Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 13, 2006 Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 \ REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. #06-184 Consider an amendment to Section 1104.309 (10) of the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment would increase the allowable size of accessory structures on Twin Island from 240 square feet to 832 square feet. B. #EP 06-182 and 183 VIVUS Architecture and Design is requesting a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance for a reduction in the number of required parking stalls and a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle service and repair in the C-4 (General Business) Zoning District. This property is located at 16783 Toronto Avenue. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:I06 FILESI06 PLANNING COMMlSSIONlAGENDAS\AGII13OWQ/W. cityofpriorlake. com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the November 13,2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke, Perez and Ringstad, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Fleming Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the October 9, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. #06-184 Consider an amendment to Section 1104.309 (10) of the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment would increase the allowable size of accessory structures on Twin Island from 240 square feet to 832 square feet. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 13,2006, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to Section 1104.309 (10) of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment, initiated by the City Council on October 16, 2006, would increase the allowable size of accessory structures on Twin Island from 240 square feet to 832 square feet. Prior to 2001, the Zoning Ordinance did not permit accessory structures on Twin Island. In February of2001, the Planning Commission considered an appeal to the Planning staff's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant contended the provisions of the ordinance allowed accessory structures on islands. The Commission adopted Resolution 01-04PC upholding the Planning staffs' interpretation of the Zoning L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNll1306.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 Ordinance that does not permit accessory structures on the islands. However, the Commission directed staff to research the issue and prepare language for an ordinance amendment for consideration. In April, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to allow a 300 square foot accessory building on the lots on Twin Island. The Planning Commission heard testimony from John Meyer, who stated his need for a 24' by 24' accessory building (576 square feet). After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and directed staff to redraft the ordinance to allow an accessory structure which does not exceed the size of the principal structure, or 576 square feet, whichever is less. The Commission also directed staffto notify all Twin Island property owners. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until May, 2001. The Planning Commission heard testimony from Dave Wuellner, a property owner on Twin Island, who was opposed to the size of the proposed accessory structure. He felt 576 square feet was excessive, and most property owners were able to stay under 120 square feet. The Planning Commission also heard testimony from John Meyer who stated the square footage was necessary because the size of the cabins is getting larger, and some people have more toys than others. The Planning Commission held a lengthy discussion on the size of the accessory structures. Some Commissioners felt these structures should be limited to 12' by 12' while others thought it could be larger. The Commission compromised on 240 square feet, based on the following factors: . 240 square feet is large enough to accommodate what is used on the island during the summer, such as water skis and lawn mowers. . There are no paved roads on the island, so there should be no motor vehicles. Large boats should be stored off the island. . Larger accessory structures would fundamentally change the density and the character of the island. This amendment does not apply to just one person, but to every property owner on the island. . Larger accessory structures would require the removal of more trees. . Concerns about the amount of impervious surface on the island. The City Council considered the proposed amendment on June 4, 2001. The Council voted to approve the amendment to allow accessory structures no larger than 240 square feet, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation and the following rationale: . Twin Island is a very unique piece of property with just seasonal cabins. . Garages similar to those on the mainland are not necessary since the accessory structures on the island should be needed only for minimal storage. . There is no vehicular traffic on the island so a 240 square foot accessory structure should be sufficient. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNl1 1306.