HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 24, 2005
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SJE.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714,
REGULAR PLA~NING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDf\Y, JANUARY 24, 2005
Fire Stati~n - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
A. #04-135 Kwik Trip - Cqnditional Use Permit Resolution
5. Public Hearings:
A. #04-152 Consider a Zo~ng Ordinance Amendment to increase the maximum
height in the High DenSIty Residential, Commercial and Industrial Use
Districts. '
B. #05-02 Consider a Zoni*g Ordinance Amendment for Drive-thru requirements
within the Downtown D~strict.
C. #04-79 Consider a ZonijIg Ordinance Amendment to establish requirements
for recreational domes.
6.
Old Business:
Nonei
7. New Business:
A. #04-153 College City Hpmes is presenting a concept plan for a future
residential developmentl containing 13 single family dwellings located east of
Crest Avenue, north of County Road 42 and west of Kensington Avenue.
I
8. Announcements and Corr~spondence:
9. Adjournment:
1.:\05 F1LESI05 PLAN COMMISSIONI05 AGENDAS\ag01240S.Dot' . f . I k
www.cltyopnorae.com
Phone 952;447.4230 I Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDiAY, JANUARY 24, 2005
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Starnson called the January 24,2005, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were C~rnrnissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Jane K~sier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlso~.
2. Roll Call:
Billiqgton
Lernkle
Perez!
Ring~tad
S tam~on
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the January 10, ~005, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent:
A. #04-135 Kwik Trip - Con~itional Use Permit Resolution
K wik Trip Inc. has withdrawn the 4pplication request for consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit to allow a motor fuel st~tion within the C-2 Zoning District.
i
The applicant has indicated that aft~r taking the neighbors concerns into consideration,
they would like to further modify t~e proposed plans. The applicant has submitted a new
application and would like to brin~ the modified plan before the Planning Commission at
their February 28, 2005 meeting. the application request will be republished and
neighbors within 350 feet of the su/Jject site will be re-notified.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the P~blic Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. #04-152 Consider a Zoning Qrdinance Amendment to increase the maximum
height in the High Density Resid~ntial, Commercial and Industrial Use Districts.
Planning Director Jane Kansier pr~sented the Planning Report dated January 24, 2005, on
file in the office ofthe City Planning Department.
UOS FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMNOI2405.doc
I
Planllillg Commission Meeting
January 24, 2005
On December 20, 2004, the City Co!uncil considered a report on a potential amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance as it pertaineilio height requirements. As redevelopment has
occurred in the City, specifically in e downtown area, there have been several questions
and discussions about building hei t issues. The City Council recently adopted an
amendment to the Pun provisions ~fthe Zoning Ordinance to address some ofthese
questions. However, this ordinance! does not apply in all situations, especially for single
building developments, and develo~ments which are not a pun. The Council directed
staff to prepare an amendment to thb Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum height
to 45' in the R-4, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-$ and 1-1 districts.
The purpose of this hearing is to co~sider the amendment as directed by the City Council.
The proposed amendment will incr~ase the maximum height in the R-4, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-
5 and 1-1 districts to 45' or 4-storie~, whichever is greater. Additional height in these
districts will allow a more efficient ~se of land, and may provide opportunities for
underground parking. In the C-3 di~trict, especially, an additional story would allow the
creation of more dwelling units in tl1is area. It would also allow different types of mixed-
use development, such as retail andloffice uses. This would allow the retail to remain at
street level.
In the R-l, R-2, R-3 and C-l distri~'ts, the staff suggested the maximum height remain at
35 feet. This height is generally su ficient for lower density residential uses, such as
single family homes and townhous s. The 35' maximum is also consistent with the
maximum height permitted in the S oreland District. Staff recommended approval of the
proposed amendment. '
Questions from the Commission~s:
Stamson - Was there something th~t prompted the review? Kansier said there have been
a few. It has come up with Jeffers pond and Shepherd's Path; however heights would be
addressed in the pun process. In qther areas it is not addressed and the City is trying to
be proactive.
Lemke - Are sprinklers required in the ordinances for the higher buildings? Kansier
responded that all commercial and ~-story residential buildings are required.
Lemke - Was the fire department siven an opportunity to address this issue? Kansier
said they were and had no commerlts.
,
There were no comments from the !public and the hearing was closed at 6:40 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. It's not an issue that comes,up a lot. We have dealt with lake homes where there
is a steep slope in back and the grade often time exceeds 35 feet. Generally we
have dealt with it through variances or other means.
