water
pond to another location. They will meet the condition but are still evaluating the
situation. Terry Wensmann from Wensmann Homes was also present to answer any
questions.
Jim Ericson, 4544 Pondview Trail, lives in the Woodridge Estates, is not opposed to the
development but had concerns and submitted them in writing. His neighbors would like
to keep the cul-de-sac and minimize the traffic. It is a quiet neighborhood and would like
to keep it quiet. Their preference would be to work with the City and the developer by
maintaining property values.
Roger Olson, 17041 Mushtown Road, questioned the sewer and water coming to the
center line of Mushtown Road. Kansier explained the services.
Jeff Evens from the Engineering Department explained the sewer and water plan from the
preliminary plat.
Jim Gustin, 4543 Pondview Trail, agreed with Mr. Ericson's proposed plan. He is
opposed to running the lots down to the pond. Mr. Gustin feels it is an environmental
issue and would like to see the pond left natural.
Deb Rickard, 17266 Toronto Avenue, agreed with the comments regarding the traffic.
She felt the wildlife should be preserved. If the lawns are extended too far into the pond
there is a danger of pesticide runoff.
Tim Kaderlik, 17075 Maple Lane, was concerned with added traffic and assessments to
maintain Mushtown Road. He said he could not afford to live in Scott County. He
moved to a semi-rural area and would like to maintain that lifestyle. There is a lot of
wildlife. Mr. Kaderlik suggested eliminating the plan totally.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Questioned the property going into the pond and the adjoining property owners.
MN012797.DOC PAGE 2
Kansier explained the area was designated as park. Someone has to take
responsibility for the outlot. The City would be responsible for maintaining the land
and there is no access.
· Rye commented on the original plat for Woodridge Estates allowed 100% dedication
for wetlands. The Ordinance was amended a few months ago and the subdivision
currently does not give any credit for wetlands.
· Concern for the responsibility of the new property owners to the pond.
· Kansier commented the wetland would stay the same.
· Any assessments to other neighbors? Evens said there are no assessments to Spring
Lake Township property owners.
· The Comprehensive Plan requires road connections from neighborhood to
neighborhood.
· Rye explained the importance of the connection - Emergency vehicles, isolating
neighborhoods and maintenance.
· Sidewalks not recommended because they do not go anywhere.
· Lots 1 and 2 will be difficult to build on. The pad has to be 30 feet from the 100 year
flood elevation. Will meet ordinance requirements.
Vonhof.'
· Believes the sidewalks are for traffic safety and not necessarily for commuting people
from one place to another. There should be sidewalks as part of the roadway.
· Ratio for wetland mitigation is 2 to 1.
· Evens explained the first exemption and credit for the N.U.R.P. pond.
· Capital Improvements for Mushtown Road are scheduled to be upgraded in 1997.
· Regarding N.U.R.P. pond - lots 5, 6 and 7. Will be covered with drainage and utility
easements.
· Extension of lot lines - should be consistent with the whole pond area. Would
approve the previous submission without the lot line extensions. He feels it is
presumptuous at this point for the City to know what is gong to happen to this
wetland. Keep it whole under one body.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Vonhof regarding the sidewalks. Concern of traffic is a good safety
issue.
· Agreed with Commissioners on not extending the lot lines. It makes sense for the
City to own all or none of the wetland.
· No cul-de-sac. It is not practical. The length from Mushtown Road is too long and
difficult to service. It would be distinctly separated from the City.
· Supports the street connection.
· Mushtown Road is not a county road just a street in the county. It would make more
sense to have a 85 foot setback. Mushtown Road can potentially turn into a collector
street.
MN012797.DOC PAGE3
Kuykendall:
· Kansier pointed out the road connections on the overheads.
· He does not feel there is an excessive amount of traffic compared to other streets in
subdivisions.
· Strongly favors sidewalks. Use the safety standards.
· Connect the neighborhoods.
· Street lighting has to be provided by the developer.
· The wildlife and rural atmosphere can be maintained by the design.
· Kansier explained by extending the lot lines the City is not responsible for
maintaining the area. It would be the property owners responsibility as opposed to
the City. Easements would have to go over properties.
· Support not extending the lot lines.
· Support the R1 designation.
· Wetland mitigation would have to be calculated before approval.
· Price range of homes - $150,000 to $180,000.
· Mr. Ericson explained the benefit of Outlot B to discourage traffic off Mushtown.
Mr. Erkkila explained the developer will be using sound planning techniques with the
Wetland Act and city policies. Some people do prefer small lots on a wetland area.
There is a very small amount of fill. It is an attractive home site. It is in character with
other homes off Mushtown Road. This is a low density plan with 21 lots.
Evens said the components have to be met. The engineering department feels the lots are
appropriate.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
· Commissioners generally believe the district should be RI.