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 As with any City Ordinance, the purpose of the Twin Island regulations is to enhance the health, safety and welfare ofthe general population of the City. At the same time, the ordinance must consider the property rights of all property owners. An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow a larger garage size would apply to all the property owners on Twin Island. When the Planning Commission and the Council weighed the Meyers desire to build a 576 square foot accessory building (now 832 square feet) against the impact on the island should all property owners decide to build an accessory building of this size, they felt the potential impact to the island was just too great. There are few opportunities to build additional cabins on the island, while any owner of an existing cabin could build an accessory structure of some sort. This would impact the trees on the island, the impervious surface and the general look of the island. It is possible to amend the ordinance to allow a larger accessory building on Twin Island. An amendment of this type is a policy question to be ultimately determined by the Council. Perez asked if the impervious surface requirement was different on the island. Fleming questioned the floor area of the Meyer's principal structure. Kansier responded she did not know however the Meyers were present to answer the question during the public hearing. Fleming asked if staff knew the square foot dimension of the area between the principle structure and the rear lot line. Kansier responded it would be based on a lot by lot basis. Some residents have larger lots. Fleming also asked what the dimensions of the proposed structure would be. Kansier did not have the information. Comments from the Public: John and Linda Meyer, Prior Lake seasonal cabin address - 3313 Twin Island Circle, presented the Twin Island plat with 64 lots. The floor dimensions of their cabin are 24'x32' for a total of768 square feet. Meyer stated they supported staffs recommendation to treat (Twin) Island property owners equally regarding the maximum accessory structure size and height as the wonderful mainland neighbors. Meyer asked the Commissioners to support the Island property owners to ensure their human rights as well as their property rights. Meyer pointed out the 20 foot private driveway. Their property is the highest elevation on the Island. Weather, crime and ordinance consistency in Prior Lake will be his three main themes. Weather in Prior Lake - There are significant climate changes in Prior Lake. Meyer explained the seasons are the same on the Island as the mainland. It would be nice and neat to store personal items in a garage. Whether your home is on the mainland or the L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNll1306.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 Island, the maximum size for an accessory structure should be the same. Most homes on the mainland have 2 to 3 car garages. Crime - Crime exists in Prior Lake and we need to be proactive rather than reactive. With growth comes crime. Criminals see growth as opportunities. The number one crime facing residents is theft. How can residents protect themselves from theft? Meyer went on to explain criminal activities and opportunities. Meyer said he would like to keep his personal items locked in a garage the same as mainland residents. Consistency of Ordinances in Prior Lake - the City must maintain consistency of ordinances for all residents. The setback and impervious surface regulations are the same on the Island as the mainland. When it comes to accessory structure size it is not the same. Meyer is asking for consistency with the same maximum size accessory structures (garages) for the Island as it is for the mainland. Commissioner Fleming questioned (the Meyers) if they knew the square foot area between the principal structure and the rear lot line. Meyer stated he owns Lots 43,44, and 45 on the other side of the driveway they own Lots 61, 62 and 64. The total square footage of Lots 61, 62 and 64 is 12,604 total square feet. Fleming questioned if they had the same aggregate dimensions for Lots 43, 44 and 45. Meyer responded he did not have it with him. Fleming asked what the proposed garage dimensions would be. Meyer responded it would be 24'x 24' for a total of 576 square feet. Fleming said he was to assume Meyer did not build the structure in 2001 at 240 square feet because he did not feel it was adequate. Meyer said he was told ifhe wanted to have the garage he felt was sufficient he would have to build a second cabin behind his first cabin and have a tuck-under garage. They made sure they met all the requirements and the City issued a building permit in 2002. After he received the building permit they felt it did not make sense to have a cabin with a tuck-under garage just to store their personal belongings and decided not to proceed. Joe Zieska, 5316 Hampton Street, was on the City Council when this ordinance amendment was considered in 2001. He agrees with one statement by John Meyer - the residents on Twin Island should have an accessory structure that is reasonable to support the lifestyle on the Island. He disagrees with every other item pointed out by Mr. Meyer. Mr. Meyer talks about consistency in ordinances - unfortunately there are many differences within the City depending on land, use, etc. Look at the "C" zonings, there are 5 different zones. It will depend what is going on with adjacent properties. Twin Island has unique qualities different from the mainland. The City has differences in the residential districts. Example, if they are in the Shoreland District or not. Zieska mentioned three concerns by the Planning Commissioners and City Council back in 2001. None ofthe issues have changed since 2001. There are still no automobiles out L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNll 1306.