HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 11, 2005
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 11,2005
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
5. Public Hearings:
A. #05-132 Pulte Homes has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for approximately 119 acres from UEA (Urban Expansion Area) to
R-L/MD (Urban LowIMedium Density Residential). This property is located
north of 1 80th Street, east of Mushtown Road, and west of Revere Way.
B. #EP 05-126 Arcon Development has submitted an application for a preliminary
plat consisting of 25 .68 acres ofland to be subdivided into 34 lots for single
family homes. This property is located east of Marshall Road/Co. Rd. 17 and
north of l65th Street East.
C. #EP 05-135 Greystone Industrial Condos has applied for an application for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage in the 1-1 (General Industrial)
Zoning District in the Deerfield Industrial Park.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\O~ FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\OS AGBNDAS\AG04110S.DOC
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 I Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2005
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the April 11, 2005, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, City
Engineer Steve Albrecht and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Billington
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Starnson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 28, 2005, Planning Commission meeting will be submitted
at a later date.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. #05-132 Pulte Homes has submitted an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for approximately 119 acres from UEA (Urban Expansion Area)
to R-L/MD (Urban Low/Medium Density Residential). This property is located
north of 180tb Street, east of Mushtown Road, and west of Revere Way.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated April 11, 2005, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
PuIte Homes has applied for an amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Plan Map to add approximately 119 acres to the City of Prior Land Use Plan Map and to
designate this property as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential). The property
is located north of 1 80th Street, west of CSAH 87 (Revere Way), east of Jackson Circle
and directly south of the Deerfield Development. The subject property was annexed by
the City on March 21, 2005 and currently does not have a Comprehensive Plan
designation.
L:lOs FlLESlOs PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTESIMN04 11 Os.doc
1
Planllillg Commission Meeting
Aprilll,2005
The objective is to establish what the proper designation of the property should be. While
annexation could be considered a significant change in conditions, in this case it signals
the need to designate the property under the City's Comprehensive Plan and not the
County's.
Designation of the property for Low to Medium Density Residential (R-L/MD) would
seem to be the appropriate designation for this property, given the nature of existing and
proposed developments in contact with, or in close proximity to, the subject property.
Access and visibility issues would preclude designations of commercial use and
industrial uses here would likely result in land use conflicts with adjacent properties.
Therefore staff recommended approval.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Billington questioned the impact of the development on the wetlands. Kansier said staff
would look at that very carefully during the platting. Any drainage would need to be
treated before it went into the wetlands.
City Engineer Steve Albrecht said nothing as been proposed to go into the wetland at this
time. There will be a park and trails around the wetland preserving the natural area. It is
a small site surrounding a larger wetland and there should be no significant impacts from
this site.
Comments from the public:
Tina Goodroad, planning manager for PuIte Homes, said they are working on the plan for
a single family subdivision. Goodroad explained the development would be south of the
wetland and every effort is being made to avoid the wetland area. They are excited to
work with staff and bring a plan before the Commission early this summer. Pulte will be
organizing a neighborhood meeting before they submit the application.
Lemke questioned the number of houses. Goodroad responded there would be
approximately 113 to 116. The engineers are working on the plat. With the storm ponds
the lines can shift a little bit.
Sherieda Bender, 5651 1 80th Street East, one of the property owners south of the
development stated she has significant concerns with the rural character of the area. As
part of the plan the road would be turned over to the city for paving. As that moves
forward she would like assurance as a Council and Pulte homes would remember this is a
rural area people moved to for the quality of life and character. Keep it a single family
housing development and pay attention to the runoff into Spring Lake Township.
Alan Schulenberg, 17332 Deerfield Drive SE, questioned if there was a map showing the
designated wetlands in the area. Albrecht explained the area is delineated. It is not part
of tonight's action and would be discnssed at the next process.
L:lOs FlLESIOS PLAN COMMISSIONlOS MINUTESIMN04 J IOs.doc
2
Plallllillg Commissioll Meeting
AprillI,2005
Curt Schiebel, 17344 Deerfield SE, said his concern is with the wetland. Is there going to
be any tradeoffs - is there going to be wetland changes? Albrecht responded there is_ no
plan at this time. Staff follows the Wetland Impact Rules. The plans will be submitted
during the preliminary plat process.