L:\OS FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTESIMN012405.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
January 24, 2005
. We hear over and over agaiq the residents like the "small town" feel. Largely this
is a community of low-lying buildings. This change would really impact the
downtown look.
. Stamson reviewed the sUITo1ll1ding community projects.
. As a city-wide amendment E would not like to see a 45 foot height standard. It is
not appropriate. The residen~s are not looking for an urban setting. Going to a
higher building height woul(i loose the feel of the community.
. Would oppose in any of the Idistricts except with a PUD, which is addressed or the
downtown area. As far as tI\.e rest of the community I would say 'No".
Lemke:
. Stamson makes a lot of sen~e. But how much land in the districts would create
this problem? Not convinc~d it would create such a problem. If it did, I would
join you in opposing it. If these areas are located primarily near major roads it
would not be an issue.
. It is just going up one more !story.
. Stamson noted it is a 25% iJjLcrease.
. Would like to hear from fellow Commissioners.
Perez:
. Good points were brought 9P on the impacts and resident's feelings.
. Still feel there is a place for!this amendment to increase the height. Not looking at
anything in particular but d~ne the right way it would be appropriate.
. It could be an efficient use ~fthe land downtown.
. There is a limit to the growt(h of Prior Lake. It could help the green space.
Stamson explained his concern with a previous situation involving building height in the
R4 zone and the residential opposi~on.
Ringstad:
. Right now we are in the mi~st of a changing community. Many people like the
feel of smaller buildings, ~ green space. A few residents at the last meeting
argued that we didn't do a ~ery good job in protecting green space with our 5-0
vote on Jeffers Pond. .
. Agree with Lemke and Per~z that some additional height does create a more
efficient use ofthe land incteasing green space.
. Not concerned with the aesthetics.
. For the reasons staff and fehow Commissioners outlined I would support.
Billington:
. Staffs recommendation mljkes sense. It is an efficient use ofland. We just don't
have the land available. '
. With safeguards built in the construction (safety systems) make it more efficient.
. Good approach.
. Not concerned for a few more feet in height. It is not going to be that wide spread.
Ll05 FILESI05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMNOI2405.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
Jalluary 24, 2005
. Support.
Open Discussion:
Stamson:
. Not disagreeing with the efficiency in height.
. Most cities are not over 35 1teet. In all communities having major highways
through them it would be oI{ay. Prior Lake does not have that land structure.
. Traditionally we have kept t1he small-town feel. The residents like it. Weare a
changing community but thIS is not necessarily a good change. We have
addressed it some areas and'not sure it needs to be in all districts.
. Looking at the other commqnities - they have large tracts of developable land.
So when they put in the districts they become fairly large. Prior Lake does not.
We have small "c" districts! next to our "R" districts just like K wik Trip. The
impact for adjoining propeqies is a problem. There would be a greater clash.
That's the concern.
The Commissioners had a brief dis~ussion on heights.
Perez:
. Would these requests requi~e a public hearing? Kansier explained not all ofthem
would be. It would depend Ion the use.
. Stamson makes some good points, especially the Kwik Trip example.
. I would change and agree with Stamson - again the PUD process is in place.
Kansier explained the "c" districts ,and their requirements.
The Commissioners agreed on allowing the Amendment in the C3 (downtown) district
and then a CUP for all other districts. Kansier pointed the downtown C3 boundary.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED ORDINANCE ALLOWING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF 45 FEET OR 4-STORY WHAtEVER IS GREATER IN THE C-3 DISTRICT AND
ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN lIEIGHT TO 45 FEET OR 4-STORY WHATEVER IS
GREATER SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE R-4, C-2, C-4, C-
5 AND 1-1 DISTRICTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Oouncil on February 7, 2005.
B. #05-02 Consider a Zoning O~inance Amendment for Drive-thru requirements
within the Downtown District.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the January 24,2005, planning report on file in
the office ofthe City Planning Department.
L:I05 FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSIONI05 MINUTESIMNOI 2405.doc
4
Plannillg Commission Meetillg
Jalluary 24, 2005
On December 20, 2004, the City Council considered a report on a potential amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to allow drivIHhru windows in the C-3 (Specialty Business) Use
District. The Council directed stafflto prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
accomplish this. The purpose of tWs hearing is to consider the amendment as directed by
the City Council.
When Section 1102.1100 of the Zo\1ing Ordinance was adopted in 2001, it was
specifically intended to prohibit drive-through facilities of all kinds, whether restaurants
or banks. The reason behind this e*clusion was to eliminate the surface area usually
needed for these types of facilities.