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 on the Island. Two Hundred Forty square feet is adequate for seasonal items. If you go with Mr. Meyer's theory then we should have year-round homes on Twin Island because we allow them on the mainland. However, we realize the Island is unique. These are not year-round homes. Zieska pointed out how much storage is used in a year-round home with a two-car garage. The 240 square foot break down is certainly adequate for a seasonal cabin. Zieska also pointed out public safety. He is on the Prior Lake Fire Department but in no way stated he is a spokesman for the Fire Department. If you have questions on his next comment he suggested tabling the matter until you can talk to someone on staff from the Fire Department. His concern is for fire protection on the Island. Realistically, their response time to an emergency would not be adequate. They do not have a fire boat at this time. There is potential for combustional materials stored in a garage (gas, paint, etc.) Common sense tells him the larger the accessory structure, the more space you have to store, the more you'll store. The odds are you are going to have something flammable and could have a potential problem. Again, Zieska agrees with Mr. Meyer there should be a storage facility however, he believes the 240 square feet is the correct size for an accessory structure approved five years ago. Nothing has changed in the last five years to justify increasing the square foot area of an accessory structure over the current 240 square foot area. Earl Drangsveit, Island address - 3443 Twin Island, their main address is 14279 Rutgers Street, questioned ifhe would be allowed to build an 832 square foot accessory structure in his back yard if it met the impervious surface and setback requirements. Kansier said it was possible. Drangsveit said he was shocked when he heard the allowed accessory structure size. His cabin looks directly across the lake to the Willows development where a $3.6 Million Dollar home is being constructed with a large back yard. Would he be able to build an additional 832 square foot garage? He does not think we should change this ordinance just for Twin Island residents, it should be changed for the entire City. In his opinion, 832 square feet is more than anyone needs in the city limits of Prior Lake. Drangsveit said he owns Lot 4 and no back lots. Some people own 2 or 3 lots, what's to keep them from putting up an 832 square foot storage facility directly behind his cabin? When the economy gets tough in years to come what is to keep residents from selling lots off and leaving everyone has 832 foot garages? Maybe they can afford the cabin but not the back lot with the garage. The taxes will kill them. Now someone else owns a back lot with just an accessory building and they want to split it and add on a cabin or make the accessory building into the prime cabin. The problem will snowball and the City Council will be shooting themselves in the foot if they let this happen. Drangsveit felt if someone needs to build a garage that big then they need to move out of the City and put up a pole barn on 10 acres. He has no problem storing all his personal items on the Island at the end of the season and has never had a problem with storage sitting in his yard. He knows for a fact the $3.6 Million Dollar house keeps all their docks, boats, boatlifts, jet skies and personal items on their shore year round. And so does everyone else down the line. He would rather live on a lake and look at cattails. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNl1 1306.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 But he doesn't and Prior Lake has boatlifts and storage on the shore all year round. He would like to keep the Island ordinance the same. If the proposed storage facility is allowed it would be bigger than 80 percent of the island cabins. Just because someone owns back lots today and they can build an accessory building, there can be problems in the future. You don't know what is going to happen in the future. According to the ordinance every single person in Prior Lake would be able to put up an 832 square foot accessory shed in their back yard. Mike Mills, owns Lots 1,2,3,29 and 36; his permanent residence is on Willow Beach Trail. Mills agreed with Mr. Zieska and Mr. Draegsveit comments. The existing 240 square foot accessory structure would be enormous on the Island. He was astounded the current ordinance is so ridiculously huge. He can't imagine filling it up with seasonal storage. He would never store a boat on the Island - how would you get it in and out without a car that is not allowed on the Island? Where is this going to end? Mills said he likes to look out the back of his cabin and see trees. He cannot see any of his neighbors thinking this (amendment) is okay. Having an 832 square foot building on the Island would be like living in a city. The public hearing was closed at 6:40 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Question for staff - Heard from several people in the audience that they own a number oflots on Twin Island. How often is 832 square feet going to apply on the Island considering the setbacks and impervious surface? Kansier said she did know all the cabin sizes. Individual lots probably average 7,000 square feet. . Guessing the cabin size would be the most limiting factor with the regulations. . What could happen if someone put an accessory structure on one lot and then potentially selling it? Kansier explained a provision in the ordinance that applies to riparian lots. It has been used on Inguadona Beach Circle and Oakland Beach Trail. The ordinance requires the lots to be permanently combined. Thanked all who commented on this issue. . Likes the formula ofthe ordinance particularly the words "lesser of'. . Interested to hear comments from fellow Commissioners. . Leaning towards supporting. Billington: . Feels the zoning amendment as proposed is reasonable. . Given the restrictions mentioned. . Will support the amendment. Perez: . There has been talk of aesthetics and reasonableness. Those are going to be different from person to person and their point of view. . There is definitely property owner rights that we need to consider. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I I306.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 . There was also a discussion on consistency. Joe Zieska brought out my concerns. The districts are different just as the seasonal and year-round homes are different. . I would say they are not consistent and would wait to hear from other Commissioners. Fleming: . Troubled by the 832 square feet and the 25% area between the principal structure and the rear lot line. It's going to be all over the place. So then we get into the subjective nature of what is aesthetically pleasing and what is consistent. In that scenario we will not have consistency. . Support the notion and thinking behind the ordinance but not in support of the 25% element ofthe proposed amendment. Lemke: . In no case would there be anything larger than the 832 square feet. . What is staffs rationale for the 25% between the principal structure and rear lot line? Kansier said the idea was to scale the average to the lot. If you have a smaller lot we tried to keep the accessory structure more consistent with the size of the lot. Kansier went on to demonstrate a potential situation. . All setbacks and criteria have to be met. . Kansier explained consistency is not necessarily a criteria. Things do get treated different pointing out the differences in Commercial districts for example. The City has standards to try and treat everyone the same but for various reasons ordinances are not consistent. Not every lot is subject to the Shoreland requirements. It is not a requirement for a zoning ordinance to be consistent. . The accessory structures can also serve as the primary garage to a residence. They are not necessarily a building in the back yard. . Kansier also explained if you had an attached garage you would still be able to build a detached garage. . The previous Council came up with a formula, it's not right or wrong, it's a policy as far as size, however I will support the amendment as presented. Open Commissioner Comments: Perez - Looking at the size, if it were consistent I could see it. I do not look at it as consistent. It would be somewhere between the recommendation (square footage) and where it currently is, not where it currently stands. It is not consistent. I am also putting reasonableness in with the consistency. That is from my point of view. Fleming asked if any vegetation will have to be removed and is there a restoration plan on the Meyer lot. Kansier said they do not have any information at this time. Ringstad - Looking at the Island, there doesn't look like there is a huge difference (square footage) in the lot sizes. By and large they are about the same. Kansier said he was generally correct, several people own more than one lot. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNll1306.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad and Lemke. Nay by Perez and Fleming. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on December 4, 2006. B. #EP 06-182 and 183 VIVUS Architecture and Design is requesting a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance for a reduction in the number of required parking stalls and a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle service and repair in the C-4 (General Business) Zoning District. This property is located at 16783 Toronto Avenue. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated November 13, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. VIVUS Architecture and Design is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance on behalf of Midwest Transmission to allow a motor vehicle service and repair use to be located at 16783 Toronto Avenue. The site is currently occupied by a 5,162 square foot vacant building and parking area. The property is zoned C-4 (General Business). Motor Vehicle Service and Repair uses are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the C-4 district, subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Report. In 2002 the City purchased approximately 7,958 square feet of the subject property to provide land area for the creation of Park Nicollet Avenue (previously referred to as the Ring Road). At that time, a portion ofthe parking area was lost to the future roadway. No modifications are proposed to increase or alter the footprint of the existing building. The applicant will be updating the interior of the building to bring the structure into compliance with the International Building Code. In addition, the applicant has indicated the structure will be painted and the trash enclosure replaced. The interior configuration and use of the building will be largely unchanged from how it has been used by its most recent tenants. The applicant is proposing to use 693 square feet of the building for office and accessory uses (kitchenette, bathrooms, and a waiting/reception area) and 4,357 square feet ofthe building for seven service bays and accessory uses. Overall, staff believes the Conditional Use Permit request to allow motor vehicle service and repair on the site is consistent with the intent ofthe C-4 Zoning District, provided conditions of approval are met. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff supports approval of the Conditional Use Permit. In order to meet the above-listed criteria, the Planning staff recommends the following conditions: L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI I 1306.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 1. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than 60 days after Planning Commission approval. 