Lee Shimek, 17944 Revere Way, questioned the sewer and water line location. Albrecht
said the utilities will come down Revere to the Hunter property and into the development.
There are no plans to extend utilities to the comer at this time. The developer will pave
l80'h Street.
Gail Mellow, 5570 1 80th Street, agreed with Sherieda Bender's concern with the rural
area.
Ramona Fredin, 18206 Wellington, said she was concemed for the runoff. The
developers promised they would pave 1 80th but felt they are not familiar with the runoff
trends. Fredin went on to explain the ponding history. She was also concerned with
maintaining the ruraI area and wildlife with an additional 125 homes. It's coming to an
end.
The public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Kansier pointed out staff takes drainage and runoff very seriously. It is not addressed
tonight because it is not the issue. After the application is submitted, staffwill have more
information.
Stamson explained the issue before them and the preliminary plat process.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Questioned Albrecht - There was a question on wetland credits, is that a tradeoff?
Does that happen in a certain watershed district or City of Prior Lake? Are they
allowed to purchase credits 10 miles away that may not benefit the immediate
residents of the area?
. Albrecht explained the wetland credits on site. It is highly doubtful to mitigate
off the site.
. Familiar with the area - drives through it daily.
. In regard to the runoff - The City has a very talented staff and when the time
comes for the preliminary plat, I would encourage all of you to be part of the
process. Tonight is the land use process hearing. As this moves forward you will
be notified again of the preliminary plat process.
. Agree with the proposed designation.
. Will support.
L:lOs FILESlOs PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMN0411Os.doc
3
PllJllllillg Commissioll Meeting
Aprllll, 2005
Billington:
. Question for developer - How many single family dwellings and numbers of
other types of housing? Goodroad responded 113 to 116 detached single family
units.
. There is nothing more carefully managed than the wetlands in Minnesota. There
are lots of rules and mandates. Staff is very familiar with those rules and
mitigations.
. We will be looking at this again and carefully monitored.
. Will support.
Lemke:
. Fellow Commissions have echoed my concerns. The land has been annexed and
is now part of the City.
. The R-l designation is the lowest density and appropriate.
. Support.
Perez:
. This land needs a designation and agreed with staff.
. Approve.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Commissioners and staff.
. This is the best designation for the property.
. Support.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-L/M,
LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on May 2, 2005.
B. #EP 05-126 Arcon Development has submitted an application for a
preliminary plat consisting of 25.68 acres of land to be subdivided into 34 lots for
single family homes. This property is located east of Marshall Road/Co. Rd. 17 and
north of 165tb Street East.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated April 11, 2005, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Arcon Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as Belmont
Estates on the property located north of 1 65th Street and CSAH 12, east of Marschall
Road, south and west of Howard Lake, and directly west of the Stemmer Ridge
development. The application is a request for approval of a preliminary plat consisting of
24.55 acres to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family dwellings.
L:lOs FILESlOs PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINUTESIMN041IOs.doc
4
P"'""i"g Commission Meeting
Aprilll, 2005
The overall layout of the plat appears appropriate, given the constraints of the site. In the
memorandum dated April 6, 200S, the City Engineer has identified several design issues.
These issues must be addressed prior to final plat approval, and in some cases, prior to
any grading on the site.
The preliminary plat application will comply with relevant ordinance provisions and City
standards, provided all the conditions of approval are met. The Planning staff
recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1. A final plat for this site will not be approved until the final plat for Stemmer Ridge
has been approved.
2. The developer must obtain written permission from Spring Lake Township for the
construction of the 165th Street cul-de-sac and Palomino Street prior to final plat
approval. Any temporary easements or permanent right-of-way from adjacent
residents must be obtained prior to final plat approval.
3. All necessary permits from Scott County must be oblained prior to any grading on the
site.
4. The wetland boundaries and proposed buffers must be shown. All wet/and areas
shall be shown in drainage and utility easements if they are not contained in outlots
to be dedicated to the City.
5. All buffers shall be shown in drainage and utility easements or have conservation
easement documents filed concurrently with final plat approval.