The original inquiry received by staff was to allow a bank with a drive-thru facility. The
Council directed staff to broaden tJiis amendment to allow any kind of drive-thru facility,
noting other uses, such as drugstores. These uses would be a good fit in the downtown
area. In today's world, most banks! require some sort of drive-thru facility. However, in
order to preserve the integrity and dharacter of downtown, it may still be necessary to
limit drive-thru facilities in some f~shion.
The proposed amendment allows drive-thru windows as an accessory use subject to a
conditional use permit. The conditional use permit process guarantees design review by
the Planning Commission and allows for public review. This allows the Planning
Commission a bit more latitude in ~he design of the use. Staff recommends the proposed
Ordinance.
Questions from the Commission~rs:
Perez - Would a lane for ATM be part ofthe 4 lane maximum? Kansier responded it
would.
There were no comments from the public and the meeting closed at 7:04 p.m.
Comments from the Commissio~ers:
RIngstad:
. Agreed with staff there is a!public need. We seem to be a society of convenience
and part of the convenienc~s is drive-thrus for just about everything.
. Support Amendment.
Billington:
. It is reasonable. There is a Ipotential need for this type of facility.
. Support.
Lemke:
. Support - Agreed with staff's Findings.
L,105 FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSIONlOS MINUTESIMNOI2405.doc
5
Planning Commissioll Meetillg
January 24, 2005
Perez:
. Is this the best use of land fdr the downtown? Don't really see a problem.
. Like that it is subject to a Cqnditional Use Permit.
. Approve. '
Stamson:
. Initially agreed with the conj.ments but is this the best use ofIand for downtown?
. Stamson explained why dri~e-thrus were eliminated in the downtown zoning.
The Commissioners were ccjncerned with the vehicular traffic and it was not
appropriate for the small siz~ of downtown.
. Also, there is not a lot of latid downtown. It would use up potential land better
used for retail or building space. That's why downtown has zero lot lines. They
wanted to maximize buildinl5 space and minimize the amount of wasted land for
parking lots and driveways. '
. Disappointed to see this coroe through because it is a change from what was
anticipated with the downtoJ,vn redevelopment. It is not appropriate.
. Not going to support.
. Agree there are certain businesses would need it. The overall impact to the
downtown would be a larger negative than having a drive-thru drugstore or bank.
. There was a lot of discussiop on this matter. Drive-thrus are attracting traffic but
do not stop. Traffic is creat~d but no net gain for shopping or potential customers
for any other business. '
. It would be more appropria~e in a highway setting or up near Priordale Mall.
. A drive-thru does not fit the downtown.
,
. The Height Ordinance workts because we are trying to create more space so a
drive-thru will not fit the g~a1.
Open Discussion:
The Commissioners discussed the ~ros and cons of the drive-thrus. Stamson also
explained why fast food restaurant~ were not allowed in the downtown.
Kansier explained the rationale for ~he 4 lanes. Staff wanted to limit lanes for the same
reasons Stamson pointed out. The bbjective was to still provide the convenience but at
,
the same time not make a large corjJmercial use.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND *Y LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENl1.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Pere~, Ringstad, Lemke and Billington. Nay by Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED. '
This item will go before the City Oouncil on February 7,2005.
C. #04-79 Consider a Zoning O~dinance Amendment to establish requirements for
recreational domes.
L:\OS FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTESIMN012405.doc
6
".."....--...
Plallning Commission Meeting
Jalluary 24, 2005
Planning Coordinator Danette Moote presented the Planning Report dated January 24,
2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The City Planning Department has teceived inquiries related to regulations for multi-
purpose recreational domes. Curre*t1y, the City Code does not define this use or specify
requirements related to it. .
Multi -purpose recreational domes are often seen as a cost effective way to foster year
round recreational activities in a cOftrolled climate environment. Dome facilities are
becoming increasingly common thrpughout the metropolitan area. For that reason, City
staff has been reviewing the zoningl requirements of other communities that currently
have domes, such as Woodbury, Riphfield, Eden Prairie, and Rosemount. Due to not
having regulations in place, most c~mmunities have had to rely on similar uses to dictate
dome requirements.
Recreational domes are most commonly constructed in close proximity to community
centers, parks, and schools. For th~t reason, it would seem appropriate to allow domes as
permitted uses within the same districts. The City Code permits schools and parks within
the residential districts. In additio~ it would seem appropriate to require conditions that
could mitigate possible impacts on ~djacent land uses. Allowing domes as permitted
accessory uses by Conditional Use permit within the residential districts would
accomplish this. .