· Development here is desirable but protect the wetlands and consensus is not to extend
the lot lines.
· Cul-de-sac or a through street. Cul-de-sacs cannot exceed 500 feet. The plan is to
connect neighborhoods.
· General consensus that sidewalks are desired.
Kuykendall:
· Could this site be a PUD? If it is, could it be developed as a whole different concept.
· Opposed to the development based on this issue.
· In favor of sidewalks on both sides and future extensions.
· Increase right of way and have sidewalks.
Stamson:
· The traffic issue is short term until Toronto is connected.
· Evens explained the annexation with the Mushtown Road improvement.
MN012797.DOC PAGE 4
Kansier said Pondview is not wide enough to add one sidewalk.
Vonhof:
Supportive of the development with one sidewalk.
· The road should continue through.
· Opposes lot extensions to pond.
Stamson:
· Rye said the ordinance was amended a year ago to put in sidewalk or trails on
collector streets, not side streets like Pondview and Toronto.
· Supports the sidewalks.
· Rye said his concern is applying sidewalks as a condition. First of all, there is no
criteria. Second, is that going to be a recommendation on every plat and street that
comes in? Council has given the City direction and staff is proceeding on that basis.
Vonhof:
· Sidewalks are a safety issue and starting out with a new plat, there should be a
sidewalk.
Erkkila said they discussed the sidewalk issue. Neighbors were against the trails around
the ponds. There was no connection for sidewalks. If the developer has to increase the
right-of-way it will impact the wetland on a fill issue. It is a complicated issue. The
criteria based on city policy does not require a sidewalk. City Council has not agreed to
it. He would be willing to accept the possibility of a sidewalk connection if it was agreed
by the residents in Woodridge Estates, at least the first two lots to get to the comer. So at
least it starts at a street and ends at a street.
Mr. Ericson said he discussed the sidewalk issue among the neighbors and it is not
desirable to have a sidewalk going through their yards.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND A ZONE
CHANGE TO THE R-1 DISTRICT AS REQUESTED.
Vote taken signified ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
Comments on the Preliminary Plat.
Criego - The issues are Items, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9. Agrees with Resolution 97-03PC with
Items 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9. Item 8, recommend not extend the lot lines into the pond. As far
as the sidewalk is concern, he would rather live without a sidewalk and do any further
damage to the ponds and if it doesn't go any place, it is not needed.
MN012797.DOC PAGE 5
Vonhof- Agreed with amendments deleting 8. As far the sidewalks go, it is a traffic
safety issue. There should be sidewalks. Require to extend the right-of-way to 55 feet
and add a sidewalk on one side.
Stamson - Agreed with Criego, space problem with the south side of property for
sidewalks and also the right-of-way is not wide enough. It will create problems with
homes 20 feet away. Traffic is not an issue. Given the way the Ordinance is written and
City Council's decision there is no need for a sidewalk.
Kuykendall - Agreed with all points. Feels right-of-way should be redesigned and add
sidewalks. He does not agree with City Council's decision on sidewalks. Supports a 55'
design and entertains an alternative way of developing the land to meet the bigger and
broader objectives. He realizes the requirements are met and feels the property should be
developed but the approach taken does not meet the overall objective. Opposed the
development as proposed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE RES. 97-03PC
WITH CONDITIONS 1, 3, 4, 7 AND 9. THE REVISED PLAN COVERS ITEMS 2, 5
AND 6. OUTLOT A SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN AND THE
PROPERTY LINES SHOULD NOT EXTEND TO THE MIDDLE OF THE POND FOR
CONTINUITY WITH THE OTHER HALF OF THE POND.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, nay by Kuykendall.
MOTION PASSED.
A recess was called at 8:06 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:14 p.m.
B. Case #97-001, #92-002 and #97-003 Zone Change Request, A Variance
Request and a Preliminary Plat for the Project Known as "Knob Hill North".
The public hearing was open at 8:14 p.m.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report. The hearing was to consider
three applications for the development of 27 lots on a 17.01 acre site located about 1/4 mile
south of CR 42, and 1/8 mile east of Pike Lake Trail, and formerly known as the Twiss property.
The first application is a request to rezone the property from the C-1 (Conservation) district to
the R-1 (Suburban Residential) district. The second application is a request for a variance to the
lot width provisions for two of the lots proposed in the subdivision. The third application is a
request for a preliminary plat to be known as "Knob Hill North". Staff recommended approval
of the requests with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Comments from the Public:
Horst Graser, representing Wayne Fleck, highlighted some of the issues: the boundary and topo
maps of the site, the encroachments on the property, the wooded pine area, the elevations, sewer
and water, zoning, the grading plan, the variance request and the tree consideration. Mr. Graser
MN012797.DOC PAGE 6
had concerns with conditions 5, 9 and 11. He had no problem with dedicating the park land as
part of the plat, but if the City is not going to give them credit for the remainder of Outlot C, they
will not dedicate to the City and only give what is required. He would also like to reword
condition 15 in regard to developing in conjunction with Maple Hills Second Addition.