6. Buffer monumentation should be shown on plans.
7. The Grading Plan must be revised asfollows:
a. Show 1 GO-year back yard elevation for DA-2p to ensure that lowest opening of
existing structures is 2 feet above lOO-year elevation south of lots 5-8 block 4.
Additionally show the boundary of the 2, 10 and 100-year events for existing and
proposed conditions to ensure that existing properties are not ponding additional
water during these events.
b. Submit revised grading plan for plat.
c. Provide paved pond maintenance accesses as required.
d. Scott County Highway Department approval is required for discharge into CR 17
ditch.
e. No grading shall be permitted prior to preliminary plat or grading permil
approval.
j Submit a copy of soil borings to City.
g. Provide riprap at outlets as required in Prior Lake PWDM.
h. All lowest openings for houses shall be 2 feet above EOF's.
i. Basement for lot 1 block 1 must be 2 feet above 100-year elevation.
j. Although not adjacent to pond, lots immediately across street from pond should
have minimum basements above the NWL of the pond.
8. NPDES permit and SWPPP will be required prior to grading.
9. Submit final storm sewer calculations with final plat.
10. Final utility plans will be reviewed upon submittal of plans and profile sheets with
final plat. The following provisions must be included on these plans:
L:lOs FlLESlOs PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINVTESIMN04 I IOs.doc
S
Pl4l1l1ing Commissioll Meeting
April II, 2005
a. Storm sewer in back of lots 7-10 block 4 should be placed in easements. A
minimum of 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided for all
storm sewer in side yards.
b. Automatic flushing hydrant may be required for dead end watermain on street A.
c. Watermain in street A shall be 24-inch DIP. City will pay over sizingfrom 8-inch
watermain.
d. City may require installation of a raw water line for jitture well connections. The
developer shall be reimbursed for Ihis cost.
e. End sanitary sewer at south edge of plat on Street C.
f 8-inch watermain shall be extended down Street C to the intersection of 165th
Street East.
g. Provide additional information regarding extension of utilities across CR 17.
h. Sanitary sewer invert at north end of Street B should be lowered to 960.
Questions from Commissioners:
Stamson questioned why staff requested the cul-de-sac in Berens Woods be connected
with Street A? Kansier responded they did not want to disturb the wetland.
Stamson questioned Street B and Palomino Drive design - Albrecht explained the
shoreland and wetland areas and didn't feel it was a proper extension. Another concern is
for services to the north. This was the best access. Stamson agreed.
Lemke questioned Street C and D access. Albrecht said they are locked into Street C and
explained the spring-time drainage issues and the outlet. The developer is in the process
of working with a solution. The goal is not to impact the residents.
Ringstad questioned why the City is paying for the oversize waterrnain. Albrecht said the
development is only required to have an 8 inch watermain. However, in the future the
City will have a well to the west and it would be one of the trunk arterial lines supplying
water from potential wells in the area.
Billington questioned the current time frame for Stemmer Ridge development. Kansier
responded the developer has submitted information and suspects that all three
developments will start at one time. Once they are all approved they can begin
construction which would be better for the existing neighborhood. Probably start this
summer.
Comments from the Public:
Dustin Kern, Arcon Development, said staff did a wonderful job with the project. A few
issues have to be worked out however the engineers are working on staff s concerns.
Arcon took over this project a few weeks ago and are now the fee owners. They will still
meet with the neighbors. Kern did not see any particular engineering problems.
L:lOs FILESlOs PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINUTESIMN0411 Os.doc
6
Plalllling Commlssioll Meetillg
April 1I, 2005
Paul Hofslien, 1896 l65th Street East, stated he was concerned about the drainage and
looks forward to the neighborhood meeting.
The meeting closed at 7: 15 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
. The project sounds encouraging from staff and the developer. There is no impact
to the wetlands. The densities are well below the maximum for the zoning
designation.
. Questioned staff on minimizing the adverse impacts with the shoreland and
wondered if there was anything different that could be done with the trees?
Albrecht responded the way Berens Woods and this development are laid out
actually minimizing things greatly. Trails give the development bigger natural
buffers. The property to the north will not be disturbed. Disturbing the area as
little as possible is the best way to not impact. The developer is also proposing
ponding that meets and exceeds the City's requirements.