2. A sign permit application must be submitted to the City prior to the installation of any signage on the site. 3. All deliveries to the site shall be limited to shop hours. 4. No storage or overnight parking will be allowed outside the confines of the structure. 5. The parking area must be striped. 6. Site Plan approval must be given prior to any building permit issuance. 7. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1203(3) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. The variance is necessary to allow for a reduced number of parking spaces from what is required by Section 1107.304 of the Zoning Code, which requires four parking spaces for each service bay and one parking space for every 250 square feet of office area. The parking area is insufficient to meet the Code requirements of four parking spaces for each service bay and one parking space for every 250 square feet of office area, equaling 31 necessary parking spaces (28 spaces for the service bay area and 3 spaces for the office area). The site plan provides 17 parking spaces, with a variance request of 14 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that Midwest Transmission will not have a need for more than 17 parking spaces to accommodate their three to four staff members and customer parking needs. Staff recommends approval of the variance request with the following conditions: 1. This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Site Plan approval is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. All parking spaces must meet Zoning Code requirements as specified in Section 1107.204 and be striped accordingly. 4. No overnight parking of vehicles in the parking lot for storage purposes shall be allowed. 5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. Questions from the Commissioners: Fleming said his interpretation Section 1107.2303 was different than staff's. Is it specifically related to property that was taken by a governmental action through eminent domain? Did the City purchase the land through eminent domain, ifnot, then did the City truly create the hardship? Fleming did not have a problem with the 14 spaces but has a problem with reconciling the interpretation of the Code and how we got there. Kansier responded the City did not take the property by eminent domain they negotiated a price, however she was not part of the sale. Staffhas always looked at any governmental taking whether it was through a condemnation proceeding or negotiating a L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNl I 1306.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 price as a "taking" of anyone's property for public use. Staff has applied this on very few occasions. The property owners could clarify purchase issue. Comments from the Public: Peter Schmelzer, from Vivus Architecture representing the applicant said he was amazed how many of the zoning ordinances elements they were not able to comply with due to the reduced property size. One item they would like to talk about - his client works on cars and many times clients will drop cars off in the evening to work on the next day. Currently he is working in Minneapolis and it is not a problem. He will fully function with keeping cars in the garage. The applicant is asking that the Commissioners do not consider drop-off cars for next day repair as overnight storage or parking. Moore explained staff did not look at that as overnight storage and did not consider it to be a problem. The public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . The applicant and his team did a great job on the site that obviously has challenges in terms of space. . It is great geographic location for this type of business. . It is a positive move for the location and we need that type business in Prior Lake. . Support. Perez: . Agree with the Conditional Use Permit and Variance Findings including the hardship the applicant is dealing with. Support. Fleming: . Support the resolution. For the record - his only issue was trying to ferret out the justification on the interpretation of the statute. Ringstad: . Agreed with the Conditional Use Findings and the Variance hardship criteria. Support both. Lemke: . Agreed with fellow Commissioners. Staff's assessment of the hardship criteria is correct as well as the Conditional Permit Findings. Support both requests. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06-17PC APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR IN THE C4 ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNll1306.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2006 Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 06- 16PC APPROVING A VARIANCE ALLOWING REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Lemke explained the appeal process. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Kansier asked the Commissioners to contact staff if they were interested in the League of Minnesota Cities Land Use seminar information sent to them last week. Reminder - December 4, is a joint workshop between the Planning Commission and City Council regarding zoning ordinance revisions. A notice will be sent. At this point there are no items scheduled for the second Planning Commission meeting in December. Please check calendars. Kansier stated staff is scheduled to move into the new City Hall on December 15th. The Council Chambers will not be ready until after the first of the year. Welcome Commissioner Fleming. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNl1 1306.doc 11 PUBLIC HEARING conducte)'f t~e Iflanning Commission tN--e~ 13,~ . 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:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP.doc