Staff recommends multi-purpose r~creational domes be considered accessory uses
permitted by conditional use permit within the Residential Zoning Districts, with the
following conditions:
a) The dome must be accessoo/ to an existing use located within the same Zoning
District. '
b) No storage of any kind is p~rmitted on the site.
c) A bufferyard, Type C as defined in subsection 1107.2005, shall be installed and
maintained along all prope~y lines abutting an "R" use district.
d) Hours of operation shall belIimited to 5:00 am to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and
5:00 am to 11:00 p.m. on weekends.
e) All mechanical equipment &hall be fully screened.
f) All structures shall be loca*d a minimum of 60 feet from any adj acent lot line in
an "R" use district, and the ~etback shall be increased by an additional foot for
each foot in height that the ~tructure exceeds 60 feet.
g) No light or vibration origin~ting from the structure or supporting equipment shall
be discernible at the properlY line.
h) The structure shall not excf1ed 75 feet in height.
i) The structure shall be of a qolor that provides for maximum integration within its
surroundings.
L:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSIONl05 MINUTESIMNOI2405.doc
7
Planllillg Commission Meeting
Jalluary 24, 2005
In addition, staff recommends that inulti-purpose recreational domes be a permitted use
with conditions within the Industrial Zoning District.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Occasionally you see it on *alth clubs using them on tennis courts or cities with
"Soccer Blast" facilities loc~ted in a more commercial or retail areas. Moore
responded staff did look at lihe commercial areas in Prior Lake if it would be
appropriate.
Lemke:
. Confused - we just talked t~ regulating building height and now we're talking
about a 75 foot dome height. Moore responded this would be specific only to
domes. This would be an ahrage to maybe a little bit higher.
. Questioned the lighting. Y4u wouldn't be able to put a light on the outside of the
dome if it is located near a lesidential area. Moore said it could be taken that way
but the language could be sfcified a little clearer.
There were no public comments an~ the hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m.
,
Comments from the Public:
Billington:
. These are becoming more popular. From a cost standpoint they seem to work
I
well.
. With the safeguards I couldl support it.
. Have seen some of these an~ they are very unsightly because of the color. This
will have to be very carefully monitored. It can be obtrusive in certain types of
environments.
Lemke:
. Being there are safeguards yvith a CUP for community input, I am neutral to it,
but not opposed. I
Perez:
. Nice to get year-round use with a dome rather than 5 or 6 months. It does
I
promote some land use. !
. Would like to make insulat10n a condition.
. The fact we are requesting ~ Conditional Use Permit is important.
. Support.
Ringstad:
. There is a public need for tliIis. The neighboring communities use them for all
sports and activities. With the climate we live in it is necessary.
. Kansier said there have be(lD 2 requests.
L:I05 FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSIONI05 MINUTESIMNOI2405.doc
8
Plallning Commissioll Meeting
Jalluary 24, 2005
. Agree with amendment and ~ill support.
Stamson: i
. Agreed with Commissioner1- there is a public need, especially with our climate.
The alternative is to build a ~arge expensive permanent structure.
. The domes do serve a purp~se. There is a greater use for the community.
. Not going to pretend they aIje pretty.
. Had some concerns as Le~e about height.
. Comfortable with a CUP.
. Support.
Open Discussion:
. Lighting, insulation and noise should be a condition near residential areas.
. Staff based the hours of op~ation is based on the curfew and park hours.
. There was a brief discussiOl~ on hours of operation and noise ordinances.
. Not sure ofthe insulation o~this type of structure. It could be an issue for the
developer.
. Kansier explained the insul*tion and structure. She also commented on the height
and the activity use.
. Commissioners decided to IPake an insulation condition.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SEClOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDM~NT WITH CONDITIONS INCLUDING THE
INSULATION REQUIREMENT. i
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. ~OTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Cpuncil on February 7,2005.
6.
Old Business:
Nond
7. New Business:
A. #04-153 College City Homes i~ presenting a concept plan for a future residential
development containing 13 singlq family dwellings located east of Crest Avenue,
north of County Road 42 and west of Kensington Avenue.
Planning Director Jane Kansier pr~sented the planning report dated January 24,2005, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
College City Homes is considering development of the Gregory property, which consists
of approximately 5.5 acres of land located on the north side of CSAH 42 and west of
Kensington Avenue. This property is presently vacant land zoned Agricultural and
designated as a Low to Medium Dif:nsity Residential use on the 2020 Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map.