. For the most part this should be a minor impact to the shoreland area.
. Approve.
Lemke:
. Initially thought this might be premature however if the talented staff is
comfortable moving forward with the preliminary plat, than I am comfortable.
. The developer has taken a lot of steps to address the concerns of the residents.
. Approve.
Billington:
. There has been more than reasonable diligence with the management of the
issues.
. Support.
Ringstad:
. Support.
. Thought there may be comments with the cul-de-sac. Glad to see Arcon is going
above and beyond the requirements with the wetland plan.
. Agreed with comments from fellow Commissioners.
Stamson:
. Agreed with all. It is an appropriate design for the area. It meets the land use
criteria.
. Concern with Street B to the north.
. Support and recommend approval to the Council.
L:lOs FlLESlOs PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMN0411 Os.doc
7
Plalllllllg Commlssioll Meeting
Apri/lI, 2005
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS BELMONT ESTATES SUBJECT TO
THE LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on May 2, 2005.
C. #EP 05-135 Greystone Industrial Condos has applied for an application for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage in the 1-1 (General Industrial)
Zoning District in the Deerfield Industrial Park.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the planning report dated April 11 , 2005,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Greystone Construction Company has applied for a conditional use permit to allow
outdoor storage on a site located south of Adelmann Street and west of Revere Way,
within the Deerfield Industrial Park. Currently the site is vacant. The site plan shows an
18,576 square foot structure proposed to contain a landscaping, auto body, and yet to be
determined use.
Overall, staff believes the outdoor storage is consistent with the intent of the 1-1 use
district provided conditions of approval are met. Based upon the findings set forth in this
report, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. In order to meet the
above-listed criteria, the Planning staff recommends the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than
60 days after City Council approval.
2. A plan must be provided that details the materials used for the construction of the
gates to the fenced enclosure areas.
3. A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence.
4. All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be licensed and registered.
5. The plan must be revised to show all outdoor storage ground surfaces as paved.
6. A sign permit application must be submitted to the City prior to the installation of any
signage on the site.
7. All parking spaces located beyond the enclosed outside storage area shall be for
customer and employee parking only.
8. Revise the plans to address comments detailed in the City Engineers April 7, 2005
memo.
9. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan
changes and conditions as indicated.
10. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met.
L:lOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMN04 I IOs.doc
8
Plalllling Commissioll Memllg
April II, 2005
Questions from Commissioners:
Lemke questioned condition #4 - language for auto body shop. Moore explained the
designation. Lemke said his concern is for a new automobile, not licensed or registered
damaged in transit. Would the language prohibit fixing the damaged car? If it prohibits
repair, the language should change (in his opinion).
Comments from the Public:
Rich Pelletier, representing Greystone Construction, will be building the site. Two
tenants were in attendance to answer questions. Pelletier felt the project is straight
forward and will abide by the City's ordinances.
Billington questioned the building overview. Pelletier briefly explained it would be
constructed with precast panels with the height at 19 feet at its highest point.
Perez questioned the parking requirements - Pelletier spoke with the architect and the
uses are going to be finalized after they know the uses of the tenants.
Keith Dahnert, 17440 Deerfield, presented pictures of the existing site. His concern was
visibility and storage material. He would like to see trees shield the site to maintain
property values in the area. Dahnert pointed out the nearby wetlands and questioned the
impact on the wetland.
Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive, had the same concerns as Dahnert. Pointed out the
decks are 20 feet high and the fence is only 6 feet. Hanson felt there is a safety concern
with the slatted fence. There should be a. smaller space between posts.
Judy Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive, said she did not understand the map and needed
clarification. Kansier responded. Her other question was regarding the auto body space.
Will the cars be parked over night and long term parking? Moore said the parking is for
employees. The clients have a storage area for parking. Hanson questioned the lighting
and mentioned the existing lighting is very nice. She would like to see future lighting
matching the existing style. What exactly is going to be stored? Moore read the list of
proposed material. Delivery hours are 6 am to 10 pm. Hanson also questioned the
storage height. Moore said the code does not currently stipulate and went on to explain
the public hearing process.