Tom Jarzyna 14159 Rolling Oaks Circle, understands the need for growth but feels this land is
worth saving. Turning it into one big park would better serve Prior Lake. He feels there are 150
different species of trees in the area. Prior Lake's best interest is to keep the area a conservation
district. The percolation test indicated 3 springs on the wetland area. Once the City loses this
ecosystem they will not get it back.
Kevin Nolin, who recently purchased a lot in the Maple Hill development, agreed with Mr.
Jaryzna to conserve the area.
Tim Smith, 14100 Rolling Oaks Circle, was present when the surveyor was taking the tree
survey. There are significant trees as well as wildlife in the area. The previous owner built paths
through the area. It is a beautiful area. He does not mind development but urged the
Commissioners to see the land. It would be nice to have the park south of the development have
access to these woods. The zoning should not be changed.
The meeting was closed at 9:19 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Supported zoning from C1 to R1 which is consistent with the Comp Plan.
· The preliminary plat does not see any significant impact with the wetland.
· Not opposed to the flag lots.
· Any violation for driveway entrances? Kansier responded both lots would share one
driveway with an easement and then fork off to the respected lots.
· The hardship has been met with the variance.
Stamson:
· Question related to the Tree Ordinance - Kansier explained the ordinance.
· Agreed with the zoning change.
· Blue Bird Trail will temporary connect through the Maple Hills Second Addition.
· No credit for park dedication for Outlot.
· Given the uniqueness of the property the flag lots have hardships for a variance.
Agreed to a double driveway vs. a single.
Kuykendall:
· Support the changes in zoning and flag lots as well.
· There should be two separate driveways. Kansier responded snow removal could be a
big problem.
· Generally supported the proposal.
MN012797.DOC PAGE 7
Criego:
· The area was zoned C1 for a reason.
Sympathized with neighbors. It is a beautiful
nature center. The fact is, the City does not own it.
· The developer was asked how he would perceive this natural area.
· Graser responded it was hard to answer. The ordinance has forced him to develop
this way. The engineer says he cannot grade more than 8%, the water has to flow to
the front, side or rear into a N.U.R.P. pond.
· Another way to go would be a PUD and conserve more natural area.
· Graser said he has to develop to the fullest. The City does not reduce the impact fees.
· Concern about the location north of the site. A lot of natural beauty could be taken
out of the site.
· Sidewalk stops at Outlot C. Kansier responded City Council said sidewalks should be
on collector streets. Hummingbird Trail is not a collector street.
· Grasersaid they met with staff and concluded to add the sidewalk where staff directed
it. There will be a connection to the park.
Vonhof:
· No comments
Kuykendall:
· Excellent job done by the developer.
· A collector street is definitely needed.
· Wonders if the land would be better developed under a PUD. By using that approach
one would save and conserve more land. Feels uncomfortable not seeing the land this
time of year.
· Someone had the wisdom 25 years ago to conserve the area.
· Understands the developer's concern.
Criego:
· On the surface it should be R1, agreed with the flag lots and the conditions by staff.
· Are we dealing with a precious piece of property?
· Rye commented on his perception of the C 1 district. It is obsolete, the application is
confusing. The original purposes was admirable but has been superseded by new
laws.
· The rules and regulations are being met. Is the City doing what the ordinance states?
Brian Crystal, from Pioneer Engineering, felt the majority of caliper trees are 6 to 8
inches and the land was probably designated a C 1 district because of the wetlands.
Kuykendall:
· The City does not have the means to pay for this property. The owners have paid
taxes and the developers have come forward and are following the rules.
MN012797,DOC PAGE8
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND TO
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE FROM C1 TO R1.
Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 97-04PC GRANTING A 66 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 20
FOOT LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT BUILDING LINE FOR LOTS 7 AND 8,
BLOCK 5, KNOB HILL NORTH.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
AMENDMENT MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO
RESOLUTION 97-04PC TO REMOVE THE CONDITION TO REQUIRE A SHARED
DRIVEWAY.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion:
Kuykendall- Include sidewalks, at least on one side of the whole development. Any time
you have an automobile and a pedestrian you cannot share the space.
Criego-In this particular case, it makes common sense for a sidewalk to come in from the
south of the project as well as the north.
Recommendation by Commissioner Kuykendall to guide staff in working with the
developer to the south, so when the development is platted sidewalks, will be continued.
Staff pointed out the preliminary plat approval for Knob Hill (the plat to the south) did
not require sidewalks where the Commission suggested.
Stamson recommended Item 14 (regarding dedicated right-of-way) be substituted with a
resolution of encroachment so the City does not end up owning part of the swimming
pool.