L:\OS FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMNOI2405.doc
9
~_._..____._...,_.__."_._.__,._.___"__~~___".__..._._","...._'_._m'''.____'"_,.._..~,_.____..~,_~
Planning Commission Meeting
Jalluary 24, 2005
The developers have submitted a cQncept plan for the development of this site, which
subdivides the property into 13 lots, for single family homes, for a gross density of 2.36
units per acre.
The staff considers the development of the north 5.5 acres of this 10 acre site premature
for the following reasons:
. Sewer and water services to serve this site are located in the 14151 Street right-of-
way. These services must be extended from this point to serve the adjacent
parcel. To do so may require removing or relocating the existing buildings on the
site. The current property oWner does not seem willing to do that at this time.
. The developer has not dem<)nstrated the design for the proposed future extension
of 141 st Street is workable. 'The future alignment of this street may be different
than shown.
. In lieu of the extension of 141 st Street, the developer is proposing to create a new
street through Lot 6, Block 2, Windsor Estates. While this may be workable, the
staff has the following concerns:
o The lots on either side of the new street should be included in the plat to
ensure proper lot area and setbacks.
o To construct the new street and services, the developer will have to disturb
a new City street. The staff is concerned about the effect ofthis
construction on this new street.
. The developer states Windsbr Estates was poorly designed. If that is the case, we
do not wish to exacerbate this problem with additional development at this time.
. The staff development of this property is more appropriate if it includes the entire
10 acre parcel. It may be possible to develop only the northern portion of the
property when the area to the west is developed.
The City Engineer is also concerned with the drainage issues and that they have not been
addressed.
There is no formal action tonight. 'l'he object is to provide the developer with comments
and concerns. Staff will then forwiU'd on those comments to the City Council at the
February 7th meeting.
Ringstad questioned the alignment of 141 st Street and access. Kansier eXplained the
proposal and potential problems.
Randy Peterson of College City Homes handed out a revised proposal. One of the main
reasons College City Homes stopped trying to buy parcels to the west was because of the
sewer line, thus the focus was on the Gregory property. Based on their discussions with
staff they carne up with an alternative way to access the property through the neighboring
Lot 6. Peterson felt they could address the City Engineer's concerns. He also explained
his comments on the Windsor Estates design. Thanked the Commissioners for their
comments.
L:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSIONlOS MlNUTESIMNOI240S.doc
10
,._--~-------_.,-,.._--,-_._---_._-_._--_..__...,_.,._,.-..
Planning Commissum Meeting
January 24, 2005
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Questioned the slopes and grades near Lot 6. Peterson responded explaining the
grade numbers.
Lemke:
. Questioned City Engineer's and staff s comments indicating this development is
premature. Kansier explained the sewer and water extension off 141 5t Street.
Staffs felt this should not '* a piece-meal development. It should involve the
entire property. Ideally it would include everything to County Road 18 but it is
not possible at this time.
. Support staff at this point. It may be premature to develop this way. Maybe the
issues can be overcome. N<Ilt sure how that promotes sound land use
piecemealing it out. '
. Wait and develop the entire parcel.
Perez:
. Agreed with Lemke. Sounds like the developer can mitigate some ofthe concerns
of the City Engineer, but not the water supply.
. This is premature.
Ringstad:
. Agreed but wanted to add he is uncomfortable taking a private platted lot and
tuming it into a street.
. Agreed with staffs conclusions.
Billington:
. Significant engineering issljes.
. Would like to hear more frqm staff and the developer in terms of how the issues
will be dealt with to make it a project that will fit in with the concept of the
community.
Stamson:
. Agree with staff and Commissioners this project is premature. The key concern is
l4l5t Street. Our anticipati<l>n for the future is that l4l5t Street is going to be the
mam access.
. Stamson explained his comlerns with the zigzag pattern and traffic/access
problems.
. It also creates a problem wiith two roadways only three parcels apart.
Staff will take the above comments to the City Council meeting on February 7th.
L:\05 FILESlO5 PLAN COMMISSIONI05 MINUTESIMNOI 2405.doc
11
Plalllling Commissioll Meeting
Jalluary 24, 2005
8. Announcements and Corrfspondence:
The first public hearing on Comprepensive Plan will be February 14th Planning
Commission meeting.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m!
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\OS FILESIOS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTESIMNOI240S.doc
12
PU~LIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
LJrt~ ~ 4,' 0i:l)S-
The Planning Commission welco~es your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask t~at, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is c1osed\ further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTEN-pAL"'ICE - PLEASE PRINT
L: 'D EPT'NO R.t'-.B LANKFR.,Y[\PHSIGNL'P. doc