Mike Gressman, 17267 Deerway, would like the storage language changed not to exceed
the height of the fence.
David Cripe, owns the landscape company going into the site. He explained it is a
storage area for his company. It is not a retail company - there are no customers. Cripe
asked if the parking area could be dirt and not paved. They will be storing (short term)
plant material and sod and felt it would bake on a blacktop surface.
L:lOs FILESlOs PLAN COMMISSION\Os MINUTESIMN041 IOs.doc
9
Plallllillg Commis.ioll Meeting
April 11, 2005
Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive, said he does welcome taxpaying businesses into
the area. But storing machinery could be a concern, not just for the site but the runoff.
Albrecht stated the engineering department does not like Class 5 parking lots adjacent to
ponding areas. Over time the material ends up in the ponds. That's why staff has
eliminated Class 5 or gravel near any of our ponding facilities. The proximity of the
pond is the issue.
The meeting closed at 7:43 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Questioned site proximity. Moore said the closest property to this site is 130 feet
to a townhome, however it is over 400 feet to the storage area.
. Is there a landscaping plan? Moore responded there is a landscape plan and
explained the tree requirements.
. Pelletier explained the caliper size and said they met the requirements. The
concern was the trail and encroachment with the spruce trees. They would be
willing to relocate.
. This site was zoned "Industrial". They do need storage as it is a permitted use.
My concern is limiting height - if they would ever want to bring in a 6 foot tree
for temporary storage, it wouldn't be permitted.
. Concerns with adding language restricting the fence. Looking for help from
fellow Commissioners.
. Questioned the fence spacing. Moore explained the conditions and the
substances. The fence is board on board - totally enclosed. Kansier said one of
the requirements is a solid fence.
. Pelletier said it is a board on board fence and explained the design.
. Do you anticipate any additional height above and beyond? Pelletier explained
the storage.
. Based on the information and the conditions are mitigated - would recommend
approval.
Billington:
. Recommend approval.
. The storage question may not be as critical as we think. Presumably this is
overseen by rules and regulations. It is a good project.
. Support.
Ringstad:
. Biggest concern was answered - fence height. Would like to see the height
condition left in. Should not impact anyone with the intended use.
. What if there was a larger pile of material i.e. 8 feet high, could that be something
the Commissioners could talk about and consider? Kansier responded "Yes."
. It is a permitted use in the 1-1 District and meets the requirements.
L:lOs FILESlOs PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMN04 I IOs.doc
10
Plalllllllg Commlssioll Meeting
April II, 2005
. Agree with staff on the Class 5 material near the ponding.
. Approve.
Perez:
. Agreed with Ringstad on the height of the stored materials.
. With regard to the trees and moving them around - would like to see what the
developer is proposing for the screening.
. Fine with the materials to be stored.
. Keep equipment stored indoors.
. Would like to hear how high the materials could be. Moore said staff could bring
that issue back with the Resolution.
Stamson:
. Agreed with staff and Commissioners.
. It is something the City needs. It is difficult to find a place for these types of
businesses.
. The height limitations may not solve a whole lot but it limits the bulk of the
materials.
. Would like to see some of the deciduous trees pushed around the areas. It could
block some of the view.
. All the conditions staff had are appropriate.
. Should be paved.
. Look at long term use.
Lemke asked staff on vehicles on outdoor storage areas
Brief discussion on auto parking and screening. Overall, the Commissioners said they
were comfortable with staff's conditions.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION WITH LANGUAGE REGULATING THE FENCE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will come back on the Consent on April 25th meeting.
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier said the Comprehensive Plan will go before the City Council on April 18, 2005.
L:lOs FILESlOs PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMN04 II Os.doc
11
Plalllllllg Comm/ss/oll Meeting
April/1, 2005
The 2020 Vision plan is tomorrow (April 12) night at the Wilds.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Connie M. Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:lOs FILESlOs PLAN COMMISSIONlOs MINUTESIMN04 I IOS.doc
12
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
~ t\1 -ZOOS-
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, 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 closed, 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.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
L:\DEPTWORKIBLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP.doc
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
~l(\@~
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, 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 closed, 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.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME
L:\DEPTWORKIBLANKFRMlPHSIGNUP.doc