Criego agreed with Kuykendall on the extension of the sidewalk to Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 to
the west of the current plat. Also staff should guide the developer and have sidewalks on
the entire length of Hummingbird Trail. The applicant had asked for leeway on the tree
preservation and the proper way is to come forward with a variance. Agreed with staff on
that subject. #13 of the Resolution should be dedicated to the City as park on the final
plat. Redefine item #15 so it does not provide confusion in the future. The N.U.R.P.
pond on lots 7 & 8 are an extension of the wetlands. Not sure the tree preservation is
right for the area. Graser stated the impact would be less in that particular area.
MN012797.DOC PAGE9
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-
05PC AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KNOB HiLL NORTH AND ALL THE 16 CONDITIONS
LISTED WITH CORRECTING ITEM #14 TO DELETE, OR BE AS DEDICATED AS
ROW; REDEFINE ITEM #15 TO PROVIDE ACCESS FROM CARRIAGE HILLS;
DELETE ITEM #10 AND INDICATE THE SIDEWALK FOLLOW THE ENTIRE
SOUTH SIDE OF HUMMINGBIRD TRAIL; AND #11 A REVISED TREE
PRESERVATION SHOWING THE REVISIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The plat will go to the March 3, 1997, City Council meeting.
C. Case #96-127 Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Sign
Permit for Buckingham Disposal.
The hearing was open at 10:17 p.m. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report.
In June of 1995, City staff became aware Buckingham Disposal. Inc. had begun
operations at its present facility at 5980 Rainbow Parkway. The firm had not obtained a
certificate of occupancy. In evaluating the business, the Planning Department concluded
the use which Buckingham was making of the site was not permitted in the I-2 zoning
district. Buckingham appealed the decisions, and their appeal was upheld.
Staff was directed by the City Council to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
which would explicitly permit recycling uses like Buckingham's as a conditional use in
the 1-2 zoning district. At the same time, Scott County had been processing a license
application for Buckingham. The County was informed of the City's proposed action,
and the facility would be allowed to operate during the preparation of the Ordinance
revision so that the license application could proceed.
The ordinance amendment was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on
December 11, 1995. The item was tabled at the December 18, 1995 City Council
meeting, and documentation indicating the ordinance was passed is not available.
However, based on recollections and actions of city staff to proceed with the Conditional
Use application for Buckingham, it is presumed the ordinance was adopted. Staff is
bringing the ordinance amendment to the City Council on February 3, 1997 for review
again. The amendment will then be published, and the record will be very clear of the
ordinance amendment. In order to not delay Buckingham in their CUP application, staff
is proceeding with both items simultaneously.
The applicant met with Tovar shortly before the meeting and proposed changes for the
driveway acceptable to staff. They also proposed moving the outdoor storage area to the
side property and screen the area. Applicants plan to close offthe loading docks and
gate, closing off all vehicular access to the area.
MN012797.DOC PAGE10
Staff recommended adopting Resolutions 97-02PC and 97-03PC, recommending the City
Council approve the conditional use permit and the conditional sign permit as presented.
Comments from the Public:
John Caims, represented Tom Buckingham of Buckingham Disposal, stated the
conditions were acceptable and can work out the details. They will revise the site plan as
discussed.
Tovar stated the Building Official brought to staff's attention the applicant does not have
a Certificate of Occupancy for the use requested. The applicant is aware of the situation
and have 30 days to submit the plans for compliance.
The public hearing was closed at 10:31 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
Overall in favor of the proposal. Staff's concerns have been addressed.
· Parking space is one per employee = 9 stalls.
· The drive-in areas must be paved. Becker Arena does not use their loading docks.
The current use does not need it but a concern for potential users.
Vonhof:
· All criteria have been met.
· Staff and applicant worked out the conditions.
· Compatible with area.
· Sign permit is fine.
· Agreed with staff.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed
· Conditional Use Permit can be reviewed annually. Opportunity to watch the dock
issue.
Criego:
· Agreed with Commissioners.
· Miscellaneous containers - how do you dispose in and out of the facility?
Buckingham responded it is removed with a bobcat when it is full.
· Asked applicant how he proposed to block off the view. Buckingham will comply
with staff's recommendation.
Tovar will review the conditions.
MN012797.DOC PAGEI 1
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 97-02PC AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS STATED WITH THE ATTACHED 11
CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 97-03PC GRANTING A CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT FOR A FREE
STANDING SIGN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5980 RAINBOW PARKWAY FOR
BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL, INC.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case 097-005 Mark Michael Home Occupation Appeal:
The applicant has requested the matter be continued to the February 10, 1997 meeting.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON TO TABLE THE MATTER TO
FEBRUARY 10, 1997.
Vote taken signified by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Plan a spring/summer planning outing to observe the natural area.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MN012797.DOC PAGEI 2